{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f1\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Arial;}{\f2\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 02070309020205020404}Courier New;}{\f3\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05050102010706020507}Symbol;} {\f4\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Helvetica;}{\f5\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 02070409020205020404}Courier{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f6\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603040505020304}Tms Rmn;} {\f7\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202030204}Helv;}{\f8\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040503060506020304}New York;}{\f9\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}System;} {\f10\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Wingdings;}{\f11\fmodern\fcharset128\fprq1{\*\panose 02020609040205080304}MS Mincho{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};} {\f12\froman\fcharset129\fprq2{\*\panose 02030600000101010101}Batang{\*\falt \'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcEcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};} {\f13\fnil\fcharset134\fprq2{\*\panose 02010600030101010101}SimSun{\*\falt ????????????\'a8\'ac??????};}{\f14\fnil\fcharset136\fprq2{\*\panose 02010601000101010101}PMingLiU{\*\falt !Ps2OcuAe};} {\f15\fmodern\fcharset128\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0609070205080204}MS Gothic{\*\falt MS Mincho};} {\f16\fmodern\fcharset129\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0600000101010101}Dotum{\*\falt \'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcEcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};} {\f17\fmodern\fcharset134\fprq1{\*\panose 02010600030101010101}SimHei{\*\falt o????????????????????\'a8\'ac?????????};}{\f18\fmodern\fcharset136\fprq1{\*\panose 02010609000101010101}MingLiU{\*\falt 2OcuAe};} {\f19\froman\fcharset128\fprq1{\*\panose 02020609040305080305}Mincho{\*\falt ??\'81\'66c};} {\f20\froman\fcharset129\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0600000101010101}Gulim{\*\falt \'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};} {\f21\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040604050505020304}Century;}{\f22\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Angsana New;}{\f23\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0304020202020204}Cordia New;} {\f24\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Mangal;}{\f25\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Latha;}{\f26\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 010a0502050306030303}Sylfaen;} {\f27\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 01010600010101010101}Vrinda;}{\f28\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Raavi;}{\f29\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Shruti;} {\f30\froman\fcharset1\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Sendnya;}{\f31\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Gautami;}{\f32\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Tunga;} {\f33\froman\fcharset1\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Estrangella Edessa;}{\f34\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Arial Unicode MS;}{\f35\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}Tahoma;} {\f36\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DejaVu Sans;}{\f37\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603060405020304}Times{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f38\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Marlett;} {\f39\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0609040504020204}Lucida Console;}{\f40\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}Verdana;}{\f41\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0a04020102020204}Arial Black;} {\f42\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030f0702030302020204}Comic Sans MS;}{\f43\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0806030902050204}Impact;}{\f44\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040502050405020303}Georgia;} {\f45\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603020102020204}Franklin Gothic Medium;}{\f46\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040502050505030304}Palatino Linotype;}{\f47\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603020202020204}Trebuchet MS;} {\f48\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05030102010509060703}Webdings;}{\f49\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2 Estrangelo Edessa;}{\f50\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2 MV Boli;}{\f51\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Microsoft Sans Serif;} {\f52\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Alba;}{\f53\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Alba Matter;}{\f54\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Alba Super;} {\f55\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Baby Kruffy;}{\f56\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000900000000000000}Chick;}{\f57\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Croobie;} {\f58\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Fat;}{\f59\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Freshbot;}{\f60\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Frosty;} {\f61\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}GlooGun;}{\f62\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Jenkins v2.0;}{\f63\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Jokewood;} {\f64\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Poornut;}{\f65\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000900000000000000}Porky's;}{\f66\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Pussycat;} {\f67\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Weltron Urban;}{\f68\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03090702030407020403}Mistral;}{\f69\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0602030504020204}Lucida Sans Unicode;} {\f70\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020505051007020d02}Blackadder ITC;}{\f71\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03070402050302030203}Bradley Hand ITC;}{\f72\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0705020206020404}Copperplate Gothic Bold;} {\f73\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0507020206020404}Copperplate Gothic Light;}{\f74\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040404050702020202}Curlz MT;}{\f75\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030303020407070d0804}Edwardian Script ITC;} {\f76\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02090707080505020304}Engravers MT;}{\f77\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0805030504020804}Eras Demi ITC;}{\f78\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0402030504020804}Eras Light ITC;} {\f79\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0504020202050204}Eurostile;}{\f80\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04060505060202020a04}Felix Titling;}{\f81\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0503020102020204}Franklin Gothic Book;} {\f82\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0703020102020204}Franklin Gothic Demi;}{\f83\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0606030402020204}Franklin Gothic Medium Cond;}{\f84\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03020402040607040605}French Script MT;} {\f85\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0502020202020204}Century Gothic;}{\f86\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03050502040202030202}Kristen ITC;}{\f87\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0602030504020204}Lucida Sans;} {\f88\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0502030308020204}Maiandra GD;}{\f89\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040403030d02020704}Matisse ITC;}{\f90\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03070502060502030205}Papyrus;} {\f91\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020502060401020303}Perpetua;}{\f92\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02060903040505020403}Rockwell Extra Bold;}{\f93\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020404030d07020202}Tempus Sans ITC;} {\f94\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03020602050506090804}Vivaldi;}{\f95\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05020102010507070707}Wingdings 2;}{\f96\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05040102010807070707}Wingdings 3;} {\f97\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}@Arial Unicode MS;}{\f98\froman\fcharset129\fprq2{\*\panose 02030600000101010101}@Batang;}{\f99\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040602050305030304}Book Antiqua;} {\f100\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02050604050505020204}Bookman Old Style;}{\f101\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020404030301010803}Garamond;}{\f102\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0706040902060204}Haettenschweiler;} {\f103\fmodern\fcharset128\fprq1{\*\panose 02020609040205080304}@MS Mincho;}{\f104\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}MS Outlook;}{\f105\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03010101010201010101}Monotype Corsiva;} {\f106\fnil\fcharset134\fprq2{\*\panose 02010600030101010101}@SimSun;}{\f107\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05020603050405020304}Times New Roman Special G2;}{\f108\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0506020202030204}Arial Narrow;} {\f109\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0604020202020204}Arial Special G2;}{\f110\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0604020202020204}Arial Special G1;}{\f111\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0506020202030204}Arial Narrow Special G1;} {\f112\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0506020202030204}Arial Narrow Special G2;}{\f113\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05020603050405020304}Times New Roman Special G1;}{\f114\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020503030404060203}Kartika;} {\f115\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0602030304020304}Albertus Medium;}{\f116\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0702040304020204}Albertus;}{\f117\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0802040304020204}Albertus Extra Bold;} {\f118\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0602020202020204}ITC Avant Garde Gothic;}{\f119\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0802020202020204}ITC Avant Garde Gothic Demi;}{\f120\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02050604050505020204}ITC Bookman Light;} {\f121\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02050804040505020204}ITC Bookman Demi;}{\f122\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0502050508020304}CG Omega;}{\f123\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}CG Times;} {\f124\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03020702040403080804}ITC Zapf Chancery;}{\f125\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040604040505020204}Clarendon;}{\f126\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040706040705040204}Clarendon Condensed;} {\f127\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040805050505020204}Clarendon Extended;}{\f128\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03030502040406070605}Coronet;}{\f129\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 02070609020205020404}CourierPS;} {\f130\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05020102010704020609}ITC Zapf Dingbats;}{\f131\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0606020202030204}Helvetica Narrow;}{\f132\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0409020202030204}Letter Gothic;} {\f133\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03020702040402020504}Marigold;}{\f134\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040603050705020304}New Century Schoolbook;}{\f135\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603020204030204}Antique Olive;} {\f136\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0904030504030204}Antique Olive Compact;}{\f137\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040502050505030304}Palatino{\*\falt Book Antiqua};}{\f138\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05050102010607020607}SymbolPS;} {\f139\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603020202030204}Univers;}{\f140\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0606020202060204}Univers Condensed;}{\f141\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05050102010205020202}MT Extra;} {\f142\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}???????????????????????????????;}{\f143\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1){\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f144\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Microsoft Sans Serif (Vietnames;}{\f145\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Gre;} {\f146\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Bal;}{\f147\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}ITC Avant Garde Gothic Demi Bal;} {\f148\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}MS Reference Sans Serif;}{\f149\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000500000000000000}MS Reference Specialty;}{\f150\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05010101010101010101}Bookshelf Symbol 7;} {\f151\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0504020104020203}Andale Mono IPA;}{\f152\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040502050405020303}MS Reference Serif;}{\f153\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}Verdana Ref;} {\f154\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040502050405020303}Georgia Ref;}{\f155\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}MS Reference 1;}{\f156\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference 2;} {\f157\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 02000500000000000000}RefSpecialty;}{\f158\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0506030101010103}Abadi MT Condensed;}{\f159\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0a06030101010103}Abadi MT Condensed Extra Bold;} {\f160\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0306030101010103}Abadi MT Condensed Light;}{\f161\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0503020202020204}Agency FB;}{\f162\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020705040a02060702}Algerian;} {\f163\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03080602030302030203}Andy;}{\f164\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020f0704030504030204}Arial Rounded MT Bold;}{\f165\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020602080505020303}Baskerville Old Face;} {\f166\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04030905020b02020c02}Bauhaus 93;}{\f167\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040a05050d02020502}Beesknees ITC;}{\f168\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02050806060905020404}Bernard MT Condensed;} {\f169\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030202020406070a0903}Bickley Script;}{\f170\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04030b070d0b02020403}Braggadocio;}{\f171\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0903060703020204}Britannic Bold;} {\f172\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040905080b02020502}Broadway;}{\f173\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060802040406070304}Brush Script MT;}{\f174\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040603050505030304}Calisto MT;} {\f175\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020a0402060406010301}Castellar;}{\f176\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020404031007020602}Chiller;}{\f177\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 0208090404030b020404}Cooper Black;} {\f178\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020505060803040902}Edda;}{\f179\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020904090505020303}Elephant;}{\f180\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04030405020f02020502}Enviro;} {\f181\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060602040506080206}Fine Hand;}{\f182\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030804020302050b0404}Freestyle Script;}{\f183\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040504061007020d02}Gigi;} {\f184\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0502020104020203}Gill Sans MT;}{\f185\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0506020104020203}Gill Sans MT Condensed;}{\f186\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0a02020104020203}Gill Sans Ultra Bold;} {\f187\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020502050305020303}Goudy Old Style;}{\f188\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 0202090407030b020401}Goudy Stout;}{\f189\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04030604020f02020d02}Harlow Solid Italic;} {\f190\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040505050a02020702}Harrington;}{\f191\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020605060303030202}Imprint MT Shadow;}{\f192\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030604020304060b0204}Informal Roman;} {\f193\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04090605060d06020702}Jokerman;}{\f194\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040403040a02020202}Juice ITC;}{\f195\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 040307050d0c02020703}Kino MT;} {\f196\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030304020206070d0d06}Kunstler Script;}{\f197\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020a0a07050505020404}Wide Latin;}{\f198\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03010101010101010101}Lucida Calligraphy;} {\f199\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03010101010101010101}Lucida Handwriting;}{\f200\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03020802060602070202}Matura MT Script Capitals;}{\f201\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02070704070505020303}Modern No. 20;} {\f202\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0609020202020204}OCRB;}{\f203\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03040902040508030806}Old English Text MT;}{\f204\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04050602080702020203}Onyx;} {\f205\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030303020206070c0b05}Palace Script MT;}{\f206\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03080702040402020b04}Parade;}{\f207\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03040602040708040804}Parchment;} {\f208\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060402040502070804}Pepita MT;}{\f209\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020502060505020804}Perpetua Titling MT;}{\f210\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0606030402050204}Placard Condensed;} {\f211\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 040506030a0602020202}Playbill;}{\f212\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02080502050505020702}Poor Richard;}{\f213\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060402040406080204}Pristina;} {\f214\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03070502040507070304}Rage Italic;}{\f215\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02060603020205020403}Rockwell;}{\f216\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020a0606050403050204}Runic MT Condensed;} {\f217\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03040602040607080904}Script MT Bold;}{\f218\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040a07060a02020202}Snap ITC;}{\f219\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03070502030502020203}Viner Hand ITC;} {\f220\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03050402040407070305}Vladimir Script;}{\f221\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}normal verdana;}{\f222\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}IAGB5 Symbol;} {\f223\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0706030402020204}Franklin Gothic Demi Cond;}{\f224\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0903020102020204}Franklin Gothic Heavy;}{\f225\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02010509020102010303}OCR A Extended;} {\f226\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03020802040602020201}American Uncial;}{\f227\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04060505051002080904}Augsburger Initials;}{\f228\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020505020e03040504}Desdemona;} {\f229\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060902040502070203}Forte;}{\f230\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03080302020302020206}Gradl;}{\f231\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 01010101010101010101}Mercurius Script MT Bold;} {\f232\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 01010601010101010101}Monotype Sorts;}{\f233\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05020102010208020808}Monotype Sorts 2;}{\f234\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 040c0101020201010102}Ransom;} {\f235\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 040409050d0802020404}Stencil;}{\f236\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04030805020b02020404}Stop;}{\f237\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020503060305020303}Bell MT;} {\f238\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 0207040306080b030204}Californian FB;}{\f239\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 0204060206030a020304}Footlight MT Light;}{\f240\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040502050506030303}High Tower Text;} {\f241\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040805050809020602}Ravie;}{\f242\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020904020102020604}Showcard Gothic;}{\f243\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0604020202020204}Bookshelf Symbol 1;} {\f244\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05050102010706020507}Bookshelf Symbol 3;}{\f245\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0604020202020204}Bookshelf Symbol 4;}{\f246\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05010101010101010101}Bookshelf Symbol 5;} {\f247\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Demi Cond CE;}{\f248\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Demi Cond Cyr;} {\f249\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Demi Cond Greek;}{\f250\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Demi Cond Tur;} {\f251\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Demi Cond Balti;}{\f252\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Heavy CE;} {\f253\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Heavy Cyr;}{\f254\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Heavy Greek;} {\f255\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Heavy Tur;}{\f256\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Heavy Baltic;} {\f257\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Sans Serif (Vietna;}{\f258\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BR-01T;}{\f259\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BR-05B;} {\f260\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Brougham;}{\f261\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BR-11U;}{\f262\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Albertville;} {\f263\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Albertville Extrabold;}{\f264\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antique Oakland;}{\f265\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BR Symbol;} {\f266\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}PC Brussels Demi;}{\f267\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}PC Brussels Light;}{\f268\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Cleveland Condensed;} {\f269\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Conneticut;}{\f270\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Guatemala Antique;}{\f271\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Helsinki;} {\f272\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Maryland;}{\f273\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Oklahoma;}{\f274\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}PC Tennessee Roman;} {\f275\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Tennessee Roman;}{\f276\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Utah;}{\f277\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Utah Condensed;} {\f278\fdecor\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}W Dingbats;}{\f279\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Courier (W1);}{\f280\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000702030000020004}Twentieth Century Poster1;} {\f281\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04010502060101010303}Creepy;}{\f282\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020c0804040000000001}EraserDust;}{\f283\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 01010101010101010101}Figaro MT;} {\f284\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 01010101010101010101}KidTYPEPaint;}{\f285\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03010101010101010101}Mistral AV;}{\f286\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0904020202020204}Plump MT;} {\f287\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000509000000000005}Space Toaster;}{\f288\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000800000000000004}Team MT;}{\f289\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0504020203020204}News Gothic MT;} {\f290\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040506030f02020702}Westminster;}{\f291\fmodern\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0809000000000003}Arial Alternative;}{\f292\fmodern\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0809000000000003}Arial Alternative Symbol;} {\f293\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0606020104020203}Tw Cen MT Condensed;}{\f294\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0803020000000004}Tw Cen MT Condensed Extra Bold;}{\f295\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0509000000000004}Andale Mono;} {\f296\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Uncial ATT;}{\f297\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Tw Cen MT Condensed Extra Bold ;}{\f298\fnil\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Uncial ATT CE;} {\f299\fnil\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Uncial ATT Tur;}{\f300\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1){\*\falt Arial};}{\f301\fnil\fcharset255\fprq3{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Roman;} {\f302\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) CE;}{\f303\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) Cyr;}{\f304\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) Greek;} {\f305\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) Tur;}{\f306\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) (Hebrew);}{\f307\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) (Arabic);} {\f308\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) Baltic;}{\f309\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) (Vietnamese);} {\f310\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f311\froman\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f312\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f313\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f314\froman\fcharset177\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f315\froman\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f316\froman\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f317\froman\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f318\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0402020202020204}AvantGarde Bk BT;}{\f319\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04030205020b02020502}BernhardFashion BT;}{\f320\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Boink LET;} {\f321\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02050604050505020204}BookmanITC Lt BT;}{\f322\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060802040406070304}BrushScript BT;}{\f323\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0904040702060204}Compacta Blk BT;} {\f324\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0508030702060204}Compacta Lt BT;}{\f325\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 0208060305030b020404}Cooper Md BT;}{\f326\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0605020203020404}CopprplGoth BT;} {\f327\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 0204050203030b020204}Dauphin;}{\f328\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060902030202020203}DomBold BT;}{\f329\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060902030302020204}DomCasual BT;} {\f330\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030306020406070f0b05}English111 Presto BT;}{\f331\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03030702030607090b03}English111 Vivace BT;}{\f332\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040805071002020d02}FlamencoD;} {\f333\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0806020204020204}Futura XBlkCn BT;}{\f334\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0602020204020303}Futura Md BT;}{\f335\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0506020204030204}Humanst521 Cn BT;} {\f336\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03050502040202020203}Kids;}{\f337\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020602070506020304}NewBskvll BT;}{\f338\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03030602040405080b03}Nuptial BT;} {\f339\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Scruff LET;}{\f340\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03050502040202020b03}Technical;}{\f341\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020f0702020204020204}VAGRounded BT;} {\f342\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03010101010101010101}VivaldiD;}{\f343\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Animals 1;}{\f344\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Animals 2;} {\f345\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Arrows2;}{\f346\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Balloons;}{\f347\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Buildings;} {\f348\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}CommonBullets;}{\f349\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Computers;}{\f350\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}DF Calligraphic Ornaments LET;} {\f351\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}DF Diversions LET;}{\f352\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}DF Diversities LET;}{\f353\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Festive;} {\f354\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Food;}{\f355\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Household;}{\f356\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Hygiene;} {\f357\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Kidnap;}{\f358\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Music;}{\f359\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Plants;} {\f360\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}SportsFigures;}{\f361\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Transportation;}{\f362\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Weather;} {\f363\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040603050705020303}CentSchbook BT;}{\f364\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03080402030202060204}Van Dijk;}{\f365\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 040b0500000000000000}Lithograph;} {\f366\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 01010101010101010101}Adolescence;}{\f367\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0803020204040204}AntigoniBd;}{\f368\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0406020204020204}Antigoni Light;} {\f369\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0703020204030204}Antigoni Med;}{\f370\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603020204030204}Antigoni;}{\f371\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0806020206070204}MGI Archon;} {\f372\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020d0802060808030204}AucoinExtBol;}{\f373\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020d0602050304030204}AucoinLight;}{\f374\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0804040403020303}Banjoman Open Bold;} {\f375\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0803080505070304}Bedini;}{\f376\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000503000000000004}Bermuda Solid;}{\f377\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0900020202060204}Eurostar Black Extended;} {\f378\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0504020202050204}Eurostar;}{\f379\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0507020202060204}Eurostar Regular Extended;}{\f380\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000507000000000004}Falstaff Festival MT;} {\f381\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0602060706020304}Gourmand;}{\f382\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0704030103070804}Metro Nouveau;}{\f383\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000504000000000003}Orbus Multiserif;} {\f384\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000306050000000002}Palace Script MT Semi Bold;}{\f385\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02090502050106070304}Palladius;}{\f386\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0702050806020304}Peinaud;} {\f387\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0302020206020904}Schindler;}{\f388\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0402020206020904}Schindler Small Caps;}{\f389\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03010101010101010101}Wendy Medium;} {\f390\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03020602050506090804}Vianta;}{\f391\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040604020b02020304}LcdD;}{\f392\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020502060200020303}GiovanniITCTT;} {\f393\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00050102010706020507}Map Symbols;}{\f394\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Regular Extended Balti;}{\f395\fdecor\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Creepy CE;} {\f396\fdecor\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Creepy Tur;}{\f397\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}EraserDust CE;}{\f398\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}EraserDust Tur;} {\f399\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Tw Cen MT Condensed CE;}{\f400\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Andale Mono CE;}{\f401\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Andale Mono Cyr;} {\f402\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Andale Mono Greek;}{\f403\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Andale Mono Tur;}{\f404\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Andale Mono Baltic;} {\f405\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AvantGarde Bk BT CE;}{\f406\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AvantGarde Bk BT Greek;} {\f407\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AvantGarde Bk BT Tur;}{\f408\fdecor\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BernhardFashion BT CE;} {\f409\fdecor\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BernhardFashion BT Greek;}{\f410\fdecor\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BernhardFashion BT Tur;}{\f411\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Boink LET Greek;} {\f412\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BookmanITC Lt BT CE;}{\f413\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BookmanITC Lt BT Greek;} {\f414\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BookmanITC Lt BT Tur;}{\f415\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BrushScript BT CE;}{\f416\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BrushScript BT Greek;} {\f417\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BrushScript BT Tur;}{\f418\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Compacta Blk BT CE;}{\f419\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Compacta Blk BT Greek;} {\f420\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Compacta Blk BT Tur;}{\f421\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Compacta Lt BT CE;}{\f422\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Compacta Lt BT Greek;} {\f423\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Compacta Lt BT Tur;}{\f424\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Cooper Md BT CE;}{\f425\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Cooper Md BT Greek;} {\f426\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Cooper Md BT Tur;}{\f427\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CopprplGoth BT CE;}{\f428\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CopprplGoth BT Greek;} {\f429\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CopprplGoth BT Tur;}{\f430\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DomBold BT CE;}{\f431\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DomBold BT Greek;} {\f432\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DomBold BT Tur;}{\f433\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DomCasual BT CE;}{\f434\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DomCasual BT Greek;} {\f435\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DomCasual BT Tur;}{\f436\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}English111 Presto BT CE;} {\f437\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}English111 Presto BT Greek;}{\f438\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}English111 Presto BT Tur;} {\f439\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}English111 Vivace BT CE;}{\f440\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}English111 Vivace BT Greek;} {\f441\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}English111 Vivace BT Tur;}{\f442\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Futura XBlkCn BT CE;} {\f443\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Futura XBlkCn BT Greek;}{\f444\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Futura XBlkCn BT Tur;}{\f445\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Futura Md BT CE;} {\f446\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Futura Md BT Greek;}{\f447\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Futura Md BT Tur;}{\f448\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Humanst521 Cn BT CE;} {\f449\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Humanst521 Cn BT Greek;}{\f450\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Humanst521 Cn BT Tur;}{\f451\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}NewBskvll BT CE;} {\f452\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}NewBskvll BT Greek;}{\f453\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}NewBskvll BT Tur;}{\f454\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Nuptial BT CE;} {\f455\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Nuptial BT Greek;}{\f456\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Nuptial BT Tur;}{\f457\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Scruff LET Greek;} {\f458\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}VAGRounded BT CE;}{\f459\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}VAGRounded BT Greek;}{\f460\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}VAGRounded BT Tur;} {\f461\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}VivaldiD CE;}{\f462\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}VivaldiD Tur;}{\f463\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CentSchbook BT CE;} {\f464\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CentSchbook BT Greek;}{\f465\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CentSchbook BT Tur;}{\f466\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AntigoniBd CE;} {\f467\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AntigoniBd Greek;}{\f468\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AntigoniBd Tur;}{\f469\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AntigoniBd Baltic;} {\f470\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Light CE;}{\f471\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Light Greek;}{\f472\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Light Tur;} {\f473\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Light Baltic;}{\f474\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Med CE;}{\f475\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Med Greek;} {\f476\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Med Tur;}{\f477\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Med Baltic;}{\f478\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni CE;} {\f479\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Greek;}{\f480\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Tur;}{\f481\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Baltic;} {\f482\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MGI Archon CE;}{\f483\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MGI Archon Greek;}{\f484\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MGI Archon Tur;} {\f485\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MGI Archon Baltic;}{\f486\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinExtBol CE;}{\f487\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinExtBol Greek;} {\f488\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinExtBol Tur;}{\f489\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinExtBol Baltic;}{\f490\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinLight CE;} {\f491\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinLight Greek;}{\f492\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinLight Tur;}{\f493\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinLight Baltic;} {\f494\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Bedini CE;}{\f495\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Bedini Greek;}{\f496\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Bedini Tur;} {\f497\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Bedini Baltic;}{\f498\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Black Extended CE;} {\f499\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Black Extended Greek;}{\f500\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Black Extended Tur;} {\f501\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Black Extended Baltic;}{\f502\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar CE;}{\f503\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Greek;} {\f504\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Tur;}{\f505\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Baltic;}{\f506\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Regular Extended CE;} {\f507\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Regular Extended Greek;}{\f508\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Regular Extended Tur;} {\f509\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gourmand CE;}{\f510\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gourmand Greek;}{\f511\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gourmand Tur;} {\f512\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gourmand Baltic;}{\f513\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Metro Nouveau CE;}{\f514\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Metro Nouveau Greek;} {\f515\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Metro Nouveau Tur;}{\f516\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Metro Nouveau Baltic;}{\f517\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Palladius CE;} {\f518\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Palladius Greek;}{\f519\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Palladius Tur;}{\f520\froman\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Palladius Baltic;} {\f521\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Peinaud CE;}{\f522\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Peinaud Greek;}{\f523\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Peinaud Tur;} {\f524\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Peinaud Baltic;}{\f525\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler CE;}{\f526\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Greek;} {\f527\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Tur;}{\f528\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Baltic;}{\f529\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Small Caps CE;} {\f530\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Small Caps Greek;}{\f531\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Small Caps Tur;} {\f532\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Small Caps Baltic;}{\f533\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Vianta Greek;}{\f534\fdecor\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}LcdD CE;} {\f535\fdecor\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}LcdD Tur;}{\f536\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}????????????????????????\'a8\'ac?????;} {\f537\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}??????????????????????\'a8\'ac???????;}{\f538\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}?????????????????????????\'a1\'ec????;} {\f539\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}??????????????????????????????\'a8;}{\f540\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR;}{\f541\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR;}{\f542\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial CYR;} {\f543\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial TUR;}{\f544\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 Courier New CYR;}{\f545\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 Courier New TUR;}{\f546\fnil\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 02010000000000000000}Traditional Arabic;} {\f547\fnil\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 02010000000000000000}Arabic Transparent;}{\f548\fnil\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 02010000000000000000}Andalus;}{\f549\fnil\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 02010000000000000000}Simplified Arabic;} {\f550\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1{\*\panose 02010009000000000000}Simplified Arabic Fixed;}{\f551\fmodern\fcharset134\fprq1{\*\panose 02010609030101010101}NSimSun;}{\f552\fmodern\fcharset134\fprq1{\*\panose 02010609030101010101}@NSimSun;} {\f553\fnil\fcharset134\fprq2{\*\panose 02010600030101010101}@SimHei;}{\f554\froman\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 02020600040205080304}MS PMincho;}{\f555\froman\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 02020600040205080304}@MS PMincho;} {\f556\fmodern\fcharset128\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0609070205080204}@MS Gothic;}{\f557\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0600070205080204}MS PGothic;}{\f558\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0600070205080204}@MS PGothic;} {\f559\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0600070205080204}MS UI Gothic;}{\f560\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0600070205080204}@MS UI Gothic;}{\f561\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}AngsanaUPC;} {\f562\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}BrowalliaUPC;}{\f563\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Browallia New;}{\f564\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0304020202020204}CordiaUPC;} {\f565\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}DilleniaUPC;}{\f566\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}EucrosiaUPC;}{\f567\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}FreesiaUPC;} {\f568\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}IrisUPC;}{\f569\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}JasmineUPC;}{\f570\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}KodchiangUPC;} {\f571\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}LilyUPC;}{\f572\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0604020202020204}Typographic Ext;}{\f573\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Iconic Symbols Ext;} {\f574\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Math Ext;}{\f575\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05020603050405020304}Multinational Ext;}{\f576\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05020603050405020304}Greek Symbols;} {\f577\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}SPSS Marker Set;}{\f578\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05050102010607020607}MapInfo Cartographic;}{\f579\fmodern\fcharset136\fprq1{\*\panose 02020309000000000000}@MingLiU;} {\f580\froman\fcharset136\fprq2{\*\panose 02020300000000000000}@PMingLiU;}{\f581\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}(Use Asian text font){\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f582\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}PMingLiU Western{\*\falt !Ps2OcuAe};}{\f583\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Gothic Western{\*\falt ?l?r ?S?V?b?N};} {\f584\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Gothic CE{\*\falt ?l?r ?S?V?b?N};}{\f585\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Gothic Cyr{\*\falt ?l?r ?S?V?b?N};} {\f586\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Gothic Greek{\*\falt ?l?r ?S?V?b?N};}{\f587\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Gothic Tur{\*\falt ?l?r ?S?V?b?N};} {\f588\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Gothic Baltic{\*\falt ?l?r ?S?V?b?N};}{\f589\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MingLiU Western{\*\falt 2OcuAe};} {\f590\froman\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New Roman CYR (Vietnamese;}{\f591\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f592\froman\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New Roman Greek (Vietname;} {\f593\froman\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New Roman TUR (Vietnamese;}{\f594\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f595\froman\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New Roman Baltic (Vietnam;} {\f596\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}NSimSun Western;}{\f597\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@NSimSun Western;}{\f598\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PMincho Western;} {\f599\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PMincho CE;}{\f600\froman\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PMincho Cyr;}{\f601\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PMincho Greek;} {\f602\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PMincho Tur;}{\f603\froman\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PMincho Baltic;}{\f604\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PMincho Western;} {\f605\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PMincho CE;}{\f606\froman\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PMincho Cyr;}{\f607\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PMincho Greek;} {\f608\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PMincho Tur;}{\f609\froman\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PMincho Baltic;}{\f610\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Gothic Western;} {\f611\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Gothic CE;}{\f612\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Gothic Cyr;}{\f613\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Gothic Greek;} {\f614\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Gothic Tur;}{\f615\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Gothic Baltic;}{\f616\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PGothic Western;} {\f617\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PGothic CE;}{\f618\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PGothic Cyr;}{\f619\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PGothic Greek;} {\f620\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PGothic Tur;}{\f621\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PGothic Baltic;}{\f622\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PGothic Western;} {\f623\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PGothic CE;}{\f624\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PGothic Cyr;}{\f625\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PGothic Greek;} {\f626\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PGothic Tur;}{\f627\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PGothic Baltic;}{\f628\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS UI Gothic Western;} {\f629\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS UI Gothic CE;}{\f630\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS UI Gothic Cyr;}{\f631\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS UI Gothic Greek;} {\f632\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS UI Gothic Tur;}{\f633\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS UI Gothic Baltic;}{\f634\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS UI Gothic Western;} {\f635\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS UI Gothic CE;}{\f636\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS UI Gothic Cyr;}{\f637\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS UI Gothic Greek;} {\f638\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS UI Gothic Tur;}{\f639\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS UI Gothic Baltic;}{\f640\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Browallia New (Thai);} {\f641\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MingLiU Western;}{\f642\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@PMingLiU Western;} {\f643\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}????????????????????\'a1\'a7?????????;}{\f644\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Sans Serif{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f645\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0502040204020203}Segoe Media Center;}{\f646\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0702040200020203}Segoe Media Center Semibold;}{\f647\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0804030504040204}Tahoma Small Cap;} {\f648\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Elite{\*\falt Arial};}{\f649\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}GothicPS{\*\falt Arial};} {\f650\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}????????????\'a1\'a7???????;}{\f651\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}??????????????????\'a8\'ac?????????;} {\f652\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}????????????????????????\'a1\'a7?????;}{\f653\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}??????????????????????\'a1\'a7???????;} {\f654\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CG Times (W1){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f655\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CG Times 12pt;} {\f656\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}????????????????????\'a8\'ac?????????;}{\f657\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}?????\'a1\'ec???;} {\f658\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}????\'a1\'a7???;}{\f659\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Prestige;}{\f660\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}?????????????????\'a1\'ec?????????;} {\f661\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}??????????????????\'a1\'a7??????????;}{\f662\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}o{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f663\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}ome{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f664\fnil\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f665\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Plain text{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f666\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}boscombe{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f667\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}??????????????????????????\'a8\'ac???;}{\f668\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Rockwell CE;} {\f669\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Sans Serif CE;}{\f670\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Sans Serif Cyr;} {\f671\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Sans Serif Greek;}{\f672\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Sans Serif Tur;} {\f673\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Sans Serif Baltic;}{\f674\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Serif CE;} {\f675\froman\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Serif Cyr;}{\f676\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Serif Greek;} {\f677\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Serif Tur;}{\f678\froman\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Serif Baltic;} {\f679\froman\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Serif (Vietnamese);}{\f680\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana Ref CE;}{\f681\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana Ref Cyr;} {\f682\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana Ref Greek;}{\f683\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana Ref Tur;}{\f684\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana Ref Baltic;} {\f685\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana Ref (Vietnamese);}{\f686\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Georgia Ref CE;}{\f687\froman\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Georgia Ref Cyr;} {\f688\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Georgia Ref Greek;}{\f689\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Georgia Ref Tur;}{\f690\froman\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Georgia Ref Baltic;} {\f691\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gill Sans MT CE;}{\f692\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gill Sans MT Condensed CE;} {\f693\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gill Sans Ultra Bold CE;}{\f694\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Sydnie;}{\f695\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Sydnie Greek;} {\f696\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial Baltic;}{\f697\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 Courier New Baltic;}{\f698\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f699\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial CE;}{\f700\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial Greek;} {\f701\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 Courier New CE;}{\f702\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 Courier New Greek;}{\f703\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Helvetica Cyr;}{\f704\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Helvetica Greek;} {\f705\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Helvetica (Hebrew);}{\f706\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Helvetica (Arabic);}{\f707\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Helvetica (Vietnamese);} {\f708\froman\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f709\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f710\froman\fcharset177\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f711\froman\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f712\froman\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f713\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f714\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f716\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f717\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f718\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f719\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f720\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f721\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f723\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial CE;}{\f724\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Cyr;}{\f726\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Greek;} {\f727\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Tur;}{\f728\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial (Hebrew);}{\f729\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial (Arabic);}{\f730\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Baltic;}{\f731\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial (Vietnamese);} {\f733\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New CE;}{\f734\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New Cyr;}{\f736\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New Greek;}{\f737\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New Tur;} {\f738\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New (Hebrew);}{\f739\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New (Arabic);}{\f740\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New Baltic;}{\f741\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New (Vietnamese);} {\f753\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Helvetica CE;}{\f757\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Helvetica Tur;}{\f760\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Helvetica Baltic;}{\f825\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 MS Mincho Western{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};} {\f823\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 MS Mincho CE{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};}{\f824\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 MS Mincho Cyr{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};}{\f826\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 MS Mincho Greek{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};} {\f827\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 MS Mincho Tur{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};}{\f830\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 MS Mincho Baltic{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};} {\f835\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Batang Western{\*\falt \'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcEcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};} {\f833\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Batang CE{\*\falt \'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcEcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};} {\f834\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Batang Cyr{\*\falt \'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcEcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};} {\f836\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Batang Greek{\*\falt \'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcEcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};} {\f837\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Batang Tur{\*\falt \'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcEcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};} {\f840\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Batang Baltic{\*\falt \'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcEcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};}{\f845\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2 SimSun Western{\*\falt ????????????\'a8\'ac??????};} {\f923\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Century CE;}{\f924\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Century Cyr;}{\f926\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Century Greek;}{\f927\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Century Tur;}{\f930\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Century Baltic;} {\f935\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Angsana New;}{\f945\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Cordia New;}{\f973\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Sylfaen CE;}{\f974\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Sylfaen Cyr;}{\f976\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Sylfaen Greek;} {\f977\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Sylfaen Tur;}{\f980\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Sylfaen Baltic;}{\f1055\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Western;}{\f1053\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS CE;} {\f1054\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Cyr;}{\f1056\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Greek;}{\f1057\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Tur;}{\f1058\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS (Hebrew);} {\f1059\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS (Arabic);}{\f1060\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Baltic;}{\f1061\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS (Vietnamese);}{\f1062\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS (Thai);} {\f1063\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Tahoma CE;}{\f1064\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Tahoma Cyr;}{\f1066\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Tahoma Greek;}{\f1067\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Tahoma Tur;}{\f1068\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Tahoma (Hebrew);} {\f1069\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Tahoma (Arabic);}{\f1070\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Tahoma Baltic;}{\f1071\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Tahoma (Vietnamese);}{\f1072\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2 Tahoma (Thai);} {\f1083\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f1087\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f1090\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f1103\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Lucida Console CE;}{\f1104\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Lucida Console Cyr;}{\f1106\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Lucida Console Greek;}{\f1107\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Lucida Console Tur;} {\f1113\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Verdana CE;}{\f1114\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Verdana Cyr;}{\f1116\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Verdana Greek;}{\f1117\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Verdana Tur;}{\f1120\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Verdana Baltic;} {\f1121\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Verdana (Vietnamese);}{\f1123\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial Black CE;}{\f1124\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Black Cyr;}{\f1126\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Black Greek;} {\f1127\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Black Tur;}{\f1130\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Black Baltic;}{\f1133\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2 Comic Sans MS CE;}{\f1134\fscript\fcharset204\fprq2 Comic Sans MS Cyr;} {\f1136\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2 Comic Sans MS Greek;}{\f1137\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2 Comic Sans MS Tur;}{\f1140\fscript\fcharset186\fprq2 Comic Sans MS Baltic;}{\f1143\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Impact CE;}{\f1144\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Impact Cyr;} {\f1146\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Impact Greek;}{\f1147\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Impact Tur;}{\f1150\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Impact Baltic;}{\f1153\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Georgia CE;}{\f1154\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Georgia Cyr;} {\f1156\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Georgia Greek;}{\f1157\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Georgia Tur;}{\f1160\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Georgia Baltic;}{\f1163\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium CE;} {\f1164\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cyr;}{\f1166\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Greek;}{\f1167\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Tur;}{\f1170\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Baltic;} {\f1173\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Palatino Linotype CE;}{\f1174\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Palatino Linotype Cyr;}{\f1176\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Palatino Linotype Greek;}{\f1177\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Palatino Linotype Tur;} {\f1180\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Palatino Linotype Baltic;}{\f1181\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Palatino Linotype (Vietnamese);}{\f1183\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Trebuchet MS CE;}{\f1184\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Trebuchet MS Cyr;} {\f1186\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Trebuchet MS Greek;}{\f1187\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Trebuchet MS Tur;}{\f1190\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Trebuchet MS Baltic;}{\f1223\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif CE;} {\f1224\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif Cyr;}{\f1226\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif Greek;}{\f1227\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif Tur;}{\f1228\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif (Hebrew);} {\f1229\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif (Arabic);}{\f1230\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif Baltic;}{\f1231\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif (Vietnamese);} {\f1232\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif (Thai);}{\f1236\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Alba Greek;}{\f1246\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Alba Matter Greek;}{\f1256\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Alba Super Greek;}{\f1266\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Baby Kruffy Greek;} {\f1276\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Chick Greek;}{\f1286\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Croobie Greek;}{\f1306\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Freshbot Greek;}{\f1316\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Frosty Greek;}{\f1326\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 GlooGun Greek;} {\f1336\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Jenkins v2.0 Greek;}{\f1376\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Pussycat Greek;}{\f1386\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Weltron Urban Greek;}{\f1393\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2 Mistral CE;}{\f1394\fscript\fcharset204\fprq2 Mistral Cyr;} {\f1396\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2 Mistral Greek;}{\f1397\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2 Mistral Tur;}{\f1400\fscript\fcharset186\fprq2 Mistral Baltic;}{\f1403\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode CE;} {\f1404\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode Cyr;}{\f1406\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode Greek;}{\f1407\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode Tur;}{\f1408\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode (Hebrew);} {\f1523\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Book CE;}{\f1524\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Book Cyr;}{\f1526\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Book Greek;}{\f1527\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Book Tur;} {\f1530\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Book Baltic;}{\f1533\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi CE;}{\f1534\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi Cyr;}{\f1536\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi Greek;} {\f1537\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi Tur;}{\f1540\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi Baltic;}{\f1543\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cond CE;}{\f1544\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Cyr;} {\f1546\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Greek;}{\f1547\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Tur;}{\f1550\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Baltic;}{\f1563\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Century Gothic CE;} {\f1564\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Century Gothic Cyr;}{\f1566\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Century Gothic Greek;}{\f1567\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Century Gothic Tur;}{\f1570\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Century Gothic Baltic;} {\f1685\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS Western;}{\f1683\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS CE;}{\f1684\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS Cyr;}{\f1686\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS Greek;} {\f1687\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS Tur;}{\f1688\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS (Hebrew);}{\f1689\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS (Arabic);}{\f1690\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS Baltic;} {\f1691\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS (Vietnamese);}{\f1692\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS (Thai);}{\f1695\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 @Batang Western;}{\f1693\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 @Batang CE;} {\f1694\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 @Batang Cyr;}{\f1696\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 @Batang Greek;}{\f1697\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 @Batang Tur;}{\f1700\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 @Batang Baltic;}{\f1703\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Book Antiqua CE;} {\f1704\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Book Antiqua Cyr;}{\f1706\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Book Antiqua Greek;}{\f1707\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Book Antiqua Tur;}{\f1710\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Book Antiqua Baltic;} {\f1713\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Bookman Old Style CE;}{\f1714\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Cyr;}{\f1716\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Greek;}{\f1717\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Tur;} {\f1720\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Baltic;}{\f1723\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Garamond CE;}{\f1724\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Garamond Cyr;}{\f1726\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Garamond Greek;}{\f1727\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Garamond Tur;} {\f1730\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Garamond Baltic;}{\f1733\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Haettenschweiler CE;}{\f1734\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Haettenschweiler Cyr;}{\f1736\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Haettenschweiler Greek;} {\f1737\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Haettenschweiler Tur;}{\f1740\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Haettenschweiler Baltic;}{\f1745\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 @MS Mincho Western;}{\f1743\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 @MS Mincho CE;} {\f1744\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 @MS Mincho Cyr;}{\f1746\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 @MS Mincho Greek;}{\f1747\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 @MS Mincho Tur;}{\f1750\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 @MS Mincho Baltic;} {\f1763\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2 Monotype Corsiva CE;}{\f1764\fscript\fcharset204\fprq2 Monotype Corsiva Cyr;}{\f1766\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2 Monotype Corsiva Greek;}{\f1767\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2 Monotype Corsiva Tur;} {\f1770\fscript\fcharset186\fprq2 Monotype Corsiva Baltic;}{\f1775\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2 @SimSun Western;}{\f1793\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial Narrow CE;}{\f1794\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Narrow Cyr;} {\f1796\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Narrow Greek;}{\f1797\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Narrow Tur;}{\f1800\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Narrow Baltic;}{\f1863\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Albertus Medium CE;} {\f1867\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Albertus Medium Tur;}{\f1870\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Albertus Medium Baltic;}{\f1873\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Albertus CE;}{\f1877\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Albertus Tur;}{\f1880\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Albertus Baltic;} {\f1883\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Albertus Extra Bold CE;}{\f1887\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Albertus Extra Bold Tur;}{\f1890\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Albertus Extra Bold Baltic;}{\f1893\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 ITC Avant Garde Gothic CE;} {\f1897\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 ITC Avant Garde Gothic Tur;}{\f1900\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 ITC Avant Garde Gothic Baltic;}{\f1903\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 ITC Avant Garde Gothic Demi CE;} {\f1907\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 ITC Avant Garde Gothic Demi Tur;}{\f1910\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 ITC Avant Garde Gothic Demi Baltic;}{\f1913\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 ITC Bookman Light CE;}{\f1917\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 ITC Bookman Light Tur;} {\f1920\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 ITC Bookman Light Baltic;}{\f1923\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 ITC Bookman Demi CE;}{\f1927\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 ITC Bookman Demi Tur;}{\f1930\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 ITC Bookman Demi Baltic;} {\f1933\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 CG Omega CE;}{\f1937\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 CG Omega Tur;}{\f1940\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 CG Omega Baltic;}{\f1943\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 CG Times CE;}{\f1947\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 CG Times Tur;} {\f1950\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 CG Times Baltic;}{\f1953\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2 ITC Zapf Chancery CE;}{\f1957\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2 ITC Zapf Chancery Tur;}{\f1960\fscript\fcharset186\fprq2 ITC Zapf Chancery Baltic;} {\f1963\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Clarendon CE;}{\f1967\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Clarendon Tur;}{\f1970\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Clarendon Baltic;}{\f1973\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Clarendon Condensed CE;} {\f1977\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Clarendon Condensed Tur;}{\f1980\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Clarendon Condensed Baltic;}{\f1983\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Clarendon Extended CE;}{\f1987\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Clarendon Extended Tur;} {\f1990\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Clarendon Extended Baltic;}{\f1993\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2 Coronet CE;}{\f1997\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2 Coronet Tur;}{\f2000\fscript\fcharset186\fprq2 Coronet Baltic;}{\f2003\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 CourierPS CE;} {\f2007\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 CourierPS Tur;}{\f2010\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 CourierPS Baltic;}{\f2023\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Helvetica Narrow CE;}{\f2027\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Helvetica Narrow Tur;} {\f2030\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Helvetica Narrow Baltic;}{\f2033\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Letter Gothic CE;}{\f2037\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Letter Gothic Tur;}{\f2040\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Letter Gothic Baltic;} {\f2043\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2 Marigold CE;}{\f2047\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2 Marigold Tur;}{\f2050\fscript\fcharset186\fprq2 Marigold Baltic;}{\f2053\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 New Century Schoolbook CE;} {\f2057\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 New Century Schoolbook Tur;}{\f2060\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 New Century Schoolbook Baltic;}{\f2063\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Antique Olive CE;}{\f2067\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Antique Olive Tur;} {\f2070\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Antique Olive Baltic;}{\f2073\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Antique Olive Compact CE;}{\f2077\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Antique Olive Compact Tur;}{\f2080\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Antique Olive Compact Baltic;} {\f2083\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Palatino CE{\*\falt Book Antiqua};}{\f2087\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Palatino Tur{\*\falt Book Antiqua};}{\f2090\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Palatino Baltic{\*\falt Book Antiqua};}{\f2103\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Univers CE;} {\f2107\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Univers Tur;}{\f2110\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Univers Baltic;}{\f2113\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Univers Condensed CE;}{\f2117\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Univers Condensed Tur;} {\f2120\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Univers Condensed Baltic;}{\f6113\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR CE;}{\f6114\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR Cyr;}{\f6116\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR Greek;} {\f6117\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR Tur;}{\f6118\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR (Hebrew);}{\f6119\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR (Arabic);}{\f6120\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR Baltic;} {\f6121\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR (Vietnamese);}{\f6123\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR CE;}{\f6124\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR Cyr;}{\f6126\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR Greek;} {\f6127\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR Tur;}{\f6128\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR (Hebrew);}{\f6129\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR (Arabic);}{\f6130\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR Baltic;} {\f6131\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR (Vietnamese);}{\f6133\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial CYR CE;}{\f6134\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial CYR Cyr;}{\f6136\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial CYR Greek;} {\f6137\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial CYR Tur;}{\f6138\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial CYR (Hebrew);}{\f6139\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial CYR (Arabic);}{\f6140\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial CYR Baltic;} {\f6141\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial CYR (Vietnamese);}{\f6143\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial TUR CE;}{\f6144\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial TUR Cyr;}{\f6146\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial TUR Greek;}{\f6147\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial TUR Tur;} {\f6148\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial TUR (Hebrew);}{\f6149\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial TUR (Arabic);}{\f6150\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial TUR Baltic;}{\f6151\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial TUR (Vietnamese);} {\f6153\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New CYR CE;}{\f6154\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New CYR Cyr;}{\f6156\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New CYR Greek;}{\f6157\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New CYR Tur;} {\f6158\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New CYR (Hebrew);}{\f6159\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New CYR (Arabic);}{\f6160\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New CYR Baltic;}{\f6161\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New CYR (Vietnamese);} {\f6163\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New TUR CE;}{\f6164\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New TUR Cyr;}{\f6166\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New TUR Greek;}{\f6167\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New TUR Tur;} {\f6168\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New TUR (Hebrew);}{\f6169\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New TUR (Arabic);}{\f6170\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New TUR Baltic;}{\f6171\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New TUR (Vietnamese);} {\f6623\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek CE;}{\f6624\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek Cyr;}{\f6626\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek Greek;}{\f6627\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek Tur;} {\f6628\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek (Hebrew);}{\f6629\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek (Arabic);}{\f6630\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek Baltic;} {\f6631\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek (Vietnamese);}{\f6653\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic CE;}{\f6654\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic Cyr;}{\f6656\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic Greek;} {\f6657\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic Tur;}{\f6658\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic (Hebrew);}{\f6659\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic (Arabic);} {\f6660\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic Baltic;}{\f6661\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic (Vietnamese);}{\f7673\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial Baltic CE;}{\f7674\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Baltic Cyr;} {\f7676\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Baltic Greek;}{\f7677\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Baltic Tur;}{\f7678\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial Baltic (Hebrew);}{\f7679\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial Baltic (Arabic);} {\f7680\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Baltic Baltic;}{\f7681\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial Baltic (Vietnamese);}{\f7683\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New Baltic CE;}{\f7684\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New Baltic Cyr;} {\f7686\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New Baltic Greek;}{\f7687\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New Baltic Tur;}{\f7688\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New Baltic (Hebrew);}{\f7689\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New Baltic (Arabic);} {\f7690\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New Baltic Baltic;}{\f7691\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New Baltic (Vietnamese);}{\f7693\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE CE;}{\f7694\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman CE Cyr;} {\f7696\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman CE Greek;}{\f7697\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman CE Tur;}{\f7698\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman CE (Hebrew);}{\f7699\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman CE (Arabic);} {\f7700\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman CE Baltic;}{\f7701\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman CE (Vietnamese);}{\f7703\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial CE CE;}{\f7704\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial CE Cyr;} {\f7706\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial CE Greek;}{\f7707\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial CE Tur;}{\f7708\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial CE (Hebrew);}{\f7709\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial CE (Arabic);}{\f7710\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial CE Baltic;} {\f7711\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial CE (Vietnamese);}{\f7713\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial Greek CE;}{\f7714\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Greek Cyr;}{\f7716\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Greek Greek;} {\f7717\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Greek Tur;}{\f7718\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial Greek (Hebrew);}{\f7719\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial Greek (Arabic);}{\f7720\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Greek Baltic;} {\f7721\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial Greek (Vietnamese);}{\f7723\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New CE CE;}{\f7724\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New CE Cyr;}{\f7726\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New CE Greek;} {\f7727\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New CE Tur;}{\f7728\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New CE (Hebrew);}{\f7729\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New CE (Arabic);}{\f7730\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New CE Baltic;} {\f7731\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New CE (Vietnamese);}{\f7733\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New Greek CE;}{\f7734\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New Greek Cyr;}{\f7736\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New Greek Greek;} {\f7737\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New Greek Tur;}{\f7738\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New Greek (Hebrew);}{\f7739\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New Greek (Arabic);}{\f7740\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New Greek Baltic;} {\f7741\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New Greek (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255; \red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\s1\ql \li0\ri0\keepn\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\outlinelevel0\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 1;}{ \s2\ql \li0\ri0\keepn\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\outlinelevel1\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 2;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\* \ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb240\sa120\keepn\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f4\fs28\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 Heading;}{\s16\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 Body Text;}{ \s17\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon16 \snext17 List;}{\s18\ql \li0\ri0\sb120\sa120\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \i\f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext18 \ssemihidden caption;}{\s19\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext19 Index;}{ \s20\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext20 Plain Text;}{\s21\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext21 Body Text 3;}{\s22\ql \fi-1134\li1134\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1134\tx1418\tx9781\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin1134\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext22 dday;}{\s23\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext23 Table Contents;}{\s24\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon23 \snext24 Table Heading;}{\*\cs25 \additive RTF_Num 2 1;}{\*\cs26 \additive \f3 RTF_Num 3 1;}{\*\cs27 \additive RTF_Num 3 2;}{\*\cs28 \additive RTF_Num 3 3;}{\*\cs29 \additive RTF_Num 3 4;}{\*\cs30 \additive RTF_Num 3 5;}{\*\cs31 \additive RTF_Num 3 6;}{\*\cs32 \additive RTF_Num 3 7;}{\*\cs33 \additive RTF_Num 3 8;}{\*\cs34 \additive RTF_Num 3 9;}{\*\cs35 \additive \f3 RTF_Num 4 1;}{\*\cs36 \additive RTF_Num 4 2;}{\*\cs37 \additive RTF_Num 4 3;}{\*\cs38 \additive RTF_Num 4 4;}{\*\cs39 \additive RTF_Num 4 5;}{\*\cs40 \additive RTF_Num 4 6;}{\*\cs41 \additive RTF_Num 4 7;}{\*\cs42 \additive RTF_Num 4 8;}{\*\cs43 \additive RTF_Num 4 9;}{\*\cs44 \additive RTF_Num 5 1;}{\* \cs45 \additive RTF_Num 6 1;}{\*\cs46 \additive RTF_Num 7 1;}{\*\cs47 \additive RTF_Num 8 1;}{\*\ts48\tsrowd\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 \trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \sbasedon11 \snext48 \styrsid14162963 Table Grid;}}{\*\revtbl {Unknown;}}{\*\pgptbl {\pgp\ipgp0\itap0\li0\ri0\sb0\sa0}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid801729\rsid1248081\rsid3806112\rsid4275473\rsid6037987\rsid6506150\rsid6823374 \rsid8589712\rsid11159002\rsid13778533\rsid14162963}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6612;}{\info{\author matt}{\operator John Palmer}{\creatim\yr2007\mo7\dy21\hr20\min55}{\revtim\yr2007\mo7\dy30\hr21\min59}{\printim\yr2007\mo7\dy30\hr21\min21} {\version5}{\edmins17}{\nofpages316}{\nofwords144924}{\nofchars826072}{\*\company University of Hull}{\nofcharsws969058}{\vern16389}} \deftab1080\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\makebackup\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot6823374 \fet0\sectd \sbknone\linex0\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (} {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s22\qc \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid801729 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid6823374 NOTES \par }{\insrsid6823374 (version 1a)}{\insrsid801729 \par }\pard \s22\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid801729 {\insrsid801729 \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid801729 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the running title }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 SNOTINGH'SCIRE. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in vermilion capitals across the top of folio 280ab, folio 281abcd, and each of folios 282cd- 293ab, centred above both columns; he wrote the form (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 SNOTINCH'SCIRE }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 on folio 283cd and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 SNOTINGH\'c2SCIRE.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 on folio 289ab. The letters }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 H'SCIR}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of the head on folio 280ab are written over an erasure: he probably briefly omitted a letter, as part of an original letter }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 E}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 can be seen between the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 R }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 E}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and is reproduced in the Alecto facsimile (though not in the Ordnance Survey facsimile). It is odd that he did not write a title on folio 280cd (containing the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Customs and the Nottinghamshire Landholders' List), but the omission on folio 282ab was because that page is blank. There is an erasure above the title on folio 288cd.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 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}{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 letters thorn (\'fe) and eth (\'f0) are reproduced as }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 th}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 .}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid801729 \par }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid801729 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 B\tab BOROUGH. Nottingham is 'the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ham}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of the people of a man called Snot' and was probably in origin an agricultural estate. Lying north}{\insrsid6823374 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of the River Trent and able to guard an important crossing point, it presumably acquired strategic significance at the time of the Danish attacks. It seems probable that the Danes built or refortified a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 burh}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 there. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the year 868 records that 'the same [Danish] army went into Mercia, to Nottingham and took up winter quarters there'. Of the West Saxon and Mercian counter-attack it s ays that they went to Nottingham 'and came upon the enemy in that fortress and besieged them there'. However, there was 'no serious battle' and the Mercians made peace with the Danes. Nottingham and its hinterland became the base for a Danish army which w as not dislodged until 918 }{\insrsid6823374 when King Edward the Elder captured the borough of Nottingham 'and ordered it to be repaired and manned both with Englishmen and Danes. And all the people who had settled in Mercia, both Danish and English, submitted to him' (the translations from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are by}{\i\insrsid6823374 }{\insrsid6823374 D. Whitelock and others). It appears, however, that the area north of Nottingham still required reconquest or there was renewed trouble in Nottingham itself for in 920 King Edward had a second }{\i\insrsid6823374 burh}{\insrsid6823374 built a t Nottingham on the south side of the river, opposite the other, the two being linked by a bridge, and then went into the Peak District to Bakewell where he also had a }{\i\insrsid6823374 burh}{\insrsid6823374 built. On the site of this second }{ \i\insrsid6823374 burh }{\insrsid6823374 (in West Bridgford or Wilford), see Haslam, 'Second Burh of Nottingham'.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab From the middle of the tenth century, Nottingham became a member of the Confederation of the Five Boroughs, a defensive alliance formed (with West Saxon help) against the Vikings of York: King Edmund had 'liberated' the five boroughs (Leicester, Lincoln, Nottingham, Stamford and Derby) from the 'Norsemen' in 942 (the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle). }{\insrsid6823374 Probably during that same century Nottingham also became the capital of a new shire; see \{Introduction: History\}. In the early summer of 1 068, King William marched north to face the first of the northern revolts. He constructed a castle at Nottingham, two at York, a castle in Lincoln 'and everywhere in the district' (the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; the information is incorrectly entered under 10 67); see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 228. The castle is not mentioned in Domesday, but it appears that the king put William Peverel in charge of it: }{\i\insrsid6823374 deinde rex Snotingheham castrum construxit et Guillelmo Peverello commendavit}{\insrsid6823374 (' then the king constructed a castle [at] Nottingham and entrusted it to William Peverel'): }{\cf1\charscalex105\insrsid6823374 Orderic Vitalis, }{ \i\cf1\charscalex105\insrsid6823374 Ecclesiastical History}{\cf1\charscalex105\insrsid6823374 , ii. (Chibnall, pp. 218-19).}{\insrsid6823374 On this castle, see }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Drage, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Nottingham Castle}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , especially pp. 13-25, 31-37. It is presumably not mentioned in Domesday because it was built outside the borough and its construction did not require the demolition of houses as in several other towns. To its west lay parkland, to the east, the new (French) borough, which was probably begun after the castle was built.}{ \insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 The guarding of the river and road routes to and from the north (B20) may be connected with the strategic importance of Nottingham. There was a mint in Nottingham both in 1066 and in 1086 (B1;7) and coins have been found dating back to }{\i\insrsid6823374 c}{ \insrsid6823374 . 925; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 13.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In 1086, there were, in effect, two boroughs at Nottingham: a 'new' borough which became known as the French borough, adjacent to the castle and comprising the Ancient Parishes of St Peter and St Nicholas, and the 'old' or 'English' bor ough which corresponded to the Ancient Parish of St Mary; see B3 borough note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On the borough as a whole, see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. pp. 235-39; Owen, 'Borough of Nottingham'; Rogers, 'Parish Boundaries and Urban History'; Roffe, \lquote Introduction', }{\i\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\insrsid6823374 , pp. 24-27.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab The details of the borough of Nottingham appear, as was usual, on the first folio (folio 280a). Normally the borough survey would be followed by the list of landholders, then by the details of the estates in the king's fief. H owever, although space was left on the first folio of Derbyshire (folio 272a) for details of the borough of Derby, they were inserted on the first folio of Nottinghamshire (folio 280b), after those of the borough of Nottingham. Between them, these two bor o ughs occupy the recto of that folio. They are followed (on folio 280c) by the 'customs' that both shires had in common, then by the Nottinghamshire Landholders' List on the bottom half of folio 280d. It is likely that these shared 'customs' made the main scribe of Great Domesday adopt the arrangement he did of putting the two boroughs together; there is no reason to think (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 pace}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , Roffe, 'Introduction', }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Derbyshire Domesday}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , pp. 2, 19), that this indicates the subordinate status of Derbyshire. Derby had more burgesses than Nottingham in 1066, but by 1086 the numbers at Derby had declined from 243 to 140; however, the number for Nottingham had reduced from 173 to 136 when Hu gh son of Baldric (the sheriff) was appointed and then to 120 by 1086 (assuming that the 'men' in NTT B3 were burgesses). Derby paid more than Nottingham (\'a324 as against \'a318) in 1066, but Nottingham paid more (\'a340 as against \'a3 30) in 1086. Even so, there is quite a leap from these figures to concluding that the supposed relative importance of these boroughs influenced the layout of Great Domesday. \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The two shires had a number of things in common, not least, it appears, a joint sheriff, a very similar assessment and arrangement of wapentakes; see \{Introduction: History\}; \{Introduction: Administration of the Shire\} ; \{Introduction: Wapentakes\}. \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday account of the borough is divided into sections. The choice and arrangement of material is very similar to that of the borough of Derby. The first (B1-7) lists the people, land, churches and messuages that were in the borough in 1066 and 1086 and ends with the total payment, which formed the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 firma burgi}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ('the revenue of the borough'). This represents the king's interest in the borough. There is a passing mention of a complaint by the burgesses about their fishing-rights. \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The second section (B8-16) lists eight individuals with their interests in the borough which appear to be independent of the king's. Inclu ded here are the 65 houses in the priest's croft and the annual value of St Mary's Church, which belong to the king by virtue of his ownership of the church. The essential difference between this and the previous section is that the possessions of these i n dividuals, who presumably enjoyed full jurisdiction, do not contribute dues to the king as lord of the borough. In this second section no values are given for the lands (although one is given for the church), presumably because they were the concern only o f the individuals, or were attached to their rural estates. In some counties (for example in Leicestershire) such connections are expressly made and an entry in Warwickshire (WAR B2) says: 'These messuages belong to the lands which these barons hold outsi de the borough and are valued there'. \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The transition to the final section (miscellaneous information that the scribe had either missed or did not know where to put) is unclear. The 1 carucate held by King Edward (B19) might better have been placed near th e entry for Earl Tosti's land (B2), except perhaps that it did not contribute to the revenue of the borough. The information about guarding the land and water routes to Nottingham or in Nottinghamshire (B20) naturally falls in a section of 'other informat i on', since it does not relate to either of the first two sections of material. It is uncertain, however, whether the details of the entries at B17-18 (houses built in the borough ditch, land given by the king to William Peverel) belong in the second secti on, or, as seems more likely, among a final heterogeneous group of four (B17-20).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 B1\tab 173 BURGESSES. These are strictly speaking 'resident burgesses' (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 burgenses manentes}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ), as opposed to those who are based in a rural manor but have a house in town; see DBY B1 resident note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab 19 VILLAGERS. Like a number of boroughs, Nottingham had some arable land attached to it, in this case 6 carucates, as well as meadow and underwood, making it appear partially to be a rural manor. In 1066 the villagers may have cultivatd t his land under the 38 burgesses who share it. However, in an apparent repeat mention of these 6 carucates for 1086 (B5), the land is worked by 20 smallholders and 14 ploughs.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab 6 CARUCATES OF LAND, [LIABLE] TO THE KING'S TAX. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 car' t're}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 terrae}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 being added to indicate that carucates (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 carucatae}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ) not ploughs (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 carucae}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ) are implied by the abbreviation }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 car'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . The king's tax is in this case the geld, indicating that these carucates are rated in the same way as those on a rural estate.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab These 6 caru cates are apparently here described as they were in 1066. The same reappear as they were in 1086 at B5. It is likely that Earl Tosti's carucate (B2) is additional to these six, because it is assesssed in a different way, as is the 1 carucate that had belo nged to King Edward (B19). The 5 bovates of land that belonged to the church (B4) are expressly said to be part of the 6 carucates. This may be true also of the 5\'bd acres of land there.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab UNDERWOOD. The Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 silu\'ea minut\'ea}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 could be either nominative plural or genitive singular. As the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 un\'fb p't\'fb }{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ('one meadow') is nominative, the former case for the underwood might seem more likely, but the plural 'underwoods' is incompatible with the dimensions which represent a single oblong. It is more probable that the scribe intended to put }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 siluae minutae .vi. quarentinae in longitudine 7 . v. in latitudin}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 e ('6 furlongs of underwood in length and 5 in width') where }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 quarentinae}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is nominative and }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 siluae}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 a dependent genitive, but after beginning, he lapsed into the more familiar formula in which }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 quarentinas}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is accusative of extent and should depend on a nominative }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 silua}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 minuta}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 with which }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 longa}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 lata}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 would agree (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 silua minuta. vi. quarentinas longa et. v. lata}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ). Alternatively, he was anticipating using a square measure such as '}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 x}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 acres of underwood'. Compare 5,10 woodland note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab 38 BURGESSES. These are presumably a sub-set of the 173 burgesses previously mentioned and in charge of the 19 villagers who presumably worked the land.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab FROM THE DUES OF THE LAND AND THE WORK OF THE BURGESSSES. The Latin for 'dues of the land' (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 de censu terrae}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ) suggests that this render is separate from the geld that the 6 carucates yield. The geld was a variable amount imposed annually, whereas this due is probably the same as}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 landgabulum}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ('land tribute') which is paid on the ground within the borough. \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The corresponding entry to this in Derby (DBY B1) has 'from dues and tolls and fines and all customary dues ... '. This more clearly illustrates how the sum of 75s 7d was composed. In particular it illust rates that the 'work of the burgesses' is a money payment in place of a former custom consisting of various types of labour service. These separate sources of income combine to produce the }{\i\insrsid6823374 redditus burgi }{\insrsid6823374 ('render' or 'revenue of the borough'); see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 247 note 1.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab PAID. The Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 redd}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ' could abbreviate }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 reddit}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (the present tense) meaning 'pays' as translated by the Phillimore printed edition. However, it could also abbreviate }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 reddebat}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 or }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 reddidit}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (both past tenses) which, in view of the past }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 partita fuit}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 in the first half of the sentence, is more likely and is how it is translated in the Alecto edition. In the context, this appears to be a 1066 payment, as the text goes on to state how the number of burgesses (and t herefore probably their payments) had changed by the time Hugh son of Baldric was appointed sheriff (B3).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab 75s 7d. The old English currency lasted for a thousand years until 1971. The pound contained 20 shillings, each of 12 pence, abbreviated as }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \'a3}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ibrae}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ],}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 s}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 olidi}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ],}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 d}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 enarii}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (JRM). }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Domesday often expresses sums above a shilling in pence (for example, 20d in 10,2) and above a pound in shillings (as here).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FROM TWO MONEYERS 40s. These men would have been in charge of the mint mentioned in B7.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 B2\tab EARL TOSTI. }{\insrsid6823374 Tosti(g) was the third son of Earl Godwin(e) of Wessex and brother of Earl (King) Harold. He succeeded Siward as Earl of Northumbria in 1055. His subjects ejected him from his Northumbrian earldom in 1065 and chose Morcar to replace him. As he received th e third penny from this carucate of land, it appears that Nottinghamshire had been part of his earldom, although }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Derbyshire lay in Mercia and was then subject to Earl Edwin. There was no earl in 1086; see } {\cf1\insrsid6823374 \{Introduction: Administration of the Shire\}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Tosti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Tostius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and, once each, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thostin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Tostillus}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Danish/Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Tosti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 387. The Alecto edition has Tosti.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE KING HAD 2 PENNIES; THE EARL HAD THE THIRD HIMSELF}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . The division of a borough's revenues between the king and the earl (sometimes between the king and the sheriff), particularly before 1066, at a rate of two-thirds to one-third is frequently recorded in Domesday Book (for example, HEF C12. STS B12. CHS C2;22. DEV C2. KEN D1. GLS B1); see also Tait, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Medieval English Borough}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , pp. 139-93. These revenues generally included the house rents, ground rents, market tolls, profits of the court, the mint, the king's mill etc; see Tait, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Medieval English Borough}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 141; Round 'The 'Tertius Denarius' of the Borough',}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 pp. 62-64. The earl received the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 tertius denarius redditus burgi}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . However, in the case of Nottingham no such division is recorded of the total revenue of the borough (B7), only of the render from this solitary carucate, which is probably additional to the one carucate mentioned in B1.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid801729 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 See also }{\insrsid6823374 Fleming, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 217 no. 1240.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 B3\tab HUGH SON OF BALDRIC, THE SHERIFF. The sheriff of Nottingham was also the sheriff of Derby until the later sixteenth century, and}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 was already so before 1086, since his returns were attested by the 'witness of the two shires' (DBY B15). In 1086 Alstoe and Ma rtinsley Wapentakes of 'Roteland' were also 'attached to the sheriffdom of Nottingham for the king's tax', Alstoe Wapentake was equally divided between Thurgarton Wapentake and Broxtowe Wapentake, with which it had no geographical connection; these wapent akes are therefore entered immediately after Domesday Nottinghamshire on folios 293c-294a (JRM).}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Hugh son of Baldric was also sheriff of Yorkshire. He held in chief in Nottinghamshire (NTT 22).}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday form of his Christian name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hugo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (as it is regarded as a third declension noun in Latin the genitive is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hugonis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , the accusative }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hugonem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , the dative }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hugoni}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and the ablative }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hugone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), represents Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hugo}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hugon}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hu\'eb}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 157-58. Hugh, which also derives from the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hugo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (Reaney, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), was chosen by JRM. The Alecto edition also has Hugh. The Domesday form of his father, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Baldric(us)}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , represents Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Baldric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 191. The Alecto edition also has Baldric.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab FOUND. That is, when he was appointed at an unknown date before 1086.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 136 MEN ... NOW THERE ARE 16 LESS. These 'men' are presumably burgesses. Similarly in Derby there had been a decline in burgess numbers, in that case from 243 to 140.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ON THE EARL'S LAND. Presumably, that is, on the 1 carucate held by Earl Tosti (B2).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IN THE NEW BOROUGH. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined the words }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In nouo burgo}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , extending the}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 I}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 downwards to the line below to act as an insertion sign. Farley printed }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and a separate vertical insertion mark, as he did frequently; no further mention of his practice has been made in these notes. This addition may have been done during the initial writing of this county, to aid understanding. The scribe had originally intended to say only that these 13 new houses were built on the earl's land (attached to but not in the (old) borough of Nottingham). The interlineation explains where Earl Tosti's carucate (fo r merly arable land) lay, that is, the new borough has been built on it. This was what became known as the French borough, adjacent to the castle, and encompassing the Ancient Parishes of St Peter and St Nicholas in contrast to that of St Mary which was the Ancient Parish of the English borough; see }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 237; Roffe, \lquote Introduction', }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 26. It appears that the streets called Castle Gate, Hounds Gate and Friar Lane were all laid out in relation to the castle and that they formed the nucleus of the new borough; see }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Drage, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Nottingham Castle}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 19. The shape of the two Ancient Parishes of St Peter and St Nicholas suggests that they were carved out of the Ancient Parish of St Mary.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab There were also 'new boroughs' at R ye in Sussex (SUS 5,1), Rhuddlan in 'North Wales' (CHS FT 2,19) and at Northampton (NTH B1). In Nottingham their customs diverged in various ways, including, in the English borough, inheritance by ultimogeniture; see Stevenson, 'Land Tenures in Nottingham shire', pp. 66-71.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE OLD BOROUGH. That is, the Anglo-Saxon borough. It was fortified by a semi-circular rampart, with a cliff forming its southern defence; see B1 borough note. The two 'boroughs' were not separated, but adjoined each other. For their his tory and topographical relationship, see Mastoris, 'Boundary between the English and French Boroughs', pp. 68-74; Rogers, 'Parish Boundaries and Urban History', pp. 51-56; }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Roffe, \lquote Introduction', }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 pp. 25-26 and map.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 B4\tab ONE CHURCH, IN THE KING'S LORDSHIP. This appears to have been the church of St Mary; }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 238. This was clearly an important church, probably collegiate, endowed with land and rendering \'a35 per annum (B15). \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The church must have been granted by William I or a subsequent king to William Peverel for }{\insrsid6823374 at some time before 1108 the latter founded Lenton Priory on his Nottinghamshire land (10,24) and gave it 'to god and the church of Cluny'. Among his gifts, confirmed by Henry I, were the church of St Mary in Nottingham; see }{\i\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid6823374 , v. p. 113 no. II, calendared in }{\i\insrsid6823374 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 162 no. 1282; see also }{\i\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid6823374 , v. p. 111 no. I; }{ \i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 91; Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid6823374 , pp. 97, 100.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IN WHOSE [LAND]. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in qua}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('in which') literally says that the messuages lie in the church, but 'in the church's appurtenant land' is implied.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MESSUAGES.}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 The Phillimore printed translation has 'residences'. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 mansiones}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , which is difficult to differentiate in meaning from }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 ma}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 n}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 surae}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 . Because of its occasional association with }{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 domus}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('house', 'dwelling') }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 mansio}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 is clearly more than a house. A messuage is a house-site, and may or not contain one or more houses. In Nottingham Roger of Bully has 3 }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 mansiones}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 in which there are 11 houses (B8). The Alecto edition has 'messuages'.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab OF THE ABOVE SIX CARUCATES. That is, of those mentioned in B1 and B5. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 sex}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , extending the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 do wnwards to act as an insertion sign; this was probably an immediate correction, like the interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 eo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in B6.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab TO THIS CHURCH BELONG 5\'bd ACRES OF LAND. This detail clearly makes the church a superior instituton. It is unclear whether the 5 \'bd acres were additional to the 6 carucates or were or had been part of them.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ad}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 was written by the main scribe of Great Domesday in larger letters than the surrounding text to fill the space caused by the erasure of a longer word.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 B5\tab 6 CARUCATES. These 6 carucates ha ve already been mentioned (in B1) as they were in 1066. By 1086 they may have, in effect, been reduced by the loss of 5 bovates (held by the church, B4) and perhaps by a further 5 \'bd acres which belonged to the same church (also B4), unless the burgesses we re also ploughing these. The population had also changed, the 19 villagers being replaced by 20 smallholders, a classification of population that seems to have arrived with the Conquest.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OF LAND FOR PLOUGHING. The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 tre}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (= }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 terrae}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) is interlined, the main scribe of Great Domesday extended the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 r}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 downwards to indicate its position. For its importance, see B1 land note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 The Latin phrase }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 ad arandum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 is clumsy; it strictly means 'to plough' or 'for ploughing' rather than the 'to be plo ughed' required here. It has probably been transferred from some other phrase such as }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 boues}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 / }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 animalia ad arandum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('oxen/ cattle for ploughing'). The Latin }{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 arabiles}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 would have served better or }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 terra totidem carucarum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('land for as many ploughs') or }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 terra totidem boum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('land for as many oxen'). The phrase does, however, make an important point that the 'fiscal carucates' (}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 ad geldum regis}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , B1) and the 'field carucates' (}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 ad arandum}{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 ) are the same; see Round, 'Domesday Measures of Land', pp. 199-201; }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 318; and DBY 6,101 carucates note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 B6\tab THEY. That is, the burgesses ('men') just mentioned.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab RIVER TRENT. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in aqua Trente}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Trente}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 could conceivably be genitive, that is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Trentae}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('in the water of the Trent').}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THAT. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 quod}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 here, with interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 eo}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , is not 'because', as in the Phillimore printed edition, but 'on the grounds that': it introduces the statement of their complaint.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab PREVENTED FROM FISHING. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 piscari prohibentur}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 contains the mild verb }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 prohibeo }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('stop' or 'prevent') which was translated in the Phillimore printed edition as 'forbidden', as if the Latin were }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 piscari uetantur}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab See also }{\insrsid6823374 Fleming, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 217 no. 1241. She has 'because they are prohibited from fishing'.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 B7\tab \'a318; NOW IT PAYS \'a330 AND \'a310 FROM THE MINT. These sums are the amounts for which the borough was 'farmed'. The \'a3 10 from the mint replaces the 40s that two moneyers paid in 1066 (B1); the latter sum was probably included in the \'a318; see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 236}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{ \insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This statement terminates the first part of the survey of the borough.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 B8\tab ROGER OF BULLY. He was the largest landholder in Nottinghamshire in 1086; see NTT 9 Roger note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rogerius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rogerus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , but frequently}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 abbreviated to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rog' }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hrodger}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rodger}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rotger}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rog}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 g}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc: Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 317-18. The Alecto edition also has Roger.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 3 MESSUAGES. See B4 messuages note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 B9\tab WILLIAM PEVEREL. For his fief, see NTT 10 and NTT 10 William note. \par \tab \tab The Domesday form of his Christian name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Willelmus }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (often abbreviated to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Will's}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), represents Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Willihelm}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Willehelm}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Willelm}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Romance } {\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Guill}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 i}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 elm}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 255-57. JRM preferred the common name William, which has survived into modern times. The Alecto edition also has William.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 48 MERCHANTS' HOUSES. The presence of these }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 mercatores}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 implies the existence of a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 mercatum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('market').}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 12 HORSEMEN'S HOUSES.}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Probably of }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 milites}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 in g arrison immediately after 1066; William Peverel was or had been keeper of Nottingham Castle (JRM). However, these horsemen (Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 equitum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , the genitive plural of }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 eques}{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 , which is the equivalent of Old English }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 cnicht}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ) might also have been escorts, conveyed m essages and assisted in guarding the main lines of communication; see B20 Nottingham note, and, on the castle, see \{Introduction: Castles\}.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 8 SMALLHOLDERS. Their presence implies that William Peverel has a share of the borough's arable land.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 B10\tab RALPH OF BURON. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 For his fief, see NTT 15 and NTT 15 Ralph note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his Christian name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Radulfus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Radulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Radolf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old German }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Radulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , from which Norman }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Radulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and Old French }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Raoul}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 were derived: von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 345. Ralph, which also derives from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Radulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Raoul }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (Reaney, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), was chosen by JRM. The Alecto edition also has Ralph, for both 1086 and 1066 holders, except for the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holders in WIL 55,2 and CON 5,1,6 where it has Radulf, perhaps in error.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab HORSEMEN'S HOUSES. See B9 horsemen's note. It is possible that Ralph of Buron had some responsability (otherwise unmentioned) for the protection of Nottinghamshire.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 B11\tab WULFBERT , 4 HOUSE S. The main scribe of Great Domesday added this statement in a space at the end of the account of Ralph of Buron's houses (B10); lack of space meant he had to interline }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .iiii. dom'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . This insertion was done using a finer pen. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of Wulfbert - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlbert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gulbertus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wlb}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wulfbert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 418; Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 259. The Alecto edition has Wulfbert for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holde rs, Gulbert for 1086 ones. \par \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire. \par }\pard\plain \s21\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid801729 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Wulfbert is an uncommon name, occurring on fewer than twenty holdings in Domesday Book, none of them close enough, or with tenurial associations or other links, to be plausibly connected with this urban holding in Nottingham (JP).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid801729 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 B12\tab RALPH SON OF HUBERT. For his fief, see NTT 13. \par \tab \tab For his name, see B10 Ralph note. The Domesday forms of his father's name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hubertus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , often abbreviated to }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hub}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ],}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 represents Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hugubert}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hubert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 156. The Alecto edition also has Hubert.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 B13\tab GEOFFREY ALSELIN. For his fief, see NTT 12; see NTT 12 Geoffrey note. \par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his first name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Goisfridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gosfridus}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gaufridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gaufridus}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gaosfridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent 'two or, possibly, three Old German names usually latinized in early documents as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Galfridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gaufridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Goisfridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gosfridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ' (Reaney, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Dictionary of British Surnames}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , under Jeffray etc.). }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Goisfridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gosfridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gosfrid}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Romance }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Josfrid}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 125-26. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gaufridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 apparently could represent one of a series of Old German names such as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gaufrid}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gautfred,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Waldfrid}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Walfrid }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ibidem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 101-102. Forssner commented on the confusion of these two names and also that between the latter and Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 God(e)frid}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (on whom, see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ibidem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 118-19). The modern name Geoffrey, chosen by JRM and also used in the Alecto edition, derives from ME }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Geffrey}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , from Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Geuffroi}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Jeufroi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Jefroi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (Reaney, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ibidem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ). See also Dodgson and Palmer, 'Introduction', }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Index of Persons}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. ix.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AITARD THE PRIEST. The Domesday forms - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aitard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aitardus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Romance }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aitard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Eidhart}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 17-18. The Alecto edition has Aitard. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire and there is only one other occurrence in Great Domesday (CHS 9,17), almost certainly not the same as this priest. The name occurs several times in Little Domesday, however; on the identification by John Palmer of Aitard [* of Vaux *], see NFK 1,106 Aitard note. Aitard here was possibly the principal priest of the royal church of St Mary (B4).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 B14\tab IN THE PRIEST'S CROFT. This priest presumably served the important royal church of St Mary (B4). The Phillimore printed translation has 'priests' croft', as if }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 p}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 res}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 b}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ite}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ri}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 were genitive plural, not singular.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Evidently not all 65 houses were occupied by a priest or priests, but the houses appear to have been built on church land. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Crofta presbiteri}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is almost a street-name ('Priest's Croft'), relating to a group of dwellings of mixed ownership dominated by and named from the croft of a priest.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE KING HAS FULL JURISDICTION. This follows from his holding of the church of St Mary (B4).}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 The Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 cum saca et soca}{\insrsid6823374 is from Old English }{\i\insrsid6823374 sacu}{\insrsid6823374 ('cause', affair', 'matter in dispute') and }{ \i\insrsid6823374 socn}{\insrsid6823374 (a 'seeking'). The two terms only make full sense if taken together, and the presence of }{\i\insrsid6823374 saca}{\insrsid6823374 in the phrase implies one particular meaning of }{\i\insrsid6823374 soca}{ \insrsid6823374 ; for others, see \{jurisdiction\}. Essentially these two words refer to the lord's right to have a court, to compel suit (attendance) at i t 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 an d services, or money in their place. Men with full jurisdiction seem to have been able to grant portions of their estates to tenants.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 B15\tab THIS ENTRY is really part of the previous one with which it shares a gallows sign, used by the main scribe of Great Domesday to mark out divisions in the account of the Borough of Nottingham. }{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE CHURCH. That is, the royal church of St Mary (B4).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 B16\tab THIS ENTRY was probably briefly omitted by the main scribe of Great Domesday when he was listing the other men's houses in the borough (B8-13). There is no sign in the manuscript that it was a later addition like the entry for Wulfbert's houses (B11 Wulfb ert note), }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 pace}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Roffe, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 30.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab RICHARD THE FRAIL.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of his Christian name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ricard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ricard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represents Old German }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ricard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Richard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : Forssner, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 213-14; see also von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 349. The Alecto edition also has Richard. Here Richard is given the nickname 'the frail': }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 fresle}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is Old French from Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 fragilis}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('breakable'); see Tengvik, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Old English Bynames}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 313. }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Both the Phillimore printed edition and the Alecto edition call him Richard Frail. }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Although plain Richard occurs five times in Nottinghamshire (3,4. 9,37;88. 13,11. 22,2), this is the only occurrence of this byname in Domesday Book. Any or none of the men called simply Richard may be the same as the present individual. }{ \insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 365, under Ricardus Fresle, mentions}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 a Richard }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Freslart}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 .}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 B17\tab IN THE BOROUGH DITCH. This is probably the defensive ditch that encircled the wall of the borough . It seems to be implied that these houses have sprung up since 1066, a sort of shanty town under no one's authority or control.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 17 HOUSES, AND 6 OTHER HOUSES. This odd expression could have been the result of the main scribe of Great Domesday's drawing h is information from two sources and failing to combine it, or 'horsemen's' or 'merchants' ' could be missing from the 17 houses.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 B18\tab WILLIAM PEVEREL. For his fief, see NTT 10; and for his houses in the borough, see B9. On the name William, see B9 William note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab TO MAKE AN ORCHARD. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 pomerium}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is an alternative medieval spelling for } {\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 pomarium}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , derived from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 pomum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('fruit', 'apple'). There is a Classical Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 pomerium}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , meaning 'a bare strip of land marking the formal boundary around a town' which seems unlikely here, as the 5 acres seem to imply a compact area of land rather than a narrow strip. If, however, William Peverel had been given land to 'create an }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 enceinte}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ', then he would appear to be the founder of the new, French borough at Nottingham; see B3.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 B19\tab EDWARD. The Domesday forms - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Eduuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Eduardus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Eaduuardus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Edw}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ardus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Euuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] etc. - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Eadweard}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 237-38. JRM preferred the first element Ed- for Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ead-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and the second element -ward for Old English }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -weard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 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.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 CARUCATE OF LAND WITH THE TAX. The 'tax' is Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 geldum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , so this land pays tax on arable land in the normal way, as would be expected from the content of the entry, which, in effect, records a rural estate; see B1 land note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This entry is duplicated at 1,63 where the estate is identified as being in Sneinton which was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Nottingham St Mary.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 12 ACRES OF MEADOW. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , accusative plural, could be the object of either 'the king has' or '11 villagers who have'. The punctuation in the Phillimore printed translation, preserved here, suggests the latter, while that in the Alecto edition, with a comma after the 4 ploughs, implies the former. However, in the repeat of this entry at 1,63 there is no ambiguity: the villagers have both the 4 ploughs and the 12 acres of meadow. See 1,1 fishery note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NOTHING IN LORDSHIP. That is, no lordship land or ploughs.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 B20\tab IN NOTTINGHAM. It is possible, in view of the content of the e ntry that 'Nottinghamshire' should be understood. Even though this is the last entry in the 'Borough section', this position is also the repository for miscellaneous information. The county town is put for the shire in other instances; see, for example, D e rby for Derbyshire (DBY B15) and Stafford for Staffordshire (DBY 1,25). Ostensibly this section is about guarding routes by land and water, and it may be connected with the large number of horsemens' houses mentioned in this section (B9-10). The River Tre n t debouches into the River Humber near Hull and was certainly navigable from Nottingham to the sea, as well as upstream as far as Repton (in Derbyshire). However, the road is said to be 'to York' rather than to London, which suggests that the prime concer n may have been to keep open the routes leading northwards in the event that a rapid advance was needed from the south to crush a renewed revolt in the north, as well as to ensure that the king's messages could reach York and further north and that food an d goods could pass freely. There is an echo of this in Yorkshire (YKS C37), where in connection with the city of York, Domesday says 'The King has three routes by land and a fourth by water'. In the case of this Nottinghamshire entry, identification of the se routes hinges on the identity of the }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 fossa}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 (here rendered as 'dyke'). If it is the Foss Way, then as that Roman road from Leicester to Lincoln to York does not pass through Nottingham, '-shire' should probably be supplied. If that is so, then the road to wards York might be what became the Great North Road; that is now largely the A1 trunk road throughout much of its length, which crosses the Foss Way at Newark-on-Trent. That too passes through Nottinghamshire, but not through Nottingham; nor does it lead directly to York and its date of establishment as a through-route to the north is unknown. However, both identifications seem doubtful; see B20 canal note and B20 road note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid801729 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 It is possible that the grant by Henry I of }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 tol et theam et infangenetheof et telonia}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 to the burgesses of Nottingham, confirmed by Henry II, was a transfer to them of rights that he had enjoyed and which were connected with the 'guarding' of these routes. The burgesses are to enjoy these rights }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 a Thurmotestona usque ad Newerc}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 et de omnibus Trentam transeuntibus}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 ita plenarie ut in burgo de Nottingeham}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 et ex alia parte a duito ultra Rempestunam usque ad aquam de Radeford in Nort}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('from Thrumpton as far as Newark[-on-Trent] and from all crossing the [River] Trent, as fully as in the bo rough of Nottingham, and elsewhere from the watercourse beyond Rempstone as far as the water of ?'Radford' in the north': Stevenson, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Nottingham Charters}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 2 (= Stubbs, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Select Charters }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 198). Thrumpton (SK 5031) lies south of Nottingham on the River Tr ent near the point (SK5133) where the river begins to form the boundary between Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. Newark-on-Trent lies to the north-east. Stenton in }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 238, took the }{ \i\insrsid6823374 de omnibus Trentam transeuntibus}{\insrsid6823374 as meaning 'all people passing along the Trent'; this may be so, because Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 transeo,}{\insrsid6823374 in a nautical sense, can mean 'sail across' but also 'sail along', as in }{\i\insrsid6823374 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 303, where }{\i\insrsid6823374 viam ad transeuntes impedivit}{\insrsid6823374 referring to a fishery on a river means ' it blocked the passage of those sailing along it'. However, the }{\i\insrsid6823374 et}{\insrsid6823374 might suggest that this is a further source of revenue for the burgesses. Rempstone (SK 5724) lies in the south of the county. The road from the south (the A60) crosses a brook (the Kings Brook ) at SK 5723 by a bridge (Kings Bridge); it is 'beyond Rempstone' if one starts from Nottingham. This brook is no doubt the }{\i\insrsid6823374 duito}{\insrsid6823374 of the charter which is a French form (with Latin termination) of Latin }{ \i\insrsid6823374 ductus}{\insrsid6823374 (from }{\i\insrsid6823374 duco}{\insrsid6823374 , 'to lead'), more commonly found in this sense in the compound form }{\i\insrsid6823374 conductus}{\insrsid6823374 , French }{\i\insrsid6823374 conduit}{ \insrsid6823374 ('passage', 'course', 'pipe'). Stenton, following Stevenson, took the }{\i\insrsid6823374 aquam de Radeford}{\insrsid6823374 to be the River Ryton at Blyth. In fact the same major road, the A60, crosses this river at Oldcoates (SK5888) shortly before leaving the county. However, there is no trace of a }{\i\insrsid6823374 Radeford }{\insrsid6823374 nearby. A possible candidate for that is East Retford and West Retford where the Great North Road (the A638 at this point) crosses the River Idle at SK 7081. There is an (Old) Rad ford on the west side of Nottingham, on the River Leen, but it is not 'in the North'. It is quite possible that }{\i\insrsid6823374 Radeford}{\insrsid6823374 is the same place that features in the toll that Roger of Bully gave to Blyth Prior, that is, probably, 'Radford' in Worksop, a fording-place on the River Ryton; see 9,49 Blyth note. On this toll, see }{\i\insrsid6823374 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{ \insrsid6823374 , iii. p. 271 no. 737; Roffe, \lquote Introduction', }{\i\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 21. \par \tab \tab The charter also concerns itself with free passage: }{\i\insrsid6823374 Et iter de Trenta liberum esse debet navigantibus quantum pertica una obtinebit ex utra parte fili aquae}{\insrsid6823374 (' And the route along the Trent must be open to those travelling by boat to the extent of one perch on either side of the course of the water').}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab THE RIVER TRENT. It is unlikel y to be mentioned as affording a route southwards by water, although small craft could reach Repton (in Derbyshire) and Burton-on-Trent (in Staffordshire). As far as Nottingham and in both directions as far as Lincoln it was certainly important since a wr it of King Henry I regarding the construction of a bridge at Newark-on-Trent asks that it does not 'injure' his boroughs of Nottingham and Lincoln; see 6,1 Newark note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab An entry for Torksey (Lincolnshire), which lies on the Trent, indicates the river's im portance: 'if the king's officers should come there, the men of this small town should conduct them with their boats and other equipment for navigation as far as York ... ' (LIN T1).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab THE CANAL. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 fossa}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 which is derived from the verb }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 fodio}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('to dig') and itself has a basic meaning of 'something dug', 'something excavated'. Among its more precise meanings are 'ditch or 'channel' or 'canal'. The Phillimore printed edition has 'dyke'; the Alecto edition has 'ditch'. 'Dyke' could be misunderstood as it also commonly refers to an embankment to keep water in or out. }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 239, mentions three possibilities. According to Ballard, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday Boroughs}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 85, it was the city ditch. However, Domesday itself mentions the borough ditch (the }{\i\insrsid6823374 fossatum burgi}{\insrsid6823374 not the }{\i\insrsid6823374 fossa burgi}{\insrsid6823374 ) in which there are 23 houses. This former ditch (presumably part of the defensive works of the }{\i\insrsid6823374 burh}{\insrsid6823374 ) is unlikely to have been in use or have needed guarding. Green, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Conquest of England}{ \insrsid6823374 , p. 439, apparently connected the }{\i\insrsid6823374 fossa}{\insrsid6823374 with the York road and would translate 'the ditch and the road that runs to York', though it is difficult to see what this really signifies. Stenton himself in }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH}{\insrsid6823374 suggested the Foss Way, pointing out that 'it forms the high road from Newark to Nottingham for 12 miles', but failed to note that it did not actually come to Nottingham. JRM considered this possible and said: '}{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 possibly the Foss Way; more probably either a defence work linking the old Borough with the new Borough built in 924 south of the Trent, or the great ditch that joined the Norman Castle to the old Borough'.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Clearly the three items here (the River Trent, the }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 fossa}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 and the road to York) correspond to the two methods of transport (by water or by road) given later in the entry. From its position in the list, the }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 fossa }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 could be either a land route or a water route. However, it is by no means certain that }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 fossa}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 alone can stand for the Foss Way or that the road itself was known by that name in 1086. In documents cited in 6,1 Newark note it is called a }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 regia strata}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ' a royal paved way' or }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 chiminum fossae}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , either 'the track of the ditch', perhaps a loose expression for 'ditched track' or 'the track called the Foss', the genitive }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 fossae}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 being used as in }{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Civitas Londinii}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('the city of London'). The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 11, cites }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 viam de Fosse}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (1250), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 stratam quae dicitur Fosse}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (thirteenth century), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 via de Fosse}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (1289). Only }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 apud Fosse}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (1330) in a limited context suggests the use of simple }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 fossa}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 for Foss Way. In other counties through which the road passes the word }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Fos}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Foss}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Fossa}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 alone is rarely used to denote the highway. In Gloucestershire it is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 stratum quae vocatur Fosse}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in 931 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Gloucestershire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 17), in Wiltshire it is }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 regia via vocata Fos}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Wiltshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 15). In Warwickshire (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Warwickshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 7) it is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 stratam publicam que ab antiquis stret nunc fos nuncupatur}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('the public road which [was called] }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 stret}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 by earlier generations and is now called }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 fos}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 '), and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in alta via quae dicitur Fosse}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('on the high road which is named Fosse'). Examples where the word is used alone as in a boundary clause as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 andlang Foss}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 'along the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Fosse}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ' (Sawyer, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , no. 115) or in another as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in Fosse juxta Bretford}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (Sawyer, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , no. 1577) are in contexts where the meaning is clear. It is impossible to be certain, but it seems probable that had the main scribe of Domesday, who usually wrote with clarity, intended the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 via quae vocatur fosse }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or some such phrase, he would have used it.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The most obvious conclusion is that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 fossa}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is a channel or canal. As it approaches Nottingham, the River Trent forms a number of loops which were abbreviated at unknown dates by 'cut s'. Moreover, the Trent did not pass the gates of medieval Nottingham and it is possible that a canal brought its waters and the ships on it closer to the walls of the borough or of the castle. It is the River Leen that passed below the fortifications of the castle. It appears that its course was altered at some time to serve mills belonging to the borough (Drage, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Nottingham Castle}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 19) but it could also have been canalised from its confluence with the River Trent. There was also a 'leat' in existence in the Middle Ages from the River Trent at Wilford (SK5637) to serve some mills near the borough (Drage, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Nottingham Castle}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 63), though it is not certain if this was its original purpose. More significantly, there were medieval complaints about obstuction s to the navigation of the River Trent that prevented ships from coming to the castle; see Deering, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 History of Nottingham}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 189-90. Drage (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Nottingham Castle}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 64) is inclined to dismiss this as hyperbole, but the matter requires further investigation and elucidation.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab THE ROAD TO YORK. The most obvious implication is that this road leads from Nottingham to York and corresponds in its southern section to the A614. This through route leaves Watling Street at Stony Stratford (SP 7940) in Buckinghamshire ( as the A508), passing through Northampton and Leicester to Nottingham, then onwards to York via Blyth and Doncaster. An alternative as far as Doncaster is what is now the A60 passing through Mansfield and Worksop.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab HINDERS THE PASSAGE OF SHIPS. The Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 naues}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 can mean 'boats'.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab MAKES A DITCH. Such an excavation would narrow or undermine the road. In the borough of Derby according to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p.}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 62, the Abbot of Derby was accused of constructing a ditch (60 feet by two feet) too close to the king's road.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 PERCHES. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The perch is a linear measure, usually reckoned as 16 \'bd feet, 40 of them making a furlong, though a 20-foot perch was in use for measuring woodland until last century; see Zupko, }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Dictionary of English Weights and Measures}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , under perch; see also Grierson, 'Weights and Measures', pp. 80-81 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The Story of Domesday Book}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 120). Perches also appear in NTT 1,20;42. 9,126. 16,9, but there they are part of the two measurements given for pasturable woodland and/or meadow.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab HAS TO PAY A FINE OF \'a38. The use of the Latin}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 habet}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 with an infinitive (of which 'has to' is an exact translation) is idiomatic for }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 emendare debet}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . The strict notion of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 emendare}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is 'to make amends', 'to make compensation' and the 'fine' itself is ex pressed as the means by which compensation is made, literally 'rights the fault by means of eight pounds'.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab See also }{\insrsid6823374 Fleming, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 217 no. 1242.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS FINAL ENTRY on the borough of Nottingham, on folio 280b, the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the account of the borough of Derby. For the notes to this, see DBY B1-16.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 LIST 1\tab [SHIRE CUSTOMS]. These transcribe an English record, since they speak of the Earl, though}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 there was no Earl in 1086 (JRM). The tenses are present.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The two shires of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire were closely linked and shared a sheriff. The Domesday record of the two shires seems to have been approved at a joint session of the shire court; see DBY B15 shires note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 S1\tab KING'S PEACE, GIVEN BY HIS HAND OR SEAL. That is, peace given personally by the king or by someone else on his behalf carrying his seal or the imprint of it.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab A FINE IS PAID BY 18 HUNDREDS [OF "ORAE"]; EACH HUNDRED [OF "ORAE" MAKES] \'a38. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 This particular use of the word 'hundred' describes a fine imposed for a breach of the king's peace, that is a long hundred [120] of "orae", making \'a3 8 at 16d to the "ora". The "ora" was reckoned at both 16d and 20d, the 20d rate generally being thought of as implying payments by tale to allow for clipping, though }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Grierson ('The Monetary System under William I', }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Domesday Book Studies}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 75 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The Story of Domesday Book}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , pp. 112-13)) thinks a 4d allowance is excessive and payments at 20d were widespread; see \{Introduction: Layout and Content of Entries\}.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \'a3 8 is the equivalent of 12 silver marks, though at the rate of 20d to the }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 "ora"}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ; see S3 marks note. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The boroughs of Lincoln (LIN C32) and York (YKS C38) had similar customs. They are also implicit in the provision of the Wantage Code of King Ethelred II (III \'c6thelred, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 c}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . 997), where breach of the peace, given in the assembly of the Five Boroughs, 'is amended by 12 hundred [silver "orae"]', peace given in the meeting of one borough by six and in the wapentake by one. The detailed provisions of the Code are: \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab (1.1) And the peace which the ealdorman or the king's reeve gives in the meeting of}{\insrsid801729 }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 the Five Boroughs, that is to be atoned for with twelve hundred. \par \tab \tab (1.2) And the peace which is given in the meeting of one borough is to be atoned for}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 with six hundred; and that which is given in a wapentake, is to be atoned for with a}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 }{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 hundred, if it is broken; and that which is given in an alehouse, is to be atoned for,}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 if a man is killed, with six half-marks, and if }{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 no one is killed with 12 "orae"}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 [The rate for death would be double that for assault without killing if the rate of 20d to the "ora" is used, but if the 16d rate is used, 30 "orae" would be the equivalent of six half-marks (\'a32: S3 marks note).] \par \tab \tab The translation is from }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 English Historical Documents}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , vol. i. pp. 439-40 no. 43. For the text, which is both in Old English and in Latin, see Liebermann, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 228, and Robertson, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Laws of the Kings of England}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , pp. 64-65, 318-19. See also Stenton, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Anglo-Saxon England}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , pp. 509-10. These 'hundreds' are clearly units of money, as they are in a charter of immunities confirmed on the cathedral church of York successively by King Henry I, King Stephen and King Henry II cited by Round (}{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Feudal England}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 69) from John of Hexham (in Raine, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Priory of Hexham}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 61): }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Si quis enim quemlibet cujuscumque facinoris aut flagitii reum et convictum infra atrium ecclesiae caperet et retineret}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 universali judicio vi hundreth emendabit; si vero infra ecclesiam xii hundreth}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 infra chorum xviii... In hundreth viii librae continentur}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ('For if anyone captures and holds in the precinct of the church someone accused and convicted of any crime or sin, by the judgment of all he will pay a fine of 6 hundred ["orae"], if within the church itself, of 12 hundred, if within the choir, of 18 [hundred] ... \'a3 8 are contained in a hundred'). The mention of these hundreds in the Wantage Code does not prove the existence at that time of the territorial small h undreds that are bound up with carucation, although the latter, which were in existence by 1086, may have become the territory responsible for providing the fine; see }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 242; and \{Introduction: Small Hundreds\}. \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Phillimore printed translation has 'through the 18 Hundreds; each Hundred, \'a38', while the Alecto edition has 'by 18 hundreds, each hundred [paying] \'a38'. Roffe, 'Introduction', }{\i\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 18, says of the territorial hundred: 'Its basic function, however, was related to the maintenance of law and order. Breach of the king's peace in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire was amended by eighteen hundreds, each of which paid \'a38, twelve paying to the king and six to the earl'. (However, in Black and Roffe, }{ \i\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 18, under 'Danish Ora', it is stated that 'breach of the peace was based on a }{\i\insrsid6823374 long hundred}{\insrsid6823374 , i.e. 120, of the same sum 16d x 120d [}{\i\insrsid6823374 sic}{\insrsid6823374 ] = \'a38'.) Fleming, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 217 no. 1243, has: 'In Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, when the King's peace is broken, which has been given by his hand or his seal, a fine is paid throughout eighteen hundreds, with each hundred paying \'a3 8. The King has two-thirds of this fine and the earl a third: that is twelve hundreds pay the king a fine and six the earl'. \par \tab \tab In these translations, it appears that the hundreds envisaged are the territorial units, whereas both the Wantage Code and John of Hexham make clear that these hundreds are sums of money. This territorial interpretation may have been i nfluenced by the presence of the Latin preposition }{\i\insrsid6823374 per}{\insrsid6823374 . This is evident in Fleming's translation 'throughout eighteen hundreds'. However, although }{\i\insrsid6823374 per}{\insrsid6823374 was originally spatial in sense ('through', 'throughout'), it is used in Classical Latin and commonly in Medieval Latin as an alternative for the Ablative of the Agent (as a substitute for the preposition }{\i\insrsid6823374 a}{\insrsid6823374 or }{ \i\insrsid6823374 ab}{\insrsid6823374 ) or for the Instrumental Ablative ('by means of') which itself appears as a plain case without preposition and could therefore mislead. It is this a blative that is used in the Latin version of the Wantage Code, for example }{\i\insrsid6823374 emendetur xii hund}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 redis}{\insrsid6823374 ] ('compensation should be made by 12 hundreds') and }{\i\insrsid6823374 pax quae dabitur in ealahus emendetur de homine occiso sex dimidiis marcis, de vivo duodecim oris }{\insrsid6823374 (liter ally 'for [the breaking of] peace which shall be given in an alehouse, compensation should be paid by six half-marks concerning a man killed and by 12 "orae" concerning [a man injured but] alive'.The meaning of the present text }{\i\insrsid6823374 em}{ \insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 en}{\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\insrsid6823374 da}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 tur}{\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\insrsid6823374 p}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 er}{\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\insrsid6823374 xviii. hundrez}{\insrsid6823374 and of YKS C38 }{\i\insrsid6823374 emendatur p}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 er}{\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\insrsid6823374 xii hund}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 dreda}{\insrsid6823374 ] appears to be identical (apart from the Nottinghamshire figures and the mood of }{\i\insrsid6823374 emendatur}{\insrsid6823374 ) with the Wantage Code's }{\i\insrsid6823374 emendetur xii hund}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 redis}{\insrsid6823374 ]. What Domesday contains and the Wantage Code does not is a fine for breach of the peace given by the king's own hand. In the Wantage Code the fine of twelve hundred is for breach of peace given by the ealdorman or king's reeve.}{\i\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab It follows that these hundreds are amounts of money and when in the present entry the Latin reads }{\i\insrsid6823374 Vnu}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 m}{\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\insrsid6823374 q}{\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\insrsid6823374 uo}{\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\insrsid6823374 dq}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 ue}{\insrsid6823374 ] }{\i\insrsid6823374 hund}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 dredum}{\insrsid6823374 ] .}{\i\insrsid6823374 viii. lib}{ \insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 rae}{\insrsid6823374 ] and in YKS C38 }{\i\insrsid6823374 un}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 um}{\insrsid6823374 ] }{\i\insrsid6823374 q}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 uo}{\insrsid6823374 ]}{ \i\insrsid6823374 dq}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 ue}{\insrsid6823374 ] }{\i\insrsid6823374 hund}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 redum}{\insrsid6823374 ] .}{\i\insrsid6823374 viii librae}{\insrsid6823374 , the meaning is 'each hundred [of "orae"] is [equivalent to] \'a38'. The phrasing of LIN C32 is similar in that it has }{\i\insrsid6823374 emendatur p}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 er}{\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\insrsid6823374 xviii hundrez }{ \insrsid6823374 ('a fine is paid by 18 hundreds [of "orae"]'), but that is followed by }{\i\insrsid6823374 un}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 um}{\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\insrsid6823374 q}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 uo}{\insrsid6823374 ]}{ \i\insrsid6823374 dq}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 ue}{\insrsid6823374 ] }{\i\insrsid6823374 hund}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 redum}{\insrsid6823374 ] }{\i\insrsid6823374 soluit .viii. libras}{\insrsid6823374 . Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 soluit}{\insrsid6823374 (' pays') fits better with the notion of a territorial hundred and it would be wrong to force it to mean 'amounts to', though 'renders' would suit the notion of a hundred "orae" producing \'a3 8. Nonetheless it is possible that the scribe himself was momentarily thinking of the territorial unit but the translation adopted for that entry ('12 hundreds [of "orae"] are the fine paid to the king and 6 to the earl') does not violate the Latin. \par \tab \tab Despite this, it appears that there is nothing in these several Domesday entries that clearly indicates that these hundreds were units of land. Examples from before and after Domesday show that these are units of money and it would be strange if Domesday in adopting very similar provisions from Ethelred's Code couched in nearly identical phrasing should at the same time be supplanting one meaning of 'hundred' with an entirely different one.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab ARE THE FINE PAID. The Latin (extended) is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 xii hundreda emendant regi et vi comiti}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , literally, '12 hundreds [of "orae"] repair the fault/ expiate the crime to the king and 6 to the earl'; see S1 hundreds note}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab THE EARL THE THIRD. See B2 pennies note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space, possibly to separate the important fine for breach of the peace from the other fines and dues.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 S2\tab FOR ANY CRIME. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 pro aliquo reatu}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , literally 'for any state of being accused', }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 reus}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 being 'a man accused' and }{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 reatus}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 his situation in so being.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 See also }{\insrsid6823374 Fleming, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 217 no. 1244.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab TO HIM. The }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday added }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ei}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 in slightly darker ink and sm aller letters, oddly hard up against the preceding word, though there was plenty of space before the vertical score delimiting the ruled space of this column.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 S3\tab A THANE WHO HAS MORE THAN 6 MANORS. For a similar provision, see YKS C40. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 See also }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Fleming, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Do mesday Book and the Law}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 217 no. 1245. She omits to translate both occurrences of }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 tantum}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ('to the king }{\ul\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 alone}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ' and '}{ \ul\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 only}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 6 [manors] or less') and renders the subjunctive }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 maneat}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ('wherever he }{\ul\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 may}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 live') by an indicative; she also seems to 'translate' }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ubicunque}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ('wherever') as 'whether'.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab DEATH-DUTY. The }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 relevatio}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 or}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 relevium}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 the 'relief' or 'heriot', was paid by the heir on taking up his inheritance. The scale of rates was laid down in the law codes, especially 2 Canute}{\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 71 and 'Laws of King William' 20 [= Robertson, }{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Laws of the Kings of England}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , pp. 210-11, 262-63]. The }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 villanus }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 paid an ox, cow or horse, the }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 censarius}{\insrsid6823374 }{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 (10,3 tributaries note) a year's tribute (JRM).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab 3 SILVER MARKS. A silver mark was worth 13s 4d, so 3 silver marks were worth \'a32. This is at a reckoning of 20d to the "ora", as the mark contained 8 "orae" in England as in Scandinavia (Stenton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Anglo-Saxon England}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 510). If the "ora" is the lighter one (= 16d), then 8 "orae" would be the equivalent of 10s 8d and three would be 32s. See Grierson, 'The Monetary System under William I', }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Domesday Book Studies}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 75 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 The Story of Domesday Book}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , pp. 112-13); he only mentions that the mark was worth 13s 4d. According to Black and Roffe, }{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 18, under 'Danish Ora', the mark consisted of 10 "orae" at 16d.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 S4\tab A THANE WHO HAS FULL JURISDICTION. Despite the tense (List 1 customs note), this refers to the situation in 1066, when many men, among them, no doubt, a number of thanes, held land with full jurisdiction; see, for example, HUN 11,1. NTH 1,27. 2,1-2. 3,1. 4,1;8. 5,2-3. 16,2. 18,1. Such men are not normally described explicitly as thanes, but in NTH 48,4 four thanes held Wollaston with full jurisdiction. On the meaning of 'full jurisdicti on', see B14 jurisdiction note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab FORFEITS HIS LAND. The Latin verb }{\i\insrsid6823374 forisfacio}{\insrsid6823374 , a compound of }{\i\insrsid6823374 foris}{\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\insrsid6823374 facio}{\insrsid6823374 , means 'to make outside', 'put beyond', and refers to the loss of the use of a piece of land as punishment for a crime or sin. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab See also }{\insrsid6823374 Fleming, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 217 no. 1246. She treats }{\i\insrsid6823374 forisfecerit }{\insrsid6823374 as subjunctive ('should forfeit'). It is much more likely to be future perfect ('shall have forfeited') as commonly in such clauses, usually rendered by the present indicative ('forfeits') in accordance with normal English usage. The }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Phillimore printed translation has 'should forfeit', but }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 the Alecto edition has 'forfeits'.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab POSSESSIONS. Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 pecunia}{\insrsid6823374 has several meanings, including livestock (the word comes from }{\i\insrsid6823374 pecus}{\insrsid6823374 , 'flock', 'herd') and money, and has to be translated according to the context. Thus in LEC 6,4, it must refer to the resources of an estate having been included in the previous entry. Here it probably means all that he owns. The Phillimore printed translation has 'money', the Alecto edition 'resources' and Fleming, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 217 no. 1246, has 'goods'.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space to separate the shire customs from the list of those who had full jurisdiction and market rights etc.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 S5\tab LIST OF THOSE WHO HAD. In keeping with the customs themselves, this is a list that refers to 1066, although Earl Hugh, Henry of Ferrers and Walter of Aincourt only arrived at or after the Conquest. The see of Lichfield was only transferre d to Chester in 1075, so the mention of a Bishop of Chester is also anachronistic; see }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 231}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . On this section, see}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Fleming, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Domesday Book and the Law}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 217 no. 1247. \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hic notant' qui habuer'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 over an erasure.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab FULL JURISDICTION. The number of those having full jurisdiction in 1066 will greatly have exceeded those on this list; thus the phrase is to be take in conjunction with 'full market rights'. Tho se listed were the rare possessors of both.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 On the meaning of 'full jurisdiction', see B14 jurisdiction note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab MARKET RIGHTS. }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Thaim}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 is}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 jurisdiction over disputed 'warranty'; in connection with }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 toll}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{ \insrsid6823374 it is }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 probably concerned with the seller's title to cattle and other goods taken to market (JRM).}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Thol 7 Thaim}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , from Old English }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 toll}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('tax') and }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 team }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('cattle'), is more commonly translated 'toll and team', as (for example) in the Alecto translation. It means the 'right to receive tolls on merchandise and probably to hold a market', according to the Glossary in }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Domesday Book Studies}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 .}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab THE KING'S CUSTOMARY DUES OF 2 PENNIES. That is, the two pennies that usually went to the king when revenues were divided two-th irds/ one-third between king and earl; see B2 pennies note. The earl (there being one in 1066) still received his.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab ARCHBISHOP OF YORK OVER HIS MANORS. See NTT 5.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab COUNTESS GODIVA OVER NEWARK WAPENTAKE. See NTT 6,1 and 6,1 dues note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of her name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Godeua}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Godeue}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Godiua}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Godgeua}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc. - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Godgifu}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 264. JRM preferred the form Godiva as it reflected most of the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Godgifu.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab ULF FENMAN. He was the predecessor of Gilbert of Ghent; see 17,1 Ulf note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of his Christian name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Olf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wlf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc. - represent Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ulfr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ulf}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p p. 400-401. Ulfr appears in the Phillimore printed translations for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, but has been standardized now as Ulf. The Alecto edition has Ulf.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab According to Tengvik, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Old English Bynames}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 135, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 fenisc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is Old Scandinavian }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 fjonski}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('from Fjon' = F\'fb nen, a Danish island), quoting }{\i\insrsid6823374 EHR }{\insrsid6823374 25 (1910), p. 594 (a review by J\'f3n Stef\'e1nsson of }{\i\insrsid6823374 Nordische Personennamen in England in alt- und fr\'fchmittelenglischer Zeit}{\insrsid6823374 ); Tengvik rejects derivation from Scandinavian }{\i\insrsid6823374 fe-niskr }{\insrsid6823374 ('niggard'). However, }{\i\insrsid6823374 fenisc}{\insrsid6823374 may be 'Fenish', 'from the Fens', though this may imply more than 'from the fens', possibly that he was an expert on water-flow or drainage.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab THE ABBOT OF PETERBOROUGH OVER COLLINGHAM. See NTT 8,1.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab THE ABBOT OF BURTON. See DBY 3.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab EARL HUGH OVER MARKEATON. See DBY 4,1. Earl Siward had held it in 1066. On the name Hugh, see B3 Hugh note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab THE BISHOP OF CHESTER. See DBY 2. In 1066 the bishop's seat was at Lichfield.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *]. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Tochi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Toka}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Toche}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Toke}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Tocha}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Tochil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thoka}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Toca}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Toco}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Tocho}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Tohe}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Toc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc. - represent Old Norse/Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Toki}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 385-86; see note 5 on the Toki here and elsewhere in Nottinghamshire, as also in DBY, NTH, LEC, YKS and LIN being the son of Auti.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 On this important }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 landholder, see Foster and Longley, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Lincolnshire Domesday}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. xxx; see also }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 231;}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Derbyshire} {\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 305; }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Northamptonshire}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 292.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday form of his father's name is }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Outi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (LIN C4. T5). The other Domesday forms of Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Auti}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 are }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Auti(us)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alti(us)}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 169; see Fellows Jensen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 43-44. There is a }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Tochi f}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ilius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Otta}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in YKS C36, who had virtually identical rights in York as Toki son of Auti did in Lincoln and as Toki here. However, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Otta}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 represents Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Otti}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 according to von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 342; but see Fellows Jensen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 208. Neither she nor von Feilitzen, nor Tengvik, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Old English Bynames}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 193, made the link between }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Tochi filius Outi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Tochi filius Otta}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and it is possible that as both }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Auti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Otti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 were Old Danish names there were two people with sons called Toki, but it is also possible, in view of the position of both men in Lincoln and York and of Toki here, that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Otta}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (interlined in YKS C36) is a scribal error at some stage in the Domesday process for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Outi}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . The Alecto edition has Toki and Auti and Toki son of Auti for YKS C36.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On Toki being one of Geoffrey Alselin's chief predecessors, see 12,1 Toki note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab SWEIN SON OF SVAVI.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of Swein - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Suain}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Suen}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Suuen}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Suein}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Suuain}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Suan}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Suuan}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Suin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] etc. - represent Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sveinn}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Danish/Old Swedish }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sven}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 380-81. JRM preferred the form Swein. In the Phillimore printed editions of Y orkshire and Lincolnshire this name appears as Sveinn, but has been standardized for the present edition. The Alecto edition also has Swein. The Domesday form of his father's name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Suaue}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (genitive), represents Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Svavi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 380. It appears as Swafi in the Phillimore printed edition. The Alecto edition has Svavi.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Swein son of Svavi only appears as such here and in LIN C9 and T5; in the latter he also had full jurisdiction and market rights , as here. The Swein who was Roger of Bully's predecessor may have been Svavi's son (see 9,31 Swein note), but there is no evidence that any of the other men simply called Swein who held in Nottinghamshire in 1066 were this individual. Swein was a very co mmon name.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab SIWARD BARN. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of his Christian name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Siuuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Seuuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Seuuar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Seiard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Seiar }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - probably represent Old Danish }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sigwarth}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 rather than Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sigeweard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 361-63. JRM preferred the form Siward as it is in regular use. The Alecto edition also has Siward. His byname is Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Barn}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 192. This is the only reference to Siward Barn in Domesda y Nottinghamshire, but he appears in LIN T5 as having full jurisdiction and market rights in that county, as he did here. He was }{\insrsid6823374 Henry of Ferrers' predecessor in one of his Warwickshire estates (WAR 19,1, but probably 19,2-3 as well), as also in GLS 59,1 and LIN 21,1, and his predecessor Siward here (24,1-2), in DBY }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 6,5;14;17;54;57;66;69-70;79;100}{ \insrsid6823374 and in BRK 21,11;18 was probably Siward Barn. He was the man who joined Hereward the Wake in 1071 in rebellion on the Isle of Ely, and not the same as Siward, Earl of Northumbria (}{\i\insrsid6823374 pace}{\insrsid6823374 the Phillimore printed edition of Derbyshire note to 4,1); see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 234; }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. pp. 300-301}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ;}{\insrsid6823374 von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 361, note 7.}{\cf1\striked1\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab AZUR SON OF SVALA. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of Azur - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Azor}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Azur}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Azer}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Atser}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Azorius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Atsur}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Assorin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] - represent Old Danish/Old Swedish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Azur}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 170-71. In the Phillimore printed edition this name is generally rendered Azor, but Atsurr in YKS and LIN. The Alecto edition has Azur.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of Svala - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Saleua}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sualeua}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent the Old Norse feminine name }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Svala}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 378. The Phillimore printed edition has Saleva. The Alecto edition has Svala. She only appears twice in Domesday Book, both times as the mother of Azur: here and in LIN T5, where Azur son of Svala also had full jurisdiction and market rights.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab YOUNG WULFRIC. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vluric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlricus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlfric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wluric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wlfricus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wlfuricus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlfriz}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc. - represent Old English }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wulfric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 423-24. The Alecto edition has Wulfric. }{\i\insrsid6823374 Cilt}{\insrsid6823374 means a young man of noble birth, translated by plain 'young' or 'child' in the Phillimore printed edition. }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Alecto edition has Cild.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab There is no other occurrence of a Wulfric designated }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 cilt}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 in either Nottinghamshire or Derbyshire, but there are several references to men simply called Wulfric in both counties. It was a common name and therefore hard to tell whether any of them refer to Young Wulfric.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab ALSI "ILLING". }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of his Christian name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alsi}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alsius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Elsi}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aelsi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alsicus}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alsidus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc. - could represent Old English }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6lfsige}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6thelsige}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or perhaps Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ealdsige}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ealhsige}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 151-52, under }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Al-sige}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , see also p. 142, under }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Al-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -si for the Old English }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 -sige}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , as that is what is found in the vast majority of instances in Domesday. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Alecto edition has Alsige . }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 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 }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 -f-}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 or }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 -v- }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 which JRM thought was necessary for it to be included under Alfsi (a few of them appear in }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 180, under Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6lfsige}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , and on pp. 187-88, under Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6thelsige}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ). The Alecto edition has Alsige for those that appear there under Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6lfsige}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On his byname (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 jllinge}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), which could represent a number of Old English or Old German personal names, see }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Tengvik, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Old English Bynames}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 144. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Alecto edition has [of] Illing, but there appears to be no English place with this name and no reason to think that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 jllinge}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is a toponym rather than a patronymic. }{\insrsid6823374 Fleming, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 217 no. 1247, has 'of Illing', though there is no word for 'of' in the text. \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 This is the only reference to an Alsi with this byname in Domesday Book.}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 He is clearly distinguished in this list from Alsi son of Karski, the }{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 holder of Worksop (9,43). Otherwise it is difficult to identify Alsi "Illing" with any of the 1066 holders simply called Alsi in Derbyshire (DBY 6,11) and Nottinghamshire (2,7. 9,2;77;90;95. 14,5). Of these, the Alsi of 14,5 can probably be ruled out, as he had no hall. An Alsi was the predecessor of Roger of Bully in several estates (NTT 9) and some or all of these might be Alsi "Illing", but this assumes that Alsi son of Kars ki held only Worksop.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab LEOFWIN SON OF ALWIN. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of Leofwin - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leuuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leuuine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lefuuinus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Liuuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] etc. - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leofwine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 317-19. JRM preferred the second element -win for Old English }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -wine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 as it is closer to the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Leofwine.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his father's name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aluuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aluuine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\insrsid6823374 Aeluuin}{ \insrsid6823374 (}{\i\insrsid6823374 us}{\insrsid6823374 ),}{\i\insrsid6823374 Aeluin}{\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\insrsid6823374 us}{\insrsid6823374 ),}{\i\insrsid6823374 Aluin}{\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\insrsid6823374 us}{\insrsid6823374 ),}{\i\insrsid6823374 Eluuine, Eluuin}{\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\insrsid6823374 us}{\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\insrsid6823374 , Eluinus}{\insrsid6823374 - could represent Old English }{\i\insrsid6823374 \'c6lfwine, }{\insrsid6823374 Old English }{\i\insrsid6823374 \'c6thelwine}{ \insrsid6823374 , Old English }{\i\insrsid6823374 Ealdwine}{\insrsid6823374 or even Old English }{\i\insrsid6823374 Ealhwine}{\insrsid6823374 :}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p}{\insrsid6823374 p. 158-60, under }{\i\insrsid6823374 Al-wine}{\insrsid6823374 , and see also p. 142, under } {\i\insrsid6823374 Al-}{\insrsid6823374 . JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -win to Old English }{\i\insrsid6823374 -wine}{\insrsid6823374 , as it reflected the form of the majority of instances in Domesday. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Alecto edition has Alwine for those appearing under }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Al-wine}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . }{\insrsid6823374 Some of those called Alwin in the present edition appear under Old English }{\i\insrsid6823374 \'c6lfwine}{\insrsid6823374 in }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. }{\insrsid6823374 181, but the Domesday forms (}{\i\insrsid6823374 Aluuinus, Aluinus, Eluuius}{\insrsid6823374 ) do not contain the }{\i\insrsid6823374 -f- }{\insrsid6823374 or}{\i\insrsid6823374 \endash v-}{\insrsid6823374 that JRM thought was necessary for inclusion unde r that name. Some also appear under Old English }{\i\insrsid6823374 \'c6thelwine}{\insrsid6823374 in }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p}{\insrsid6823374 p. 190-91, but the Domesday forms (}{\i\insrsid6823374 Aeluuinus, Aluuine, Aluuin}{\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\insrsid6823374 us}{\insrsid6823374 ) }{\i\insrsid6823374 , Aluinus}{\insrsid6823374 ) do not contain the }{\i\insrsid6823374 -d-}{\insrsid6823374 or }{\i\insrsid6823374 -g-}{\insrsid6823374 which JRM thought was the r equisite 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. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Leofwin son of Alwin also appears among those who had full jurisdiction and market rights in Lincolnshire (LIN T5), but as Leofwin was a very common name it has been impossible to identify him with any of the men called simply Leofwin in either No}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ttinghamshire or Derbyshire.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab COUNTESS AELFEVA. She is not recorded as holding any land in her own right in Derbyshire or Nottinghamshire, though she had held in Leicestershire and her fief (LEC 12) was still intact in 1086 after her death. However, she had been the wife of Earl Algar who is recorded as having held two estates in Nottinghamshir e (1,59. 27,1).}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of her name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alueua}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aelueua}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alueue}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Elueua}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Elfgiuae}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aluiua}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aueue}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6lfgifu}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 173-74. JRM preferred Aelfeva as it reflected more closely the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 lfgifu.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab COUNTESS GODA [* GYTHA *]. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of her Christian name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Goda}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gode}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent the feminine Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gode}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 263. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Goda}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is a masculine Old English name, but as it is obvious that in Domesday the two names coalesced and as the countess is regularly called 'Goda', it was decided by JRM and accepted by JMcND that she should be called Countess Goda. The Alecto edition has Countess Gode, except in Buckinghamshire, where it has Countess Goda, probably in error.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab However, it would seem that at some stage in the Domesday process the name of Countess Goda (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Goda}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 here, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gode}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in 10,5 and 23,1) was confused with that of Countess Gytha; see 10,5 Gytha note.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab ALSI SON OF KARSKI OVER WORKSOP. On the name Alsi, see S5 Alsi note. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of his father's name - }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Caschin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Caschi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent the hypothetical Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Karski}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 302. The Phillimore printed translation has Kaskin, but the Old Norse form has been chosen for the present edition. The Alecto edition has Karski. An Alsi had held the manor of Worksop before Roger of Bully (}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 9,43). On Karski, see 9,35 Karski note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab HENRY OF FERRERS OVER EDNASTON AND DOVERIDGE AND BRAILSFORD. See DBY 9,3. 6,25;40. These had been held by Toki [* son of Auti *], Earl Edwin and Earl Waltheof respectively. Possession of Ednaston is a ttributed by Domesday to Geoffrey Alselin. \par \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday form of Henry, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Henric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), represents Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Heinric, Henric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Henri}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 147; see also von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 289. JRM preferred the common name Henry, which has survived into modern times. The Alecto edition also has Henry.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab WALTER OF AINCOURT OVER GRANBY AND MORTON AND PILSLEY. Granby had been held by Hemming as a manor in 1066 (11,26). Morton was a Jurisdiction of Southwell, a manor of the Archbishop of York, which appears also in Walter's fief (11,16). Pilsley (with Owlcotes and Williamthorpe) was a manor held by Young Swein in 1066 that passed to Walter (DBY 8,3).}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of Walter - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Walterius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Walterus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Galter}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Walter}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gaultier}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : Forssner, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 243-44. The Alecto edition has Walter.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab EXCEPT FOR. This sentence is made uncle ar by the number of sub-clauses. The sense seems to be that the archbishop, Ulf Fenman and Countess Godiva could have the third penny that normally belonged to the earl and his assent was not required for this. In the case of the others, the earl had to g i ve his assent and it did not bind his successors who could renew or withdraw the assent after the earl's death. Understanding is made easier by the fact that Countess Godiva held Newark-on-Trent (6,1) of which it is said 'All the customary dues of the kin g and the earl from this wapentake are attached to Newark-on-Trent'.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab THE ARCHBISHOP. That is, the Archbishop of York.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space, presumably so that the list in this entry should be separate from the note on Clifton.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 S6\tab CONCERNING THE JURISDICTION WHICH IS AN ADJUNCT OF CLIFTON. The Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 super socam }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 introduces a new topic: 'Now, on the subject of the jurisdiction... '. The Phillimore printed translation has 'Over the jurisdiction ... '. The same translation also has 'which lies in Clifton', but this confuses Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 iacet ad}{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 with }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 iacet in}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ; see 1,66 adjunct note. The Alecto edition has 'Over the soke which belongs to Clifton ....'.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Clifton intended appears to be the manor held by Countess Gytha (already mentioned above as holding full jurisdiction and market rights) which was a multiple estate with a head manor (10,5) and nine places specifically designated as Jurisdictions (10,8-11;13-14) to which can probably be added Barton-in-Fabis (10,7) a nd Adbolton (10,12).}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab THE EARL OUGHT TO HAVE. Countess Gytha was married to Earl Ralph of Hereford, but the earl intended is no doubt the Earl of Northumbria or of Mercia; see\{Introduction: Administration of the Shire\} . The information relates to 1066, and is out of date in its detail, so the king would be entitled to all the dues and services in 1086, unless he had granted a third to some individual such as the sheriff or a prominent Norman; see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 228.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab THE THIRD PART OF ALL CUSTOMARY DUES AND WORK . The Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 terciam partem omnium consuetudinum 7 operum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 . Strictly speaking there is some duplication here as }{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 consuetudines}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 cover both customary payments and customary services, the second often being commuted to payment in money. The Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 operum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 is plural and implies customary labour services; see B1 work note. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab See also }{\insrsid6823374 Fleming, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 218 no. 1248.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left the rest of the column blank, as also half of the next one (folio 280d).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 L\tab LIST OF LANDHOLDERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote this list with a finer pen and slightly darker ink than he had used for the account of the boroughs of Nottingham and Derby and their shared customs (folio 280a-c). In other co unties in Great Domesday Book the landholders' list sometimes shows signs of being inserted at a different time to the immediately preceding and/or succeeding text. In the case of Nottinghamshire the inclusion of Count Alan, Earl Hugh and the Count of Mor tain (L2-4) before, rather than after, the ecclesiastical landholders proves that it was written after the insertion of the half-sheet containing their fiefs; see NTT 2 fief note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab IN 'ROTELAND'. In 1086, the northern two-thirds of the later county of Rutla nd were attached to Nottinghamshire, the southern third (Witchley Wapentake) was an integral part of Northamptonshire. For this reason the eleventh-century land-unit is referred to here as 'Roteland', which is the form generally used in the survey of that area on folios 293c-294a. The attachment of 'Roteland', that is, of the wapentakes of Alstoe and 'Martinsley', to Nottinghamshire was fiscal: 'These two wapentakes are attached to the sheriffdom of Nottingham for the King's tax' (RUT R3). A half of Alstoe Wapentake (presumably one of its hundreds) was included in the assessment of the Nottinghamshire wapentake of Thurgarton, the other half in Broxtowe Wapentake. This arrangement was probably quite recent and the result both of 'Roteland''s complicated hist ory and the re-rating of Nottinghamshire for tax. See RUT R3 Nottingham note; RUT \{Introduction: History\} and NTT \{Introduction: Carucation\}.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The landholders in 'Roteland' are given in the normal way, as a list of seven holders, beginning with the king. H owever, the text of 'Roteland' itself is arranged territorially, that is by wapentakes, and the main scribe of Great Domesday had some difficulty in reconciling feudal chapters with a text in which the prime divisions are wapentakal, then hundredal; see R UT \{Introduction: Writing\}.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 L5\tab THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 eboracensis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 over erasure, using a finer pen, but writing it larger than the preceding }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Archiep's}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in order to cover an original longer word. This correction would seem to have been done at the same time as three in Lincolnshire; see LIN 22,26 villagers note. Next to it, in the centre margin, was written a horizontal line with a dot above it, similar t o the one in the outer margin of folio 281b (see 1,20 margin note) and one interlined above the last line of folio 38d (HAM 1,28). Marginal signs like this, sometimes with two dots (as on folio 281b), were commonly used in contemporary manuscripts to indi c ate a correction or amendment that needed to be made; one appears in the margin of one of the other manuscripts written by the main scribe of Great Domesday next to a correction over erasure (Oxford, Trinity College 28, folio 90r). This one was written in vermilion and was almost certainly done during rubrication because the scribe noticed an error (corrected later by the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 eboracensis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ). Sometimes these signs were erased when the correction had been made. It was reproduced in both the }{\insrsid6823374 Ordnance Survey facsimile and the Alecto facsimile; however, Farley did not print it.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1\tab THIS FIEF was not given the number }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 I}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 by the main scribe of Great Domesday; he failed to do this in a number of counties for some reason.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND OF THE KING. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 King William, known as 'the Conquero r', 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, he invaded England and seized the English throne in 1066 having defeated the uncrowned English King Ha rold, son of Godwin, at the battle of Hastings. William himself was crowned in Westminster Abbey on 25}{\up6\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 th}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 December 1066 and ruled England until his death in 1087. In 1050 or 1051 he married Matilda, daughter of Baldwin V, Count of Flanders, who predeceased h im. 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). \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Land of the King contains 66 entries, but many fewer manors. These manors with their dependencies had been held by a small number of individuals: King Edward, Earls Tosti, Algar and Morcar an d by an Alwin. The core of the royal lands consisted of five great manors, Dunham-on-Trent (1,1), Bothamsall (1,9), Mansfield (1,23), Arnold (1,45) and Orston (1,51); see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 214}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . All, except Bothamsall, had been held by King Edward; Bothamsall was held by Earl Tosti and had probably been a royal grant to him or a predecessor in recognition of his office.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The first 62 entries are arranged by wapentakes in standard county order, the sequence being 1,1-22 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, 1,23-50 Broxtowe Wapentake and 1,51-57 Bingham Wapentake; see \{ Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes\}. The chapter ends with a s ingle entry for Thurgarton Wapentake (1,63), out of sequence, probably because the main scribe of Great Domesday initially missed it, then with three later additions (1,64-66). If this standard order is the product of the way material was brought before t he shire court, wapentake by wapentake, to be sworn to, then the fact that the order of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Terra Regis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is not different to that in other fiefs undermines the contention of David Roffe ('Introduction', }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 2-3) that this chapter em anated from a separate stage of the enquiry or from a separate survey of royal lands.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab The order is: \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14162963 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid6506150 \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts48\trgaph108\trleft-108\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 \trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr \brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4608\clshdrawnil \cellx4500\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4248\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid8589712\yts48 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963 }{ \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid6506150 Wapentake; Place; Status\cell }{\i\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963 }{\i\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid6506150 T.R.E. }{ \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid6506150 Holder\cell }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid6506150 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts48\trgaph108\trleft-108\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv \brdrs\brdrw10 \trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb \brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4608\clshdrawnil \cellx4500\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4248\clshdrawnil \cellx8748 \row }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid8589712\yts48 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid6506150 'BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE \par 1,1-8 Dunham-on-Trent (manor) \par 1,9-16 Bothamsall (manor) \par 1,17-21 Grimston (manor?) \par [1,22 Farnsfield in Thurgarton Wapentake (status uncertain)] \par \par BROXTOWE WAPENTAKE \par 1,23-43 Mansfield (manor) \par [1,44 Saundby (serjeanty?) \par 1,45-50 Arnold (manor) \par \par BINGHAM WAPENTAKE \par 1,51-57 Orston (manor) \par 1,58 'Newbold' (manor) \par 1,59-60 Upper Broughton (manor) \par 1,61 Flintham (manor) \par [1,62 Kneeton (Jurisdiction of Flintham?)] \par \par [THURGARTON WAPENTAKE] \par 1,63 Sneinton (status not given) \par \par ADDED ENTRIES \par \par [NEWARK WAPENTAKE] \par 1,64 Meering (status unknown) \par \par ['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE] \par 1,65 Misson (Jurisdiction of Kirton-in-Lindsey in Lincolnshire) \par 1,66 Misson (Jurisdiction of Laughton in Lincolnshire) \par \par \cell \par King Edward \par Earl Tosti \par ? \par ? \par \par \par \par King Edward \par ? \par King Edward \par \par \par King Edward \par Earl Morcar \par Earl Algar \par Alwin \par Alwin? \par \par \par King Edward (B19) \par \par \par \par \par William \par \par \par Tosti \par }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\highlight5\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid6506150 \par }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid6506150 Ulfgrim? (holder of Laughton: LIN 57,7)\cell }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid6506150 \trowd \irow1\irowband1\lastrow \ts48\trgaph108\trleft-108\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 \trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt \brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4608\clshdrawnil \cellx4500\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4248\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14162963 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963 \par }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid801729 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab In many, but not all, cases the outliers and Jurisdictions were in the same wapentake as their manor. Domesday rarely indicates where there is a difference and, in line with this, wapen take heads which would show this have not been entered in the text of this edition. However, it is noteworthy that in 1,31 the main scribe of Great Domesday indicated that the remaining members of Mansfield (itself in Broxtowe Wapentake) lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake: 'Also Jurisdiction in Oswaldbeck Wapentake'. \par \tab \tab A significant number of estates were shared by the king and Roger of Bully, who had the most important fief in Nottinghamshire, although he had no known position of authority in the shire. These est ates had presumably been granted from royal land, possibly by King William to Roger himself, in which case their various 1066 holders had presumably been holding them from the king. They are listed in NTT 9 Roger note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 1,1\tab WAPENTAKE. This was the equivalent of the hundred in Danish areas. The Nottinghamshire wapentakes are}{\insrsid6823374 normally entered in the same order in each chapter. Domesday enters }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 headings for manors only. Dependencies are often in different wapentakes (JRM). See \{Introduction: Wapentakes\}.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab DUNHAM[-ON-TRENT]. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086, as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The manor and its constituent parts are surveyed in 1,1-8. All the outliers and Jurisdictions wit h the possible exception of Little Gringley (1,4 Gringley note) seem to have lain in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WITH 4 OUTLIERS. They all appear to have lain in the same wapentake ('Bassetlaw' Wapentake) as Dunham-on-Trent itself.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab RAGNALL. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Dunham-on-Trent. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086, as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228; in the latter source (p. 233), it is listed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 'WHIMPTON'. This was a settlement in Ragnall Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. It is represented on the map by the site of the deserted village of Whimpton (SK791738) and by Whimpton Moor (SK788740). For the identification, see Pryce and Dobson, 'Whimpton, Nottinghamshire'; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 57.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab DARLTON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Dunham-on-Trent. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109. In the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233, it is listed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 'SWANSTON'. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Dunham-on-Trent. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086, like Dunham-on-Trent itself; see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 49. It is located at SK }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 c}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .810750 in }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Beresford and Hurst, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Deserted Medieval Villages}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 201.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab EDWARD. On this name, see B19 Edward note.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab CARUCATES. The carucate was the equivalent in the Danish areas of the hide; comprising 8 bovates. 96 or 48 carucates to the wapentake seems to be the Nottinghamshire norm (JRM).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab NOW THE KING HAS 2 PLOUGHS IN LORDSHIP; 50 VILLAGERS AND 3 SMALLHOLDERS. The Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 uill}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ' could be extended to either the nominative }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 uillani}{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 (as in 10,53-54) or the accusative }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 uillanos}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 after }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 h}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 abe}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 t}{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 (as definitely twice in 5,1, and apparently in 1,9. 5,9. 7,6. 9,96;121;127;130. 10,16. 15,7. 16,2. 17,1;14. 30,6-7;19;25;31-32;34;38-39;43;45;50;52, and for the Freemen - }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 soch}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 mannos}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ] - being in the accusative case, see 9,69;88;94;120;126. 30,1;46-48); the case of the smallholders is also unknown. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Phillimore printed translation opts for the accusative, putting 'and' after the lordship ploughs}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 but elsewhere JRM preferred to preserve the ambiguity of the Latin by putting a semi-colon after the lordship ploughs and this has been followed for the present edition. The Alecto edition has a semi-colon. This ambiguity occurs frequently elsewhere in Do mesday Nottinghamshire, including in the entries where there is further ambiguity and which are listed in 1,1 fishery note. No further reference is made in these notes to this replacement of 'and' by a semi-colon, but s}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ee 6,12 villagers note. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The situation is complicated by the presence of the accusative case in the fishery and acres of meadow; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On the appearance of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 modo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('now') here, which occurs some dozen times in this county with the lordship statement and which was perhaps not edited out of a fuller preceding text containing the lordship details in 1066, see DBY 1,9 now note. Compare 4,6 now note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab FISHERY ... MEADOW, 120 ACRES. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 piscari\'e2 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ... }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 cxx. ac}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ra }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 s p}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ra}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ti}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , where }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 piscariam}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 acras}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 are both accusative; the case of the preceding mill is unclear. These resources could be the object of either 'the king has' or '50 villagers and 3 smallholders who have'. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Phillimore printed translation puts them all in a separate sentence, but it has been decided here to preserve the ambiguity of the Latin by putting a semi-colon after the 10 ploughs held by the villagers and smallholders. The Alecto edition has a comma there. In Domesday Nottinghamshire the main scribe of Great Domesday frequently used the accusative case for the resources after 'villagers ... who have ... '; see 1,2 meadow note and compare 11,11 meadow note. This ambiguity also occurs in 1,58-59. 2,9. 3,1. 4,3. 5,3. 7,6. 9,3;12;20;28;37;39;41;43;52;65;69;72;76;95. 10,3;9;18;24;31;51;55;59. 11,8;22. 12,1. 13,11. 1 4,7. 15,1. 16,8. 17,11-12;16. 18,7. 20,3;6. 22,1. 23,1. 30,1;3. For an instance of the villagers definitely having the meadow, see B19 acres note, but compare 1,9 meadow note and 10,10 meadow note. Occasionally the main scribe seems to have written }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 acras}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in error for the nominative }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 acrae}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , as in 5,5;8. 9,73. 10,56. 11,28. 24,3. 30,8, often because there are words in the accusative case earlier in the entry or in surrounding entries; see also 9,126 perches note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The main scribe also wrote the pasturable wood land in a separate sentence here, as he frequently did for woodland in other counties, though in the Phillimore printed translation a semi-colon precedes it. The Alecto edition puts it in a new sentence. In the present edition a new sentence has been used for the woodland (pasturable, plain or underwood) in entries where other resources are in the accusative case (that is, those entries listed in the present note, in 1,2 meadow note and 1,9 meadow note), but not in other entries where there can be no ambig uity.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The fishery was no doubt on the River Trent.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab 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 }{\i\insrsid6823374 silua}{ \insrsid6823374 is a noun and }{\i\insrsid6823374 pastilis}{\insrsid6823374 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 }{\i\insrsid6823374 silua pastilis 7 minuta iii leugas longa 7 ii lata}{\insrsid6823374 ('pasturable underwood 3 leagues long and 2 wide'); see also in YKS 11E1 and LIN 13,4. In these cases both }{\i\insrsid6823374 pastilis}{\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\insrsid6823374 minuta}{ \insrsid6823374 are adjectives that describe the }{\i\insrsid6823374 silua}{\insrsid6823374 , 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 }{ \i\insrsid6823374 silua pastilis }{\insrsid6823374 ... }{\i\insrsid6823374 7}{\insrsid6823374 }{\i\insrsid6823374 alia silua }{\insrsid6823374 ... ('pasturable woodland ... and other woodland ... '): clearly the other woodland was not pasturable. \par \tab \tab Great Domesday does not make it clear whether the p asture had been created by assarting or whether the woodland was naturally open. This phrase is not a reference to the pannage of pigs, but essentially replaces the normal entry for woodland combining it with a mention of pasture (principally for the plou gh-oxen). In such cases, separate pasture is rarely mentioned, an exception being in DBY 6,32: }{\i\insrsid6823374 iiii ac' pascuae. Silua pastilis dimidiam leugam longa et dimidiam lata}{\insrsid6823374 . ('pasture, 4 acres. Pasturable woodland \'bd league long and \'bd wide'). In fact throughout De rbyshire, Huntingdonshire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Rutland and Yorkshire, the woodland normally provided the pasture as well. When this was not the case, the scribe tended to note it, as in DBY 1,28;30. 5,5. NTT 14,8. YKS 5N8. 5W5 (}{ \i\insrsid6823374 silua non pastilis}{\insrsid6823374 ; see also NTH 9,6) and YKS 23N10 (}{\i\insrsid6823374 silua sine pastura}{\insrsid6823374 ); see 14,8 woodland note. An apparent exception is HUN 1,10: }{\i\insrsid6823374 l acras siluae pastilis. De pastura xx solidi}{\insrsid6823374 ('50 acres of pasturable woodland. From pasture 20s.'). There, however, there was pasture that exceeded the requirements of the estate and which was a source of income presumably from another village or other villages that lacked this resource. There }{\i\insrsid6823374 pastura}{\insrsid6823374 is really 'pasturage' and the grazing could actually have taken place in the }{\i\insrsid6823374 silua pastilis}{\insrsid6823374 . In LIN 56,16 there is an interesting entry: }{\i\insrsid6823374 Silua pastilis viii quarentinas longa 7 v lata: medietas pascuae alia medietas minutae siluae}{\insrsid6823374 (' Pasturable woodland 8 furlongs long and 5 wide: half [consists] of pasture, the other half of underwood'); here }{\i\insrsid6823374 alia}{ \insrsid6823374 ('another') seems to be used in place of }{\i\insrsid6823374 altera }{\insrsid6823374 ('the other') as not infrequently. The purpose of the final phrase seems to be to give the relative proportions of pasture and underwood. No doubt these resources were intermingled on the ground and this is really }{\i\insrsid6823374 silua minuta 7 pastilis}{\insrsid6823374 ('pasturable underwood') as in DBY 1,13; if the underwood and pasture were in separate blocks, they would have been expressed as such. Woodland and open land are similarly intermixed at YKS 1Y2, though at Tupton and Norton in Derbyshire (DBY 1,8) they are separate resources. See also 1,45 woodland note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab 6 SESTERS OF HONEY. }{\insrsid6823374 This render of honey is ancient and found on a number of manors, especially royal ones and in some boroughs; see, for example, GLS G1. HAM 1,27. HEF 1,1 . LEC C1. NTT 1,1. OXF B1. WAR B4-5. By 1086 it had been commuted to a money payment. \par \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 The sester was a measure, sometimes of liquid, as here, sometimes dry and of uncertain and probably variable size. It originated with the Romans as a sixth of a }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 congius}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('bucket') and appears to be about three-quarters of a modern gallon. A mid eleventh-century grant to St Albans Abbey reckoned a sester at 32 oz. However, the sums of money into which honey-payments were commuted varied, and it is likely that there was n o standard size. At Gloucester (GLS G1) the burgesses paid 12 sesters of honey }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 ad mensuram eiusdem burgi}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('at the measure of that borough'). The payment at Deerhurst (GLS 19,2) was }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 ad mensuram regis }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('at the king's measure') and in Warwickshire (WAR B4-5) the shire together with the borough made a payment of 36 sesters and of a further 24 }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 cum maiori mensura}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('with a/the larger measure'); see Zupko, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Dictionary of English Weights and Measures}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 155; }{\insrsid6823374 Grierson, 'Weights and Measures', pp. 82-83 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\insrsid6823374 The Story of Domesday Book}{\insrsid6823374 , pp. 124-25).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab WITH EVERYTHING THAT BELONGS THERE. That is, including the four outliers and the Jurisdictions in 1,2-8. No church is mentioned as being an appurtenance of the manor in 1086; however, one was given soon a fterwards by the king to Archbishop Thurstan of York (1114-1140) who made it a prebend in the church of Southwell; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , viii. p. 1314; }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 214; and }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 5,1 prebend note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,2\tab [EAST] DRAYTON. This was an Ancient Parish, known ecclesiastically as East Drayton-with-Stokeham. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. The royal estate was at }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Est Drayton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109. For West Drayton, see 9,31. 16,11.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 20 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative and the object of 'have', like the 13 ploughs. The Phillimore printed translation has a full-stop after these ploughs (with t he exception of 11,5), but this has been corrected here to 'and'. The Alecto edition has a comma after them. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the pasturable woodland in a separate sentence here, however, so this has been reproduced in the present e d ition (as in the Alecto edition), though the Phillimore printed translation precedes it by a semi-colon. The population also seems to have had some of the resources (mostly the meadow, though occasionally part of a mill, pasturable woodland or plain woodl a nd) in 1,5;7;16-17;21;41;55;63. 3,4. 5,16. 6,9;12;14-15. 9,4-5;8;92;124. 10,4;11;13-14;50;53-54;57-58;60. 11,3;5-7; 11;19;23;25;27;29;31-33. 12,10;17;20. 14,8. 17,5;17. 20,1-2. 24,2. 30,40;49. No further references to the correction of this error has been made in these notes. Compare 9,119 meadow note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,3\tab [EAST] MARKHAM. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as 'Great Markham'. Another part (9,6) was in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 and probably the whole village was in that wapentake as it was later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. The king still held land in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Est Markeham}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in 1316: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SOME UNDERWOOD. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 siluae min}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 utae}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 aliq}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 uan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 tulum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , literally, 'some small quantity of low-growing wood'. Similar terms are }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 par}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 um}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 siluae min}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 utae}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] (' a small amount of underwood') in DBY 1,32 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 siluae minutae modicu}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 m}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] ('a modest amount of underwood') in NTT 1,10. It is possible that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 parum}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 aliquantulum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 are equivalents and that }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 modicum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 represent a larger, b ut not large, amount. See DBY 1,32 small note and NTT 1,10 amount note. The Alecto edition has 'a little scrubland'.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,4\tab [LITTLE] GRINGLEY. Little Gringley was a hamlet of Clarborough Ancient Parish. Clarborough itself was probably in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086. There is also, apparently in the same wapentake, a Gringley-on-the-Hill. However, the similarity of the modern name-forms disguises an earlier difference, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Grenleige}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (1,4), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Greneleig}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (1,43) and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Grenelei}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (5,8) being distinct from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gringeleia}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (9,122). The first three could be identified as Little Gringley (and their assessments roughly fit together to make 6 bovates), while the last (3 carucates) is Gringley-on-the-Hill; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 30, 59. Nonetheless in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 234, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Grynngeley}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (there identified as Gringley-on-the-Hill, no doubt on the basis of the name-form) is designated as Ancient Demesne of the Crown (and is, in consequence, not assigned to a wapentake). This should mean that it represents a part of the 1086 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Terra Regis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , and, therefore, that it is, on geographical grounds, probably the estate at 1,43, which is so identified by }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 252. If this is so, then the Domesday name-form at 1,43 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Greneleig}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is likely to be an error for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Grengeleig}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The other Jurisdictions of Dunham-on-Trent, like Dunham-on-Trent itself, seem to have lain in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, but it is not unusual for an outlier to be in a different wapentake to t hat of its head manor. Alternatively, since Little Gringley lies on the putative boundary separating the two wapentakes, it could have beeen in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab PART OF 1 BOVATE. In the Alecto facsimile the word }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 uni'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 unius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 'of 1') appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 cuii'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , possibly because there is a small patched hole in the parchment above it, though there is another one above the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 i.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 p }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 vi. pars}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and that did not cause any problems of reproduction. On other unusual readings in that facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note. It is clear in both the manuscript and in the Ordnance Survey facsimile.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,5\tab ORDSALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other references to this place, see 1,12-13. 9,19;23. 30,56; of these 1,12 and 30,56 are possibly duplicates of each other.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,6\tab [}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \{\{}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 GROVE}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \}\}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] HEADON. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Graue}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and then underlined it for deletion and interlined }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hedune}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in replacement. G}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 rove and Headon are adjacent. For Grove itself, see 9,22.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Headon was part of the Ancient Parish of Headon-cum-Upton. The name is now represented by the settlements of Headon and Nether Headon (both at SK7477). }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Headon probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other parts, see 9,7;26.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 1 OX. A plough-team normally consisted of eight oxen; for a smaller team of six, see CON 5,2,19 plough note. Single oxen are mentioned several times in Domesday Nottinghamshire, both as a form of plough estimate (= land for an eighth of a plough), as here, and as a real animal held by, for example, the priests in 1,51. Oxen, rather than ploughs or part-ploughs, also make regular appearances: 12 oxen (= 1 \'bd ploughs) occur in a number of entries in the plough estimate, and in Costock (15,5) there is land for 1 4 oxen. Although in Costock this mirrors the assessment of 14 bovates, and the phrase 'land for as many oxen' does occur, there is very often no correlation}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 between the number of bovates at which the estate is rated and the estimate of 'ploughs possible'.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,7\tab UPTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Upton was part of the Ancient Parish of Headon-cum-Upton. It }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other parts, see 9,8;27.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,8\tab NORMANTON. This is one of several places called Normanton in Nottinghamshire and is sometimes known as Normanton-by-Clumber.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 It was a hamlet of Elksley Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. This particular Normanton is represented by Normanton Farm (SK6574), Normanton Larches (SK6574), Normanton Screed (SK6475) and Normanton Hill (SK6674).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HALF OF THIS LAND BELONGS TO DUNHAM[-ON-TRENT], THE OTHER [HALF] TO BOTHAMSALL. This entry appare ntly concludes the list of Jurisdictions of Dunham-on-Trent (1,1); however, Normanton is unusual in being shared with the royal manor of Bothamsall (1,9), the next manor to be entered. \par \tab \tab It would be natural to assume from the layout of the text that Norman ton was a Jurisdiction of Dunham-on-Trent, but the name-form given for Dunham-on-Trent here is unusual and has been subjected to correction. The main scribe of Great Domesday erased something immediately after }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 dune}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (possibly }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ha}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 m}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], the second half of the spelling of Dunham-on-Trent in 1,1) and then, in much darker ink than he had used originally, he interlined }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ed}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , indicating its position in the line below with a comma sign. The reason for altering the place-name to }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 eddune}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is unclear, though it is possible that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 eddune }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 was the reading in his source and was an error for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ad Dune}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('to/at Dunham-on-Trent') and that originally the scribe recognized and corrected this error, but during checking he noticed the apparent place-name }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 eddune}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and 'corrected' his original. The scribes of both the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Abbreviatio}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (folio 201r) and the Breviate (folio 144r) read the place-name as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 eddune}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . If, however, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 eddune}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 was indeed the correct reading, then it could refer to Headon. Part of Headon (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hedune}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 :1,6) was a Jurisdiction of Dunham-on-Trent; another part (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hedune}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : 9,26) was a manor, and no doubt itself originated as a grant out of Dunham-on-Trent. In the case of the entry for Headon at 1,6, the main scribe had originally named the estate as }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Graue}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (Grove) and then replaced it with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hedune}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (Headon). It is possible that his apparent correction of Dunham-on-Trent to Headon was intended to apply to Grove and that he did not return to undo his mistake when he interlined }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hedune}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Graue}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in 1,6.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,9\tab BOTHAMSALL. This was a chapelry of Elksley Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The manor is surveyed in 1,9-16. All the constituent parts seem to have been in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab EARL TOSTI. See B2 Tosti note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 40 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative and the object of 'the king has', as is probably the mill, though not the pasturable woodland. The Phillimore printed translation fails to indicate th ese accusative cases, but the Alecto edition has commas after the 2 ploughs held by the villagers and smallholder. See also in 9,96;127. 15,3;7. 16,2. 30,36;38-39;45;47-48;50-52. See also 10,10 meadow note and 1,1 fishery note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab FURLONGS [WIDE]. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday mistakenly wrote }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 l}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 on}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 g}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 a}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ('long'),}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 } {\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 instead of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 lat}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 a}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ] ('wide'), as he did on several other occasions.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,10\tab JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. The main scribe of Great Domesday failed to rubricate this heading, though he had rubricated the similar heading above the Jurisdictions of Dunham-on-Trent earlier in this column (1,2). He also rubricated most of the other headings of this type in Nottinghamshire, but missed out the one for Oswaldbeck Wapentake on folio 281b (above 1,31) and ones on folio 281d (above 1,52), folio 283d (above 6,2), folio 284c (above 9,13), folio 285a (above 9,38), folio 285b (above 9,49), folio 285c (above 9,56), folio 286c (above 9,117), folio 286d (above 9,123), folio 288c (above 11,3;5), folio 288d (above 11,19), f o lio 289a (above 11,27), folio 289b (above 12,2), folio 289c (above 12,20), folio 290c (above 17,5;10) and folio 290d (above17,17). He was also careless with his rubrication of some of the manorial place-names in entries that were written during his initia l writing up of this county: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 SVDWELLE }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (5,1), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 FENTONE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (9,112) and }{\i\f720\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 IBID\'c7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (9,128. 10,48. 13,2. 14,2. 17,7). See also 30,36 wapentake note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ELKESLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other parts, see 9,32. 30,41.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 2 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of ploughs from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 i}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 by inserting a second minim in darker ink rather carelessly in front of it.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A MODEST AMOUNT OF UNDERWOOD. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 siluae minutae modicu}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 m}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], and is evidently more than }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 parum siluae minutae}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (DBY 1,32) which is 'a small amount of underwood', but may be similar to the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 siluae minutae aliquantulum}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in 1,3 (see 1,3 some note). The translation of the Phillimore printed edition, 'a little underwood', might suggest that all the underwood was in one place, whereas the Latin is referring to the quantity of wood, not its shape or location. The Alecto edit ion also translates }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 modicum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 as 'a little'.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,11\tab MORTON. This was a settlement in Babworth Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other parts, particular ised as 'North' Morton in Domesday, see 9,34. 30,42.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Domesday distinguishes Morton, 'North' Morton, and 'the other Morton'. There are now six adjacent Mortons, covering about five square miles, none of them now called 'North'. The most northerly are Morton and Morton Hall (JRM).}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 To represent the three 'Mortons' of Domesday, there are several adjacent places: Morton (SK676800), Great Morton (SK683799), Morton Grange (SK684781), Morton Hall (SK652800), Upper Morton (SK661778), Little Morton Farm (SK676788 ), Morton Hill Farm (SK652788). However, it is unclear how to allocate these names to the Domesday estates. In particular, no 'North' Morton has survived. It is either an abandoned site or its name has changed; see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 66.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab THE OTHER MORTON. The Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 altera}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 strictly means 'the other', 'the second', but in medieval usage often overlaps in sense with }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 alia}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ('another'). In contexts such as this, the use of both words is in origin scribal, to draw attention to the second occurrenc e of the same place-name in a list. They refer to another estate and do not in themselves prove the existence of a separate settlement or village. In the present context, however, within a single entry and with a joint total of 10 bovates, they may well r epresent separate settlements, just as at 1,16 the 6 bovates of Lound and Barnby Moor do. If }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 altera}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 has its strict meaning, then the settlement concerned must be the one that Domesday also designates as 'North' Morton (9,34. 30,42). On this use of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 alia}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 altera }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , see Thorn, 'Manorial Affixes'.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,12\tab BABWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For another part, see 9,33.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 \'bd BOVATES ... 4 \'bd BOVATES. Scribe B interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .ii.bo' 7 dimid' 7 .iiii. bo' 7 d'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Baburde }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and the first part of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Odestorp}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . Despite the linking }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('and'), it has been assumed that the 2 \'bd bovates refers to Babworth and the 4 \'bd bovates to "Odestorp". It is possible that a t the same time as he interlined these bovates, he corrected, by erasure only, part of the place-name }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Odestorp}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 1,12 "Odestorp" note. This interlineation is the first of scribe B's forty-two contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, mirroring the extent of the main scribe's remedial work on this county (see \{Introduction: Writing and Correction\} . All but one of scribe B's contributions are in the first Nottinghamshire quire (folios 280-288) and there are fifteen in the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Terra Regis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 alone, which is a high proportion for him, though it is beaten in Derbyshire (see DBY 1,12 Bonsall note). The main scribe generally included the individual carucages of members of manors, but sometimes failed to do so, when he gave a total tax assessment as in the present entry. Scribe B added seven carucages in this county, though more could have been added, as in 5,4. 6,1. For thes e , see also above Ordsall later in the present entry, the two each in 1,13 and in 1,21, and one in 10,10. His other contributions include the addition of six members of manors (1,33;50. 5,8 (part of). 9,97 (part of). 10,12;52 and see also 1,17;41), again m o re than in any other county, nineteen corrections and additions to the tax assessments (1,12;16;24. 4,3;7. 6,8. 9,15;31;38;70;96;112;124;129;131. 10,26;33;57. 15,3), two additions to place-names (9,5. 10,48), two to plough estimates (1,17;59) and one each to the village population (9,115) and their ploughs (10,16), to resources (5,8) and to the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holders (9,69). Several of his additions were made in one campaign; see 9,5 Clifton note. He may also have been responsible for some of the erasures (see 1,12 "Odestorp" note and 1,17 land note) and for the deletion of an entry (see 10,23 entry note).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab "ODESTORP". The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ostlestorp}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (parts of the long }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 remain)}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 then either he or scribe B (see 1,12 bovates note) erased the first }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and part of the cross-bar of the first }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in an attempt, not very successful, to make }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Odestorp}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . His source may have been unclear here, but }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Odestorp}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is the form found in subsequent entries (9,42;71. 30,12) and was read as such by Farley in this entry.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This place does not appear to be attested after 1086; the name-form used in the Phillimore printed edition ('Odsthorpe') is misleading in this respect. In the text of Domesday it is surrounded by places in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake here and at 9,42 . At 9,71 it is coupled with West Retford (in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake), as a Jurisdiction of Weston (9,70), which is itself in 'Lythe' Wapentake. At 30,12 "Odestorp" is a manor that follows an entry for Normanton (30,11) in Thurgarton Wapentake and is follo w ed by another Normanton (Normanton-on-Soar) in Rushcliffe Wapentake (30,14). The intervening entry (30,13) is added, and so has little bearing on the wapentake in which "Odestorp" lay. On balance it seems likely that "Odestorp" was in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentak e in 1086.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ORDSALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other references to Ordsall, see 1,5;13. 9,19;23. 30,56. It is possible that the added entry at 30,56 is a duplicate of this one; see 30,56 Ordsall note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 BOVATE. Scribe B interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .i. bou'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ordeshale}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 1,12 bovates note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IN TOTAL, 7 \'bd BOVATES OF LAND TAXABLE. The main scribe of Great Domesday had originally written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .v. b}{ \i\f713\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ou' t'r\'ea}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 dim' ad g'ld'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('5 \'bd bovates of land taxable'), possibly because he had not provided the individual carucages here, though he often made arithmetical mistakes even when he did include them. When scribe B inserted these carucages (see 1,12 bovates note) he interlined }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Int' tot' }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('In total'), extending the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 I }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Int'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 downwards to act as an insertion mark and added two minims to the original }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 v}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . However, he should have added a third minim to this figure and erased the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 dim'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , or erased all of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .v. bou' t}{\i\f713\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 'r\'ea}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 dim'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and written }{\i\f713\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .i. carucata t'r\'ea}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , as the correct total is 8 bovates (= 1 carucate). On his failure to correct a total tax assessment of members when he interlined individual carucages, see 1,24 total note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IT IS WASTE EXCEPT FOR 1 VILLAGER AND 2 SMALLHOLDERS WITH \'bd PLOUGH. This unusual phrase shows how Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 wasta}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 has more the sense of 'derelict', 'abandoned', 'set-aside' than of 'wasted', 'destroyed'. The villager and smallholders presumably cultivated a small portion, but that was not enough to g ive a value to the estate. See also 9,12 and 30,35.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,13\tab RANBY. This was a hamlet of Babworth Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other parts, see 1,14. 9,24-25.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 3 BOVATES. Scribe B interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .iii. bo'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ranesbi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; for his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including his addition of similar carucages of members of manors, see 1,12 bovates note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 'SOUTH' ORDSALL. 'South' Ordsall, which is not attested after 1086, was no doubt in Ordsall which was an Ancient Parish; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p}{\insrsid6823374 . 90}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . Ordsall itself probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other references to Ordsall, see 1,5;12. 9,19;23. 30,56. Domesday rarely uses affixes to distinguish places of the same basic name, but in Nottinghamshire North Muskham and 'North' Morton are so distinguished , as is 'Eastern' Chilwell and West Markham.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 BOVATES. Scribe B interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .ii. bo'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Suderdeshale}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; for his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including his addition of similar carucages of members of manors, see 1,12 bovates note. In both the Ordnance Survey and Alecto facsimiles the number of bovates resembles }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .iii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , perhaps because of its closeness to the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of the place-name, but in the manuscript it is separate and clear; Farley read it as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .ii.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,14\tab RANBY. See 1,13 Ranby note, and on this entry being duplicated in 1,30, but then struck through for deletion, see 1,30 Ranby note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,15\tab MATTERSEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For another part, see 9,132.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,16\tab LOUND. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Sutton-cum-Lound. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other parts, see 5,7. 9,51.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BARNBY [MOOR]. This was a township of Blyth Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For another part, see 9,54. }{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 6 BOVATES OF LAND, }{\insrsid6823374 \{\{}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 AND \'bd AND THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE\}\} . Scribe B corrected this joint tax assessment of Lound and Barnby [Moor] from 5 \'bd bovates and the third part of 1 bovate to 6 bovates, by squeezing in a minim after the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 v}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and underlining for deletion }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 dim' 7 .iii. pars uni' bou'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, see 1,12 bovates note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The confusion probably arose when all the parts of Lound and Barnby Moor were together in a territorially-arranged schedule which a scribe (perhaps in compiling the pu tative circuit volume) was splitting between fiefs. There were 2 bovates and 2 parts of 1 bovate of taxable land at Lound (9,51) and 1\'bd bovates of taxable land at Barnby Moor (9,54). The amount of taxable land at Lound (5,7) cannot be determined because it is included in that of other estates.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Penguin edition of the Alecto translation does not indicate that the words are deleted at all, so the assessment appears to be 6 \'bd bovates and \u8531\'3f bovate; it also fails to indicate the deletions in other entries such as 1,30. 3,1. 9,69-70. 10,6;23. 14,6 in this county.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,17\tab GRIMSTON. This was a settlement in Wellow Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other parts, see 1,18;24;27.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The original Grimston appears to correspond to the site of Jordan's castle (SK679665), below the modern settlement which is at Grimston Hill (SK6965); }{\insrsid6823374 see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 250 note 3; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p}{\insrsid6823374 . 65. For its depopulation, see Barley, 'Cistercian Land Clearances of Nottinghamshire'.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 4 BOVATES OF LAND [***] TAXABLE. The erasure in the middle of this tax assessment may have been of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 dim'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (making 4 \'bd bov ates) and may have been done by scribe B when he corrected the plough estimate later in this line or when he added the detail of this holding being an outlier of Mansfield on the next line (if both these corrections were not done together). See 1,17 outli er note. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, see 1,12 bovates note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 2 PLOUGHS. Scribe B corrected the plough estimate from one to two by adding a second minim over the main scribe's original }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 before }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 i.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and adding a new }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . See 1,24 outlier note. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including another on the plough estimate, see 1,12 bovates note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OUTLIER OF MANSFIELD. Scribe B wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 BER' In Mam'esfed.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 over the erasure of a longer original phrase by the main scribe; at the same time he overwrote the first two letters of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ibi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , the succeeding word. It is impossible to tell from the manuscript what could have been written here originally. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, see 1,12 bovates note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Despite being written over an erasure, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Mam'esfed}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is clear in the manuscript, but the long }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 used by the main scribe of Great Domesday here resembles an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 f}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in both the Ordnance Survey facsimile and the Alecto facsimile, making the place-name appear as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Mam'effed}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . \par \tab \tab This information contradicts the marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 manerium}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 'manor') beside the place-name. Since Grimston itself appears to have had Jurisdictions of its own (1,18-22) though not all are designated as such, it seems likely that th is portion of Grimston was in fact a manor and that it is the phrase 'outlier of Mansfield' that is erroneous. In view of the other erasure and correction to this holding (see 1,12 land note and 1,12 ploughs note), it is possible that during a check of th e source material for the multiple estate of Mansfield scribe B found an entry for 4 bovates of land in Grimston which was an outlier and had land for 2 ploughs, and failed to see that it had actually been included at 1,27 (though with some differences) an d that the present entry was a manor, so altered it to make it agree with his findings. If so, the details of Grimston had been correctly provided by the main scribe: it was a manor, its assessment might have been 4 \'bd bovates, it had land for 1 plough and the erasure here could have been of something like }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ibi ht' m' rex}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ? i car'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] ('}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Now the king has }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ? 1 plough}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]'), as for the multiple estates of Dunham-on-Trent, Mansfield and others in this chapter. Alternatively, scribe B may have been right to alter this entry, but failed to go far enough and erase the marginal }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and the meadow and change the village population (their 2 ploughs agree with those in 1,27, as does the pasturable woodland as 6 furlongs is the same as \'bd league). \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 There remains, however, the problem over Grimston's Jurisdictions, on which scribe B's work amounted only to interlining }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .ii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (bovates) above two of them (1,21 Beesthorpe note and 1,21 Carlton note). The reality may thus have been more complex. Grimston had seven dependencies (1,18-22), four of which reappear under Mansfield itself in what seems to be a summary (1,24). Further, the details of the entry for Grimston under the manor of Mansfield at 1,27 duplicate in several respects those given here, though the duplication was less before scribe B's corrections. Tabulation will show the similarities: \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963 \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts48\trgaph108\trleft-108\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 \trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr \brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx2844\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx5796\clvertalt\clbrdrt \brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid8589712\yts48 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 1,17-22 Manor of Grimston\cell 1,23 Manor of Mansfield: List of members in 1,24}{ \b\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 +}{\b\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 \cell 1,24 Manor of Mansfield: details of outlier at Grimston}{ \b\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 +}{\b\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 \cell }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts48\trgaph108\trleft-108\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr \brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 \trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt \brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx2844\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx5796\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\row }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid8589712\yts48 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 1,17 Grimston. \par Manor, also(?) outlier. \par 4 bovates}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 \'86}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 taxable. \par Land for 2}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 \'87}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 ploughs \par \par 3 Freemen and 3 smallholders have}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963 }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 2 ploughs. \par Meadow, 2 acres. \par Pasturable woodland \'bd league long and 4 furlongs wide.\cell 1,24 Grimston. \par Status not given. \par \'bd carucate.\cell 1,27 Grimston. \par Outlier. \par 4 bovates taxable. \par Land for 2 ploughs. \par The king has 1 plough; \par 8 villagers and 1 smallholder who have}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963 }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 2 ploughs. \par \par Pasturable woodland 6 furlongs long and 4 furlongs wide \cell }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 \trowd \irow1\irowband1\ts48\trgaph108\trleft-108\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv \brdrs\brdrw10 \trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb \brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx2844\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx5796 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\row }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl \tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid8589712\yts48 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 1,18 Grimston. \par Jurisdiction \par 1\'bd bovates.\cell \cell \cell }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 \trowd \irow2\irowband2\ts48\trgaph108\trleft-108\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 \trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr \brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx2844\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx5796\clvertalt\clbrdrt \brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\row }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid8589712\yts48 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 1,19 Kirton.* \par Status not given. \par \'bd bovate.\cell 1,24 Kirton. \par Status not given. \par 1\'bd bovates.\cell \cell }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 \trowd \irow3\irowband3\ts48\trgaph108\trleft-108\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 \trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr \brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx2844\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx5796\clvertalt\clbrdrt \brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\row }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid8589712\yts48 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 1,20 Willoughby and Walesby. \par Jurisdiction. \par 2 bovates.\cell 1,24 Willoughby. \par Status not given. \par 1\'bd bovates}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 ++}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 \par (Walesby not mentioned)\cell \cell }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 \trowd \irow4\irowband4\ts48\trgaph108\trleft-108\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 \trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr \brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx2844\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx5796\clvertalt\clbrdrt \brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\row }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid8589712\yts48 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 1,21 Beesthorpe. \par Jurisdiction. \par 2 bovates.\cell 1,24 Beesthorpe. \par Status not given. \par 2 bovates.\cell \cell }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 \trowd \irow5\irowband5\ts48\trgaph108\trleft-108\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 \trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr \brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx2844\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx5796\clvertalt\clbrdrt \brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\row }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid8589712\yts48 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 1,21 Carlton-on-Trent. \par Jurisdiction. \par 2 bovates.\cell 1,24 Carlton-on-Trent. \par Status not given. \par 2 bovates.\cell \cell }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 \trowd \irow6\irowband6\ts48\trgaph108\trleft-108\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 \trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr \brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx2844\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx5796\clvertalt\clbrdrt \brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\row }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid8589712\yts48 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 1,22 Farnsfield. \par Status not given. \par 1 bovate.\cell \cell \cell }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid13778533 \trowd \irow7\irowband7\lastrow \ts48\trgaph108\trleft-108\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 \trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr \brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx2844\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx5796\clvertalt\clbrdrt \brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\row }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid801729 { \fs20\up6\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid14162963 \par }{\fs20\up6\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab +}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Only the places that are listed in column 1 are included \par }{\fs20\up6\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \'86}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Corrected by erasure, probably by scribe B \par }{\fs20\up6\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \'87}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Corrected from 1 by scribe B \par \tab * Entry added by the main scribe of Great Domesday after rubrication \par }{\fs20\up7\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ++ }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 It is possible that Walesby amounted to \'bd bovate}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab Not all of the 19 estates listed in 1,24 are duplicated elsewhere (for a possible reason for the omiss ion of two, see 1,28 Edwinstowe note), but those nine listed in the group (1,25-30), of which the fuller entry for Grimston (1,27) is part, are all found in 1,24. That entry is simply a plain list of places, apparently dependencies of Mansfield but with n o status allotted and only the name and taxable extent given. Places appearing there should not be regarded as duplicate entries but merely part of a list of which fuller details are mostly given elsewhere. It should be noted that \'bd carucate is the same as 4 bovates and 6 furlongs the same as \'bd league. Thus the taxable extent and the size of the pasturable woodland is actually the same in different entries for Grimston. On the other hand, the fact that the same dimensions are expressed differently suggests t hat the main scribe did not simply copy twice from the same sheet of parchment. Moreover, there are differences in the spellings of place-names, and Carlton[-in-Lindrick], if correctly identied, is 4 carucates in 1,24, but 2 carucates in 1,30; on this, se e 1,30 Carlton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Of the dependencies of Grimston (1,18-22), the first one is not repeated under Mansfield at 1,24, nor is there any mention there of another estate at Farnsfield, possibly a Jurisdiction (see, however, 1,22 Farnsfield note). What may h ave happened is that Grimston was a member of Mansfield in 1066 but was in the process of being granted out in 1086. It was, in other words being assembled as a manor, on a rough basis of half Grimston itself and half each of a group of Jurisdictions that were being granted with it. In that case these entries (1,17-22) are not duplicates but halves of a series of split estates. Certainly Grimston did not remain a part of Mansfield. It was in lay hands by the end of King Stephen's reign then passed to the B ishop of Lincoln; see Crook, 'Community of Mansfield', p. 15.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab The use of }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 in}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 here in }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 BER' In Mam'esfed}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is idiomatic and implies some longer phrase with a verb or participle such as }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 berewica iacens in hoc manerio}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ('outlier/berewick lying in this manor'). In the absence of a verb the natural translation is 'an outlier of... '; see 9,7 jurisdiction note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,18\tab THERE ALSO ^[GRIMSTON]^. See 1,17 Grimston note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,19\tab THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in a space at the end of the entry for the Jurisdiction in Grimston. The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 I }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 was not rubricated and it was written with a sharp pen and in a more cursive script than he normally used, so it was almost certainly a late insertion. It cannot be linked to any other campaign of addition, before or after rubrication, in this county. Its position here presumably indicates that it was related in some way to Grimston (1,17); the scribe probably intended the marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the line above to show that it was also a Jurisdiction. On a possible indicator of this originally-omitted entry, see 1,20 margin note. For the other entries added by him, in several campaigns, that were never rubricated, see 1,53;64-66. 2,3;5;10. 4,4. 5,2;6;12. 9,23;47-48;93;?132. 10,7;64-66. 11,13. 12,12;22-23. 13,5;12-14. 16,12. 20, 8. 23,2. 30,10;13;42;53-56.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab KIRTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For a reference to thi s estate, see 1,24 and for other parts, see 9,13. 12,2. 17,2. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday forms for this place are }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Schidrintune}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (1,19), }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Schitrintone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (1,24), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Schidrinton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (9,13), }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Schidrinctune}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (12,2) and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Schidrictune}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (17,2). There is no continuity between these forms and those of Kirton (typically }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Kirchetona}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Kirktone} {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ). However, it does appear that Kirton has displaced this earlier name; }{\insrsid6823374 see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 245 and p. 250 note 4; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 52-53.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,20\tab IN THE OUTER MARGIN next to the fi rst line of this entry is written a horizontal line with a dot above and below it, similar to the division sign used in arithmetic. Marginal signs like this, sometimes with only one dot (as on folio 280d), were commonly used in contemporary manuscripts to indicate a correction or amendment that needed to be made; see L5 archbishop note. It was probably written by the main scribe of Great Domesday: the pen and ink are the same as used for the adjacent text, whereas the ink used by scribe B in 1,17;21 is dar ker. It is more likely that it refers to this entry as it is within the first ruled line of 1,20, though it might be connected with the later insertion of Kirton (1,19 entry note). It was not reproduced in the }{\insrsid6823374 Ordnance Survey facsimile, but it is clearly visible in the Alecto facsimile; Farley did not print it.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WILLOUGHBY. This is one of three places called Willoughby in Nottinghamshire in 1086. It was a settlement in Walesby Ancient Parish, and seems to have been displaced by it in importance. Like Walesby (1,20), it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086. For a reference to this estate, see 1,24 and for another part, see 12,3.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WALESBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other parts, see 9,13. 12,4. 16,10.} {\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab PERCHES. See B20 perches note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 1,21\tab BEESTHORPE 2. Scribe B interlined }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 .ii.}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 above }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Bestorp}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , at the same time as he interlined an identical figure above }{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Carletone}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 (1,21 Carlton note). Although the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday had provided the total taxable assessment}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 of these two Jurisdictions of Grimston, scribe B obviously thought it important to indicate the extent of each, as the 4 bovates total could have been split between them in any proportion.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Beesthorpe}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 was a hamlet of Caunton Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 like Caunton itself (5,16. 12,8) and Carlton-on-Trent, the other outlier with which it is coupled here. For a reference to this estate, see 1,24 and for another part, see 12,9.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab JRM noted that 'some of the references may be to Besthorpe}{\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 (SK8264), opposite Carlton-on-Trent'. This seems unlikely as Besthorpe was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of South Scarle and lay in Newark Wapentake. The three occurrences of }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Bestorp}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 in Domesday appear to be in 'Lythe' Wapentake and are therefore to be identified as Beesthorpe.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab CARLTON[-ON-TRENT] 2. Scribe B interlined }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 .ii.}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 above }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Carletone}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ; see 1,21 Beesthorpe note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab C arlton[-on-Trent] was a chapelry of Norwell Ancient Parish. Although Grimston (1,17), the head of the manor, was in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, this outlier, like Beesthorpe, was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in Thurgarton and Lythe Wap entake: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For a reference to this estate, see 1,24 and for other parts, see 2,5. 9,61. 12,10;23. 30,2.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,22\tab [* THURGARTON WAPENTAKE *]. This heading is inserted because it is possible that Farnsfield is not a dependency of Grimston (1,17); see 1,22 Farnsfield note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FARNSFIELD. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This is more a note than an entry. Apart from its taxable extent, it lacks all details, including its }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holder. There is no indication of its status (marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 B'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) nor, apart from position, of its relation to Grimston (1,17). Moreover, there is n o other estate depending on Grimston or Mansfield in Thurgarton Wapentake. It appears to be the part of Farnsfield that was not granted with Southwell in 956 to the Archbishop of York. Since it is possible that Southwell itself was granted from the royal estate of Mansfield (1,23), it is probable that Farnsfield had the same origin and that what was left to the king in 1086 was an isolated rump; see 5,1 Southwell note, 5,1 outliers note and \{Introduction: Manorial Organization\}.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 BOVATE. This is one of tw o bovates in Farnsfield mentioned in Walter of Aincourt's fief (11,17), where it is said to be in the jurisdiction of the king, but nevertheless to belong to Southwell Hundred. On this hundred, see 5,1 Southwell note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NEAR NOTTINGHAM. This information is surprising. There is no other place in Nottinghamshire with the same name (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Franesfeld}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Farnesfeld}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) as Farnsfield and Farnsfield is about 11 miles from Nottingham. One possibility is that this bovate was a detached part of Farnsfield that lay near the borou gh. It is perhaps more likely that, since this bovate is neither a manor, nor an outlier nor a Jurisdiction, is assigned to no wapentake and is, as it were, floating, the statement that it is 'near Nottingham' is an attempt to give it a vague location.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,23\tab MANSFIELD. This was an Ancient Parish, that of Mansfield St Peter and St Paul. It lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 234, both Mansfield and Mansfield Woodhouse (SK5363) are listed as Ancient Demesne, a continuation of the situation in 1086. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Mansfield was a major estate with two outliers and over forty other dependencies (1,24-44) which were presumably Jurisdictions, though not all are indicated as such. The y lay in the wapentakes of 'Bassetlaw', 'Lythe' and Oswaldbeck; unusually, Domesday provides a heading above this last group (1,31). Despite the long list of dependencies, it appears that some places that lay within this gigantic estate were not named, pr o bably because they were part of the royal lordship. Thus in Papplewick, which only appears in Domesday among the lands of William Peverel (10,21), there appears to have been part of the royal lordship for 1 carucate there was held in alms by the canons of Newstead (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 de Novo Loco}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) 'by gift of King Henry': }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Book of Fees}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 150. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wudehus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sutton' }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Nettelwurd' }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 are likewise mentioned as Jurisdictions of Mansfield in }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 1000. Of these Sutton-in-Ashfield is in Domesday (1,23), but Mansfield Woodhouse (SK5463) and Nettleworth (SK5465) are not. \par \tab \tab Associated with Mansfield in later times at least was Sherwood Forest. Sherwood means the 'wood of the shire' and is first mentioned in 958. It probably fulfilled the same function originally as the 'woodland of the whole sheriffdom, called "Hereswode" '(that is, 'the wood of the army') in Leicestershire (LEC C18). It was not formally afforested until later: in the Pipe Roll of 1130, William Peverel answers }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 de placitis forestae}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('for the pleas of the forest'); see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 214; and \{Introduction: Forest\}. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On the early history of Mansfield, see Crook, 'Community of Mansfield' and Crook 'Lindhurst'.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SKEGBY, AN OUTLIER, AND SUTTON[-IN-ASHFIELD], AN OUTLIER. Both seem to have been in the same wa pentake (Broxtowe Wapentake) as Mansfield itself. The treatment of the outliers of Mansfield is rather confused: the main scribe of Great Domesday listed two only here, then later another two (Grimston and Edwinstowe, 1,27-28), which he perhaps found when he was abstracting a schedule relating to 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in which they lay. See \{Introduction: Layout and Content of Entries\}.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Skegby was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Mansfield St Peter and St Paul. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later; see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110, where it is listed with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Le Wodehouse}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [Mansfield Woodhouse, SK5463]. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 234, it is listed as Ancient Demesne.}{ \insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Sutton[-in-Ashfield] was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110, where it is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sutton super Asshefeld}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233, it is listed as Ancient Demesne.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab EDWARD. On this name, see B19 Edward note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 5 FREEMEN, WITH 3 BOVATES OF THIS LAND, AND 35 VILLAGERS ... WITH 19 \'bd PLOUGHS. The punctuation in the Phillimore printed translation with a semi-colon after 'land', implies that the Freemen did not share the 19 \'bd ploughs with the villagers and smallholders, but there is nothing in the phrasing or punctuation to suggest this.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Latin for the first phrase is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 v. soch' de .iii. bouat' hui' t'r\'ea}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . }{\insrsid6823374 Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 de }{\insrsid6823374 normally means 'of' or 'from', though in Domesday it also has the meaning of 'at' in a phrase such as }{\i\insrsid6823374 ii}{\insrsid6823374 }{\i\insrsid6823374 molini de xxxii den}{\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\insrsid6823374 ariis}{\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\insrsid6823374 }{\insrsid6823374 ('2 mills at 32d'). Here, however, the precise sense of }{\i\insrsid6823374 de }{\insrsid6823374 is unclear; it is possibly elliptical for '5 Freemen with a holding consisting of/assessed at 3 bovates'. Nonetheless the easiest translation is 'with', even though this now is the same translation as that of }{\i\insrsid6823374 cum}{\insrsid6823374 as in the phrase 'Freemen with }{\i\insrsid6823374 x }{\insrsid6823374 ploughs'.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 20 SMALLHOLDERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote a figure beginning with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 x}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , then erased a letter or two after it (the original }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is still visible in the manuscript) before adding a second }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 x}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in darker ink and interlining }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (the last two letters of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 viginti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , '20') in clarification.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 MILL AND 1 FISHERY, 21s. This would seem to be a joint render from the mill and the fishery. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 un\'e2 piscari\'e2}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , accusative; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 molin'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 may also be accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The fishery may have been on the River Maun where }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Domesday Geography of Northern England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (p. 262) places it. However, in view of the size of the multiple estate of Mansfield and the fact that the resources of the capital estate do not have to be adjacent to the manorial centre, it is difficult to be certain.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 CHURCHES AND 2 PRIESTS. Presumably one church lay in Mansfield and the other in one of the two outliers. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The church of Mansfield was granted, along with the Derbyshire churches of Chesterfield and Ashbourne (DBY 1,1;14) and the church of Orston (1,51), by William II in 1093 to the Bishop of Lincoln: }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , viii. p. 1271 (the page number is misprinted as 1237) no. 6; }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 87 no. 337; see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Rotuli Hundredorum} {\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 313; }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Derbyshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 312; }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 214}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . This grant mak es reference to one by William the Conqueror which is lost. Besides the churches themselves, the grant includes 'the chapels in the outliers of these four manors'. None of these chapels is mentioned in Derbyshire, but the second church of Mansfield may ha ve been one of them. A church at Sutton-in-Ashfield is mentioned in }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 313, as long held by Thurgarton Priory. It is not certain when it was founded and if it is the second church of Domesday; see }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Crook, 'Community of Mansfield', pp}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . 18-19.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,24\tab THIS ENTRY and those following (1,25-44) appear to be dependencies of Mansfield (1,23), presumably outliers or Jurisdictions, though only those in 1,27-32;34-43 are designated as such. Perlethorpe (1,26) is said to 'lie in [the lands of] Mansf ield'. The great majority of these places lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, but no heading has here been supplied, as the scribe did not usually indicate the wapentake in which dependencies lay; the heading at 1,31 'Jurisdiction in Oswaldbeck Wapentake' is un usual. \par \tab \tab Six of these dependencies (Beesthorpe, Carlton-on-Trent, Eakring, Kirton, Ompton and Willoughby) were shared with Laxton (12,1) which had presumably once been a part of Mansfield. \par \tab \tab The list given in 1,24 is skeletel in the extreme with only a plac e-name and a taxable extent, similar to the entries in the Yorkshire summary (but without the holder interlined) and they may have been derived from a checklist or even a taxation list. A number of estates in this list are not mentioned elsewhere under Ma n sfield or Grimston, but all those that are more fully described in 1,25-30 are in this list. Thus it seems probable that this list is a sort of index of the members of Mansfield/Grimston, which the scribe then intended to describe more fully but for some of which he could find no more details. If this is so, the discrepancies suggest that this list pre-dated Domesday. It is interesting that in over half the cases where fuller details are given, the assessments are the same. \par \tab \tab According to Roffe ('Introduction', }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 2), 'A compound entry describing some seventeen sokelands of Mansfield ... displays a difference in the hand which suggests that it is a postscriptal addition to a space which had been intentionally left for the purpose'. This would seem to be the list of nineteen dependencies in the present entry, but there is no sign in the manuscript of their being added, any superficial 'difference' being due to their appearing to be more tightly written because of the number of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s and the lack of manorial details joined by }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s. There were, however, five later corrections; see 1,24 carucates note, 1,24 3 \'bd note, 1,24 bovates note, 1,24 bovate note and 1,24 total note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WARSOP. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233, a portion (corresponding to the present entry and 1,25) is listed as Ancient Demesne. For fuller details of Warsop, see 1,25, whi ch is duplicated in 30,53. For another part, see 9,40. Warsop is now divided into Market Warsop (SK6557) and Church Warsop (SK5668).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 'CLOWN'. This is a lost place in Welbeck, which was itself an extra-parochial area. The name is represented by Clown Hill Plantation at SK583738; the site of the village was perhaps approximately SK580738; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 104; }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Beresford and Hurst, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Deserted Medieval Villages}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 200. Geographically, 'Clown' will have lain in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, like Warsop and Carburton, the places here listed before and after it.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab CARBURTON. This was a chapelry of Edwinstowe Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086, as it was later; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p}{\insrsid6823374 . 71. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233, it is listed as Ancient Demesne.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Carburton, Domesday }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Carb'tone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , like 'Clown', Budby and Thoresby, does not appear elsewhere in Domesday, unless it is represented by }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Carletone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (1,30) here identified, with reservations, as Carlton-in-Lindrick, but whose taxable extent (2 carucates) is the same as that of Carburton; see 1,30 Carlton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab CLUMBER. This was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of Worksop St Mary and St Cuthbert. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233, a portion corresponding to this present entry is listed as Ancient Demesne. For another part, see 9,41.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BUDBY. This was a township of Edwinstowe Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233, it is listed as Ancient Demesne.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORESBY. This was a hamlet of Edwinstowe Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 234, it is listed as Ancient Demesne. The grid reference is to Thoresby Hall (SK638712). There is a Thoresby Home Farm at SK647710.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SCOFTON. This was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of Worksop St Mary and St Cuthbert. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 108. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233, it is listed as Ancient Demesne. For another reference, see 1,30.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab PERLETHORPE. This was a chapelry of Edwinstowe Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For another reference, see 1,30; for other parts, see 1,26. 9,37. The Domesday form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Torp}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 later acquired the prefix 'Peverel', being }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Peureltorp}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in 1159. However, there is no known connection with the honour of Peverel (descent from William Peverel; see NTT 10 William note); see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 91.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab RAYTON. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Worksop St Mary and St Cuthbert. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 108. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233, it is listed as Ancient Demesne. For another reference, see 1,30. \par \tab \tab The grid reference is to Rayton Farm (SK614792).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 CARUCATES. Scribe B corrected the number of carucates of Scrofton, Perlethorpe and Rayton by squeezing in a second minim over the main scribe's original }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 punctus }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 after his }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 i}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; he then added a new }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . For other corrections to the assessments in this section by the main scribe, see 1,24 3 \'bd note, 1,24 bovates note, 1,24 bovate note and 1,24 total note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab EDWINSTOWE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 234, it is listed as Ancient Demesne. For fuller details, see 1,28.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GRIMSTON. This was a settlement in Wellow Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other references, see 1,17-18;27. \par \tab \tab The original Grimston appears to correspond to the site of Jordan's castle (SK679665), below the modern settlement, which is at Grimston Hill (SK6965); }{\insrsid6823374 see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 250 note 3.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab EAKRING. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. This place does not appear el sewhere in the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 terra regis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and the 3 \'bd bovates do not reappear as such. There is \'bd bovate at 12,5 and 12 bovates in 17,7-8.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 3 \'bd BOVATES. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 dimid'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .iii. bou'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 1,24 carucates note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MAPLEBECK. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For fuller details, see 1,29 and for another part, see 17,11. }{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BEESTHORPE. This was a hamlet of Caunton Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 like Caunton itself (5,16. 12,8). For fuller details, see 1,21 (where Beesthorpe is part of Grimston, not Mansfield) and for another part, see 12,9.}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab CARLTON[-ON-TRENT]. This was a chapelry of Norwell Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For fuller details, see 1,21 (where Carlton-on-Trent is part of Grimston, not Mansfield) and for other parts, see 2,5. 9,61. 12,10;23. 30,2.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab KIRTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,19. 9,13. 12,2. 17,2, and, on the Domesday name-form, see 1,19 Kirton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 \'bd BOVATES. This assessment might have been written partially over erasure by the main scribe of Great Domesday. The assessment of Kirton in 1,19 is \'bd bovate; see 1,17 outlier note. On other corrections by him to the assessments in this entry, see 1,24 carucates note. Further parts of Kirton (9,13 with Walesby. 12,2. 17,2) are each assessed at 2 bovate s, but it is not certain that the missing bovate is to be sought among them.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WILLOUGHBY. This is one of three places called Willoughby in Nottinghamshire in 1086. It was a settlement in Walesby Ancient Parish, and seems to have been displaced by it in imp ortance. Like Walesby, it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086. For fuller details, see 1,20 (where Willoughby with Walesby is part of Grimston, not Mansfield) and for another part, see 12,3. \par \tab \tab This entry is preceded by one for Kirton which probab ly lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake and followed by one for Ompton which may have lain either in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake or in 'Lythe' Wapentake; see 1,24 Ompton note. There is also a Willoughby in 'Lythe' Wapentake (5,15. 12,15 and probably 24,3), but it seems probable that the present Willoughby is the one surveyed with Walesby in 1,20.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 \'bd BOVATES. In the fuller entry (1,20), Willoughby and Walesby are assessed together as 2 bovates.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OMPTON. This was a township of Kneesall Ancient Parish. Kneesall itself (17 ,9) seems to have lain in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086, but Ompton could have been in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake then, as it was later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. Later in the Middle Ages Kneesall was divided between 'Bassetlaw' Wape ntake and Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake. The townships of Kneesall and Kersall were in Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake, while the township of Ompton and the chapelry of Boughton were in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake; see Youngs, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 362. The same may have been true in 1086. For other parts of Ompton, see 12,6. 15,2. 17,10.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 BOVATE AND \'bd BOVATE. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\f720\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .i. bo\'fb}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Almuntone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and squeezed }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in after it, extending it downwards to act as an insertion mark for the addition. On other corrections by him to the assessments in this entry, see 1,24 carucates note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Ompton does not appear elsewhere in the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 terra regis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . The assessment of other parts of Ompton are 2 bovates (12,6), 3 bovates (15,2) and 1 \'bd bovates (17,10). This last corresponds to the present assessment but is not necessarily the same estate.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab CARLTON[-IN-LINDRICK]. The Domesday form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Caretone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is presumably an error for }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Carletone }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (it appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Careltune}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in 9,50). This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other apparent parts, see 1,30. 9,50. \par \tab \tab The assessment here is 4 carucates. Often where an estate in the present list appears elsewhere in the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 terra regis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , the assessment is the same. However, the assessment at 1,30, if correctly identified as Carlton-in-Lindrick, is 2 carucates and, barring a figure error, casts some doubt on one or other of the identifications; see 1,30 Carlton note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab IN TOTAL, 13 CARUCATES OF LAND AND 6 \'bd BOVATES TAXABLE . The number of bovates was corrected from }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 v}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 to }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 vi}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , probably by the }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday: although it is in a slightly darker ink than he had used for the other corrections to the assessments in this entry (1,24 3 \'bd note, 1,24 bovates note, 1,24 bovate note), it is not as dark as that used by scribe B for his correction to the carucates of Scofton, Perlethorpe and Rayton (1,24 carucates note). This total, either before or after this presen t correction, does not agree with the sum of the individual assessments, either before or after their corrections. This is a frequent occurrence in Domesday Book; compare 1,12 total note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,25\tab THIS ENTRY is repeated at 30,53, in the chapter on the lands of the king's thanes, though there is no mention there of the blind man's having 1 smallholder with 6 oxen in a plough. That entry was a late addition to the county by the main scribe of Great Domesday, after it had been rubricated; see 30,53 entry note. Fo r other added entries duplicating material already included, see \{Introduction: Duplicate Entries\}. \par \tab \tab It would seem that the scribe had difficulty in finding the right place for this entry. It really belongs outside the list of dependencies of Mansfield or in a separate chapter entitled 'The king's almslands'. It was presumably entered here as it was one of several parts of Warsop in a territorially-arranged schedule that preceded Domesday, and a piece of royal land referred to in the 'checklist' at 1,24.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WARSOP. See 1,24 Warsop note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,26\tab PERLETHORPE. This was a chapelry of Edwinstowe Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other references, see 1,24;30 and, for another part, see 9,37; for the name, see 1,24 Perlethorpe note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IT LIES IN [THE LANDS OF] MANSFIELD. Strictly speaking the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iacet in}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('lies in') refers to location whereas }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iacet ad}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('belongs to') refers to dependency. In practice, however, the two phrases overlap in meaning. Here Perlethorpe lay within the multiple estate of Mansfield and was no doubt a dependency of it.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,27\tab GRIMSTON. This was a settlement in Wellow Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other references to Grimston, see 1,17-18;24.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The original Grimston appears to correspond to the site of Jordan's castle (SK679665), below the modern settlement which is at Grimston Hill (SK681657); }{\insrsid6823374 see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 250 note 3. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This entry really belongs with the two outliers listed after Mansfield itself in 1,23; see 1,23 outlier note. The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 BEREW'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 at the end of the first line may be intended to draw attention to its misplacement.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For the possibility that this whole entry is duplicated by the one for Grimston at 1,17, see 1,17 outlier note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,28\tab EDWINSTOWE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 234, it is listed as Ancient Demesne. For a reference to this estate, see 1,24.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This entry really belongs with the two outliers listed after Mansfield itself in 1,23; see 1,23 outlier note. The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 BEREW'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above the end of the first line may be intended to draw attention to its misplacement.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab After 1086 Edwinstowe became detached from Mansfield, taking with it Carburton (1,24) and part of Thoresby (1,24); see, }{\insrsid6823374 Crook, 'Community of Mansfield', p. 15}{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 . It is possible that Carburton and Thoresby only appear in Domesday in the list of members of Mansfield because they were already included in Edwinstowe.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,29\tab MAPLEBECK. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For a reference to this estate, see 1,24 and for another part, see 17,11.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,30\tab CARLTON[-IN-LINDRICK]?. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For a reference to this estate, see 1,24 and for a nother part, see 9,50. \par \tab \tab Ostensibly this entry for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Carletone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is a slightly fuller statement of the estate listed as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Caretone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (for which one could plausibly read }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Carletone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) at 1,24. However, the taxable extent of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Caretone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is 4 carucates, while that of the p resent estate is 2 carucates. Since the assessment of estates in the list at 1,24 is often the same in the fuller entries when they re-appear, this casts some doubt on the identification. A possibility is that }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Carletone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is a misreading of the name that occurs as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Carb'tone}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in 1,24, that is, Carburton: a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 b}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 with or without an abbreviation line through it can easily be mistaken for an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 le }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (compare 11,31 Kinoulton note). In favour of this is that Carburton is assessed at 2 carucates as is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Carletone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . Also supporti ng this is the fact that Scofton, Rayton and Perlethorpe with their joint assessment appear in both 1,24 and 1,30 and are preceded by the 2 carucates in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Carletone}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 here and by the 2 carucates in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Carb'tone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in 1,24, whereas the 4 carucates in }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Caretone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 are further down the list in 1,24. Alternatively it may be that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Carletone}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 really is Carlton-in-Lindrick (which is philologically more satisfactory) and the 4 carucates are made up of the two here and the two at 9,50. This would also imply that the listing of 4 carucates in 1,24 had not caught up with the grant or alienation of two.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SCOFTON. This was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of Worksop St Mary and St Cuthbert. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 108. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233, it is listed as Ancient Demesne. For a reference to this estate, see 1,24.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab RAYTON. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Worksop St Mary and St Cuthbert. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 108. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233, it is listed as Ancient Demesne. For a reference to this estate, see 1,24. \par \tab \tab The grid reference is to Rayton Farm (SK614792).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab PERLETHORPE. This was a chapelry of Edwinstowe Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For a reference to this estate, see 1,24; for other parts, see 1,26. 9,37, and for the name, see 1,24 Perlethorpe note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \{\{}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 IN RANBY 2 CARUCATES OF LAND, [A JURISDICTION] OF BOTHAMSALL}{\insrsid6823374 \}\}}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 . When the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the tax assessment total for this entry (1,30 taxable note) he probably underlined this for deletion: he had already included this detail, in its correct place, with other Jurisdictions of Bothamsall (1,14). In the Phillimore printed edition the translation is '}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In Ranby}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , from Bothamsall, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 2 c. of land}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 '; the italics denote deletion. However, the scribe intended the interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 de bodmescel}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to be deleted as well (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 pace}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , JRM in his note here); there would not anyway have been room to underline it separately. The Alecto edition translates '}{\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In Ranby from Bothamsall 2 carucates}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 '. By the interlineation }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 de bodmescel\'b4}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 the scribe meant }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Soca de bodmescel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('A Jurisdiction of Bothamsall').}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Penguin edition of the Alecto translation fails to indicate any deletion; for its other failings of this nature in Nottinghamshire, see 1,16 bovates note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab THAT IS, }{\insrsid6823374 \{\{}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 6}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \}\}}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 4 [CARUCATES] TAXABLE. The main scribe of Great Domesday underlined the }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 .vi.}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 for deletion and interlined }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 .iiii.}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 in correction, the difference of 2 [carucates] being caused by his deletion of the 2 carucates in Ranby earlier in this line (1,30 Ranby note).}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,31\tab THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of G reat Domesday in the foot margin of folio 281b. It is rubricated and was probably done at the same time as the other eight rubricated added entries in this county, though there are a few slight differences between them: 1,46. 5,5. 9,7-9;21;91;81, most of w hich were inserted in the foot margins. The present entry is probably a duplicate of the entry for Clarborough and Tiln, listed among further Jurisdictions of Mansfield on folio 281c (1,41). The main scribe may have failed to realize the duplication becau s e when he added it only Clarborough was recorded there, as the 'and Tiln' interlined by scribe B would not have been there then (see 1,41 Tiln note). There would seem to have been confusion over some of the holdings in Clarborough and Tiln because the mai n scribe also added an entry for Clarborough after rubrication (30,54 entry note), there was scribe B's interlineation just mentioned and both places were the subject of further additions by scribe B (5,8 Laneham note and 5,8 Clarborough note).}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The heading }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 IT' SOCA IN WARDEBEC WAPENTAC}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('Also jurisdiction in Oswaldbeck Wapentake') was added by the main scribe at the same time as this entry.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALSO JURISDICTION IN OSWALDBECK WAPENTAKE. For the addition of this heading, see 1,31 entry note. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 item}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('a lso', 'similarly') refers back to the phrase 'Jurisdiction of Mansfield' in 1,30. The main scribe of Great Domesday did not usually indicate the wapentake in which dependencies lay, if different from that where the manor was. He did not do so for the grou p in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake that began at 1,24. However, he or a scribe of the putative circuit volume may have abstracted this information from a schedule arranged by wapentakes and may have transferred the heading as well. At DBY 1,19 the main scribe of G reat Domesday included for the Jurisdictions of Melbourne (itself in "Walecros" Wapentake) the heading 'This jurisdiction belongs to Melbourne, in Scarsdale Wapentake'. Although he had mistaken the wapentake, this is a parallel example.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This group of esta tes continued to have an independent existence as the 'Soke of Oswaldbeck'. In the late thirteenth century, a jury stated that all the fees in Oswaldbeck Wapentake had belonged to the soke and had been granted to individuals by 'the king': }{ \i\insrsid6823374 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid6823374 , ii. pp. 300-301; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 999}{\insrsid6823374 . If this is so, the process had begun before Domesday as not every estate in Oswaldbeck Wapentake was held from the king. See }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Whitelock, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 158; }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 214; Stenton }{\i\insrsid6823374 Manorial Structures}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 44, Crook, 'Community of Mansfield', pp. 15-17}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 .}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab TILN. This was a hamlet (sometimes spelt Tilne) of Hayton Ancient Parish. Hayton itself does not appear in Domesday. The subheading for Oswaldbeck Wapentake (see 1,31 Oswaldbeck note) , makes its position clear, as does its association with Clarborough at 1,41. It later lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227), but that wapentake combined places that were in both Oswaldbeck Wapentake and 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 10 86, and Tiln, like Clarborough and Hayton, appears in that portion of the list that seems to contain only places that were formerly in Oswaldbeck Wapentake. On the ground, Tiln juts awkwardly into 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake. For other parts, see 1,41. 5,8.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,32\tab [SOUTH] LEVERTON. Both North Leverton and South Leverton were Ancient Parishes. They were adjacent and probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 for they were later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), pp. 227-28. For other parts of 'Leverton', see 2,10. 5,4 and 9,130.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The present holding appears to have been in South Leverton, which lay in the medieval Oswaldbeck Soke (the successor to this Jurisdiction in Oswal dbeck Wapentake). Another part (2,10) seems to have been a dependency of Treswell (2,9) which was an adjacent settlement. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sudleg'ton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 had been held by the king according to }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 302, and }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 was held by the king and Thomas }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 de Latymer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Suth Lever}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ton}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 et}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Cotum}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [South Leverton and Cottam, SK8180; see 9,18 Cottam note] in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106. On the other hand, North Leverton (5,4) seems to have been a part of the archiepiscopal jurisdiction of Laneham (5,4); }{\insrsid6823374 see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 245, and p. 251 note 3.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,33\tab THIS ENTRY was added by scribe B in a space left at the end of the previous entry, although he had to use the central margin too and was forced to write }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ad geld'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 at the end of the previous line of that entry, separating it from the preceding text with a gallows sign. Lack of space forced him to omit }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 terrae}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('of land') after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 car'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , which the main scribe normally included when }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 carucata}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('carucate') rather than }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 caruca}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('plough') was meant, although here there is no confusion because of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ad geldum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . He also initially omitted the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 IN}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and had to interline it, extending the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 I}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 downwards to act as an insertion sign. This addition may have been made at the same time as his brief entry for 6 \'bd bovates in Clarborough and an interlined phr ase on the previous line; see 5,8 Laneham note. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including the addition of five other members of manors, see 1,12 bovates note. He also clarified the tax assessment in one of the other entries for Fe nton; see 9,112 part note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab No indication is given of the status of the estate (whether an outlier or a Jurisdiction) and its only relation to Mansfield is its position in the text; perhaps scribe B thought that the marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 beside the previous entry, whose space this shared, was sufficient.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FENTON. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Sturton-le-Steeple. It lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086, another part (9,112) being directly below a head for that wapentake in the text. It was later in 'Ba ssetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,34\tab LITTLEBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 3 FURLONGS AND 10 VIRGATES LONG. The virgate is here used as a linear measure, that is, probably as an equivalent of a perch, which was often reckoned as 16\'bd feet. Strictly one would expect Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 virga}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('rod', 'pole') for the linear measure, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 virgata}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , its derivative, being reserved for the square measure (a square perch), which is nonetheless not the same as the usual virgate of Domesday, that is, a quarter of a hide or 30 acres, if the hide contains 120 acres; see Grierson, 'Weights and Measures', p. 80 (=}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Erskine and Williams, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The Story of Domesday Book}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 120)}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . Apart from the use of this virgate here at Littleborough, it is found at Kelham (9,59. 11,19. 15,3. 18,4. 30,45) and at the nearby Hockerton (9,60).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,35\tab STURTON[-LE-STEEPLE]. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Sturton-le-Clay. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For another part, see 9,114.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,36\tab [NORTH] WHEATLEY. North Wheatley and South Wheatley were separate Ancient Parishes. South Wheatley (5,4) was a peculiar ecclesiastical ju risdiction of Southwell (5,1) until 1841. Part of North Wheatley (1,36. 9,115) subsequently passed to Westminster Abbey and was its peculiar jurisdiction until the Dissolution of the monasteries. Both places are adjacent. They probably lay in Oswaldbeck W apentake in 1086 as they were later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,37\tab WALKERINGHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227. For another part, see 9,120.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,38\tab MISTERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227. For other parts, see 9,121;123.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,39\tab WISETON. This was a township of Clayworth A ncient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,40\tab CLAYWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227. For another part, see 9,126.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,41\tab CLARBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227. For other parts, see 5,8. 9,127-128. 30,39;54. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab It seems likely that the royal borough of East Retford was planted in a corner of this royal estate which otherwise became an Ancient Parish. It has been suggested by Bishop, 'Origins of East Retford', p. 26, that it was actually built on the s ite of "Odestorp", a member of Dunham-on-Trent manor in 1086, and which is associated with Babworth and Ordsall in Domesday (1,12). Babworth abutted both West Retford and Ordsall, and Ordsall touched Clarborough. Bishop's argument is that Ordsall and "Ode storp" might contain the same first element and that "Odestorp" might therefore be the 'Thorpe' of Ordsall. Because the three occurrences of "Odestorp" in Domesday (1,12. 9,42;71. 30,12) lack an -}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 r}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - before the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 d}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , the connection is philogically unlikely. Mor eover, the arrangement of Domesday is not strictly topographical, so there is no reason to assume that "Odestorp" and Ordsall were close to each other on the ground.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The first certain indication that East Retford was a borough dates from 1225 when an agr eement was made between the burgesses of Nottingham and Retford concerning their rights to levy toll (Bishop, 'Origins of East Retford', p. 26, citing Nottingham Corporation, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Records of the Borough of Nottingham}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , i. (1882) p. 19). However, an earlier existence seems implied by a writ of Henry I of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 c}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . 1105 which confirmed on the monks of Blyth Priory the right to exact toll as granted by Roger of Bully in his foundation charter (the }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary: Timson, pp. 207-209 no. 325; see 9,49 Blyth note)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , but excepting the merchants of the royal court and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 burgenses mei de novo burgo}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('my burgesses of the new borough'). The writ of Henry I, which is not in the Cartulary, was confirmed by Henry II: the }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, p. 210 no. 326). }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 It is likely that this new borough is East Retford; see Bishop, 'Origins of East Retford', pp. 27-28, and for later mentions of the borough, see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids} {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 103; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AND TILN. Scribe B interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 Tille}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Claureburg}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . There would seem to have been confusion over some of the holdings in Clarborough and Tiln because the main scribe of Great Domesday had already added an entry for Tiln at the foot of the previous column which seems to be a duplicate of the present entr y (1,31 entry note), he also added an entry for Clarborough after rubrication (30,54 entry note) and both places were the subject of further additions by scribe B, though not done at the same time as this interlineation (5,8 Laneham note and 5,8 Clarborou gh note).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Tiln was a hamlet (sometimes spelt Tilne) of Hayton Ancient Parish. Hayton itself does not appear in Domesday. The subheading for Oswaldbeck Wapentake, directly above Tiln at 1,31, makes its position clear, as does its association with Clarborou gh here. It later lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227), but that wapentake combined places that were in both Oswaldbeck Wapentake and 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 and Tiln, like Clarborough and Hayton, appears in that portion of the list that seems to contain only places that were formerly in Oswaldbeck Wapentake. On the ground, Tiln juts awkwardly into 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake. For other parts, see 1,31 and 5,8.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,42\tab WELHAM. This was a hamlet of Clarborough Ancient Parish. It probab ly lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227. For another part, see 5,8.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab "SIMENTONE". No trace of this place ha s been found after 1086 and it most probably merged with Welham, with which it is twice associated in Domesday (1,42. 5,8). If that is so, it lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab PERCHES. See B20 perches note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,43\tab GRINGLEY[-ON-THE-HILL?]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107. For the possible identification, see 1,4 Gringley note and, for another part, see 9,122.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 998, [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gre}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 nleg}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ' is associated with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Stretton'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [Sturton-le-Steeple, 1,35] and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leyrton'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [Leverton, 1,32] as part of the Soke of Oswaldbeck; see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. pp. 25, 301 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Stretton' et Grenlay}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ). The vill of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gringele}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , coupled with the vills of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Mist'ton'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [Misterton, 1,38] and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Walcringham}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [Walkeringham, 1,37] in }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Rotuli Hundredorum}{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 306, seems to represent the same place despite the different spelling. These references are unlikely to refer to Little Gringley (1,4) which was a Jurisdiction, not a vill.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,44\tab SAUNDBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For another part, see 5,4.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 GARDEN. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ortus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , from the Classical Latin }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 hortus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . This is not a formal or decorative garden or a 'cottage garden' planted with flowers, but a 'kitchen garden' or 'vegetable patch', whose meaning and use overlaps with the notion of 'smallholding', 'market-garden' or 'orchard'. The latter word contains Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ortus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and English 'yard', the second element explaining the first as in beetroot (Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 beta}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , English 'root'). For 'orchard', Domesday uses the Latin }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 pomarium}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 pomum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('fruit'); see B18. 'Gardens' are also recorded in 9,9 and 12,3.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab PAYS SALT. That is, the salt is a render in payment for holding the garden.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab FROM BYCARRS DYKE. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 redd}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 it}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 sal}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 em}{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 in bigredic}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , but the use of the preposition }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 in}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 is probably idiomatic. Bycarrs Dyke is not the place where he makes the payment, but where the salt is obtained. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Phillimore printed translation has 'in', but the Alecto edition has 'from'.}{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 It is possible that he made the payment in the nearby royal manor of Misterton (1,38). However, this entry could well describe the supply of fish for the major royal manor of Mansfield, at the end of whose account it was written.}{ \insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab According to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 1-2,}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Bycarrs Dyke is a cut that joins the River Idle (in Misterton) more directly to the River Trent, and thus appears to be a canal rather than a drainage ditch, although its original purpose, if different, is unclear. On the modern 1:25,000 Ordnance Survey map, the name occurs at SK736966, well to the east of Misterton and the first series one-inch Ordnance Survey map (Sheet 86 of 1924 reprinted in 1970 as sheet 23) Bycarrs Dyke extends from South Carr (SK724967) to Haxey Gate (SK766962). Th e re are three roughly parallel features here, the River Idle, Bycarrs Dyke and the Mother Drain. Of these, the Mother Drain looks comparatively recent, while Bycarrs Dyke looks like a re-alignment or additional drain for the River Idle. That river debouche s into the River Trent at West Stockwith (at SK788946) and it and the dyke were no doubt tidal in 1086, as the Trent still is at West Stockwith. It would have been possible to pan salt there. The place-name is difficult to interpret but may contain the Sca ndinavian }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 by}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('settlement') and }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 kiarr }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('marsh'): there are a number of places called Carr in this marshy district, for example, three North Carr farms (at SK720957, at SK775957 and at SK767965), a South Carr Farm at SK724967, a Castle Carr Farm at SK 735950, and a Carr Farm at SK724946.}{ \insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For a fishery at }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Bikeresdik}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , see }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , ii. pp. 26, 301. It is reported in }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Rotuli Hundredorum} {\cf1\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 302, that a fishery had once been part of the Soke of Oswaldbeck, but had been given by King John to Newstead Priory. A fishery here had apparently been removed to the detriment of the royal manor of }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Gringel'}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 [Gringley-on-the-Hill?, 1,43]; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 303.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab FOR THE KING'S FISH. Presumably the king's fish were salted to preserve them.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER TH IS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space. This may have been in case he found further members of Mansfield, as in fact he did (1,31 entry note) and there were some more for which he did not find details (if 1,24 is merely a list: 1,2 4 entry note). However, the space was more likely left to demark the end of the long entry for that multiple estate before he began the account of the next one. Alternatively, as a Broxtowe wapentake head is required above the next manor it is possible tha t the space was left for the later inclusion of it. He left spaces elsewhere within fiefs in this county; see 2,2 after note, 5,3 after note, 5,8 after note, 5,11 after note, 7,4 after note, 9,130 after note, 12,10 after note and 21,2 after note..}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,45\tab [* BROXTOWE WAPENTAKE *]. This heading is supplied from evidence for the later location of Arnold and its Jurisdictions (1,45-50).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ARNOLD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 234, it is listed as Ancient Demesne. \par \tab \tab No church is mentioned as being here in 1086, but King Henry II gave the church of Arnold to Laund Priory (Leicestershire); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , vi. p. 189; }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 214.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab EDWARD. On this name, see B19 Edward note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 silua pastilis per loca}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 For the interpretation of the phrase 'pasturable woodland', see 1,1 woodland note. }{\insrsid6823374 In the Phillimore printed edition the present phrase is translated as 'woodland pasture in various places' and in the Alecto edition as 'woodland, pasture in places'. The addition of }{\i\insrsid6823374 per loca }{\insrsid6823374 ('throughout the area') is potentially ambiguous. It could be read closely with }{\i\insrsid6823374 silua}{\insrsid6823374 ('woodland in places') meaning there is woodland scattered over the estate rather than in a single block, or with }{ \i\insrsid6823374 pastilis}{\insrsid6823374 ('pasturable in places') which does not say whether the wood is in one place or dispersed, but means that some of the wood is too dense to allow grass to grow and grazing to take place. If the first meaning was intended the scribe could have supported the phrase with a participle: }{\i\insrsid6823374 silua pastilis per loca dispersa }{\insrsid6823374 ('pasturable woodland scattered over the area [of the manor]'). For the second meaning ('pasturable in places') the order }{\i\insrsid6823374 silua per loca pastilis}{\insrsid6823374 would have been clearer, though too much reliance cannot be placed on word order. However, if this is the correct interpretation, the }{\i\insrsid6823374 per loca}{\insrsid6823374 is really unnecessary, as }{\i\insrsid6823374 silua pastilis}{ \insrsid6823374 itself implies exactly what }{\i\insrsid6823374 per loca}{\insrsid6823374 is supposed to mean. \par \tab \tab In virtually every case it seems that the meaning 'pasturable woodland in [various] places' is more probably the correct one. Although }{\i\insrsid6823374 per loca}{\insrsid6823374 may be ambiguous with }{\i\insrsid6823374 silua pastilis}{ \insrsid6823374 it was also used of other resources by the scribe. Thus YKS 4N1: }{\i\insrsid6823374 xxvi acrae prati per loca}{\insrsid6823374 ('meadow, 26 acres in [various] places'); YKS 6N2: }{\i\insrsid6823374 sunt prata per aliqua loca}{ \insrsid6823374 ('there are meadows in some places'); YKS C22: }{\i\insrsid6823374 haec non fuit hospitata T.R.E. sed per loca culta a burgensibus}{\insrsid6823374 ('this [land] was not inhabited before 1066 but cultivated in places by the burgesses'). An alternative to the use of }{\i\insrsid6823374 per loca}{\insrsid6823374 would be}{\i\insrsid6823374 in aliqubus locis}{\insrsid6823374 ('in some places'); a similar phrase is found in GLS 3,5: }{\i\insrsid6823374 In quibusdam locis pratum 7 silua, sed non multa}{\insrsid6823374 ('meadow and woodland in certain places, but not much'). The phrase }{\i\insrsid6823374 per loca}{ \insrsid6823374 is also used with }{\i\insrsid6823374 silua}{\insrsid6823374 but without }{\i\insrsid6823374 pastilis}{\insrsid6823374 and with a consequent lack of ambiguity: YKS 1Y15 }{\i\insrsid6823374 silua per loca}{\insrsid6823374 ('woodland in [various] places'); YKS 9W48 }{\i\insrsid6823374 silua minuta per loca}{\insrsid6823374 ('underwood in [various] places'). Thus the woodland is scattered over the surface of the manor. Dimensions are often given in acres or in }{ \i\insrsid6823374 x}{\insrsid6823374 furlongs or leagues by }{\i\insrsid6823374 y}{\insrsid6823374 furlongs or leagues, as here, but this merely indicates th at any single square of pasturable woodland (as well as plain woodland) that Domesday surveys is an agglomeration of several pieces of woodland, often including that of outliers and jurisdictions. This must often have been the case even in the absence of }{\i\insrsid6823374 per loca}{\insrsid6823374 . At LIN 35,14, the scribe used }{\i\insrsid6823374 silua}{\insrsid6823374 }{\i\insrsid6823374 pastilis}{\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\insrsid6823374 silua pastilis per loca}{\insrsid6823374 in the same entry: } {\i\insrsid6823374 Silua pastilis i leugam longa 7 x quarentinas lata. Extra hanc adhuc cc acrae siluae pastilis per loca}{\insrsid6823374 ('Pasturable woodland 1 league long and 10 furlongs wide. Besides this, a further 200 acres of pasturable woodland in [various] places'). The obvious interpretation of this is that there is one large block of pasturable woodland (measured in leagues and furlongs) and various scattered pieces lumped togethe r as 200 acres. In the previous entry (LIN 35,13) there is }{\i\insrsid6823374 silua vii quarentinas longa 7 v quarentinas et dimidiam lata}{\insrsid6823374 .}{\i\insrsid6823374 Extra hanc 7 cc 7 quater xx acrae siluae pastilis per loca}{\insrsid6823374 ('woodland 7 furlongs long and 5 \'bd furlongs wide. Besides this, pasturable woodland in [various] places, 280 acres'). There, the first wood is not pasturable, but the same overall interpretation will apply. \par \tab \tab Support for the meaning 'pasturable woodland in [various] places' is given in the phrasing used in two Lincolnshire entries (LIN 56,11;18) which are duplicated by two entries in 'Roteland' (RUT 2,7;13): the two 'Roteland' entries have }{ \i\insrsid6823374 silua pastilis per loca}{\insrsid6823374 , the Lincolnshire entries simply }{\i\insrsid6823374 silua pastilis}{\insrsid6823374 . The account of these entries probably derives from two separate county inquests (see RUT \{ Introduction: Duplicate Entries\}) and it is possible that those responsible for writing up the results of the 'Roteland' inquest were being more specific than those writing up the results of the Lincolnshire one. Alternatively, in the sou rces used by the main scribe of Great Domesday for circuit VI (possibly, but not necessarily, a circuit volume) the phrase }{\i\insrsid6823374 silua pastilis per loca}{\insrsid6823374 was routinely used for woodland (and perhaps meadow and pasture as well) to indicate that these resources wer e each dispersed on the ground but that their extents had been added together for the purposes of Domesday valuations. The Domesday scribe, possibly unaware of the significance and under pressure to shorten, may have eliminated many (but not all) occurren ces of }{\i\insrsid6823374 per loca}{\insrsid6823374 .}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab A single phrase in Yorkshire (YKS 5W8) may involve the meaning 'pasturable in places'. The Latin is }{\i\insrsid6823374 silua per loca pastilis, per loca inutilis}{\insrsid6823374 ('woodland pasturable in places, unusable in places'). Again, too much reliance should not be placed on word order, but what is significant in the YKS example is the repetition of }{\i\insrsid6823374 per loca }{\insrsid6823374 which is not otiose.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 SESTERS OF HONEY. See 1,1 sesters note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,46\tab THIS ENTRY was interlined by the main scribe of Great Domesday, extending into the outer marg in of folio 281c, above the first of three members of Mansfield; all but the first of these were written by him below the last ruled horizontal line, but were not themselves additions, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 pace}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Black and Roffe, }{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 31}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . This entry was probably written in the same campaign as the other rubricated added entries in Nottinghamshire; see 1,31 entry note. It may not in fact be a Jurisdiction or an outlier of Arnold, despite the heading 'Jurisdiction of this manor' which was a dded at the end of this entry and at the same time as it. It is more likely that it was inserted here by mistake because of its connection with Wollaton, the outlier of Mansfield, above which it was written, and that it is in fact a duplicate: 6 bovates i n Bramcote had already been recorded in William Peverel's fief (10,37) as a Jurisdiction of Wollaton (10,35). The addition of material duplicating what was already in the text was common and probably caused by the shortage of time, and perhaps inclination, to check right through a county's folios; see \{Introduction: Duplicate Entries\} . The main scribe was probably checking material for Wollaton when he found 6 bovates in Bramcote, possibly without the explicit mention of the identity of the manor of which th ey were a Jurisdiction, so he inserted them here, above the first entry for Wollaton. He presumably thought that they were a Jurisdiction of Mansfield, hence his addition of the heading, in its usual place referring to this and subsequent entries (though t he first was in fact an outlier). For another Jurisdiction of William Peverel's manor of Wollaton (10,37) possibly being duplicated in an added unrubricated entry, see 30,55 entry note. For the even later addition by scribe B of a further entry at the end of this column, see 1,50 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BRAMCOTE. This was a chapelry of Attenborough Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For another part, see 29,1.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 6 BOVA TES. If this entry is not a duplicate, the total size of Bramcote is 3 carucates, the present six bovates being complemented by six at 10,37 and by twelve at 29,1. If, however, it is a duplicate, Bramcote would have contained 18 bovates, that is 1 \'bd carucates.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,47\tab WOLLATON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 111; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For another part, see 10,35.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,48\tab [OLD] LENTON. Lenton was an Ancient Parish. The name Old Lenton has arisen in distinction to the adjacent and recent estate called New Lenton (SK5539). Lenton probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other parts, see 10,19;24.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,49\tab BROXTOWE. This was a chapelry of Bilborough Ancient Parish. It named the wapentake in which it lay in 1086 and was still there later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,41. 28,3.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,50\tab THIS ENTRY was added by scribe B in the foot m argin of folio 281c. It was probably a member of Arnold, although he did not include this information as the main scribe of Great Domesday had done for the three previous entries (1,47-49), nor did he put an }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 B'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the margin beside it to indicate its status. The main scribe had already inserted brief details of another holding four lines above, though it may not have been a member of Arnold; see 1,46 entry note. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including the details of five other members of manors, see 1,12 bovates note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BILBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 111; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For another part, see 10,39.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,51\tab ORSTON. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Orston with Thoroton. It lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 103; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A CHURCH AND 2 PRIESTS. The brace of priests and their possession of a plough and an ox may imply that this was a small minster church; see \{Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\}.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 The church of Orston was granted, along with the Derbyshire churches of Chesterfield and Ashbourne (DBY 1,1;14) and the church of Mansfield (1,2 3) by William II in 1093 to the Bishop of Lincoln: }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , viii. p. 1271 (the page number misprinted as 1237) no. 6; }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 87 no. 337; see}{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 214}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 . This grant makes reference to one by William the Conqueror which is lost. Besides the churches themselves, the grant includes 'the chapels in the outliers of these four manors'. None of these chapels is mentioned in Derbyshire, but the second church at Mansfield may have been one of these ch apels. There may have been an unrecorded chapel at Scarrington (1,52), called an outlier by Domesday, and possibly at Staunton-in-the-Vale (1,53) if that too was an outlier.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,52\tab AN OUTLIER OF THIS MANOR. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 BEREW'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is presumably singular (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Berewica}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) and refers to Scarrington alone. Staunton-in-the-Vale (1,53), whose status is uncertain, was added to the manuscript after the main scribe of Great Domesday had written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 BEREW'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SCARRINGTON. This was a chapelry of Orston Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Orston with Thoroton. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,53\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday partly in a space at the end of the previous entry for an out lier of Orston (1,52) and partly in the centre margin; the continuation was clearly indicated by the use of transposition signs, also not rubricated. He added it at the same time as several other unrubricated entries in the first Nottinghamshire quire (fo lios 280-288): 1,64. 10,64-66 and perhaps 2,3;10 and possibly 5,6. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The main scribe did not indicate the relationship of this entry to Orston, but its position after an outlier of that manor and before a Jurisdiction of it seems to imply that it was also a dependency of Orston, possibly another outlier. The lack of a value suggests that it was not a manor like the holding of Walter of Aincourt there (11,2).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab STAUNTON[-IN-THE-VAL E]. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Staunton with Flawborough. Although its apparent head manor (Orston, 1,51) was in Bingham Wapentake, this seeming dependency probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For another part, see 11,2. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 3 PLOUGHS ... MEADOW, 60 ACRES. This part of the entry was written}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab in the centre margin. It is omitted in the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation; see 2,3 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,54\tab THOROTON. This was a chapelry of Orston Ancient Parish, which was sometimes known as Orston with Thoroton. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For another part, see 20,2.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 18 VILLAGERS AND 1 SMALLHOLDER. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of villagers from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 xvi}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 xviii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 by interlining }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ii}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above the original }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 i}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . At the same time he interlined }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 i. bord'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 h'ntes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,55\tab SCREVETON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 7,6. 9,106. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The place-name is derived from Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 scir-gerefan tun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('farm of the sheriff'), but nothing is known of any connection with a named sheriff; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 229}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,56\tab [CAR] COLSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 9,107. 11,24.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,57\tab ASLOCKTON. This was a township of Whatton Ancient Parish. Like the settlement of Whatton-in-the-Vale itself (17,16), it probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 11,22. 17,18. 20,6. 30,37.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,58\tab 'NEWBOLD'. This place, now lost, lay in Kinoulton Ancient Parish, on the north side of Kinoulton itself; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 237. Kinoulton (11,31. 30,38) lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab EARL MORCAR. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 He was the son of Algar }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 and his wife Aelfeva, grandson of Earl Leofric and brother of Earl Edwin}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . Algar was Earl of East Anglia 1051-1052, later of Mercia from about 1057. Morcar was }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 chosen as earl by the Northumbrians when they had deposed Earl Tosti }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (King Harold\rquote s brother) in 1065. He s ubmitted to King William, but rebelled twice and was in custody in Normandy at the time of the Domesday Survey.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Morcar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Morcharus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Swedish }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Morkar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 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.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab UNDERWOOD, 2 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab VALUE BEFORE 1066 \'a34. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected this value from \'a33 to \'a34 by inserting a fourth minim after his original }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; however, he did not then interline }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (the last two letters of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 quattuor}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , '4') in clarification, as he often did (see 16,11 4d note and 20,7 bovates note).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,59\tab [UPPER] BROUGHTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 23 2. Shiring cut through the land-unit of 'Broughton' leaving Nether Broughton (also held by the king) in Leicestershire (LEC 1,2).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid801729 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6823374 \tab EARL ALGAR.}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 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 }{\insrsid6823374 Earl of East Anglia 1051-1052 in place of Harold during the exile of the Godwine family and from 1053-1057 on Harold\rquote s appointment to the Earldom of Wessex in succession to his father. Outlawed in 1055 he formed an alliance with th e 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\rquote s help.}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 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 }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 holder.}{\insrsid6823374 \par \tab \tab The Domesday form, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Algar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), is used throughout Domesday for the earl. This form together with the other forms - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Elgar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aelgar}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alger}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aelger}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - }{\insrsid6823374 could represent Old English }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6}{\i\insrsid6823374 lfgar, \'c6thelgar}{\insrsid6823374 or}{\i\insrsid6823374 Ealdgar }{\insrsid6823374 or even}{\i\insrsid6823374 Old Norse Alfgeirr}{\insrsid6823374 : }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 144-46, under }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Al-gar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , and also p. 142, under }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Al-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{\insrsid6823374 However, he included}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 all the references to the earl under Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6lfgar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ibidem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 172-73). JRM, however, preferred to keep to the base form for the earl as it reflected the consistent Domesday spell ing, which might suggest that the earl was actually known as Algar in 1086. The Alecto edition has Earl \'c6lfgar.}{\insrsid801729 \par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid801729 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 7 PLOUGHS. The }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday had written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T'ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('Land') and then left the rest of the line blank for the later insertion of the number of ploughs in the estimate. Scribe B then added }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .vii. car'. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in this space. It would seem that the details of the plough estimate were important as the main scribe often left room for their completion, as he did twice more in this county (9,112. 10,32), though they were never completed.}{\insrsid6823374 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 m issing in a large number of entries in Great Domesday: see here, for example, 15,7 plough note and 9,120 plough note. Sometimes, as here, the information was found to complete the estimate. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, see 1,12 bovates note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 MILL, 5s; MEADOW, 100 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative, as may be }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 molin'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 1,1 fishery note and 5,9 mill note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,60\tab THORPE[-IN-THE-GLEBE]. This was an Ancient Parish, often known as Thorpe, sometimes also as Thorpe Bochart. If it has been correctly identified, it appears to have been one of the five places (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which, in 1086, formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and \{Introduction: }{\insrsid6823374 Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \}. It later lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For another part, see 9,91.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The name survives as that of a parish and as a collective for several farms (Brooklea Farm, Woodside Farm, Annabell's Farm). It is also found in Thorpe Lodge Farm (SK616265) and in Thorpe Plantation (SK620260). The site of the deserted medieval village of 'Thorpe-le-Glebe' lay at SK606256 and is marked on current large-scale Ordnance Survey maps. The church is represented by Church Site Farm (SK608255). On the deserted settlement, see Cameron and O'Brien, 'Deserted Medieval Village of Thorpe-in-the Glebe'.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,61\tab FLINTHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 103; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 9,108-109. 11,25.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALWIN. On this name, see S5 Alwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A CHURCH AND A PRIEST. The possession of half a plough may suggest that this was a superior church, possibly a minster; see \{Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\}.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab UNDERWOOD. The punctuation in the Phillimore printed translation, with a semi-colon before the underwood, suggests that it might have belonged to the church and priest (as the meadow might have, as the case of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is unclear), but }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Silua}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is nominative and clearly in a new sentence, as regularly elsewhere and as in the Alecto edition; see 1,1 fishery note. The punctuation has th erefore been corrected for the present edition.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,62\tab KNEETON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 103; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 2,7-8. 9,102. \par \tab \tab Domesday does not designate it as a manor, outlier or Jurisdiction. The absence of a value suggests that it was probably a Jurisdiction of Flintham (1,61).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,63\tab [* THURGARTON WAPENTAKE *]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Sneinton; see 1,63 Sneinton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SNEINTON. The name contains the same personal name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Snota}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , as does Nottingham itself, but the Domesday form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Notitone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , shows the loss of intial }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 from which Nottingham (Domesday }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Snotingeham}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) itself suffered after 1086; see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottingham}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 174. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Nottingham St Mary. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. Its apparent inclusion as the last entry in a list of places in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109 is presumably an error, since 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake did not touch Nottingham. \par \tab \tab Domesday does not designate Sneinton as a manor, outlier or Jurisdiction. It is some distance from Flintham (1,61), the last manor mentioned, and has no known connection with it. Its presence here is something of an anomaly: for most of the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Terra Regis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (1,1-62) wapentakes are entered in standard county order; see \{Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes\} . However, it is possible that this solitary estate, which probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake was initially missed, and was entered here. It is followe d by three added entries (1,64-66). It is in fact a duplicate of a carucate of land already entered under the borough of Nottingham, but without an individual name (B19). However, it is clear from that entry that it was taxable land but did not contribute to the revenue of the borough. It is therefore likely to have been in a wapentake in 1086. \par \tab \tab For the identification of the Sneinton which featured in a medieval lawsuit, see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 245.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab VALUE \'a33. The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 value was the sa me, according to the repeat of this entry in B19.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,64\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY and the next two (1,65-66), also unrubricated, were added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in a large space left by him at the end of the king's fief. This brief entry seems to have been added after them as the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 I }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 had to be partly accommodated in the centre margin; the ink used for it is also slightly paler than for them, suggesting it was not written at the same time; for other unrubricated entries added with it, see 1, 53 entry note. He failed to include the wapentake head, as was often the case with added entries, and for almost all of those added at a later stage. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from the probable location of 'Meering' (1,64); see 1,64 'Meering' note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab 'MEERING'. This was an extra-parochial place which became a Civil Parish in 1858. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. It survives on modern Ordnance Survey maps only as the name of a parish, but a settlement was marked at SK811654 on the Ordnance Survey first edition one-inch sheet 83 of 1824 (reprinted as sheet 29 in 1970). It was pres umably abandoned because frequently flooded by a rise in the water-level of the River Trent; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 191; }{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Beresford and Hurst, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Deserted Medieval Villages}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 200.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WILLIAM [* SON OF SKIALDVARTH *] HAD. This identification was suggested by Stenton in }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 215, because William son of Skialdvarth had held Sutton-on-Trent (2,4) on the opposite bank of the River Trent and because of the rarity of the name William among 1066 holders. In the first version of }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday Explorer}{ \insrsid6823374 , the translation of the Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 h}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 a}{\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\insrsid6823374 b}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 uit}{\insrsid6823374 ] (or perhaps }{\i\insrsid6823374 h}{ \insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 a}{\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\insrsid6823374 b}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 ebat}{\insrsid6823374 ], both past tenses) appeared mistakenly as 'has', which would be the translation of the present }{ \i\insrsid6823374 h}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 abe}{\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\insrsid6823374 t}{\insrsid6823374 .}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,65\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domes day in a large space left by him at the end of the king's fief, at the same time as the next entry (1,66) but probably before the previous one (1,64); see 1,64 entry note. It is likely that he added the entry for Barton-in-Fabis on folio 287b (10,7) at th e same time as them. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. He failed to include the wapentake head, as was often the case with added entries, and for almost all of those added at a later stage. It is possible that h e found this entry and the next (1,66) when he was checking the material in Corringham Wapentake, Lincolnshire, which is where both Kirton[-in-Lindsey] and Laughton lay, of which Misson here and in 1,66 were Jurisdictions. Compare 23,1 Stockerston note an d 23,2 entry note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This entry appears to be a duplicate of 30,44 which has the same taxable extent and the same number of villagers and ploughs, though lacks both a }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and 1086 holder. It is likewise described as a Jurisdiction of Kirton-in-Lindsey; b oth entries, however, fail to record the wapentake (see 1,64 entry note). It is possible that when the main scribe found this Jurisdiction, he thought that he had missed it earlier and entered it in what he thought was the correct place, under the king's l and. He failed to delete the entry at 30,44 which is oddly placed among the 'Lands of the King's Thanes'. For an unrubricated entry added in the section on the lands of the king's thanes that was a duplicate of an entry in his fief, see 30,53 entry note a nd, possibly, 30,56 Ordsall note. For another entry in Misson that was added by the main scribe, though before rubrication, see 9,21 entry note. For other added entries duplicating material already included, see \{Introduction: Duplicate Entries\}.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE]. The heading is supplied from the probable location of Misson; see 1,65 Misson note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MISSON. This was an Ancient Parish divided between Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire until a boundary change in 1886 placed the parish entirely in Nottingha mshire. A part was still taxed in Lincolnshire in 1334: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), pp. 185, 227. The Nottinghamshire portion probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. If so, it will, in 1086, have been detached from that wapentake by the presence of }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Scaftworth (5,8), Everton (5,8. 9,117;124) and Harwell (9,117;124) which appear to have lain in Oswaldbeck Wapentake then, though they were later in 'Bassetlaw' W apentake when Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged with it. This entry is apparently duplicated in 30,44 (1,65 entry note); f}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or other parts of Misson, see 1,66. 9,21. 30,43.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation this place-name appears wrongly as Mission here (as also at 9,21); it is correct in the Alecto edition.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab TOSTI HAD IT. The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Tosti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Tostius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and, once each, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thostin}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Tostillus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Danish/Old Norse }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Tosti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 387. The Alecto edition has Tosti. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This man may be an ordinary Tosti, not the earl, and have held under Earl Edwin, who was the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holder of Kirton-in-Lindsey; see 1,65 Kirton note. Alternatively he might be Earl Tosti and it may be that Earl Edwin (of Mercia) succeeded Earl Tosti (of Northumbria), when the former was rejected by the Northumbrians who chose Morcar as their earl. Edwin will have held only briefly and the jurors in the different shires may have given different names to the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holders. Thus Earl Algar, Earl Edwin's father, is sometimes said to hold }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 though he was dead by 1066. It is possible that Nottinghamshire was briefly attached to Northumbria, though it was more naturally a member of the Mercian earldom; see \{ Introduction: Administration of the Shire\}. \par \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Apart from the earl, Harold's brother, the name Tosti is not particularly common, occurring on twenty holdings between Sussex and Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire has the only concentration (LIN 4,17-21;69 -71), and all these devolved upon the Bishop of Bayeux, making it likely that they had been held by the individual who can be identified as Tosti, brother of Eric of Tealby, 'one of King Edward's barons' according to the}{\i\insrsid6823374 }{ \insrsid6823374 (Macray, pp. 175, 199}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ; see RUT 2,8 Eric note. Tosti held Sawtry in Huntingdonshire (HUN 19,1. D27) and may also have held this Jurisdiction of Kirton-in-Lindsey (JP)}{\insrsid6823374 .}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab KIRTON[-IN-LINDSEY]. This royal manor is surveyed in LIN 1,38. The spellings of the Nottinghamshire Kirton (1,19;24), also part of a royal manor, rule out identification with the latter; see 1,19 Kirton note. Misson is listed among places in the 'Soke of Kirton' in the West Riding of Lincolnshire in 1316 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iii. p. 185).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 1,66\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in a large space left by him at the end of the king's fief, at the same time as the previous entry (1,65) but probably before the first added entry here (1,64); see 1,64 entry note. It is likely that he added the entry for B a rton-in-Fabis on folio 287b (10,7) at the same time as these two. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. It is possible that he found this entry and the previous one (1,65) when he was checking the material in Corr i ngham Wapentake, Lincolnshire, which is where both Kirton-in-Lindsey and Laughton lay, of which Misson here and in 1,65 were Jurisdictions. Compare 23,2 entry note. This entry is misplaced; it rightly belongs in the Lincolnshire folios with the other Juri sdictions of Laughton (LIN 57,8-9).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THERE ALSO ^[MISSON]^. See 1,65 Misson note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IT IS AN ADJUNCT OF LAUGHTON. Strictly the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iacet ad}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (literally 'lies at') implies dependency whereas }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iacet in}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('lies in') gives a location, although the main scribe of Great Domesday was not entirely consistent in his usage and in practice the two senses overlap, because the location of one place in another often implies dependency. The Phillimore printed translation is 'It lies in Laughton [lands]'. The Alecto edition has 'It belongs to Laughton'. \par \tab \tab Laughton is surveyed at LIN 57,7. The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . holder was Ulfgrim, though none is given here for Misson.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GUY ^[OF CRAON]^. The identity is supplied from LIN 57 of which he is the fief-holder. \par \tab \tab The Domesday form of his first name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wido}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , represents Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wido}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Romance }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Guido}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gido}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 254. The modern English form Guy was preferred by JRM and is also used in the Alecto edition.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALFRED [* OF CHANCE *]. The Domesday forms of Alfred - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alured}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aluredus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aluret}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alueradus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aluerd}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aluert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aluer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Eluret}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6lfr\'e6d}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 175-76. However, he stated that sometimes the Old Breton }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alfred}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alfret}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alfrit}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 might be considered, as well as Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alverat}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc., especially for Normans and 1086 landholders. JRM preferred the modern form Alfred for both }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 and 1086 holders}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . The Alecto edition has Alfred and Alvred, the latter most often for 1086 holders, including here.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In Lincolnshire Alfred is called 'Guy's man' (LIN 57,1;5-7). }{\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , pp. 140-41, seems to suggest that he was Alfred of Laughton, named from the estate he held from Guy of Craon (LIN 57,7) and apparently also Alfred of }{\i\insrsid6823374 Chanc\'e9}{\insrsid6823374 (whose son was called Alfred of }{\i\insrsid6823374 Canci}{\insrsid6823374 ), but she does not provide evidence to link these two men called Alfred. Chanc\'e9 is in the French d\'e9partement of Ille-et-Vilaine (arrondissement Rennes, canton Ch\'e2teaugiron).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the remaining six lines of folio 281d.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 2\tab THIS FIEF and the next two, for Earl Hugh and the Count of Mortain (NTT 3-4), were omitted by the main scribe of Great Domesday when he first wrote up Nottinghamshire. He must have written the first Nottinghamshire quire, and possibly much of the second, before he discovered this omission. He had begun the first quire (folios 280-288) with the details of the boroughs of Nottingham and Derby and the customs of the two shires, then s t arted on the fiefs with the king's lands, continued with those of four ecclesiastical tenants (the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Lincoln, the Bishop of Bayeux, St Peter of Peterborough) and then of three lay tenants (Roger of Bully, William Peverel, W a lter of Aincourt), the holdings of the last of these continuing into the second quire (folios 289-296). The fiefs of the three omitted lay tenants should have been entered after that of the last ecclesiastical tenant, that is, after folio 284b, as they we r e of greater importance than Roger of Bully etc. However, it was impossible to insert them at that point, nor could he add them elsewhere in the first quire because of the flow of the text from one page to the next. He solved the problem by inserting a ha l f-sheet following the holdings of the king and inscribing the three omitted fiefs on its verso (folio 282cd). This solution sacrificed the strict hierarchical order of the chapters within the county, the only occurrence in Great Domesday of the holdings o f lay tenants-in-chief preceding those of the church. If he had known the exact number of lines required for this omission, he could in fact have added them partly in the blank column that he had left after the archbishop's fief (folio 283c) and partly in t he blank half-column he had left after the Bishop of Lincoln's fief (folio 284a), but it would have been a tight fit and not aesthetically pleasing and would have disrupted the hierarchical order even further. The Landholders' List on folio 280d shows the se three fiefs numbered as }{\i\insrsid6823374 II-IIII}{\insrsid6823374 as they appear in the text. On his writing on the verso of this half-sheet, see \{Introduction: Layout and Content of Entries\}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{ \insrsid6823374 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 However, the main scribe did not have details of all Count Alan's holdings in this county as he had to write three entries in the outer margin of this inserted half-sheet (2,3;5;10).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND OF COUNT ALAN. }{\insrsid6823374 Count Alan Rufus of Brittany was a son of Count Eudo, regent of Brittany 1040-1047 who was brother of Duke Alan III of Brittany and son of an aunt of William the Conqueror. Alan Rufus\rquote mother was Agnes, from the Anjou. A younger brother was Alan Niger. After King William\rquote s harrying of the north in 1069, Alan Rufus acquired vast lands which became the nucleus of the honour of Richmond (Yorkshire). He was really in charge of a vast marcher lordship facing the kingdoms of Strathclyde and Scotland. His fief was further increased after 1075 by the East Anglian lands forfeited by the rebel Earl Ralph de Ga\'eb l. Count Alan was an intensely loyal supporter of W illiam I and of his son William Rufus and was important in the disgrace and exile of William of Saint-Calais, Bishop of Durham in 1089. He died in 1093, and was succeeded by his brother Alan Niger, then, after the latter's death in 1098 by another brother , Stephen. Alan founded St Mary\rquote s, York, and a priory at Swavesy (in Cambridgeshire) as a cell of Saints Serge and Bacchus in Angers. He also made grants to the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds where he was interred. See Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 127. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday form, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], represents Old Breton Alan: von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 142. The Alecto edition also has Alan.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab There are no wapentake heads in this chapter, but analysis reveals that the lands lay in five wapentakes which are entered in standard county order; see \{ Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes\}: \par \tab \tab 2,1-3 [Newark Wapentake] \par \tab \tab 2,4-5 ['Lythe' Wapentake] \par \tab \tab 2,6 [Rushcliffe Wapentake] \par \tab \tab 2,7-8 [Bingham Wapentake] \par \tab \tab 2,9-10 [Oswaldbeck Wapentake].}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 2,1\tab [NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Sibthorpe and Syerston (2,1-3).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SIBTHORPE. This was an Ancient Parish, originally that of a collegiate church, which was there in 1086: Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 367. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 2,2. 10,2. 20,1.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OSPAK . The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vnspac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 over the erasure of a slightly longer name.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vnspac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vnspati}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (genitive) - represent Old Swedish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ospak}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Norse }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ospakr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 340. The Alecto edition has Ospak f or the two occurrences of this name in Nottinghamshire (see also 9,103, perhaps the same individual; see 9,103 Ospak note) and for the Ospak who was father of a Ralph in KEN 2,29, but Ospakr for the two occurrences in Norfolk (NFK 1,42. 9,150) and Ansketi l fitzUnspac for the 1086 holder in NFK 66,99.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FREDEGIS HOLDS. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Fredgis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Fredregis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Fredghis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Fredegis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 254. The Alecto edition has Fredegis, except for the Norfolk example where it has Frederick for the form }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Fredregis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and for the Lincolnshire one where it has Fredegaest.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab There are six other occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire: as a }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 holder in 10,53-55 and in 16,8, and as a 1086 subtenant of William Peverel in 10,55;57. It is not clear whether the same individual held all these lands; on the probability of his being the father of Godric, see 9,94 Godric note. See also 10,55 Fredegis note. The only other occurrences of this name in Domesday are six times in Northamptonshire and once in Norfolk as a }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 holder, and once in Lincolnshire (as a 1086 holder).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A FOURTH PART OF THE LAND BELONGS. That is, a quarter of the 2\'bd bovates. The possession of land by this church may mean that it was superior, possibly a (small) minster church; see \{ Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\}. The statement is repeated under another holding at Sibthorpe (20,1) and presumably refers to the same quarter.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 2,2\tab THERE ALSO ^[SIBTHORPE]^. See 2,1 Sibthorpe note. The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 IBID\'c7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is lined through in red in the manuscript as expected for a manorial entry, and this is reproduced in the Ordnance Survey facsimile, though not in the Alecto facsimile. On other omissions of red-lining in place-names in the Alecto facsimile, see 9,12 Tuxford note, 9,51 Lound note, 9,98 there note, 13,7 Keyworth note and 17,8 there note; see also 5,3 Hickling note and 6,5 had note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OSBERN HAD. In the manuscript the reading is clearly }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 hb}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 with an abbreviation line through the ascenders of the two letters; Farley misprinted }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ht}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 with a horizontal abbreviation line over the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . This mistake led to the translation of the verb as 'has' in the Phillimore printed edition, which was not altered in the first version of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Domesday Explorer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . For other of Farley's rare errors in this county, see 9,31 Drayton note. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of Osbern - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Osbern}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Osber}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Asbiorn}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Esbiorn}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) Normanized or Anglicized, or Old Low German }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Osbern}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 338-39. The Alecto edition has Osbern.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space, though he had written the 1086 value at the end if it as an overrun. The space might have been for the later insertion of a wapentake head, as the next entry, Sutton-on-Trent, was in 'Lythe' Wapentake (see 2,4 'Lythe' note). For a list of other one-line spaces left within fiefs, see 1,44 after note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 2,3\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the outer margin of folio 282c, level with the entry for Sutton[-on-Trent] in 'Lythe' Wapentake (2,4, head omitted), but it belongs with the two entries in Newark Wapentake (2,1-2). It may have been added at the same time as s ome other unrubricated entries; see 1,53 entry note. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. The inclusion of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Manerium}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 'manor') beside this entry is unusual for an unrubricated addition; none of the other entries added after rubrication in Nottinghamshire (see the list in 1,19 entry note) has any letter denoting its status. However, it includes a formula in the value statement that is not found in circuit VI except in added entries, which may suggest that it was added much later; see 10,64 entry note and 2,3 value note. On the fief of Count Alan being written on an inserted half-sheet, see NTT 2 fief note. Other holdings of his were added; see 2,5;10. YKS 6E1. LIN 12,62;69 for those also added after rubric ation, and LIN 12,45;83-84;97 for those added before rubrication. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This entry is not included in the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation; other entries in Nottinghamshire that are similarly omitted from this 'Complete Translation' include 2,5;10. 9,2 3;47-48. 10,7. 12,12. 30,10. This is presumably because they were written in the side or centre margins, though they are nonetheless integral parts of the text written by the main scribe.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SYERSTON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of East Stoke. It lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 (another part of Syerston is below a Newark wapentake head at 30,40) as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3. 21,2. 30,40.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AELRIC. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ailric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ailricus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Eilric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alricus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aeilric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Eilricus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc. - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6thelric}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 186-87. As these forms did not include the medial }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -d- }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -g-}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 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 \'c6thelric.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ROBERT [* OF MOUTIERS *] HOLDS. The Domesday forms of his first name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Robert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , } {\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rob}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rodbertus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rotbert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rodbert}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rotbert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Robert }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc: Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 216-17; see also von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 349-50. As the name Robert has survived to mo dern times, JRM chose that form. The Alecto edition also has Robert. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab According to }{\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 377, this subtenant of Count Alan is Robert of Moutiers, who appears with his byname in 2,9 (see 2,9 Robert note). She also identifies Robe rt the count's man in YKS 6N147;151 and LIN 12,4 and plain Robert in 6N148;158 as Robert of Moutiers. However, she provides more folio references than there are occurrences of the name Robert (six for folio 313a, for YKS 6N158; two for folio 347a, for LIN 12,4), though she states, on p. 121, that 'Several references to the same folio may be given, but each will relate to a separate occurrence of the subject in the Domesday text'; see 15,10 Warner note and 17,16 Robert note. If all the references to Count A lan's subtenant Robert are to Robert of Moutiers, then the plain Robert in YKS 6N128 (folio 312b) should probably be included, though not mentioned by Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 ibidem}{\insrsid6823374 .}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [VALUE] FORMERLY 40s; NOW 20s. This formula is not one found anywhere else in this county or elsewhere in circuit VI, except in entries added after rubrication (it also appears here in 12,23 and compare 5,6 formerly note, 10,64 value note and 30,54 value note). On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 2,4\tab ['LYTHE' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Sutton-on-Trent and Carlton-on-Trent (2,4-5).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SUTTON[-ON-TRENT]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 9,63;67.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WILLIAM SON OF SKIALDVARTH. A William, probably the same man, held 'Meering' (1,64) on the opposite bank of the Trent; see 1,64 William note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On the name William, see B9 William note. His father's name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sceluuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , represents the hypothetical Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Skialdvarthr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 365. JRM did not pronounce on this name, but he did not retain the final }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 r}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in other Old Norse names as it was not in the Domesday form. It appears in the Phillimore printed edition as Scelward and in the Alecto edition as Skialdvarthr. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Book.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HERVEY, COUNT ALAN'S MAN. The Domesday forms of Hervey - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Herveus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hervicus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Herveius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hervicius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Herewig}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Herewicus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Romance }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Her}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 veus,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Old French }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hervieu}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hervi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : Forssner, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 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. \par \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire, but a Hervey, Count Alan's man, occurs in LIN 12,51.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 2,5\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the outer margin of folio 282c below another added entry (2,3) but apparently not at the same time as it, as it was written in larger letters with a different pen and the ink is darker. It does not seem to have been written in the same campaign as any of the other added entries that were not rubricated, on which see 1,19 entry note. On the fief of Count Alan being written on an inserted half-sheet, see NTT 2 fief note, and for other holdings of his that were added, see 2,3 entr y note. \par \tab \tab This estate is neither designated a manor nor an outlier nor a Jurisdicton; see 2,3 entry note. However, it lacks a value statement and was written almost adjacent to Sutton-on-Trent and may well have been a Jurisdiction of it. \par \tab \tab This entry is not included in the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation; for other entries in Nottinghamshire which are similarly missing from it, see 2,3 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab CARLTON[-ON-TRENT]. This was a chapelry of Norwell Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other references to Carlton-on-Trent, see 1,21;24. 9,61. 12,10;23. 30,2.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WILLIAM HOLDS IT. On this name, see B9 William note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 2,6\tab [RUSHCLIFFE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Ruddington; see 2,6 Ruddington note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab RUDDINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 1109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,83. 17,15. 25,2.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LEOFGEAT. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leuiet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leuiet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leueget}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leuiget}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old English }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leofgeat}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 311. He remarked that in some cases where the sex of the tenants could not be ascertained, the forms might represent the feminine Old English name }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leofgyth}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (see WIL 67,86 Leofgyth note). The Alecto edition has Leofgeat.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab COUNT A[LAN]. Normally it is the title (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 comes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 episcopus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc.) of a holder that is interlined, but here the main scribe of Great Domesday obviously thought it necessary to clarify which }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 comes}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 by interlining }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 A.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alanus}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . He did the same in the next entry (2,7) and in the entry for Treswell (2,9).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 2,7\tab [BINGHAM WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Kneeton (2,7-8).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab KNEETON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 103; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 1,62. 2,8. 9,102.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALSI. On this name, see S5 Alsi note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \'bd CHURCH. The other part does not appear.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 2,8\tab THERE ALSO ^[KNEETON]^. See 2,7 Kneeton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFRIC. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 2,9\tab [OSWALDBECK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Treswell and Leverton (2,9-10).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab TRESWELL. This was an Ancient Parish and a peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the dean and chapter of York. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'B assetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For another part, see 9,129.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFMER. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlmar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlmer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wlmer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ),}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wlmar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlmaer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wulmarus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlfmer}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wlmaer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc. - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wulfm\'e6r}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 421-22. JRM preferred the second element -mer for Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -m\'e6r}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 as it reflected the spelling of the Domesday names. The Al ecto edition has Wulfm\'e6r. \par \tab \tab The Wulfmer who had held the next holding (2,10) may be the same as this Wulfmer (Treswell and South Leverton are within two miles of each other). Roger of Bully's predecessor Wulfmer (9,12;15;33;37;69;125) might also be the sam e individual, in view of his being the predecessor of Count Alan's and Roger's joint holding in South Leverton. However, Wulfmer was a common name.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE. Another third part of a bovate in Treswell is recorded in 9,129.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ROBERT OF MOUTIERS, COUNT ALAN'S MAN.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 If he was a Breton, his byname }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 de Mosters}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is probably from Moutiers in the d\'e9 partement of Ille-et-Vilaine (arrondissement Rennes, canton La Guerche-de-Bretagne) as suggested by }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Ellis, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Yorkshire Tenants in Domesday Book, II}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 323, though he pointed out that there are also three places called Moutiers in the French d}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'e9}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 partement of Calvados in Normandy (Moutiers-en-Auge, Les Moutiers-en-Cinglais and Moutiers-Hubert). Tengvik, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Old English Bynames}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 102, chose this last (arro ndissement Lisieux, canton Livarot) which is also the place of origin of the Paynel/ Paganel family; see Loyd, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 77}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . } {\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 He may have been related to Lisois of Moutiers who lost his East Anglian estates for rebellion in 1075 and who se successor in those was Eudo the steward. His sons were Lisois and Geoffrey, but Robert's estates went, in unknown circumstances, to Ribald, the brother of Count Alan, but were later restored to Robert's heirs. See Keats-Rohan, }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 377.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 His family continued to hold land here until the reign of Edward III; see }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 216. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On the name Robert, see 2,3 Robert note. This is the only holding of Robert of Moutiers, as such, in Domesday Book, but see 2,3 Robert note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 40 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 2,10\tab THIS }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 UNRUBRICATED}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ENTRY was added by the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday in the outer margin of folio 282c, below two other added unrubricated entries and mostly level with the entry for Kneeton (2,7), though it rightly belongs with the last entry in the fief, (Treswell, 2,9) which Count Alan also shared with Roger of Bully (9,129) and which was in Oswaldbeck Wapentake like South Leverton. This entry may have been added at the same time as some other unrubricated entries; see 1,53 entry note. For other entries added by him that were never rubricate d, see 1,19 entry note. On the fief of Count Alan being written on an inserted half-sheet, see NTT 2 fief note, and for other holdings of his that were added, see 2,3 entry note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The unusual statement concerning the tenure in this entry might suggest that the estate had passed to another tenant, a possible reason for its initial omission (compare OXF 44,2 entry note), though its tenure by two tenant-in-chiefs might have caused this (compare WIL 49,1a entry note). However, the main scribe had already recor ded Roger of Bully's holding in South Leverton (9,130) which was rated at 3 \'bd bovates and half of a fifth part of 1 bovate, had land for 1 plough and a value of 10s (that is, exactly half the size, plough estimate and value of the present entry), but had fu ll manorial details, including pasturable woodland and meadow (though he stated that Roger only had half of it), and a value, and there is no sign that Roger no longer held it. See 2,10 Alan note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This entry is not included in the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation; for other entries in Nottinghamshire which are similarly missing from it, see 2,3 entry note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab [SOUTH] LEVERTON. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Both North Leverton and South Leverton were Ancient Parishes. They were adjacent and probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake i n 1086 for they were later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), pp. 227-28. For other parts of 'Leverton', see 1,32. 5,4. 9,130.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The present holding appears to have been at South Leverton; }{\insrsid6823374 see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 245 and p. 251 note 3. For North Leverton, see 5,4.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODRIC. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Godric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Goddric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gadric}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Codricus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Godric}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 266-69. The Alecto edition has Godric.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFMER. On this name, see 2,9 Wulfmer note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab COUNT ALAN AND ROGER OF BULLY. This is Count Alan's fief (NTT 2), but Roger of Bully holds a larger one in NTT 9. There is no marginal indic ation of the status of this land, but it is likely that either }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 IIM'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (denoting a double manor) is missing from the margin beside it, since two men (Godric and Wulfmer) had held it in 1066, or possibly that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is missing if they had held it jointly. It is unusual, however, for two 1086 tenants-in-chief to have held land jointly in this way; more normally one would have held from the other, or their individual portions would be recorded in their respective fiefs; s e e, however 2,10 entry note. In fact, it appears that this allocation to two different fiefs has been half done by the main scribe of Great Domesday, because each of these two entries for land in South Leverton, the present one held by Count Alan and Roger of Bully and that held by Roger of Bully alone (9,130), contains details that belong in whole or part to the other:}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts48\trgaph108\trleft-108\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 \trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr \brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4428\clshdrawnil \cellx4320\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4428\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid8589712\yts48 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid3806112 LAND OF COUNT ALAN: [South] Leverton (2,10) \cell LAND OF ROGER OF BULLY: [South] Leverton (9,130)\cell }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid3806112 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts48\trgaph108\trleft-108\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv \brdrs\brdrw10 \trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb \brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4428\clshdrawnil \cellx4320\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4428\clshdrawnil \cellx8748 \row }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid8589712\yts48 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid3806112 Godric and Wulfmer held }{ \i\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid3806112 T.R.E. \par }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid3806112 Count Alan and Roger of Bully have held 'up till now' \par 7 bovates and one-fifth of 1 bovate \par Land for 2}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963 }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid3806112 ploughs \par ------------------------------------------ \par ------------------------------------------ \par ------------------------------------------ \par \par ------------------------------------------ \par }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963 V}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid3806112 alue 20s \par \cell ---------------------------------------- \par Roger of Bully holds \par \par 3 \'bd bovates and half of one-fifth of a bovate \par Land for 1 plough \par 7 villagers who have 1 \'bd ploughs \par Half a church \par Pasturable woodland 1 \'bd furlongs by 1 furlong \par Meadow 1 \'bd furlongs by 1 furlong \par Roger has half of this woodland and meadow \par Value 10s\cell }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid3806112 \trowd \irow1\irowband1\lastrow \ts48\trgaph108\trleft-108\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 \trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr \brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4428\clshdrawnil \cellx4320\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4428\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\row }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid801729 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab Behind this muddle probably lies the fact that Godric and Wulfmer had once held, or were assumed to have held, a joint estate of 7 and one-fifth bova tes. Had they held separate estates, the land of one of them could have passed to Count Alan and of the other to Roger of Bully without the present confusion. It is possible that Count Alan and Roger of Bully had also held the estate jointly but had just ( in 1086) divided it between them, or again, that Roger of Bully's part had just gone to Count Alan (hence the whole-estate size, plough estimate and valuation given in the present entry), and that the scribe had failed to delete the entry for half the est a te in Roger of Bully's fief. The late insertion of this entry might support the latter suggestion, as might the possibility that Godric and Wulfmer had held separate estates. It seems more probable, however, that the scribe was attempting to divide a join t ly-held estate into two respective fiefs or that he was misled by the way in which details of the estate or estates were presented in a precursor document. Certainly most of the details in Roger of Bully's chapter (9,130) refer to half of the estate, alth o ugh the pasturable woodland and the meadow for the joint estate appear to be entered there with the statement that Roger holds half. Roger holds half a church and it is natural to assume that Count Alan held the other half, although it is not mentioned; s ee 9,130 church note. \par \tab \tab Although this added entry in Count Alan's fief is later than that in Roger of Bully's, it may represent an earlier state of affairs, since it gives the size, the plough estimate and the value of the whole estate. However, it is more in the form of a note since it omits the church, the population and the resources. Probably during a check, the scribe realized that Count Alan's part of South Leverton had not been included in Domesday and he went back to a preceding document which liste d the undivided details of the joint estate. Since the form of the predecessor document cannot be known, it is uncertain whether, in the case of other joint holdings that went to different Norman tenants-in-chief, he always had to make this kind of divisio n of material and on other occasions did it successfully or whether this was an unusual case in which the holders (had) held jointly, not separately. It is possible, in this case, that if a document similar to the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 was us ed (in which all the holdings in a vill were entered together), the entry there ran: 'In this same vill [South Leverton] Godric and Wulfmer held 7 bovates and a fifth of 1 bovate jointly. Land for 2 ploughs. 14(?) villagers whp have 3(?) ploughs. A church . Pasturable woodland 1 \'bd furlongs by 1 furlong. Meadow, the same. Value 20s. Count Alan and Roger of Bully now hold them'. If this is so, the last sentence would be ambiguous as to whether they held jointly or had separate estates in their respective fiefs . The more normal arrangement, and the one that should probably have been applied to these holdings in South Leverton, is shown by the case of Treswell. Count Alan held one manor there (2,9) and Roger of Bully another (9,129), Count Alan's part having bee n held by Wulfmer, Roger's by Godric. There is therefore a strong suggestion that the case of South Leverton was parallel: it had also been two manors in 1066 and Wulfmer's estate would be expected to have gone to Count Alan and Godric's one to Roger (thou gh see 2,9 Wulfmer note). On the relevance of Treswell to the way in which South Leverton is presented, see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 216. \par \tab \tab On the name Roger, see B8 Roger note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HAVE HELD THIS LAND UNTIL NOW. The Phillimore printed translation reads 'Count Alan and Roger of Bully held this land until now'. However, the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 usque nunc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 modifies the meaning of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 tenuerunt }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 from 'held' to 'have held', that is from the 'aorist' sense of the Latin perfect tense to the 'pure perfect', sometimes called 'present perfect'. Although in other situations in Domesday where }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 usque nunc} {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is used (}{\insrsid6823374 YKS 5E73; see YKS CE 4-5;7;12. LIN 57,14; see also SHR 3d,7)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , the person no longer holds it, that is not a necessary interpretation of the Latin. Indeed in LIN CK66 the man who has held the land 'until now' still holds it, though the main scribe of Great Domesday felt it necessary to put this in a separate statement. The inclusion of such a phrase is, howeve r, unusual and is probably related to the fact that this is an added entry which amplifies that at 9,130, by noting that Count Alan also has an interest in South Leverton that had not so far beeen entered in Domesday; see 2,10 Alan note. Fl}{ \insrsid6823374 eming, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 218 no. 1249, has the same translation as the printed Phillimore edition.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 3\tab THIS FIEF, the previous one for Count Alan (NTT 2) and the next one for the Count of Mortain (NTT 4), were omitted by the main scribe of Great Domesday when he first wrote up Nottinghamshire; see NTT 2 fief note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND OF EARL HUGH. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Hugh of Avranches, also known as Hugh the fat, was second Earl of Chester from }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 c}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . 1071-1101 having succeeded William's first earl, Gherbod (left his earldom }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 c}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . 1071; died 1085). Hugh came from Avranches in the French d\'e9 partement of Manche. He was the son of Richard Goz, vicomte of Avranches, and a woman who was possibly a half-sister of King William. His lands became the honour or barony of Chester. Hugh's only son Richard perished wit h the White Ship in 1120 and the lands passed to a first cousin, Ranulph I Le Meschin, son of Ranulph the vicomte of Bayeux who was married to Hugh's sister Margaret. See Sanders, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 English Baronies}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , pp. 32-33; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 258. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On the name Hugh, see 3 Hugh note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab All the lands in this small fief lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 3,1\tab [RUSHCLIFFE WAPENTAKE]. This heading is supplied from the probable location of the estates that follow.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SUTTON [BONINGTON]. There were two Ancient Parishes, Sutton Bonington St Anne and Sutton Bonington St Michael. Sutton Bonington itself arose from the merger of two settlements, Sutton and Bonington, listed as }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sutton' cum Bonyngton'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in Rushcliffe Wapentake in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 256. For other parts, see 3,3. 4,2. 24,2. 30,15;17-18.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [* EARL *] HAROLD. Harold is probably to be identified as Earl Harold, that is, }{\insrsid6823374 Harold Godwinson. He was the second son of Earl Godwin and Countess Gytha. He was born }{ \i\insrsid6823374 c}{\insrsid6823374 . 1020 and appointed Earl of East Anglia }{\i\insrsid6823374 c}{\insrsid6823374 . 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. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 A Harold named as the earl was Earl Hugh's predecessor in Berkshire, Gloucestershire, Lincolnshire, Leicestershire, Oxfordshire, Rutland and Yorkshire; see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. pp. 216-17}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of Harold - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Harold}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Haroldus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Heraldus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Herold}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Heroldus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Horoldus}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Herolt}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Herould}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Eroldus}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Eral}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Heral}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Harald}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Haraldr}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 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.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 The name Harold is one of the most common in Domesday Book, occurring over 700 times; but it probably represents fewer th an 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 hi s 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 count i es. However, 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 fa mily, and relationships between estates, serve to distinguish him in the majority of cases; but see BUK 17,22 Harold note. Williams, 'Land and Power', discusses Harold's estates and those of his men; and Clarke, }{\i\insrsid6823374 English Nobility}{ \insrsid6823374 , pp. 164-91, lists them. Cla rke 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 1 3,1-3. 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).}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ROBERT [* SON OF HUGH *] }{\insrsid6823374 \{\{}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 SON OF WILLIAM\}\}. It was probably the main scribe of Great Domesday who underlined }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 fili' Will'i}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 for deletion and, because this line was unsatisfactorily done, it may have been he who struck the words through too. }{\insrsid6823374 Robert son of William was the fief holder of NTT 28. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Penguin edition of the Alecto translation does not indicate the deleted words at all.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab It seems likely that this tenant of Earl Hugh was Robert son of Hugh. It is not certain, however, that he was a son}{\insrsid6823374 of Earl Hugh of Avranc hes for among several illegitimate children he fathered was another Robert who became Abbot of Bury St Edmunds. The present Robert became lord of Malpas in Cheshire; see Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , pp. 258, 385. \par \tab \tab On the name Robert, see 2,3 Robert note. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Penguin edition of the Alecto translation fails to indicate this deletion, so Robert fitz William still appears as Earl Hugh's subtenant. For other instances where it fails to show deletions in this county, see 1,16 bovates note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 MILL, 20s; MEADOW, 15 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative, as may be }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 molin'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 1,1 fishery note and 5,9 meadow note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 3,2\tab NORMANTON[-ON-SOAR]. This is one of several places called Normanton in Nottinghamshire. Normanton-on-Soar was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 (one of the estates being below a Rushcliffe wapentake head at 30,14) as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 4,1. 9,78. 30,14;16.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab A notification by William I or William II to Archbishop Thomas of York, William Peverel and all his faithful men in Nottinghamshire informs them that he ha s granted to St Cuthbert of Durham the following lands: \par \tab \tab 4\'bd carucates and two mills in Normanton-on-Soar}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 10 bovates in [Sutton] Bonington (assuming that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Bouinton'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is an error for }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Boninton'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 )}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The land of Aelfgar (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alfgari}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , genitive) }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Cida} {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and his brother Ulfkil (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ulkilli}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , genitive) in Kingston-on-Soar and Barton-in-Fabis}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The land of Godric son of Fredegis (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Fredegisli}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , genitive) in Gotham and Costock and the land of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Oingar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 son of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alnoth}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of Nottingham.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab This grant is in Bates, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 409 no. 116 (= }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 108 no. 438).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 None of these lands is held by the priory of St Cuthbert in Domesday, so the grant appears to date from the very end of the Conqueror's reign or from the reign of William Rufus.}{ \insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab A forged and inflated version of this charter (Bates, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , pp. 390-93 no. 109) places it firmly in 1083-1084. It omits the personal names, but it gives the reason for the grant as the need to replace the secular canons of St Cuthb ert's with monks from Wearmouth and Jarrow and to provide for the latter's sustenance. There the grant of Normanton-on-Soar is of a single mill and of 2 \'bd carucates. The land at Kingston-on-Soar is given as 4 carucates and at Gotham as 2 carucates.}{ \insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The total of the land allotted to Normanton-on-Soar by Domesday (at 3,2. 4,1. 9,78. 30,14;16) is 2 \'bd carucates and one and one sixth bovates which suggests that the charter of William I, though forged, has copied the correct amount from its source. No mills are mentioned in Domesday. The total for Normanton-on-Trent (6,14. 9,68-69) is 12\'bd bovates and for Normanton-on-the Wolds (9,84-85. 10,10) is 12 bovates, which rule them out of consideration. The total for the Bonington part of Sutton Bonington (3,3. 24,2. 30,15) is 9 bovates, close to the 10 bovates of the charters.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The land of Algar (identified by the charter as Aelfgar }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Cida}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ) that lay in Kingston-on-Soar amounted to 3 bovates and that of Ulfkil, identified by the charters as his brother, to 1\'bd bovates in the same place. Algar had also held 1\'be bovates at Barton-in-Fabis (30,23).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Godric (identified by the charter as Godric son of Fredegis) had 3\'bd bovates and 1 acre at Gotham (30,24), while Godric with Algar had held an undivided 13 bovates at Costock and Re mpstone (9,94). Fredegis had had 2 bovates at Costock (10,53).}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab If }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Oingar}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 represents the Old Danish name }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Othenkar}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (it is not among the forms listed by von Feilitzen: 9,1 Othenkar note), then it is sufficiently unusual as to suggest that all occurrences in Nottinghamshire refer to the same individual; see 9,1 Othenkar note. An Alnoth had held }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 T.R.E. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (5,11. 9,79), but it is no t certain if he was father of Othenkar, who also held in 1066. Alnoth of Nottingham would thus have been a generation before. Normanton-on-Soar, Sutton Bonington, Kingston-on-Soar, Barton-in-Fabis, Gotham and Costock are sufficiently close to have formed a single estate for St Cuthbert's. The nearest holding of Othenkar to these was at Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (9,92), which might be the land intended if only one estate was meant.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab It is surprising that the king was able to grant to St Cuthbert's not only la nd of his thanes (NTT 30) but also parcels from other fiefs (NTT 3, 4, 9, 10, 24), although the real transaction might have involved exchanges of land and compensation.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [* EARL *] HAROLD. See 3,1 Harold note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ROBERT [* SON OF HUGH*]. See 3,1 Robert note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 3,3\tab [SUTTON] BONINGTON. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 There were two Ancient Parishes, Sutton Bonington St Anne and Sutton Bonington St Michael. Sutton Bonington itself arose from the merger of two settlements, Sutton and Bonington, listed as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sutton' cum Bonyngton'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in Rushcliffe Wapentake in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230; see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 256. For other parts, see 3,1. 4,2. 24,2. 30,15;17-18.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For the possible grant of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday, see 3,2 Normanton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [* EARL *] HAROLD. See 3,1 Harold note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ROBERT [* SON OF HUGH*], THE EARL'S MAN. See 3,1 Robert note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 3,4\tab 2M. This indicates that Kingston-on-Soar was two manors before 1066, one in 1086; so frequently in Nottinghamshire Domesday (JRM). In most cases the same number of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holders are recorded as the number above the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , but see 9,15 3M note and 10,55 2M note.}{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 In order to keep the size of the marginal }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 M'}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 the same, regardless of whether a number was included above it, Farley was forced to print any numbers almo st on a level with the previous line. This is potentially misleading when there are numbers at the beginning of that line, as here (}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 7 v. uill'}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ); see also 6,5. 9,15;19-20;32;39;53;69;96;121. 10,2;20;34;55. 14,2. 20,7. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday almost always wrote these numbers so that the tops of them were level with the top if the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 I}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 at the start of the entry.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On the combining of several }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 T.R.E. }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 manors into one in 1086, see \{Introduction: Manorial Organization\} and \{Introduction: Layout and Content\}.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab KINGSTON[-ON-SOAR]. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Ratcliffe-on-Soar. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 30,19;21-22.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LEOFWIN. On this name, see S5 Leofwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab RICHARD. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On this name, see B16 Richard note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab UNDER EARL HUGH. The use of the Latin preposition }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 sub}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to describe the relationship between lord and tenant is unusual. There are eight occurrences of this in Domesday Nottinghamshire (3,4. 5,19. 7,4. 9,41. 10,31;53;55;57) and it is not clear if there is a particular nuance to it. The normal formula is that a subtenant 'holds from' (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 tenet de}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) a lord. Theoretically, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 sub}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 could simply be an alternative, could describe land held under the supervision o f a tenant-in chief that is not part of the latter's own fief, or could emphasize the superiority of the lord or the depression of the tenant.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In the present instance, 'Now 1 Freeman has \'bd plough under Earl Hugh' differs from the previous entry (3,3) 'Robert, the earl's man, has 3 Freemen and 5 villagers who have 2\'bd ploughs' in that the Freeman has no intermediate lord above him. The scribe thus took account of an unusual circumstance with an unusual phrase.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab However, an exa mination of all the instances in Nottinghamshire suggests that the phrase occurs only in connection with Englishmen. A possible exception is the unnamed cleric of 5,19 who might be a Norman, though he could be an English survivor and anyway, in that insta n ce, the use could be strictly correct, as the archbishop is not strictly the fief-holder, but managing the lands on behalf of the cathedral church of York, so the cleric is not holding 'from him'. In the other cases, that of the present Freeman, and of Ou d kell (7,4), Ulfkil (9,41), Aelric (10,31), Godwin (10,53), Fredegis and Wulfgeat (10,55), and Fredegis (10,57) these men had not generally held these estates before the Conquest, but men with these names had sometimes held other estates and these 1086 Eng lishmen may have been the heirs to the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holders. Thus, these are men who were probably not enfeoffed by the tenants-in-chief and could not be described as 'their men'; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 230. As with other examples of the scribe's Latinity, however, it is unwise to push the meaning too hard. At 10,27 Godwin the priest, who may be the same as the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holder of Adbolton (10,56), has 1 plough from (rather than under) William Peverel. Likewise at 10,24 Wulfnoth has 1 plough, though the manor of [Old] Lenton is not held by William Peverel but merely in his charge.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab It may be relevant, however, that the main scribe of Great Domesday had initially omitted this phrase and then interlined it, using a different pen and slightly paler ink compared to those used for the text below.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 4\tab THIS FIEF and the previous two, for Count Alan and Earl Hugh (NTT 2-3), were omitted by the main scribe of Great Domesday when he first wrote up Nottinghamshire; see NTT 2 fief note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND OF THE COUNT OF MORTAIN. }{\insrsid6823374 Robert, Count of Mortain, was son of Herluin de Conteville and Herl\'e8 ve, mother of William the Conqueror. He was thus the half-brother of the Conqueror, also the full brother of Bishop Odo of Bayeux who granted him the comt\'e9 of Mortain }{\i\insrsid6823374 c}{\insrsid6823374 . 1048. Robert fought at H astings. He was put in charge of Pevensey Rape (Sussex) where he built a castle and his holdings in Cornwall dominated the county of which he was }{\i\insrsid6823374 de facto}{\insrsid6823374 earl. Altogether he held estates in 20 counties. He was twice married, first to Matilda daughter of Roger of Montgomery (Earl of Shrewsbury) and Mabel of Bell\'ea me, and secondly to Almodis. Robert's son William inherited his estates but rebelled in 1104 and the enormous fief was broken up. Some lands, however, retained the title of Mortain fees and the tena nts of others became tenants-in-chief and their lands became separate honours or baronies.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab There are no wapentake heads in this chapter, but analysis reveals that the eight holdings lay in two wapentakes which are entered in standard county order; see \{In troduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes\}: \par \tab \tab 4,1-7 [Rushciffe Wapentake]}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 4,8 [Broxtowe Wapentake].}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 4,1\tab [RUSHCLIFFE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the first seven places in this fief.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NORMANTON[-ON-SOAR]. This is one of several places called Normanton in Nottinghamshire. Normanton-on-Soar was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 (one of the estates being below a Rushcliffe wapentake head at 30,14) as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 3,2. 9,78. 30,14;16.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For the possible grant of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday, see 3,2 Normanton note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab STORI . }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Stori}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Storius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Estori }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Stori}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 376. The Alecto edition has Stori, except for SFK 54,1 and YKS 19W3 (Store). The Phillimore printed translation for YKS 19W3 has Thorir (YKS 19W1;3 Thorir note).}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab It is likely that all the Count of Mortain's predecessors called Stori (}{\insrsid6823374 4,1-3;5;7)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 refer to the same individual. No evidence has so far been found to connect the men called Stori who were the predecessors of Henry of Ferrers and of Walter of Aincourt in Derbyshire, or the predecessor of Ivo of Tallboys in Lincolnshire. }{ \insrsid6823374 The name Stori occurs elsewhere in Domesday Book. \par \tab \tab The name Stori occurs on 47 holdings in Domesday Book, probably representing no more than four, possibly only two or three individuals. The bulk of the Lincolnshire holdings devolved the same tenant-in-chief, Ivo Tallboys, tightly-clustered around the two valuable manors of Bolingbroke and Belchford; and Stori's holding in the city of Lincoln connects Tallboys with Countess Judith, the successor to the only other Lincolnshire holding of a Stori, evidently the same man. Countess Judith's holding is almost e x actly midway between the remaining Lincolnshire holdings and the two clusters of moderately substantial properties held by a Stori in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. The Stori of Lincolnshire had urban interests and full jurisdictional rights; he is there f ore likely to have been a lord of other men though such information is not, of course, recorded for the counties of circuit VI. What makes a linkage between the holdings in these three counties a little more probable is the modest holdings of the Stori of Bedfordshire, where he is described as a man of Earl Tosti and was himself a lord of men. Yet his Bedfordshire holdings were extremely modest for such status. Earl Waltheof and his wife Countess Judith succeeded Earl Tosti on many holdings, and perhaps in his earldom; they also succeeded Stori on two of his Lincolnshire holdings. See also Clarke, }{\i\insrsid6823374 English Nobility}{\insrsid6823374 , pp. 343-44, who assigns only the Lincolnshire holdings to this Stori (JP).}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab HEALFDENE . }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Halden}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aldene}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alden}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Haldein}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aldanus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Norse }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Halfdan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hal}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 f}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 dan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Anglo-Scandinavian }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Healfdene}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 283-84. JRM di d not pronounce on this name-form and the names Haldane and Halfdan appear in the Phillimore printed translations; they have now been standardized as Healfdene. The Alecto edition has Healfdene, except for the 1086 holder in Norfolk (Godwine Halfdan).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 He was perhaps the same man as the king's thane of that name, who held land in Cromwell (30,4), and was an ancestor of the medieval lords Cromwell: }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 234; see 30,2 Healfdene note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 4,2\tab SUTTON [BONINGTON]. There were two Ancient Parish es, Sutton Bonington St Anne and Sutton Bonington St Michael. Sutton Bonington itself arose from the merger of two settlements, Sutton and Bonington, listed as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sutton' cum Bonyngton'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in Rushcliffe Wapentake in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230; see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 256. For other parts, see 3,1;3. 24,2. 30,15;17-18.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab STORI. See 4,1 Stori note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 4,3\tab GOTHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For another part, see 30,24.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab STORI. See 4,1 Stori note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 CARUCATES OF LAND AND 3 \'bd BOVATES TAXABLE, AND 5 ACRES. This assessment was the subject of correction by both scribes; there were probably two different sources for these additions, r ather than that they were the result of incompetent checking of one source. The main scribe of Great Domesday added a third minim to the number of bovates, while scribe B added }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 .v. ac's;}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 g'ld'.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; his use of a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 with a long comma below it, rese mbling the modern semi-colon, is very unusual and inexplicable. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab COUNT ROBERT. On the Count of Mortain, see NTT 4 Count note. On the name Robert, see 2,3 Robert note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 80 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 4,4\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday into a space at the end of the entry for Gotham (4,3) of which it was a Jurisdiction. He had to squeeze it in and interline the sentence }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Nil \'e7 ibi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('There is nothing there') above the original }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 SOCA hui' M'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 4,4 jurisdiction note. This entry does not seem to have been done at the same time as any of the other added entrie s that were never rubricated, of which a list is given in 1,19 entry note. On the fief of the Count of Mortain being written on an inserted half-sheet, see NTT 2 fief note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LEAKE. East Leake and West Leake were adjacent Ancient Parishes. They probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as they did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,89. 24,1. 28,2. It has not proved possible to determine which Leake this is.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THERE IS NOTHING THERE. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 nil est ibi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 may bear the same sense as }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 wasta est}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('it is waste', 'it is abandoned') or, read closely with the taxable extent, may refer particularly to the absence of ploughs.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. That is, of Gotham (4,3). The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote this phrase immediately after that entry, but then apparently could not find the Jurisdiction; see 4,4 entry note. In the Alecto edition the phrase }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 SOCA hui}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 anerii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] is misplaced above the entry for Stanton-on-the-Wolds (4,5), although that is a manor.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 4,5\tab STANTON[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 4,6. 9,86. 10,10. At 28,2 Stanton-on-the-Wolds has been deleted and Leake substituted for it.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab STORI. See 4,1 Stori note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALFRED[* THE BUTLER *], THE COUNT'S MAN. According to }{\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , pp. 143-45, Alfred here is the Count of M ortain's butler Alfred, most of whose holdings lay in the south-west. On the name Alfred, see 1,66 Alfred note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 4,6\tab STANTON[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. See 4,5 Stanton note. The main scribe of Great Domesday briefly omitted this entry, writing the entry for Keyworth ( here numbered 4,7) before he discovered it. He then used a pair of transposition signs in the margin to link it to the entry for this place in 4,5.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FRANI. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Frane}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Fran}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Frano}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Frani}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent the hypothetical Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Frani}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 252. The Alecto edition has Frani.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 3 PARTS. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. part'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is ambiguous: it could be extended to mean 'three parts' or 'the third part' when in the accusative case. The main scribe of Great Domesday often clarified this by interlining }{\i\f720\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ti\'e2}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (the last letters of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 tertiam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 'third') above the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and indicating whether }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 part' }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 was singular or plural, sometimes during the checking stage, but often it was scribe B who did this then; see 4,7 part note. The main scribe used the lightning-shaped abbreviation sign more often when }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 part'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 abbreviated }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 partes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (but not invariably: see 9,59), and the meaning here is likely to have been '3 parts' as in one of the other parts of Stanton-on-the-Wolds (10,1 0) there is a 'fourth part of 1 bovate' to make a complete bovate with these three-quarters of a bovate, the assessment of the whole vill amounting to 8 bovates (1 carucate).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NOW 3 VILLAGERS. On the appearance of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 modo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('now') here, which occurs some half- dozen times in this county with the population statement, and which was perhaps not edited out of a fuller preceding text containing the number of villagers etc. in 1066, see DBY 1,9 now note. Compare 1,1 villagers note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 4,7\tab KEYWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,87-88. 10,10. 13,7.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab STORI. See 4,1 Stori note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE. The main scribe of Great Domesday had written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. part'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 which here could be read as abbreviating either }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. partes }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('3 parts') or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. partem}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('the third part'). Both scribes sometimes noticed this ambiguity and clarified it, but not in 4,6 (see 4,6 parts note). 9,62;102. 10,4;13, and compare 9,20;64. Here scribe B interlined }{ \i\f720\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ti\'e2}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (the last letters of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 tertiam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 'third') and added an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 part'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to produce }{ \i\f720\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 part\'e7 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 partem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ); see also 9,15 part note, 9,96 part no te, 9,112 part note, 15,3 part note, and compare 9,124 parts note, 9,129 part note, 9,131 part note and 10,57 parts note. The present third part of 1 bovate probably links up with the 2 parts of 1 bovate in Keyworth in 9,88. There was another third of a b ovate here in 10,10 and the assessment of the whole village amounted to 17\u8531\'3f bovates. The \u8532\'3f bovate needed to make a round 18 bovates does not appear in the vicinity, the nearest being five miles away at Bassingfield (9,81) but that appears to complement the \u8531\'3f bovate in 10,13.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALFRED[* THE BUTLER *], THE COUNT'S MAN. See 4,5 Alfred note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 4,8\tab [BROXTOWE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Newthorpe (4,8).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NEWTHORPE. This was a hamlet of Greasley Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,33;62-63. \par \tab \tab Newthorpe is not designated as either a manor or an outlier or a Jurisdiction. It does not lie near to Keyworth (4,7) but has resources and a value, so was most probably a manor.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab ALWIN. On this name, see S5 Alwin note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 5\tab LAND OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK. Th e church was a secular college and cathedral dedicated to St Peter. There was a bishop here in 314, but the next known bishop was Paulinus consecrated in 625 by Justus, Archbishop of Canterbury. Paulinus baptized Edwin, King of Northumbria, in a wooden ch urch in York in 627. After Edwin\rquote s death, paganism returned. In 664 the see of Lindisfarne was transferred to York. There were secular clerics here at an early date. The church was burnt down in 741 and the Danish invasion of 867 interrupted the work of the diocese. From 972-1016 the sees of York and Worcester were jointly held. Archbishop Oswald (972-992) is said to have introduced monks, but secular canons were placed there soon after and are mentioned in Domesday. The cathedral was burnt down in 1069 by the Norman garrison of the town, but Thomas of Bayeux appointed archbishop in 1070 rebuilt the church. After it was apparently destroyed by a Danish army in 1075, he commenced work on the Norman cathedral.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The archbishops who spanned the period from 1066 to 1086 were: \par \tab 1061-1069 Aldred (Bishop of Worcester 1047-1062; Bishop of Hereford 1056-1060)}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab 1070-1100 Thomas of Bayeux (a royal chaplain, treasurer of Bayeux Cathedral and brother of Samson the chaplain who was later Bishop of Worcester) \par \tab See Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid6823374 , pp. 419, 445; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 535. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Before the Danish incursion and settlement of the late ninth century, the land that became Nottingham was probably in the Mercian diocese of Lichfield. Its transfer to that of York probably took place in the middle of the tenth century; see \{Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\} . The grant of Southwell (5,1) to the archbishop dates from that time, but the dates at which the remaining lands in this fief were acquired are unknown. It is also unclear whether any had previously been held by the Bishops of Lichfield. \par \tab \tab The chapter is disordered. Added entries (5,5-6;12) interrupt the sequence of wapentakes as do pieces of land that are not designated either as manors or outliers or Jurisdictions (5,2;12). The final entries (5,18-19) appear to have been added at some stage in the successive drafts of Domesday. Even if these are deducted, the chapter is not arrranged in the standard order of wapentakes. An obvious dislo c ation is caused by the promotion of the principal manor (Southwell) to first place. Despite this the basic sequence of Thurgarton Wapentake, Bingham Wapentake, 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, Thurgarton Wapentake and 'Lythe' Wapentake is still unusual. It would be rash to conclude (with Roffe, }{\insrsid6823374 \lquote Introduction', }{\i\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\insrsid6823374 , pp. 5-6) }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 that the order in which the archbishop made the return of his fief has survived into the pages of Great Domesday, since it might have been expected that he would have presente d a more coherent list. Many of these estates are parts of vills that have several holders; it is thus possible that some portions were missed when the material was being rearranged from a schedule based on vills to one based on fiefs. Moreover, this chap t er probably represents the merging of two schedules: those lands held by the Archbishops of York and those held from them by St Mary's of Southwell. Archbishop Thomas occurs as the 1086 holder of 5,1;4-5;7;9;11-12;19 and St Mary's of Southwell is mentione d as the 1066 holder of 5,3;13. The Jurisdictions of Norwell (5,14-16, and perhaps 5,17), like Norwell itself (5,13) presumably belonged to Southwell church. However, land in Woodborough (5,18) appears to be a dependency of Southwell, the phrase 'it belong s to Southwell' implying 'to the manor of Southwell'. If this is so, it is probable that St Mary's of Southwell was the intermediate holder both in 1086 and in 1066.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Roffe (}{\insrsid6823374 \lquote Introduction', }{\i\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 6) suggests a threefold division with St Mary's of Southwell holding Southwell and Cropwell Bishop (5,1;3), the archbishop having Laneham, Sutton-cum-Lound, Blidworth and Oxton together with the added lands (5,4-12); and St Mary of Southwell (again) holding Norwell (5,13). He suggests that t he division is 'related to estate management'. As to this scheme, Domesday itself actually allocates Southwell (5,1) to the archbishop, while it is quite unclear what 'estate management' means. \par \tab \tab Essentially the Archbishop of York and the collegiate church of Southwell both needed sources of income and the lands are divided accordingly, even though the archbishop controlled Southwell. A similar division is found in other counties, for example in Middlesex where the lands of the Bishop of London (MDX 2) are d ivided between the Bishop and the canons of St Paul's cathedral and in Dorset where the lands of the Bishop of Salisbury, who had recently transferred his see there from Sherborne, are found divided between the bishopric and the monks of Sherborne (DOR 2- 3).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab In detail, the order appears to be: \par \tab \tab 5,1 Thurgarton Wapentake (the manor of Southwell promoted to prime position) \par \tab \tab [5,2 North Muskham, status uncertain, but in 'Lythe' Wapentake, is inserted] \par \tab \tab 5,3 Bingham Wapentake \par \tab \tab 5,4-8 ['Bassetlaw' Wapentake]. The sequence is interrupted by 5,5-6 which are added entries, the first being a manor in 'Lythe' Wapentake, the second of uncertain status}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid4275473 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 but in Thurgarton Wapentake. \par \tab \tab 5,9-11 [Thurgarton Wapentake].}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab [5,12 Ranskill, status uncertain, but in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, is inserted]. \par \tab \tab 5,13-17 ['Lythe' Wapentake] \par \tab \tab 5,18-19 [Thurgarton Wapentake]. These two lands, status uncertain, were apparently}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid4275473 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 added to the schedule at some stage and rightly belong in 5,1.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 5,1\tab SOUTHWELL. This was an Ancient Parish, originating as the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 parochia}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of a collegiate church. It lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 and was later in the joint wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In a mid tenth-century grant (958 for 956), King Edwy granted to Archbishop Oscytel of York 20 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 mansae}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Suthwellan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 free of all but the three common dues: }{\i\insrsid6823374 Early Charters of Northern England }{\insrsid6823374 , p. 111 no. 114 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid6823374 , no. 659)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . Oscytel had only recently been translated from Dorches ter-on-Thames to the see of York and it seems probable that what became Nottinghamshire had not long been included in that diocese; see \{Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\} . An important secular college dedicated to St Mary was established at Southwell probably at that time and thither the remains of St Eadburh, an early eighth-century Abbess of Repton (Derbyshire) were taken }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 c}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .1000. Archbishop Ealdred (1044-1069), the predecessor of Archbishop Thomas, established prebends; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 152; }{\insrsid6823374 Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid6823374 , pp. 418, 439. The church had an exceptionally long, important and continuous history, becoming the seat of a bishop in 1884. \par \tab \tab The grant of Southwell was of a continuous tract of land. Although there are separate boundary clauses for Southwell, Normanton, Upton, Hockerwood and Fiskerton, they fit together to form a whole. On the other hand not all of the vills named in the grant w ere given in their entirety. Thus at Farnsfield, the gift was of two 'manslots; at Halam, of every sixth acre and three manslots; at Normanton, every third acre; at Fiskerton two-thirds of the estate and four manslots'. These divisions are partly reflecte d in the fact that others held part of some of these vills in 1086, though among them appear to have been some alienatons from the original grant; see 5,1 outliers note. For the bounds, see Lyth, 'Southwell Charter of 956 A.D.'; Lyth and Davies, 'Southwell Charter of A.D. 956'. \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Southwell was an area of special privilege and developed intothe archbishop's Liberty of Scrooby and Southwell. A step along the way is represented by a writ (1060x1065) of Edward the Confessor addressed to Earl Tosti and all his 'b arons' in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire extending to Archbishop Ealdred the sake and soke and toll and team that he already had over his men in his own lands to those men who were in the king's jurisdiction: }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Early Charters of Northern England}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 113 no. 118 (= Sawyer, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , no. 1160 = Harmer, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Anglo-Saxon Writs}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , no. 119 pp. 418, 529). The Latin of the writ which has probably been translated from an Old English original that has not survived, is: }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Edwardus rex Tosti et omnibus baronibus suis i n Eboracensisira et in Nottinghamsira salutem}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 .}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Sciatis quod ego concessi Aldredo archiepiscopo ut ipse habeat sacam et socam et toll et team super suos homines infra meam sacam et socam ita plenarie et principaliter}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 sicut ipse habet in sua propria loca}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 et nolo ut aliquis ei auferat quod ego ei concessi}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ('King Edward greets [Earl] Tosti and all his barons in Yorkshire and in Nottinghamshire. You should know that I have granted to Archbishop Ealdred that he have }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 sac}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 soc}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 toll}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 team}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 over his men within my }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 sac}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 and }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 soc}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 as fully and primarily as he has in his own places and I do not wish that anyone should take way what I have granted'). The mention by King Edward of his own }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 sac}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 soc}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (full jurisdiction) is probably a slip of the scribal pen for }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 soc}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 a lone, that is, 'land in my jurisdiction'. It seems to have been thought by Harmer (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Anglo-Saxon Writs}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ) and by Hart (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Early Charters of Northern England}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ), both cited above, that the intention was to give the Archbishop of York full jurisdiction over Southwell. However, the writ states that the archbishop already has full jurisdiction over his lands (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 sua propria loca}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ) and the writ is extending this to those lands that lay under that of the king. Domesday says nothing of this, but it seems likely that the lands over which the archbishop already had the fullest rights were at least Southwell and its members (5,1). The additional lands 'in the king's jurisdiction' presumably were all the other lands held by the archbishop (and St Mary's of Southwell) in 1066 that l ay in wapentakes over which the king was lord. As this information too is not included in Domesday, it is uncertain which lands were meant, but possibly all the rest were intended. At the very least, Sutton-cum-Lound and Scrooby (5,7), the northern part o f the Liberty of Southwell, might be included. They lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake where the king had the manors of Dunham-on-Trent and Bothamsall with their many Jurisdictions (1,1-16); see \{Introduction: Lordship of the Wapentake\}. \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab One bovate of land at F arnsfield (11,17) is said to lie in Southwell Hundred. These small hundreds make a rare appearance in Domesday, but seem to have been universal at least in Leicestershire and Lincolnshire. They are often assumed to be of 12 carucates, in which case Southw ell with the parts alienated from it might once have extended into three hundreds. However, the material does not exist for a convincing reconstrucion of the Nottinghamshire hundreds; see \{Introduction: Small Hundreds\}. \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab According to LEC 2,7 one carucate of land at Tilton-on-the-Hill was almsland of St Mary's, Southwell. It had been held by 'Gytha' in 1066, presumably by Countess Gytha mother of Earl (King) Harold.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab 22\'bd CARUCATES OF LAND. This curious assessment represents 20 x 9-bovate units which Stenton (in }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 209) showed were the highest common factor of several estates in Thurgarton Wapentake; see \{Introduction: Carucation\}. If this figure is made up in this way, it indicates either that the lands that had been alienated from Southwell (5,1 outliers note) were included in this total or that the reduced total of Southwell after their removal was still a multiple of nine bovates or that the nin e -bovate unit was applied after the lands of Southwell had been reduced by alienations. There are reasons to think that carucation was late. Those estates that were said to have their jurisdiction in Southwell (11,15-17. 13,13. 17,14) amount to 2 carucates and 7\'bd bovates; if to these are added other parts of the same villages (1,22. 11,20-21. 30,11) that are not specifically associated by Domesday with the archbishop's estate of Southwell, the total becomes 6 carucates and 5\'bd bovates, which in terms of bovates (53\'bd) is \'bd bovate short of 54 (six nine-bovate units). It seems improbable that so large an assessment as 6 carucates 5\'bd bovates could still be borne by Southwell as part of its 22\'bd carucates, when the lands had been taken away, although Roffe appears to think that these alienations are duplications: Roffe, \lquote Introduction', }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 6.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab ARCHBISHOP THOMAS. See NTT 5 archbishop note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday form, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thomas}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , is the Latin nominative form, alternatively }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thoma}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , (declinable as a first declension noun, genitive }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thomae}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) of the Hebrew and Aramaic name meaning 'twin'. After the conquest this name of the apostle became popular in England, not just for priests, though it only appears in Domesday Book as the name of the Archbishop of York. He wa s brother of Samson Bishop of Worcester but it is not known whether he was his twin. The Alecto edition has Thomas.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab FISHERY. The Phillimore printed translation has 'fishpond', probably in an attempt to distinguish Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 piscina}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 from }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 piscaria}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . This }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 piscina}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 was probably on the River Trent, or possibly on its tributary the River Greet. The words }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 piscaria}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 piscina}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 appear interchangeable. Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 piscina}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is Classical, meaning a 'fish-pond', 'fish-tank', 'fishery' or 'swimming-pool'. This last meaning, potentially misleading, may have encouraged the use of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 piscaria}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . This is derived from an adjective }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 piscarius}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 meaning 'relating to fish' (itself from }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 piscis}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , 'fish') and so }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 piscaria}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 itself means 'thing connected to fish', the exact sense, as with many Latin words, being supplied by the context. There was a fishery (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 piscaria}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ), no doubt on the River Trent at Fiskerton (11,20), that had formerly been part of Southwell; see 5,1 outliers note and 11,20 Fiskerton note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab FERRY. Less valuable than the Trent ferry at Fiskert on (11,20); probably over the River Greet (JRM). A ferry on the River Trent is also possible and it may be that JRM considered that the estate of Southwell did not extend to the Trent, being barred from it by the intrusion of Morton and Fiskerton. However , part or all of these had once been parts of Southwell and it is possible that the archbishop still retained the income of a minor ferry over the River Trent at Fiskerton or, more probably, that his ferry was at Hazelford Ferry (SK 7249) in Bleasby which was one of the outliers of Southwell; see 5,1 outliers note, 11,20 Fiskerton note and 11,20 ferry note. \par \tab \tab The Medieval Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 passagium}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (derived via Old French from postulated }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 passaticum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , itself from }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 passare}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , a hypothetical verb derived from the noun }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 passus}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , 'a pace') means 'a crossing', 'the right to cross', 'payment for crossing', and does not in itself mean 'a ferry', though here it implies the existence of one.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 6 MEN-AT-ARMS. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected their number from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .v.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .vi.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 by adding an extra minim over the original final }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 punctus}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and adding a new one.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THREE CLERICS HAVE. These were no doubt some or all of the secular clerics residing at the minster of Southwell.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 BOVATES ... IN PREBEND. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in p}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ae}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 benda}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . This first declension noun derives from the verb }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 praebeo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('offer', 'supply') and is more directly related to its gerund }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 praebendum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 meaning 'something to be supplied' or 'offered'. A prebend in the present sense is a package of dues and tithes from an estate to support a member of a cathedral or college, in this case, of Southwell. The 2 bovates appear to represent the endowment of the prebend of Normanton, one of Southwell's outliers; see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 219. The mention of prebends is rare in Domesday; see KEN M1-2;4-8;10;13-14;18;20-22. SUS 9,11. 11,8;81. For prebendaries (Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 p}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 re}{\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\insrsid6823374 bendarius}{ \insrsid6823374 , 'someone in receipt of a prebend' or 'of an allowance') and prebendary canons (}{\i\insrsid6823374 canonici p}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 re}{\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\insrsid6823374 bendarii}{\insrsid6823374 ), see BDF 56,9. ESS B6. YKS 2W2. STS 6,1. A solitary }{\i\insrsid6823374 p[re]bendaria}{\insrsid6823374 occurs at CAM 32,32, that is 'a woman in receipt of an allowance', not an ecclesiastic receiving a prebend, but an almswoman. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The prebendal system gradually developed at Southwell and by 1291 there were 16 prebends there. An early grant was made by Thurstan, Archbishop of York (1114-1140), confirmed by Henry I, of the churches of his manors of (North) Leverton (5,4) and of Becki ngham (5,4) for a prebend: }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 283 no. 1871.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 5 BOVATES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\f713\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 bouat\'ea }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (nominative plural) in error for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 bouatas}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (accusative plural, after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 h}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 abe}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 nt}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('have'); he was probably influenced by }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 bouat\'ea}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the previous line immediately above it.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ARABLE LAND. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 terra arabilis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; an apparent alternative, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 aratura}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('arable'), is found at ESS 1,3. }{\insrsid6823374 Arable land is normally not named as such in Domesday and in Nottinghamshire, as elsewhere, it is included in the number of carucates or represented by the 'land for }{\i\insrsid6823374 n}{\insrsid6823374 ploughs' formula. This is presumably new land, possibly assarted or converted from another use (as in DOR 34,8), that could be brought under the plough, or that is ploughed but not assessed for tax. Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 arabilis}{\insrsid6823374 means 'ploughable', rather than actually 'cultivated' or 'under the plough'. \par \tab \tab The area represented by this arable land (5 leagues by 3 leagues) is enormous, although the estate of Southwell with its 12 outliers was hardly small. For attempts to make sense of these figures, see Maitland, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday Book and Beyond}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 434; }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. pp. 217-18. However, neither begins from the actual area of land occupied by Southwell and its outliers, preferring to try to relate the arable land to the number of ploughlands and ploughs recorded.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BEFORE 1066. The main scribe of Great Domesday began the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 after the details of the arable land, but did not finish or erase it. No doubt he wanted to make it clear that the value wa s of the whole estate, not of any of the sub-holdings.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 12 OUTLIERS. These are listed in the charter of King Edwy; see 5,1 Southwell note. Six of them do not occur elsewhere in Domesday, but six do and in all of them at least one estate is said to be a Jurisdiction of Southwell: \par \tab \tab Normanton; see 17,14 (a Jurisdiction of Southwell) and 30,11 \par \tab \tab Upton (SK7354); see 7,5 Upton note \par \tab \tab Hockerwood (SK7155) \par \tab \tab Fiskerton; see 11,15 (a Jurisdiction of Southwell) and 11,20-21 \par \tab \tab Farnsfield; see 11,17 (a Jurisdiction of Southwell) and 1,22 \par \tab \tab Kirklington; see 17,13 (a Jurisdiction of Southwell) \par \tab \tab Morton; see 11,16 and 13,13 (both Jurisdictions of Southwell) \par \tab \tab Gibsmere; see 13,13 (a Jurisdiction of Southwell) \par \tab \tab Bleasby (SK7149) \par \tab \tab Goverton (SK7050) \par \tab \tab Halloughton (SK6851) \par \tab \tab Halam (SK6754). \par \tab The foundation charter (see 5,1 Southwell note) did not give the whole of Farnsfield, Halam, Normanton or Fiskerton. Halam does not reappear by name in Domesday, but there appear to be parts of Farnsfield, Normanton and Fiskert on that had never been part of Southwell. On the other hand those parts of these vills and of others that are said to be Jurisdictions of Southwell could well be alienations. Because there is no simple relationship between }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 mansae}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (that is, hides) and carucates, it is not possible to determine if the 22\'bd -carucate assessment of Southwell takes account of the loss of parts, although an examination of the carucation itself suggests that the 22\'bd -carucate assessment of Southwell allows for the alienations; see 5,1 carucates note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Among the estates in this chapter is Woodborough (5,18-19), amounting to a bovate in total which is said to belong to Southwell. However, it is not close enough to Southwell to have been silently included in the original grant of land there.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IN THE MANUSCRIPT there is a large oval 'cut' that incorporates the end of this entry and reaches down to the Bingham wapentake head above 5,3. As it is virtually identical in shape to the hole in the parchment of folio 284 it would seem that it w as made by the person neatening the edges when applying the patch to that hole (the folios assembled into quires and probably bound); see 6,15 hole note. Where the edges of this 'cut' have now spread open and a vertical upwards tear has occurred from the b ottom of the oval these were very neatly patched during the conservation work done on the manuscript in 1984-86. A patch of gold-beater's skin was applied on both sides of the folio which, being colourless, does not obscure any of the text (information su pplied by John Abbott of National Archives who was responsible for this repair). Details of some of the Jurisdictions of Newark (6,4) were written inside this oval 'cut' on the verso of this folio.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 5,2\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday after the county had been rubricated. He had probably originally left a 3-line space after the long and rather disorganized entry for the multiple estate of Southwell. It would appear that he had then added two short entries on the first t wo scored lines, but then erased them very thoroughly; only the initial letter }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 I }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) can now be seen and there is no sign of red, if it had ever been applied. Finally he wrote this brief entry for North Muskham, not on any scored horizontal line, but at the top of the third originally blank line, so as to avoid the erasure on the two lines above. He also added after rubrication another holding in North Muskham (12,12), but not at the same time as this entry, which does not seem to have been done in the same campaign as any of the other added entries that were never rubricated (see 1,19 entry note for a list).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NORTH MUSKHAM. Unusually (as at 8,2. 12,11. 30,7), Domesday distinguishes this Muskham as 'North'; see 1,13 Ordsall note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Domesday does not speci fy, however, whether this is a manor, outlier or Jurisdiction, nor its relationship to Southwell (5,1). The fact that no value is given suggests that it was a dependency and the fact that this added entry was placed here suggests that it belongs to Southw e ll; the main scribe of Great Domesday may have discovered it when he was checking a territorially-arranged schedule in which all the parts of North Muskham were together. If it was a dependency, he would not normally have inserted a wapentake head, though it was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 8,2. 12,11-13. 30,7.}{ \insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The estates at North Muskham, South Muskham and Little Carlton (5,2;5. 8,2. 12,11-14. 30,7;46) formed a 12-carucate unit, and possibly a hundred; see \{Introduction: Small Hundreds\}}{ \insrsid6823374 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and, on the identification of Carlton, see 5,5 Carlton note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 \'bd CARUCATES. In the manuscript the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 dim'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (' \'bd ') is clear, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile, however, it appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 din}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 with no abbreviation line; on other pro blems of reproduction in that facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 5,3\tab CROPWELL [BISHOP]. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HICKLING. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 11,30. 20,8.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab St Mary's of Southwell held this estate in 1066, but it is uncertain when it was acquired. It may have formed part of the original mid tenth-century endowment. Estates at Hickling and Kinoulton together with Lockington in the East Riding of Yorkshire were bequeathed to Ramsey Abbey by Arnketil and his wife Wulfrun at some time between 978 and 1 016: }{\i\insrsid6823374 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 112 no. 116 ( = Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid6823374 , no. 1493); see the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 66-67)}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . Despite their wish that these lands should remain 'in the perpetual possession of the church', Ramsey did not hold them in 1066 nor in 1086. It is, however, uncertain which estates in Hickling (5,3. 11,30. 20,8) and Kinoulton (11,31. 30,38) in Nottinghamshire and in Lockington in Yorkshire (YKS 2E5. 5E32) represent this bequest. Common to the estates in Hickling (5,3) and Lockington (YKS 2E5) is the Archbishop of York and to Hickling and Kinoulton (11,30-31) is Walter of Aincourt.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In the manuscript this place-name is clearly written as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hegelinge}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , but in the Alecto facsimile the last letter appears as a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 c}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 in the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ordnance Survey facsimile the reading is more clearly }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hegelinge}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 According to the Editors' note at the end of the Places Index in the Alecto edition of Nottinghamshire (}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 54), this phenomenon was caused by 'the continuous-tone pr ocess of reproduction employed for the facsimile ... where the red of the rubrication is either contiguous with or superimposed over the dark browns of the lettering'. In Nottinghamshire similar misreadings of place-names there could occur in five other e n tries; see also 11,26 Granby note, 11,31 Kinoulton note, 17,17 Hawksworth note, 30,6 Woodborough note and 30,31 Strelley note. For other poor or misleading reproductions in the Alecto facsimile, see 1,4 bovates note, 5,2 carucates note, 6,5 had note, 9,7 H eadon note, 9,13 Walesby note, 9,20 hole note, 9,53 had note, 9,84 Normanton note, 9,101 Thorsten note, 10,9 Bridgford note, 10,57 parts note, 27,2 Wiverton note, 27,3 Salterford note, 30,55 waste note, and for those instances where red-lining on place-na mes is not reproduced, see 2,2 there note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ST MARY'S OF SOUTHWELL. That is, the secular college; see 5,1 Southwell note. The mention is part of the attempt by the main scribe of Great Domesday to disentangle the estates held }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 by St Mary's of Southwell from those held by the Archbishop of York; see NTT 5 archbishop note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE CANONS. That is, the secular canons residing in the church of St Mary in Southwell (5,1). They are presumably the same as the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 clerici}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 mentioned in that entry.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 15 VILLAGERS AND 4 SMALLHOLDERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the numbers of these respectively from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 xii}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 xv}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (by joining the two minims) and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ii}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iiii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (by interlining }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ii}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 20 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space, possibly before he began the account of the multiple estate of Laneham, but more likely, in view of its being in a different wapentake to Cropwell, for the later inclusion of the wape ntake head. For a list of other one-line spaces left within fiefs, see 1,44 after note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 5,4\tab ['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Laneham and Askham (5,4). The majority of the outliers were in Oswaldbeck Wapentake.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LANEHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. The Domesday name is represented by the settlements of Laneham (SK8076) and Church Laneham (SK8077).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab No }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holder is given for Laneham, which may have originated as part of the royal jurisdiction in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake; see Whitelock, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 158. \par \tab \tab Some land belonging to Laneham lay in Lincolnshire:}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 'In Newton[-on-Trent] the Archbishop (of York) has}{\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 100 acres of meadow which belong to Laneham' (LIN 2,26).}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Laneham and Sutton-cum-Lound formed the northern part of the later archiepiscopal Liberty of Southwell and Scrooby; see }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 219}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ASKHAM. This was a chapelry of East Drayton Ancient Parish and a peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdiction of York until 1841. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BECKINGHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227. For another part, see 9,119.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For the grant of the churches here and at [North] Leverton as part of a prebend, see 5,1 prebend note. Only one church is mentioned in Domesday and it may have been at Laneham itself.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SAUNDBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For another part, see 1,44.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BOLE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227. For other parts, see 9,118;125.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Bolun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 could equally apply to Bolham (SK7082) which lay in the parish of East Retford; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 59. However, East Retford appears not to have existed in 1086, its area being included in Clarborough (1,41) whic h probably accounted silently for Bolham. Both Bole and Bolham appear to have been in Oswaldbeck Wapentake. A place called Bole was part of the honour of Tickhill (descent from Roger of Bully), thus accounting for one or both of 9,118 and 9,125 and the pr esent estate appears to be the Bole, held by the Archbishop of York, that formed a prebend in York Cathedral; }{\insrsid6823374 see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 268 note 1.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab '[WEST] BURTON'. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. In the latter source it is called }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Burton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ' }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Super Trent}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . For another part, see 9,116.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The name now survives only as that of a Civil Parish. The deserted medieval village of 'West Burton' lies at SK798855; West Burton power station is at SK788853; see }{\insrsid6823374 Beresford, }{ \i\insrsid6823374 Lost Villages of England}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 377.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [SOUTH] WHEATLEY. North Wheatley and South Wheatley were separate Ancient Parishes. South Wheatley (5,4) was a peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Southwell (5,1) until 1841 and can be identified as the present holding. Nor th and South Wheatley are adjacent. They both probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as they were later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [NORTH] LE VERTON. Both North Leverton and South Leverton were Ancient Parishes. The settlement of North Leverton is now known as North Leverton with Habblesthorpe. They were adjacent (North Leverton at SK7882 and South Leverton at SK7881) and probably lay in Oswald beck Wapentake in 1086 for they were later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), pp. 227-28. For other parts of 'Leverton', see 1,32. 2,10. 9,130.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The present holding appears to have been at North Leverton which was long part of the archbishop's Jurisdiction of Laneham; }{\insrsid6823374 see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{ \insrsid6823374 , i. p. 251 note 3. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For the grant of the churches here and at Beckingham as part of a prebend, see 5,1 prebend note. Only one church is mentioned in Domesday and it may have been at Laneham itself.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 9 CARUCATES. The }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number from }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 viii}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 to }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 viiii}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 and interlined }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 uem}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (the last three letters of }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 nouem}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , '9') in clarification, probably at an early stage as the pen and ink are the same as those of the surrounding text.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IN THE LORDSHIP OF THE HALL. The mention of the hall presumably emphasises that these 10 bovates are on the estate where the hall is, that is in Laneham itself, the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 caput manerii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('head of the manor'). It is normal to give the amount of lordship land, but the added detail is unusual.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE REST IS JURISDICTION. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 reliqua est soca}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 reliqua}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 referring to the feminine }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 terra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the immediately-preceding phrase }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .x. bou}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 atae}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 de hac t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('10 bovates of this land'). This must mean that the remaining 8 \'bd carucates (9 carucates and 2 bovates less the 10 bovates of lordship land) is in the outliers, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 soca}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 here being used as a collective term for the dependencies of the manor. All the land on the estate is thus given at the beginning of the entry, though the resources of the estate are given separately for the manor and the outliers. This is a compromise between complete engrossment and analytical description; see}{ \i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 219.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ARCHBISHOP THOMAS HAS ... THERE. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ibi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , extending the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 I}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 downwards to act as an insertion sign, probably }{\insrsid6823374 at an early stage as the pen and ink are the same as those of the surrounding text.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . On Thomas, s}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ee NTT 5 archbishop note, and on his name, see 5,1 Thomas note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A CHURCH AND A PRIEST. See 5,4 Beckingham note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 FISHERIES. These were no doubt on the River Trent which flows just to the east of Church Laneham, one of the constituents of Domesday }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lanun}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : 5,4 Laneham note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 MEN-AT-ARMS HOLD THESE. Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 hos}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('them') is masculine and refers to the Freemen, villagers and smallholders included in the addition to the entry which is marked by the gallows-sign, which begins 'Also another 33 Freemen... '.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FROM THE ARCHBISHOP. The position of this phrase might suggest that '2 men-at-arms of the archbishop' was intended, the Latin preposition }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 de}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 meaning both 'from' and 'of' in Medieval Latin.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 5,5\tab THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Dom esday in almost two lines across the foot of both columns of folio 283ab, on which only the fief of the Archbishop of York had been written. No transposition signs linking it to a particular position in the fief above were thought necessary, so it was num b ered in the Phillimore edition as if it belonged after the last entry on folio 283a, Laneham (5,4). However, it would fit the sequence of wapentakes better if it had been numbered with the other places in 'Lythe' Wapentake (currently recorded in 5,13-17); compare 5,6 entry note. It was probably written in the same campaign as the other rubricated added entries in Nottinghamshire; see 1,31 entry note. As happened with several entries added, both before and after rubrication, a further correction had to be m ade, presumably as a result of a further check; see 5,5 meadow note. A further check of his source produced the next entry, added after rubrication; see 5,6 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ['LYTHE' WAPENTAKE]. This heading is supplied from the probable location of South Muskham (5,5) in 1086.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [SOUTH] MUSKHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For another part, see 30,46. It is identified as [South] Muskham because North Muskham has already been specifically included (5,2). Half a knight's fee was held in }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Suth Muscham}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 from the Archbishop of York in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 95; }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , ii. pp. 28, 310.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The estates at North Muskham, South Muskham and Little Carlton (5,2;5. 8,2. 12,11-14. 30,7;46) formed a 12-carucate unit, and possibly a hundred; see \{Introduction: Small Hundreds\} and, on the identification of Carlton, 5,5 Carlton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [LITTLE?] CARLTON. The association of this }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Carleton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 with South Muskham and the neat addition of the assessment of several holdings including two places called }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Carleton/Carletun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (5,2 Muskham note) suggests that it was Little Carlton. This identification is implied in the Introduction to }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 211, but the place is identified as Carlton-on-Trent in the translation (p. 255) followed by the Phillimore printed edition. The difficulty with the identification of this }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Carleton}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 with Little Carlton is that in the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 983, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Nord Karleton'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (that is, Carlton-on-Trent) is held from the Archbishop of York.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Little Carlton was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of South Muskham: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 193. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106, where it is associated with North Muskham. For another part, see 12,14. On a possible 12-carucate hundred, see 5,2 Muskham note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 66 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of acres from '60' to '66' by interlining }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .vi. }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above, and in the space after, the original }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 lx.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 He used a finer pen to that used for the addition of this entry (5,5 entry note), suggesting that this was a later correction still.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab UNDERWOOD, 80 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , accusative, here in error; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 5,6\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in a single line across the foot of both columns on folio 283ab, after another entry previously added; see 5,5 entry note. However, it was not written at the same time as that entry, which was rubricated and done with a different pen and ink, so must have been the result of a further check of his sources. It may have been written at the same time as some of the other unrubricated added entries in this county; see 1,53 entry note. However, it contains formulae for the plough, the status of the holding and for the value sta t ement that are not found anywhere else in circuit VI, except in added unrubricated entries, which may suggest that it was added much later; 10,64 entry note. Although it was numbered by Phillimore as 5,6, it would fit the sequence of wapentakes better if it had been numbered with other places in 'Thurgarton' Wapentake (currently recorded in 5,9-11); compare 5,5 entry note. For other entries added by the main scribe that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [THURGARTON WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Rolleston (5,6).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ROLLESTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 7,5. 11,18, and on the possibility that one of these had once belonged to the Archbishop of York, see 7,5 Upton note. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab As often with added entries, Domesday does not specify the status of this estate. Its geographical position suggests that it might once have been an integral part of the manor of Southwell.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AELFRIC. The Domesday forms - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aluric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Alebric, Aeluric}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 us}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 )}{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , Alfric}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 us}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , Alfriz, Aluuricus, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aelfric}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Aluriz, Eluric}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 us}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , Alberic, Alebrix}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 etc. - represent Old English }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \'c6lfric}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 : }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 176-80. The Alecto edition has \'c6lfric.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AS A MANOR. This takes the place of the marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and is a formula not found in circuit VI, except in added entries (see also here in 10,66. 12,12. 16,12 and 30,10), but it occurs in most of the circuits written after it. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab PLOUGH, WHICH 5 VI LLAGERS HAVE THERE. This is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries (compare 13,12 ploughs note and 10,66 plough note), but it occurs in circuits written up after it. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FORMERLY 20s; VALUE NOW 10s. The Phillimore printed edition mistranslated 'Value formerly 20s; now 10s' and this was repeated in the first edition of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Domesday Explorer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries (it appears in t his county in the unrubricated added entries also at 10,65-66. 12,12. 13,12. 16,12. 20,8. 30,13), but is found regularly only in circuit II, probably the last one to be written up. See 2,3 value note and compare 10,64 value note and 30,54 value note. On t he significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 5,7\tab ['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Sutton-cum-Lound. However, it is not strictly necessary as this entry is a continuation of estates in 'Basselaw' Wapentake be gun at 5,4, but interrupted by the insertion of 5,5-6; see NTT 5 Archbishop note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SUTTON[-CUM-LOUND]. This place, sometimes called Sutton-by-Retford, was a township of the Ancient Parish of Sutton-cum-Lound. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. Lound is separately included in this entry. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Suttone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 was granted in 958 by King Edgar to [Arch]B ishop Oscytel [of York] who had received the important estate of Southwell from Edgar's brother, King Edwy, two years before. It probably originated as a part of the royal manor of Mansfield; see \{Introduction: Manorial Organization\} .This grant was of 10 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 cassati}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and the bounds of the estate included }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Scroppenthorpe}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (presumably standing for Scrooby, with substitution of -}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 by}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 for }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -thorp}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) and a place }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thuresby}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , which might be Torworth (9,53) if }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -by}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 has been replaced by }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -worth}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : }{\i\insrsid6823374 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 112 no. 115 ( = Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid6823374 , no. 679); see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 96-97, 100. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thuresby}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is not there given as an early form of Torworth.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab With this charter there are two separate sets of boundary clauses, one for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Suttune}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and one for } {\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Scroppenthorpe}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thuresby}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . On the bounds, see Davies, 'Anglo-Saxon Boundaries of Sutton and Scrooby'. The bounds of Sutton correspond more or less to those of the parish of Sutton-cum-Lound. Those of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Scroppenthorpe}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thuresby }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 are more problem atic on the ground, and Davies' reconstruction is influenced by assuming that he must find 10 carucates to correspond to the 10 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 cassati}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of the charter. There is, however, no certain ratio of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 cassati}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to carucates. At its fullest extent the proposed bounds of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Scroppenthorpe}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thuresby }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 would include Scrooby (5,7), Torworth (9,53), Barnby Moor (9,54) and Bilby (9,45) suggesting substantial losses from the grant. The charter does not designate Scrooby as an outlier and none of the Jurisdictions is mentioned. T he church of York may have made a manor from several pieces, or men had commended themselves to the church with their land.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SCROOBY, AN OUTLIER. This was a chapelry of }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 the Ancient Parish of}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sutton-cum-Lound, then an Ancient Parish in its own right. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. Scrooby was acquired by the archbishop in 958 with Sutton; see 5,7 Sutton note. With Southwell, Laneham and Sutton-cum-Lound, Scrooby became part of the archbishops' Medieval Liberty of Southwell and Scrooby.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 B'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 for }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Berewica }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('an outlier') above }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Scrobi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and another one above }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Madressei}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; the Phillimore printed edition translated these as 'the outliers Scrroby and Lound', as if the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 B'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 had been written only once.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \{\{}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 MATTERSEY\}\} LOUND, AN OUTLIER. The main scribe of Great Domesday underlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Madressei}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 for deletion and wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lund}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above it in substitution. Mattersey is a Jurisdiction of Bothamsall at 1,15 and a Jurisdiction of Rampton at 9,131. It is difficult to see how the error arose. However, Mattersey and Lound are adjacent on the ground and it may be that Lound (Old Norse }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 lundr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 'grove' or 'wood') arose as a local name for a wooded part of Mattersey ('Maerthhere's well-watered land'); see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 85-86. If so, the interlineation of Lound is not a correction but a more precise appellation.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Lound was a township of the Ancient Parish of Sutton-cum-Lound. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later:}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other parts, see 1,16. 9,51.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 5,8\tab JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. The first estate (Eaton) appears to have been in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, the rest in Oswaldbeck Wapentake.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab EATON. This was an Ancient Parish, and a peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Southwell (5,1) until 1841. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For another part, see 9,20.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 CARUCATES TAXABLE. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ad g}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ld}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 um}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .ii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , using a different pen to that used in the rest of the entry. He may have added it in the wrong place, as normally when he listed Jurisdictions of a multiple e state he gave the extent of each holding and then a total that was taxable. However, he had failed to give a total here, so perhaps thought it was sufficient to indicate above just one of the extents that it was taxable. For two additions by scribe B in t his entry, see 5,8 Laneham note and 5,8 Clarborough note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab TILN. This was a hamlet (sometimes spelt Tilne) of Hayton Ancient Parish. Hayton itself does not appear in Domesday. Tiln appears directly beneath a subheading for Oswaldbeck Wapentake at 1,31 and i s associated with Clarborough (in Oswaldbeck Wapentake) at 1,41. It later lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227), but that wapentake combined places that were in both Oswaldbeck Wapentake and 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086, and Tiln, like Clarborough and Hayton, appears in that portion of the list that seems to contain only places that were formerly in Oswaldbeck Wapentake. In the present entry its location is equivocal. It is preceded by a place that lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake and followed by one in Oswaldbeck Wapentake. However, even though, on the ground, Tiln juts awkwardly into 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, it seems more likely that it was in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WELHAM. This was a hamlet of Clarborough Ancient Parish. It pro bably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227. For another part, see 1,42.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab "SIMENTON". No trace of this place has been found after 1086 and it most probably merged with Welham with which it is twice associated in Domesday (1,42. 5,8). If that is so, it lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086. The form of the name in 1,42 is "Simentone".}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [LITTLE] GRINGLEY. This was a hamlet of Clarborough Ancient Parish. For the identification, see 1,4 Gringley note and, for another part, see 1,4.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab SCAFTWORTH 1 CARUCATE. }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Car}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 ucata}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 is normally abbreviated with a zig-zag upright in Nottinghamshire, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 car}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 uca}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 with a horizontal line; as h ere, the convention is not consistent (JRM).}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Scaftworth was a township of Everton Ancient Parish. Like Everton itself, it probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab EVERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other parts, see 9,117;124.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WHICH BELONGS TO LANEHAM. That is, to the archbishop's manor (5,4). Scribe B interlined }{\i\f720\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 pertinens ad lan\'fb.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above the mill's render, extending the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 p }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 downwards after }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 redd'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to act as an insertion sign ( Farley printed this as a separate vertical, as he often did). Scribe B should really have interlined this phrase earlier in the line above the mill. He added the detail of Clarborough in the next line at the same time and possibly the brief entry for Fent o n on folio 281c (1,33). The scratchy pen he used for these three is very like the pen used for a series of additions later in the county, but the ink is a different colour; see 9,5 Clifton note. On the several additions concerning Clarborough and Tiln, se e 1,31 entry note. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, see 1,12 bovates note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [WEST] RETFORD. East and West Retford were adjacent Ancient Parishes. They probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as they did later. For West Retford, see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. East Retford (1,41 Clarborough note) was a borough in the Middle Ages: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 103; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 9,42;71.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BELONGS TO SUTTON[-CUM-LOUND]. That is, to the archbishop's manor (5,7).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IN CLARBOROUGH 6 \'bd BOVATES. This was added by scribe B in a space left after the details of mills, though it really belongs earlier in this entry with the other Jurisdictions and their extents. He wrote it at the same time as the detail on the mill in Tiln and possibly a brief entry for Fenton; see 5,8 Laneham note. There would seem to have been confusion over some of the holdings in Clarborough and Tiln because the main scribe of Great Domesday added an entr y for Tiln before rubrication (1,31 entry note) and one for Clarborough after it (30,54 entry note), while scribe B interlined 'and Tiln' in an entry for Clarborough (1,41 Tiln note) as well as these two details in 5,8. For his other contributions to Domes day Nottinghamshire, including details of five other members of manors, see 1,12 bovates note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Tiln was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227. For other parts, see 1,41. 9,127-128. 30,39; 54.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A FURTHER 45 ACRES. Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 adhuc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 here means 'in addition to this'. The main scribe of Great Domesday thus marked the transition between two areas of meadow measured in different ways or in two different places. \par \tab \tab The main scribe wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , accusative, here in error; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space, possibly to indicate the end o f a multiple estate or possibly in case he found details of another member of it. However, as the next holding is in a different wapentake, he may have left it for the later insertion of a wapentake head. For a list of other one-line spaces left within fi efs, see 1,44 after note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 5,9\tab [THURGARTON WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Blidworth (5,9).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BLIDWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as did its outlier Calverton (5,10). They were later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A MILL WHICH IS IN LOWDHAM. This is a rare localization. Blidworth is situated on high ground and its mill would have to have been sited in a valley. Lowdham is eight miles from Blidworth and four miles from Blidworth's outlier, Calverton (5,10). The Cocker Beck passes through Lowdham and the Dover Beck is close by. For Lowdham itself, see 9,75. \par \tab \tab The case of }{\i\f720\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 un\'fb molin'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative (the subject being either the villagers or, more likely, Archbishop Thomas; see 1,1 fishery note). Although sometimes the word for 'mill' is regarded as neuter (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 molinum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) in Medieval Latin, rather than the classical masculine (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 molinus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), in this case }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 unum molinum}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative because it is succeeded by }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 qui}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (the masculine nominative singular relative pronoun).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 5,10\tab CALVERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 (heading above another part at 16,3) and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 16,3. 30,13.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Siluae past'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , apparently deliberately adding a diphthong squiggle to the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 a}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to make it either n ominative plural (suggesting that in Calverton there was more than one area of pasturable woodland) or, more probably, genitive singular as part of a phrase }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 siluae pastilis .viii. quarentinae in longitudine 7 iii. in latitudine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('8 furlongs of pasturable w oodland in length and 3 in width'), but, as in B1, once he had begun the phrase, he continued with part of another, grammatically incompatible, formula, or his initial genitive implies that he was expecting to use a square measure, '}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 x}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 acres of pasturable woodland'; see B1 underwood note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 5,11\tab OXTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 9,76. 11,11.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALNOTH. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid6823374 Alnod}{\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\insrsid6823374 us}{\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Elnod}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ),}{\i\insrsid6823374 Aelnod}{\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\insrsid6823374 us}{\insrsid6823374 )}{ \i\insrsid6823374 , Alnot}{\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\insrsid6823374 us}{\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\insrsid6823374 , Alnoth}{\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\insrsid6823374 us}{\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\insrsid6823374 , Alnoht, Elnoc}{\insrsid6823374 (an error for }{ \i\insrsid6823374 Elnot}{\insrsid6823374 ) etc. - could represent Old English }{\i\insrsid6823374 \'c6lfnoth, }{\insrsid6823374 Old English }{\i\insrsid6823374 \'c6thelnoth}{\insrsid6823374 , or the hypothetical Old English}{\i\insrsid6823374 Ealdnoth}{ \insrsid6823374 : }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p}{\insrsid6823374 p. 149-50, under }{\i\insrsid6823374 Al-noth}{\insrsid6823374 , and see also p. 142, under }{\i\insrsid6823374 Al-}{\insrsid6823374 . JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, Alnoth, but some of the people he called Alnoth, followed in the present edition, appear in }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 175, 185-86, 241, under Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6lfnoth, }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Old English}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6thelnoth }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and Old English}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ealdnoth}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , but their Domesday forms do not include the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -f-}{\insrsid6823374 that JRM required for a person to be called Alfnoth (his version of Old English }{ \i\insrsid6823374 \'c6lfnoth}{\insrsid6823374 ), the }{\i\insrsid6823374 -d-}{\insrsid6823374 or }{\i\insrsid6823374 -g- }{\insrsid6823374 that warranted its inclusion under Old English }{\i\insrsid6823374 \'c6thelnoth}{\insrsid6823374 , or the }{ \i\insrsid6823374 -t-}{\insrsid6823374 necessary for its rendering as Aldnoth (his version of Old English }{\i\insrsid6823374 Ealdnoth}{\insrsid6823374 ; but see NFK 1,109 Alnoth note). JMcND accepted this. }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Alecto edition follows von Feilitzen.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE KING HAS 1 BOVATE OF THIS LAND. This was perhaps at Farnsfield (1,22), which is close, but see 1,22 Nottingham note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE REST IS AN ADJUNCT OF BLIDWORTH. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iacet ad}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is similar in meaning to }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 adiacet }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('is attached to') and means more than the 'lies in Blidworth [lands]' of the Phillimore printed translation, which better renders }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iacet in}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 The Alecto edition has 'belongs to'.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The sentence casts doubt on the marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 anerium}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]. It is more likely that Oxton is an outlier of Blidworth (5,9) as is Calverton (5,10).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday had left a line's space, possibly before detailing the multiple estate of Norwell, but as that manor was in a different wapentake to Oxton, he may have left it for the later inclusion of a wapentake head. For a list of other one-line spaces left within fiefs, see 1,44 after note. In the event the space proved useful for the later insertion of the holding in Ranskill (5,12 entry note).} {\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 5,12\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday after the county had been rubricated. Its one and a half lines were squeezed into a one-line scored space that he had left after a group of places in Thurgarton Wapentake. No indica tion of its status is given, nor the wapentake in which it lay, but if Ranskill was a manor, it may been added in the wrong place, since it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 and places in that wapentake had already been entered at 5,4 and 5,7; see 5,12 Ranskill note. This entry does not seem to have been done at the same time as any of the other added entries that were never rubricated, of which a list is given in 1,19 entry note. On the appearance in it of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 est}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the plough estimate, see 5,12 p lough note. It might have been a late discovery because if it was waste in 1066 it might not have been initially surveyed.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [* 'BASSETLAW WAPENTAKE' *]. The insertion of this heading depends on the later evidence for the location of Ranskill (5,12).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab RANSKILL. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 This was a township of Blyth Ancient Parish. Like Blyth itself (9,49), it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Domesday does not indicate the status (manor, outlier, Jurisdiction) of th is piece of land. It is probably too remote from Oxton (5,11) to be connected with it. It appears likely that it was silently included in the grant of Sutton-cum-Lound and Scrooby to the Archbishop of York in 958, but had for some reason become detached f rom them either administratively, tenurially or in the documents that fed into Domesday; see 5,7 Sutton note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 1 PLOUGH. The main scribe of Great Domesday included }{\i\f720\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'e7 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 est}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 'is') in the plough estimate in this added entry, as he also did in the entr y for Selston (10,65) that he added on folio 288b. These are the only occurrences of the verb in this formula in Domesday Nottinghamshire; in most of the counties in circuit VI there is no verb, except in added entries, though he included it in circuits w ritten up later. On other formulae not used in circuit VI appearing in added entries and the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IT WAS AND IS WASTE. This is the only occurrence in this county of a holding being described as waste previously as well as in 1086. On the possible significance of this, see 5,12 entry note.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODRIC HELD IT. On this name, see 2,10 Godric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 5,13\tab ['LYTHE' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Norwell (5,13).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NORWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 FISHERY. A river known as The Beck flows past Norwell, but the fishery was more probably on the River Trent.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 5,14\tab JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. Osmanthorpe seems to have lain in Thurgarton Wapentake, the remaining Jurisdictions (5,15-16) in 'Lythe' Wapentake, the same wapentake as Norwell itself.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OSMANTHORPE. }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 The manuscript has }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Osuuitorp }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 for }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Osmutorp}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 (JRM). If it is assumed that the name-form was }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Osmuntorp}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , it would seem that at some stage in the Domesday process this name was written }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Os\'fd\'fd\'fd\'fd\'fdtorp}{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 , a series of five minims, probably with an abbreviation line (for an omitted }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 n}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ) over the last two. These minims were wrongly joined up by either the }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday or a previous scribe and the abbreviation line was omitted. }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 256 note 3, suggests that the scribe read 'Osmutorp' as 'Osunitorp', but the minims are clearly joined at the base as }{\i\insrsid6823374 uu}{\insrsid6823374 . \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Osmanthorpe was a hamlet of Edingley Ancient Parish. Edingley does not appear in Domesday but in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232 it is in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe. Geographically it will have lain in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 161. The grid reference for Osmanthorpe (SK677568) is to Osmanthorpe manor.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 5,15\tab WILLOUGHBY. This is one of three places called Willoughby in Nottinghamshire. The present Willoughby was a settlement in Norwell Ancient Parish and like Norwell (5,13) was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086. For other parts, see 12,15. 24,3. The grid reference is to Willoughby Farm (SK780625).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 3 VILLAGERS. In the manuscript above the first minim of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 there is a blackish ink mark which joins the the tail of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 g}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wilgebi}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the line above. Because the first part of this }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 g}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 's tail is not reproduced in the Alecto facsimile the result resembles an interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; it is clearer in the Ordnance Survey facsimile, which unusually shows this ink mark.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 16 ACRES. }{\insrsid6823374 The case of }{\i\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\insrsid6823374 is not absolutely certain: it generally abbreviates }{\i\insrsid6823374 acr}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ae}{\i\insrsid6823374 }{\insrsid6823374 (nominative), but could abbreviate }{\i\insrsid6823374 acras}{\insrsid6823374 (accusative) in instances such as t his where the meadow acres as well as the plough could be the object of 'have'. In a large number of other entries in this county the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\insrsid6823374 ac's}{\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\insrsid6823374 acras}{ \insrsid6823374 , accusative) for the meadow acres in such cases, as in the next entry (see 1,2 meadow note), and in 10,24 he wrote }{\i\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\insrsid6823374 for the acres of meadow, but }{\i\insrsid6823374 ac's}{\insrsid6823374 for the acres of underwood succeeding them, when both are the objects. It has therefore been decided in the present edition to preserve this ambiguity by putting a semi-colon af ter the ploughs, rather than the full-stop of the Phillimore printed translation; the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alecto edition has a comma there. This uncertainty also occurs in 7,1;3-4. 9,45;49;80-81;83;98;114-115;117. 10,2-3;7. 11,9. 13,7. 17,11;16. 18,7. 30,3;9;19;23;34;43;46.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 5,16\tab CAUNTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For another part, see 12,8.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 5,17\tab HOCKERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 9,60. 11,8. \par \tab \tab Domesday does not indicate the status of this piece of land; though no value is given, it is close enough to Norwell to have been a Jurisdiction of it.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 5,18\tab [* THURGARTON WAPENTAKE *]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Woodborough (5,18).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WOODBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,19. 9,73. 14,5. 30,6;9-10.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IT BELONGS TO SOUTHWELL. That i s, the holding belongs to the archbishop's manor (5,1). The Phillimore printed translation has '2 villagers and 1 smallholder have 1 plough; it belongs to Southwell', which is misleading, suggesting that 'it' is the plough. In fact the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ad Suduuelle p}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 tin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 et}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] is a separate sentence, deliberately written with a space before it. Both this entry and the following one (5,19) should probably have been included in 5,10. No value is given for either, but they may be subsumed in that for Southwell itself, althoug h Woodborough is unlikely to have formed part of the original grant of Southwell to the Archbishop of York; see 5,1 Southwell note. Neither of these final entries is postscriptal, but they could have emerged as the main scribe of Great Domesday was workin g on this chapter or been added in this place in his source.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 5,19\tab THERE ALSO ^[WOODBOROUGH]^. See 5,18 Woodborough note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 CLERIC. Presumably he is a secular cleric or a canon; see 5,3 canons note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab UNDER THE ARCHBISHOP. The Latin preposition }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 sub}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('under') is correct, as the archbishop is not strictly the fief-holder, but managing the lands on behalf of the cathedral church of York, so the cleric is not holding 'from him'. On the use of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 sub}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , see 3,4 under note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The reason for this separate entry for Woodb orough is presumably because the larger estate of 7 bovates (5,18) was part of the revenue of the collegiate church of Southwell, whereas this part was held 'under the Archbishop'. On this division of the chapter 5 lands, see NTT 5 Archbishop note.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a whole column blank (folio 283c) before beginning the account of the Bishop of Lincoln's fief on folio 283d. He may have thought that he would need to add details of further holdings of the archbishop (wh ich in fact was the case, though he used the foot margin of folio 283ab: 5,5 entry note, 5,6 entry note) or it was left for aesthetic reasons.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 6\tab LAND OF THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The church was a cathedral and a secular college dedicated to St Mary. A house for secular priests was established here }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 c}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . 953; there was also a nunnery. Bishop Remigius (consecrated in 1067 as successor to Bishop Wulfwin) was authorized to move his see from Dorchester-on-Thames (Oxfordshire), in origin a West Saxon then a Mercian see, to Lincoln in 1072; see Bates, }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , pp. 587-89 no. 177. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Remigius was a monk of F\'e9camp and apparently a relative of the Conqueror. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 He had furnished ships for Duke William's invasion of England and had accompanied him. Installed at Lincoln}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 he began to replace the church of St Mary with a large cathedral. He died in 1092 and was succeeded by Robert Bloet (1094-1123). See Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Medieval Religious Houses}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , pp. 415, 429; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , pp. 357, 527. Canons are mentioned in Domesday which also occasionally mentions the 'Bishop of Lincoln' anachronistically as a 1066 holder.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab It is not certain whether any of these lands in Nottinghamshire were only acquired after 1072 by the Bishop of Lincoln or whether any were held by his predecessors, the bishops of Dorchester-on-Thames. Domesday provides no evidence that the estates were ecclesiastical holdings in 1066. Three of the most important estates, Newark-on-Trent (6,1) and Fledborough and Stokeham (6,13;15) had been held by Countess (Lady) Godiva in 1066 and the first two were probably conferred by her before 1066 on Stow Abbey (Lincolnshire) whose endowment was amplified by her and her husband Leofric, Earl of Mercia; see 6,1 Newark note. There is nothing in Domesday to suggest that all these estates were not acquired by the new bishopric in the Conqueror's reign.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab The lands in this fief lay in only two wapentakes. These are entered in the standard order (\{Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes\} ), but this may be coincidental as it is probable that Newark-on-Trent, because of its importance, would anyway have been entered first: \par \tab \tab 6,1-12 [Newark Wapentake] \par \tab \tab 6,13-15 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 6,1\tab [NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the estates listed in 6,1-12, all of which appear to have lain in this wapentake.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NEWARK[-ON-TRENT]. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Newark-upon-Trent or simply as Newark. In 1086 it no doubt lay in the wapentake that it named as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The name Newark means the 'new work' (Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 niwe}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -(}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ge}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 weorc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), apparently referring to a fortified site. It is 'new' in relation to 'Aldewerc h' or 'Old-Wark', the site of the Romano-British settlement of Margidunum south-west of Newark-on-Trent along the Foss Way represented by Castle Hill in East Bridgford (SK6943); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 199, 222.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Newark-on-Trent as well as Fledborough and Stokeham (6,13-14) and Well Wapentake in Lincolnshire had been held by Countess Godiva in 1066. Of these three estates, Newark-on-Trent and Fledborough were said to have been given to Stow Abbey (Lincolnshire) which was enriched between 1 0 55 and 1057 by Godiva and her husband, Earl Leofric of Mercia. This is not improbable, even though Godiva is still said to hold Newark-on-Trent and Fledborough in 1066 and the confirmation (1055 x 1057) of their gift attributed to Pope Victor (II) is susp ect: }{\i\insrsid6823374 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 113 no. 117 ( = Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid6823374 , no. 1233)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . Certainly the possession of Newark-on-Trent and Fledborough by Stow Abbey is mentioned in two writs of William I that probably date from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 c}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . 1072 and which are likely to be authentic: Bates, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , pp. 831-834 nos. 276-77.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The second of these confirms the gift by Leofric and Godiva, the first merely granting the lands 'as Godiva had them in the days of King Edward' and not referring t o her gift of them. A monastery at Stow had been founded by Eadnoth, Bishop of Dorchester-on-Thames (1006-1016). William's confirmation might be linked to Godiva's death (date unknown), to the establishment of the see of Lincoln (in 1072) or to a revival o f the monastery to which he intended to add the church of Eynsham in Oxfordshire. The first of the Conqueror's writs also implies that Bishop Remigius of Lincoln had some responsibilty for Stow, which is presumably why its lands are listed among those of h is bishopric (LIN 7,1). The union betwen Stow and Eynsham took some years to accomplish, and Stow appears to have languished. Apart from population and resources, only a church and a priest are mentioned there in Domesday but the holder is the Bishop of L i ncoln, not the Abbey of Stow, which is not recorded as a fief-holder anywhere in Domesday Book. The Abbot of Eynsham became Abbot of Stow only in 1091 and by 1094-1095 the monastery at Eynsham had been re-established while that at Stow closed at about the same time; see Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Medieval Religious Houses}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 57, 77; }{\insrsid6823374 Knowles, Brooke and London, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Heads of Religious Houses}{\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\insrsid6823374 }{\insrsid6823374 pp. 48-49; Bates, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Bishop Remigius of Lincoln}{\insrsid6823374 , pp. 29-32. \par \tab \tab In 1086, Newark Wapentake was already an area of special privilege, with the Bishop of Lincoln having all the customary dues of the king and the earl (see 6,1 dues note) as Countess Godiva had had before (S5). Newark developed into a special soke or Liberty; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 1001}{\insrsid6823374 . Possible conflict with the king over the right of free warren was resolved }{\i\insrsid6823374 c}{\insrsid6823374 . 1105 by a grant of Henry I to Robert Bloet, Bishop of Lincoln (1093-1123) of 'the king's warren of Lincoln in so far as it lay in the bishop's soke of Newark and Stow'. He also gave the bishop the right of warren in the whole of his soke of Newark and Stow: }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 48 no. 727.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The bishops of Lincoln had a palace and a castle at Newark-on-Trent and it was their private borough. The castle was erected by Bishop Alexander (1123-1148). Two notifications of Henry I, dating from }{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 c}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 . 1130, permit the bishop to divert the }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 regia strata}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('the royal high road'), also called the }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 chiminum fossae}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('the Foss Way') through Newark-on-Trent so as to construct a causeway for his fishpond: }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 242 nos. 1660-1661. In another notification, of 1133, Henry I grants Bis hop Alexander (1123-1148) permission to make a bridge over the River Trent at his castle of Newark-on-Trent but in such a way that he does not 'injure the king's city of Lincoln nor his borough of Nottingham': }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 264 no . 1770. These grants also show the king's concern for maintaining access by road and river to his towns; see B20 Nottingham note. In 1133 the king also granted that a fair could be held in Newark-on-Trent castle, and allowed the bishop to assign one third of the service of his knights there. He also stated that if Newark was a half-wapentake (which it was), then only two men were to be summoned to the king's pleas and to the shire-courts. See }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 , ii. pp. 265, 268, 264, nos. 1773, 1791, 1772.}{\insrsid6823374 \par \tab \tab On the early history of Newark-on-Trent, see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iii. pp. 1-2, vi. part iii (= vol. viii in some bindings), pp. 1272-73; }{ \insrsid6823374 Maitland, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday Book and Beyond}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 213; }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. pp. 220-21; Rogers, 'Origins of Newark'.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BALDERTON. This was a chapelry of Farndon Ancient Parish. Like Farndon itself (6,1), it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For another part, see 6,2.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FARNDON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab COUNTESS GODIVA. She was wife of Earl Leofric of Mercia and mother of Earl Algar. She survived into the Conqueror 's reign but was dead by 1086. Some of her lands had not been re-granted by then and were still surveyed by Domesday as the lands of Countess Godiva, as for example in Leicestershire (LEC 11). On her name, see S5 Godiva note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab BISHOP REMIGIUS. He was a monk of F\'e9camp, consecrated bishop of Dorchester-on-Thames (Oxfordshire) in 1067. He was authorized to move his seat to Lincoln in 1072; see}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 NTT 6 bishop note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday form, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Remigius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (often abbreviated, to }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Remigi'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rem'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Re'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 R.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc.), is that of the s aint, the Archbishop of Rheims (died in 533), who baptized Clovis I, King of the Franks (481-511). }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Remigius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 itself is a Latin adjective used substantively, meaning 'a man from Rheims' or 'a member of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Remi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ', a Celtic tribe known to Julius Caesar, Remi ( Rheims) also being the name of their }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 civitas}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -capital. See Dauzat, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Dictionnaire des Noms et Pr\'e9 noms de France}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , under }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Remy}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , the popular form of Remigius. In Domesday Book only Bishop Remigius of Lincoln and Herbert son of Remigius appear with this name. The Alecto edition has Remigius for the bishop and fitzRemy for Herbert.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IN LORDSHIP. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in d'nio}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , extending the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 i}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 downwards to act as an insertion mark.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab 56 BURGESSES. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 77 qu'nquaginta sex burgenses}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , the second }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 being added because the first was not very clear with its horizontal bar caught up with the } {\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 g}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 gld}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the line above and its descender partially superimposed on the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the line below. He should have erased the superfluous }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . The tails of both }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s extend downwards to act as insertion marks. However, as burgesses were more important than villagers he should have written the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 after }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 burgenses}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , but he had no space because of the descender of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 p}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ep's}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the line above and the abbreviation sign over }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 hntes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the line below.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab These burgesses are the sign that Newark-on-Trent was a small borough, a }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 burgus}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 rather than a }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 uilla}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ; see \{Introduction: Boroughs). }{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab 10 CHURCHES AND 8 PRIESTS. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The ten churches no doubt incl uded one at Newark-on-Trent itself and nine in its dependencies (two outliers and 16 Jurisdictions). There is an excess of churches over priests. It is possible that Newark-on-Trent had two or more priests at its church or more probable that the eight pri ests lived together in a college there and went from there to the other churches, jointly cultivating a single piece of land with their 5 ploughs.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab 7 FREEMEN. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 franci homines}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , equivalent to }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 liberi homines}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . A freeman is also recorded in Langar (10,59). JRM translated }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 francus homo}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 as 'freeman' to distinguish it from 'free man' (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 liber homo}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ) and 'Freeman' (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 sochemannus}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ), but in the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Phillimore printed translation here 'Freemen' appears in error, though 'freeman' is correct in 10,59. The Alecto edition has 'free man'. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 These are not Frenchmen, who appear in Domesday as }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Francigenae}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ; see}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 243. \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Both here and in 10,59 their ploughs seem to be separate from those of the Freemen, villagers etc.; compare 9,95 Freemen note.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab MILL, 5s 4d. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday wrote part of the '4d' over an erasure; he also turned an original }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('and') before the mill into an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 I }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ibi}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . He did not at the same time alter the accusative }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 piscariam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('fishery') to the nominative }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 piscaria}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 FISHERY. This was no doubt on the River Trent. On the Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 piscariam}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 being accusative in error, see 6,1 mill note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab ALL THE CUSTOMARY DUES OF THE KING AND THE EARL FROM THIS WAPENTAKE. The revenues from hundreds and wapentakes, as from boroughs, were usually the property of the king and the earl, or the king and the sheriff, in the proportion two-thirds to the king, one-third to the earl or sheriff. However, the profits of individual hundreds or wapentakes, in particular, might be held by the king al o ne or granted out to a layman or a church, sometimes as an appurtenance of a manor. In this case it appears that the Bishop of Lincoln was lord of Newark Wapentake, although the church did not hold all the estates therein. The bishop also had sake and sok e and toll and team in Well Wapentake in Lincolnshire, but he or St Mary's of Stow did not have the earl's third penny; see LIN CW11; }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 221.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 See also }{\insrsid6823374 Fleming, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 218 no. 1250. She translates: 'All custom s of the King and the earl from the wapentake of Newark are attached to this manor'. However, Domesday does not name the wapentake, although it can be deduced as Newark Wapentake from this and other entries. \par \tab \tab The mention of 'the king and the earl' is backward-looking. In 1066, Nottinghamshire would have been in the Earldom of Mercia or of Northumbria (see \{Introduction: Administration of the Shire\} ), but there was no Earl of Nottingham in 1086, nor of Derbyshire with which Nottinghamshire then shared a sheriff. \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab These customary dues will probably have included the right to levy tolls, which probably began where those of Nottingham ceased; the burgesses of Nottingham had the right to toll along the River Trent from Thrumpton to Newark-on-Trent; see }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Placita de Quo Waranto}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 pp. 442, 660; Roffe, \lquote Introduction', }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 23; and B20 Nottingham note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 6,2\tab JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. The estates listed all appear to have lain in Newark Wapentake, the same wapentake as the head manor.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BALDERTON. See 6,1 Balderton note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 6,3\tab KILVINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 20,2. 22,1.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SYERSTON. This was a chapelry of East Stoke Ancient Parish. It lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 (another part of Syerston is below a Newark wapentake head at 30,40) as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 2,3. 21,2. 30,40.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ELSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. Elston itself was also a chapelry that named the parish, but was ecclesiastically in East Stoke Ancient Parish at an early date: Youngs, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 359. It lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 (another part is below a Newark wapentake head at 9,1) as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,5. 9,1. 20,4-5.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [EAST] STOKE. This was an Ancient Parish, known ecclesiastically as East Stoke with Syerston. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 11,6. 20,3. 21,1. It is represented by East Stoke (SK7549) and Stoke Hall (SK7450). 'East' is probably relative to Stoke Bardolph (SK6441).}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For Ilbert of Lacy's claim to the 'fourth part of East Stoke', see 20,4 part note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HAWTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 11,7. 14,1-3.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab CODDINGTON. This was a chapelry of East Stoke Ancient Parish. Like East Stoke itself it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,6-7. 7,3-4.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BARNBY[-IN-THE-WILLOWS]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For another part, see 7,2.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 The interlinear marks below }{\i\f720\cf1\insrsid6823374 ii. b\'f4 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 and above }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 ar }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 are not, as Farley, }{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 tre}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ;}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 they are probably the remnant of an incomplete erasure (JRM). Farley in fact misplaced the }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 tre}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 as the 'marks' (perhaps ink smudges rather than the remains of an erasure) are above the middle of }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Barnebi}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 .}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WINTHORPE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IN THESE [JURISDICTIONS]. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in eis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('in them') presumably refers to all the places (6,2-3) included under the heading 'Jurisdiction of this manor'.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 6,4\tab [SOUTH] SCARLE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. \par \tab \tab North Scarle is in Lincolnshire (SK8466).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GIRTON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of South Scarle. Like South Scarle itself (6,4) it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SPALFORD. This was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of North Clifton. Like North and South Clifton (6,8;10-12. 9,3;5) it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For another part, see 9,4.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORNEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WIGSLEY. This was a hamlet of Thorney Ancient Parish. Like Thorney itself (6,4) it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. \par \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 Wigesleie}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 over erasure, spacing the letters out rat her more than usual as the original place-name had more letters in it. He used a different pen and ink for this correction and for the next place-name, Harby. The interlined assessments of both places were not corrected, however.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HARBY. This was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of North Clifton. Like North and South Clifton (6,8;10-12. 9,3;5) it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For another part, see 6,9. Harby is represented by Harby (SK8770) and North Harby (SK8872), a distinction made in modern times; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 205. \par \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Herdrebi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 over erasure, perhaps the same erasure as was under the previous place (6,4 Wigsley note).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab COTHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 7,1. 11,4.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FOR THE LARGE OVAL 'cut' in the parchment in this entry and the repair of parts of it, see 5,1 manuscript note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 6,5\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ELSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. Elston itself was also a chapelry that named the parish, but was ecclesiastically in East Stoke Ancient Parish at an early date: Youngs, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 359. It lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 (another part is below a Newark wapentake head at 9,1) as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3. 9,1. 20,4-5.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LEOFWIN. On this name, see S5 Leofwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab PILWIN . He was possibly the priest whose land at Elston Ilbert of Lacy was claiming in 1086; see 20,4 claims note. He was presumably the predecessor here of Arngrim (6,5 Arngrim note) as at Sibthorpe (20,1). These are the only two occurrences of this name in Domesday Book.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday form of his name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pileuuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , represents the hypothetical Old English }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pilwine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 344. JRM preferred the second element -win for Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -wine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . The Alecto edition has Pilwine.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HAD. In the Alecto facsimile the horizontal abbreviation line above the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 r}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 hbr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 habuerunt}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , '(they) had') appears as red, though in fact in the manuscript it is in the same colour as the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 hbr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and as the abbreviation line through the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 hb}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of this word; the red-lining of the place-name stops above the dot following }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ELVESTVN}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . In the Ordnance Survey facsimile, despite the different method of applying the red-lining, it stops in the correct place. On other problems of reproduction in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab RAVENSWARD. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rauensuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rauensuar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rauesuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rauesuar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rauesua}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rauesue}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Reuensuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Reuenesuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rauenesort}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc. - represent Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hrafnsvartr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 293. JRM preferred Raven- for the first element and -sward for the second element, as they reflected most of the Domesday forms. In the Phillimore printed edition of Yorkshire the form Rafnsvartr was used, reflecting the form in Fellows Jensen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 213; this has now been standardized as Ravensward. The Alecto edition has Hrafnsvartr. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ARNGRIM . Arngrim is presumably the same as the man who holds another part of Elston (20,5) from Ilbert of Lacy. On the present estate his predecessor was probably Pilwin (rather than Leofwin), who also preceded him at Sibthorpe which he also held from Ilbert of Lacy (20,1). These are the only three occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 The name Arngrim occurs on 14 holdings in Domesday Book, probably representing four or five individuals. The four Nottinghamshire holdings form a tight group, three of them held from the same tenant-in-chief. The fourth lay in the same vill - Elston - as one of these three and shared an Anglo-Saxon predecessor with the rare name of Pilwin with the other two. All four were therefore probably held by the same man in 1086 (JP). \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Arnegri}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 m}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ergrim}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Arnegrin}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ernegrin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aergrim}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aregrim}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aregrin}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Haregrim}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Haregrin}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Arngrim}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Arngrimr}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 162-63. In the printed Phillimore edition of Yorkshire the Old Norse form was used; this has now been standardized as Arngrim. The Alecto edition has Arngrim.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 6,6\tab CODDINGTON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of East Stoke. Like East Stoke itself (6,3. 11,6. 20,3), it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3;7. 7,3-4.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFRIC. On this name, see 2,8 Wulfric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 6,7\tab THERE ALSO ^[CODDINGTON]^. See 6,6 Coddington note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BUGGI. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Bugo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Buge}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Danish/Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Buggi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , though a possible alternative is Old English }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Buga}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 210-11. The form Buga appears in the printed Phillimore edition of Yorkshire, while Bugg is used in that for Nottinghamshire; they have both been standardized as Buggi. The Alecto edition has Buggi. \par \tab \tab In view o f the rarity of this name in Domesday Book, the only other occurrences being in 14,2 (Hawton), 30,8 (Colwick) and in YKS 5W12 (Hooton Levitt), it is possible that the same individual, a thane, was involved, although his lands passed to three different ten a nts-in-chief and he only retained the holding in Colwick (30,8). However, the appearance of Buggi twice in 14,2 might suggest two people, rather than two holdings in one place. Moreover, although the present holding at Coddington (SK8354) is relatively cl ose to Hawton (SK7851), they are distant from Colwick (SK6140) and Hooton Levitt (SK5291) which are also not near each other.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BOTHILD HOLDS IT. The Domesday form, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Botild}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , represents the Old Danish feminine name }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Bothild}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Bothildr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 207. In the printed Phillimore edition of Lincolnshire the Old Norse form is used, and in Suffolk the form Botild; these have now been standardized as Bothild. The Alecto edition has Bothild. \par \tab \tab A Bothild occu rs only here as a tenant of the Bishop of Lincoln, in Lincolnshire as a predecessor of Odo the crossbowman (LIN 48,14) and as claiming land in SFK 76,14; it is unlikely that the same individual was involved. On the present Bothild, see }{\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 170; she differentiates the Suffolk woman.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 6,8\tab CLIFTON. North Clifton was an Ancient Parish which contained the township of South Clifton. Both probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as they did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 there are two places called Clifton, one associated with Harby (6,4;9) and the other with Spalford (6,4. 9,4). It seems probable that the former is North Clifton and the latter South Clifton, which is nearer to Spalford. Certainly the Bishop of Lincoln held both. It is not possible to determine which Clifton is represented by the present entry and which by 6,10-12. For a holding of the Bishop of Lincoln at South Clifton, see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 100.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For other parts of Clifton, see 6,10-12. 9,3;5. The estate surveyed at 6,11 is likely to have been in the same Clifton as that of 9,3 with which it shares part of a church.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFGEAT. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vluiet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlfiet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vluuiet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ouiet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wluiet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wluiat}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vluied}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vuiet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Oluiet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wulfgeat}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 419-20, though he suggested that derivation from the feminine Old English name }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wulfgyth}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 was formally possible for those people no t identified as masculine. The Alecto edition has Wulfgeat. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The bishop's predecessor in another part of Clifton (6,11) is likely to have been the same individual, especially as both holdings passed to a Ralph. (A Wulfgeat was also his predecessor in LEC 3,16, but in view of the distance from Clifton and the commonness of the name Wulfgeat, it is very unlikely that he was the same as his predecessor here.)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 6 \'bd BOVATES OF LAND TAXABLE. Scribe B interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 dimid'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ad g'ld'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , extending the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 downwards after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 t'r\'ea }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to form an insertion mark; as usual Farley printed this extension as a separate vertical. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab RALPH HOLDS IT. It is likely that h e is the same individual as the Ralph who was the bishop's subtenant in another part of Clifton (6,11), especially as a Wulfgeat had held in 1066 in both. A person called Ralph was also his tenant in Leicestershire (LEC 3,5-9;14) and Lincolnshire (LIN 7,3 0;53). }{\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 345, tentatively identifies the bishop's tenant in these counties as the same individual, but does not mention his tenant Ralph in Nottinghamshire. From a geographical view it is more likely that the NTT and LIN tenan ts were the same than the LIN and LEC ones.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Radulfus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Radulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Radolf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Radulf}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , from which Norman }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Radulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Raoul}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 were derived: von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 345. Ralph, which also derives from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Radulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Raoul}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (Reaney, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), was chosen by JRM. The Alecto edition also has Ralph, for both 1086 and 1066 holders, except for the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holders in WIL 55,2 and CON 5,1,6 where it has Radulf, perhaps in error.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 6,9\tab HARBY. This was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of North Clifton. Like North and South Clifton (6,8;10-12. 9,3;5) it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For another part, see 6,4. Harby is represented by Harby (SK8770) and North Harby (SK8872), a distinction made in modern times; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 205.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODWIN. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Goduuinus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Goduin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Goduine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 God}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 d}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 euuinus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gotwinus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Couinus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc. - represent Old English }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Godwine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 269-73. JRM preferred the second element -win to Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -wine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , as the vast majority of Domesday forms lacked the final }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . The Alecto edition has Godwine.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 6,10\tab CLIFTON. See 6,8 Clifton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FRANI. On this name, see 4,6 Frani note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SIGHWAT HOLDS IT. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Siuuate}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Siuuat }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Swedish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sighwat}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Norse }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sighvatr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 363. In the printed Phillimore edition the forms Siwat (NTT, OXF) and Sighvatr (LIN) are used; they have now been standardized as Sighwat. The Alecto edition has Sighwat for the }{\i\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\insrsid6823374 holders, Siwate here for the only 1086 tenant. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 6,11\tab THERE ALSO ^[CLIFTON]^. See 6,8 Clifton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFGEAT. It is likely that he is the same individual as the Wulf geat who was the bishop's predecessor in another part of Clifton (6,8), especially as both holdings passed to a Ralph. On his name, see 6,8 Wulfgeat note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab RALPH HOLDS IT. It is likely that he is the same individual as the Ralph who was the bishop's subten ant in another part of Clifton (6,8), especially as a Wulfgeat had held in 1066 in both. See 6,8 Ralph note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE FOURTH PART OF 1 CHURCH. There is a further quarter-church at Clifton (9,3) but the remaining half does not appear in Domesday.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 6,12\tab THERE ALSO ^[CLIFTON]^. See 6,8 Clifton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AGHMUND. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Agemund}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Agemund}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aghemund}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] - represent Old Swedish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aghmund}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 141. In the printed Philli more edition the forms Agemund and Agmundr are used; these have now been standardized as Aghmund. The Alecto edition has Aghmund. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HE HAS 2 OXEN IN A PLOUGH. This does not imply that he ploughs with two oxen, but that he shares a plough with another estate. At Fledborough (6,13), adjacent but in 'Basssetlaw' Wapentake, Nigel the bishop's man has 2\'bd ploughs, and it may be that this is part of the sharing arrangement. The remaining two oxen needed to make up a plough-team of eight are held by the villagers here.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 VILLAGERS LIKEWISE [HAVE] 2 OXEN IN A PLOUGH AND MEADOW, 8 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 uill'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 could be extended to either }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 uillani}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (nominative plural) or }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 uillanos}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (accusative plural); compare 1,1 villagers note. The case of the acres of meadow is accusative plural (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ); see 1,2 meadow note. If the meadow acres are accusative because }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 uill'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is also accusative, then Aghmund is the subject (he has 2 oxen, 2 villagers [having/with] 2 oxen and the meadow). However, if }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 uill'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is nominative, then a main verb ('have') is to be understood before their oxen and they had the meadow themselves. The latter suggestion has been adopted here, as in the Alecto edition.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab VALUE BEFORE 1066, 10s; NOW 6s. In the Phillimore printed translation the '10s' is omitted in error; it was corrected for the first version of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Domesday Explorer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 6,13\tab FLEDBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. Domesday places it clearly in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, though it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For the grant of Fledborough and Newark-on-Trent (6,1) to Stow Abbey (in Lincolnshire) by Countess (Lady ) Godiva and her husband, Earl Leofric of Mercia, see 6,1 Newark note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab COUNTESS GODIVA. See 6,1 Godiva note, and on her name, see S5 Godiva note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 CARUCATE. There is an erasure immediately before the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 i. car'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , probably of another minim; part of it remains to act as a new dot immediately before the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 i}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , though the original dot was not erased.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NIGEL, THE BISHOP'S MAN. It is likely that the bishop's tenant Nigel here and in 6,15 refer to the same individual; these are the only occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday form of his name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Nigell}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), is a Latinization (by an incorrect association with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 niger}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 'black') of the Old Irish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Niall}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , which was 'carried to I celand by the Scandinavians as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Njall}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 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, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , under Neal). The Alecto edition also has Nigel.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2\'bd PLOUGHS. For the other half, see 6,12 plough note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 6,14\tab NORMANTON[-ON-TRENT]. This is one of several places called Normanton in Nottinghamshire, two of which were later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and L ythe. This is the Normanton that is coupled with Ossington, Weston, Sutton-on-Trent and Grassthorpe in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106, and which probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086. It was an Ancient Parish. For other parts, see 9,68-69.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 12 OXEN. That is, for 1\'bd ploughs, at 8 oxen to the plough; see 1,6 ox note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 6,15\tab STOKEHAM. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of East Drayton. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab It is assumed that Stokeham came into the hands of the Bishop of Lincoln in the same way as Newark-on-Trent and Fledborough (6,1;13), that is, as a result of a gift by Countess Godiva to Stow Abbey. Stokeham is not, however, mentioned in any of the early charters; see 6,1 Newark note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab COUNTESS GODIVA. See 6,1 Godiva note}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , and on her name, see S5 Godiva note}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab AND A THIRD PART AND A FIFTEENTH. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday probably forgot to}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 put in abbreviation lines above the interlined }{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 cia}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 (the last three letters of }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 tercia}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , 'third'), above the }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 e}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 of }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 parte}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('part') and above the }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 a}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 of }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 q}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 u}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 indecima}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('fifteenth'): they are the objects of 'Countess Godiva had'. Or he could have written }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 7}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('and') in error for }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 cum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('with'). For the scribe's other l apses in concentration in this entry, possibly caused by the poor state of the parchment here, see 6,15 have note and 6,15 underwood note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab These odd fractions may have a partial counterpart in the 2 carucates, 3 bovates and the fifth part of 1 bovate at East Drayton (1,2) which is adjacent.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab NIGEL, THE BISHOP'S MAN. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 It is likely that the bishop's tenant Nigel here and in 6,13 refer to the same individual; these are the only occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire. On his name, see 6,13 Nigel note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab NIGEL ... HAS 5 FREEMEN AND 4 SMALLHOLDERS; THEY HAVE 3 PLOUGHS AND ... . As written, this sentence has two main verbs ('has' and 'have'), linked by 'and', with the meaning that only the smallholders had the ploughs and meadow (on the underwood, see 6,15 underwood note). The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Phillimore printed translation opts for this with a full-stop after the Freemen (though, in common with its practice elsewhere, a separate sentence for the meadow and underwood: 1,2 meadow note).}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 However, in view of the Freemen s haring the ploughs in other entries, it is more likely that the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the main verb }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 h}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 abe}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 nt }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('have') for the present participle }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 h}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 abe}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ntes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('having') as in 6,13: he had already omitted abbreviation signs earlier in the entry (6,15 part note) and was to make a further error with the case of the underwood (6,15 underwood note).}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 The Alecto edition has the same punctuation as now adopted here.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab UNDERWOOD. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 Siluae minut'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , which is either nominative plural or genitive singular, both of which are inaccurate; assuming that the underwood is the object of either 'has' or 'have' (6,15 have note), he should have written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 siluam }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (accusative singular) or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 siluas}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (accusative plural). Moreover, he failed to put any punctuation after }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 minut'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , which is necessary if he did not intend to include the amount of underwood. It is more likely that the presence of the large hole in the parchment here (6,15 hole note) meant that he had to stop writing and that when he resumed, he failed to see that he had omitted the dimension(s); if so, the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 siluae}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 could be genitive singular if it was measured in terms of acres, rather than two linear dimensions (both forms are common in Domesday Nottinghamshire). For the scribe's other lapses in concentration in this entry, see 6,15 part note and 6,15 have note. } {\cf1\insrsid6823374 The Alecto edition has '6 acres of meadow and scrubland', apparently taking the 6 acres to be a measurement of both the meadow and underwood. It seems safer to translate }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Siluae}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 here as if the }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 7}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 preceding it was not there, as in }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Domesday Nottinghamshire the details of woodland/underwood are often put in a separate sentence (1,1 fishery note).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab THERE IS A HOLE in the parchment in this final entry in the bishop's fief; the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday wrote around it.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 A patch was applied on the recto of this folio but not recently and slightly carelessly as part of the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 u}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ual}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ' in the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 value was removed when the edge was prepared to receive the patch; on other damage to the manuscript probably done then, see 5,1 manuscript note. Farley printed the text to indicate this hole, as he did for the text on the other side of it (9,20), though he did not always do this. Compare 11,33 Radcliffe note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left the rest of the column (folio 284a) blank, perhaps in case he needed to add the details of further holdings of the Bishop of Lincoln, or possibly for aesthetic reasons.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7\tab THIS FIEF was misnumbered VI by the main scribe of Gre at Domesday when he rubricated this county. It was not until he reached the fief of Geoffrey Alselin on folio 289b that he corrected the order by omitting the number }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 XI}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . He made no attempt, however, to alter any of the incorrect chapter numbers, as he sometimes did in some other counties.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND OF THE BISHOP OF BAYEUX. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Bishop Odo of Bayeux was the full brother of Count Robert of Mortain and half-brother of William the Conqueror. He fought at the battle of Hastings and thereafter was appointed castellan of D over and Earl of Kent. He was arrested in 1082 according to later writers because he had recruited knights from all over England and was planning an expedition to Rome to seize the papacy. In 1086 he was in prison in Rouen, his estates forfeited, though h e is still said to be in present possession of them in some counties. He held these estates in a personal capacity, not as bishop. He was restored by William II, but forfeited his lands in 1088 for conspiracy. He died at Palermo in 1096 on the way to the H oly Land. See Stenton, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Anglo-Saxon England}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , pp. 616-617; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 309.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab There are no wapentake heads in this chapter, but analysis reveals that the lands lay in three wapentakes which are entered in standard county order; see \{Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes\}. \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 7,1-4 [Newark Wapentake] \par \tab \tab 7,5 [Thurgarton Wapentake] \par \tab \tab 7,6 [Bingham Wapentake].}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7,1\tab [NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the first four estates listed in this chapter.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab COTHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,4. 11,4.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LEOFRIC. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leuric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leuuric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leofricus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lefric}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leofuriz}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lefriz}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc. - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leofric}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 313-15. The Alecto edition has Leofric. \par \tab \tab It is possible that the Leofric who was the bishop's predecessor in Cod dington (7,4), about five miles from Cotham, was the same as this predecessor. A man with the same name was also his predecessor in Lincolnshire, Kent and Surrey, but no evidence has so far been found to link them, and Leofric was a very common name.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WAZELIN , THE BISHOP OF BAYEUX'S MAN. The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wazelin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Waselinus }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old German }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wazelin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wascelin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc., Old French }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gacelin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gaselin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : Forssner, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 249. The Alecto edition has Wazelin. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire. }{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 The name Wazelin occurs on seven holdings in Domesday Book, possibly representing four individuals. This modest property was probably the sole holding of Wazelin , who had no discernible links with the remaining holdings, none of which were within easy reach (JP).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \'bd PLOUGH. It is possible that this is to be associated with the 5 oxen at the nearby manor of Elston (9,1), to make a whole plough. If so, one or other figure is wrong by 1 ox.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 20 ACRES. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The case of the Latin }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7,2\tab BARNBY[-IN-THE-WILLOWS]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For another part, see 6,3.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFRIC. Although Wulfric was a very common name, it is probable that both of the bishop's predecessors with it were the same individual, the other occurrence being in the next entry (7,3) for the adjacent manor of Coddington. A man called Wulfric was also his predecessor in Kent and Northamptonshire, but no evidence has so far been found to link them. On this name, see 2,6 Wulfric note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LOSOARD, THE BISHOP OF BAYEUX'S MAN. The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Losoard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Losuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] - may represent a hybrid name, the Germanic second element }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -ward}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and perhaps a Celtic first element }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Los}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 1 79-80. The Alecto edition has Losoard for the Bishop of Bayeux' man in NTT and LIN and for LIN CN14, but Losuard for LIN C20 and CS13. The Phillimore printed edition has Losoard always and this has been retained here. \par \tab \tab It is likely that the bishop's subtenant here and in 7,3;5 and in LIN 4,8;41;61 were the same individual and that he is the claimant in LIN CS 13.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IN [THE LANDS OF] WHICH LIES \'bd BOVATE. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in qua jacet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , the relative pronoun }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 qua}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 being feminine and referring to the church. The Phillimore printed edition has 'in whose lands lies \'bd bovate', which is ambiguous; the Alecto edition has 'a church to which belongs ... '. The possession of land by this church suggests that it was a superior establishment, possibly a minster.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7,3\tab CODDINGTON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of East Stoke. Like East Stoke itself (6,3. 11,6. 20,3), it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3;6-7. 7,4.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WU LFRIC. Although Wulfric was a very common name, it is probable that both of the bishop's predecessors with it were the same individual, the other occurrence being in the previous entry (7,2) for the adjacent manor of Barnby-in-the-Willows. A man called Wu lfric was also his predecessor in Kent and Northamptonshire, but no evidence has so far been found to link them. On this name, see 2,6 Wulfric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR ... NOW 10[s]. All of the second and third lines of this entry were written over erasure by the ma in scribe of Great Domesday. It is probable that he had written here the details of the wrong estate, perhaps another holding in Coddington, as on other occasions when a large part of an entry was written over erasure.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LOSOARD, THE BISHOP OF BAYEUX'S MAN. See 7,2 Losoard note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 3 ACRES. }{\insrsid6823374 The case of the Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\insrsid6823374 is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7,4\tab CODDINGTON. See 7,3 Coddington note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LEOFRIC. On his identity and his name, see 7,1 Leofric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OUDKELL. The Domesday form of this man's name, who only occurs here, is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Oudchel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . In SFK 66,16 there is an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 R. ouethel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . JMcND in his note to the Phillimore printed edition for Suffolk stated that the byname was from the Anglo-Scandinavian masculine personal name }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Authketill}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Authkell}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and referred to Fellows Jensen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 39. JRM preferred to keep the first element as Oud-, reflecting the Domesday spelling, and the second element as -kell. The Alecto edition has Audkil for the NTT man and Oudkell for the SFK byname.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab UNDER THE BISHOP. On the use of Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 sub}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , see 3,4 under note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [VALUE ***]. Coddington is not stated to be a Jurisdiction or an outlier but has full manorial details and was rubrica ted by the main scribe of Great Domesday as a manor (its name in capitals and lined through), so it is likely that a value clause was omitted.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space, probably for the later insertion of a wa pentake head as Rolleston in the next entry (7,5) was in Thurgarton Wapentake, whereas the first four entries in this fief were in Newark Wapentake. On other one-line spaces left within fiefs, see 1,44 after note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7,5\tab [THURGARTON WAPENTAKE]. This heading is supplied from the probable location of Rolleston (7,5).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ROLLESTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,6. 11,18.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODWIN. On this name, see 6,9 Godwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LOSOARD, THE BISHOP OF BAYEUX'S MAN. See 7,2 Losoard note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab TO THIS MANOR ... FREEMEN ... COLLINGHAM. For another instance in Domesday Nottinghamshire of Freemen else where belonging to a manor, and this information being included after the value statement (normally the last item to be entered), see 18,1 and compare 13,1. See also \{Introduction: Layout and Content of Entries\}.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab UPTON AND COLLINGHAM. Upton was identified in the Phillimore printed edition as the Upton that was part of the Ancient Parish of Headon-cum-Upton in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake and which appears elsewhere in Domesday (1,7. 9,8;27). However, that Upton is 14 mil es from Rolleston. A better identification is with the Upton (SK7354), an Ancient Parish which is just over a mile from Rolleston. Like Rolleston and Southwell it lay in Thurgarton Wapentake; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 179. Another part of Rolleston, which was an unnamed outlier of Southwell (5,1), was held by the Archbishop of York, and it is possible that behind this entry lies an alienation of population from the archbishopric; see 5,1 Southwell note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Collingham (also in 8,1. 14,8) is over 6 miles distant from both Upton and Rolleston, but there seems to be no alternative to the identification; see 8,1 Collingham note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IN THE OUTER MARGIN of folio 284b next to the fourth/fifth lines of this entry the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. c' 7 ii}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . ('3 carucates(?) and 2'); there may have been a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 b'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (for 'bovates') after the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and that it was cut off when the parchment was trimmed during binding (all except the first twelve or so prick-marks to guide the rul ing of the horizontal scores were cut off then). Both he and scribe B wrote similar figures in the margins, especially in Northamptonshire and Warwickshire, but the meaning of them is not clear. This is the only occurrence in Nottinghamshire. See }{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 128-29 and Figs. 14-15 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The Story of Domesday Book}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 201), and Hallam, 'Annotations in Domesday Book since 1100', pp. 140-46 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The Story of Domesday Book}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , pp. 193-95 and Figs. 1 5.14 and 15.15 ). It is just possible that the main scribe intended to insert the holding of the Freemen in Upton and Collingham who belonged to this manor and that this was a memorandum, never acted on. Alternatively, it could have been a correction to t he holding of the Freemen in 8,1 who had 2 carucates and 3 bovates, and that he wrote it next to the wrong entry; if so, no attempt was made at correction.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7,6\tab [BINGHAM WAPENTAKE]. This heading is supplied from the later location of Screveton (7,6).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SCREVETON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 1,55. 9,106.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab TOTI . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Toti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and, once, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Toti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Toti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 387. The Alecto edition has Toti. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 The name Toti occurs on eight holdings, probably repres enting six individuals. The modest holding of this Toti is unlikely to be connected with any other Totis, all of whose properties devolved upon other tenants-in-chief and all of whom were remote (JP).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab HUGH, [YOUNGER] KINSMAN OF HERBERT [AND] THE BISHOP'S MAN. In both Classical Latin and Medieval Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 nepos}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 can mean 'nephew', 'grandson', 'cousin' or simply 'descendent' or 'kinsman': }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Oxford Latin Dictionary}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ; }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 . Essentially it refers to a kinsman who belongs to a younger generation than that of the individual concerned. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Phillimore printed translation has 'nephew', but with a note by JRM }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('or possibly grandson'). The Alecto edition has 'kinsman' and that has been followed here until the relationship between Hugh and Herbert (neither of whom have so far been identified) has been established.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Hugh was the bishop's man, not Herbert: the Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 ho}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 mo}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ] is nominative, agreeing with }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Hugo}{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 . The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Phillimore printed translation does not make this clear, hence the decision to include [and] here, as in the Alecto edition. }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 On the name Hugh, see B3 Hugh note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 12 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left three lines blank.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 8\tab THIS FIEF was misnumbered }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VII}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 by the main scribe of Great Domesday; see NTT 7 fief note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND OF ST PETER'S OF PETERBOROUGH. }{\insrsid6823374 An early monastery, founded at \'93Medeshamstede\'94 }{\i\insrsid6823374 c}{\insrsid6823374 . 655, allegedly by a monk Saxulf, was destroyed by the Danes in 870, but rebuilt and re-founded as a Benedictine abbey }{\i\insrsid6823374 c}{\insrsid6823374 . 966, dedicated to St Peter, by Aethelwold Bishop of Winchester (963-984) supported by King Edgar (959-973). \par \tab Three abbots spanned the period from 1066 to 1086:}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 1052-1066 Abbot Leofric. He was nephew of Earl Leofric of Mercia and had previously been a monk of the abbey. \par \tab \tab 1066-1069 Abbot Brand. He had previously been prior of the abbey. He acknowledged Edgar Aetheling as king in 1066, but was later reconciled to William I. \par \tab \tab 1070-1098 Abbot Turold. He was a monk of F\'e9camp Abbey in Normandy, then Abbot of Malmesbury from }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 c}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . 1066 until 1070. He is sometimes referred to as a }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 nepos}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ('nephew') of William the Conqueror. \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab See Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Medieval Religious House}{\insrsid6823374 s, pp. 56, 73; Knowles, Brooke and London, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Heads of Religious Houses}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 60; Keats-Rohan, }{ \i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 507.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab There are no wapentake heads in this short chapter, but analysis reveals that the lands lay in two wapentakes which are entered in standard county order; see \{ Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes\}. \par \tab \tab 8,1 [Newark Wapentake]}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 8,2 ['Lythe' Wapentake].}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 8,1\tab [NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. The heading is inserted on the basis of later evidence for the wapentake in which Collingham (8,1) lay.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab COLLINGHAM. North Collingham (SK8361) and South Collingham (SK8261) were adjace nt Ancient Parishes. Both lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 (a portion is below a wapentake head at 8,1), as they did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For another part, see 14,8. According to }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104, the Abbot of Peterborough held both places called Collingham.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab According to a spurious charter (}{\i\insrsid6823374 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 111 no. 1 = Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid6823374 , no. 68)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Collingham and Muskham (8,2) were given to the monastery at }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Medeshamstede}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (late r refounded as Peterborough Abbey) in 664 by Wulfhere, King of the Mercians. This charter is a self-interested forgery which lists lands that Peterborough Abbey had either held or claimed and which had come into its hands, if at all, at very diverse dates . According to Hugh Candidus in his }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Chronicle }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (Mellows, p. 70), Collingham was given to the abbey by Thorkil }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hoche }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 at the same time as he gave it a moneyer in Stamford (Lincolnshire) and land there }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ex ista parte aquae}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (presumably meaning south of the River Welland) which became known as Stamford Baron. Thorkil }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hoche}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is apparently to be identified with the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turkyl Hoze}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of the}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Liber Vitae }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of Thorney Abbey and the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thurkyl hoga}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 who witnessed a charter of King Cnut in 1024 (}{\insrsid6823374 Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid6823374 , no.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 961): }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Early Charters of Eastern England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 245 no. 351.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Muskham (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Muscham ex alia parte Trente}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , that is, 'Muskham on the other side of the River Trent') was the gift of the monk Brand (who later became abbot, 1066-1069) and his brothers Eskil, Saeric and Siward.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Abbey of Peterborough held North and South Collingham until the Dissolution: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Valor Ecclesiasticus}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 281. For an entry relating to Collingham in the monastery's }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Liber Niger}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , see 8,1 carucates note..}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 4 CARUCATES OF LAND AND \'bd BOVATE. The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Descriptio Maneriorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in Peterborough's }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Liber Niger}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 gives the amount as four carucates and four-fifths of a bovate: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Peterborough Chronicle}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 159; see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 210. This }{\i\insrsid6823374 descriptio}{\insrsid6823374 was an account of the manors of Peterborough Abbey made }{ \i\insrsid6823374 c}{\insrsid6823374 . 1125x1128; only very occasionally do its assessments agree with those in Domesday, but this is close enough. \par \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the }{\i\insrsid6823374 iiii. car' t're}{\insrsid6823374 over an erasure; parts of the original remain, though it cannot be deciphered.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 CHURCHES. These probably lay at North Collingham and South Collingham: }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 222.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 8,2\tab ['LYTHE' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of North Muskham (8,2).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NORTH MUSKHAM. Unusually, Domesday distinguishes this Muskham as 'North', as at 5,2. 12,11. 30,7; see 1,13 Ordsall note. The identification is confirmed by the fact that the Abbot of St Peter's holds } {\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 North Muscham}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 95; see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 990.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,2. 12,11-13. 30,7.}{ \insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Some of the earlier history of the estate is given in LIN CW16: }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 'The shire witnesses that, at King Edward's death and later, Eskil had these three manors, Scotton, Scotter, and Raventhorpe, in his own free possession (}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 in propria libertate}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ),}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 }{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 from King Edward; likewise he had Muskham in Nottinghamshire'. He gave Muskham to Peterborough, where his brother Brand was abbot (JRM). The version of Hugh Candidus (}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Chronicle}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 71) is slightly different: }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Brand [monachus et postea] abbas [Burgi] et Askilus et Siricus et Siuorthus fratres dederunt has terras deo et sancto Petro et fratribus in Burch}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ;}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 scilicet Musham ex alia parte Trente et Scotere}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ... ('Brand [a monk and later] abbot [of Peterborough] and Eskil and Saeric and Siward his brothers gave these lands to God and to St Peter and the brethren in Peterborough, na mely Muskham on the other side of the [River] Trent and Scotter ... '). Hugh Candidus gives no date, but Brand was abbot from 1066-1069 and was only a monk when Muskham was given. Moreover, the }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 holder is said by Domesday to be the abbey. This information gives the lie to that contained in the forged charter of King Wulfhere of Mercia }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\insrsid6823374 Early Charters of Northern England}{ \insrsid6823374 , p. 111 no. 1 = Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid6823374 , no. 68) according to which the monastery of }{\i\insrsid6823374 Medeshamstede}{\insrsid6823374 (later refounded as Peterboro ugh Abbey) acquired Muskham in 664; see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. pp. 222-23; and 8,1 Collingham note. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The estates at North Muskham, South Muskham and Little Carlton (5,2;5. 8,2. 12,11-14. 30,7;46) formed a 12-carucate unit, and possibly a hundred; see \{Introduction: Small Hundreds\} and, on the identification of Carlton, see5,5 Carlton note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 MILLS, 20s; 1 DERELICT [MILL]. }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Molinum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('mill') is understood after the Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 7 i.}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 wastu}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 m}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ]. The Phillimore printed edition envisages another resource and translates '1 wasteland'.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab HALF A FISHERY. The other half does not appear either in Nottinghamshire or in Lincolnshire. Both halves were no doubt on the River Trent.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left blank two lines.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9\tab THIS FIEF was misnumbered }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VIII}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 by the main scribe of Great Domesday; see NTT 7 fief note. The }{ \insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday may have written from the }{\i\insrsid6823374 E }{\insrsid6823374 of }{\i\insrsid6823374 ROGERII }{\insrsid6823374 in }{\i\insrsid6823374 TERRA ROGERII DE BUSLI}{\insrsid6823374 over an erasure, though the parchment may just have been especially rough here.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND OF ROGER OF BULLY. }{\insrsid6823374 He probably originated from Bully in the French d\'e9partement of Seine-Maritime, arrondissement and canton Neufch\'e2 tel. His lands ultimately became the honour of Tickhill, named from his castle there (in Yorkshire). Both the honour and t he castle are sometimes referred to as those of Blyth. Roger and his wife Muriel founded Blyth Priory (Nottinghamshire) shortly after 1086. After Roger\rquote s death his lands were seized by Robert of Bell\'ea me, son of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury. Roger and Robert ma y have been related. Robert lost his lands in 1102 for rebellion and the honour was in royal hands until King Stephen gave it to Henry, Count of Eu, son of William (the Domesday holder) and Beatrice, Roger of Bully's daughter. In the fourteenth century Ro ger's lands were held of the honour of Lancaster. See }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. pp. 223-28; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , pp. 401-402. \par \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On the castle of Tickhill, see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VCH Yorkshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. pp. 39-40; King, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Castellarium Anglicanum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 527. On the name Roger, see B8 Roger note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 A significant number of estates were shared by Roger of Bully with the king. Although Roger had the most important fief in Nottinghamshire, he had no known position of authority in the shire. These estates had presumably been granted from royal land, possibly by King William to Roger himself, in which case their various 1066 holders had presumably been held from the king. These estates are listed below:}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14162963 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid11159002 \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts48\trgaph108\trleft-108\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 \trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3888\clshdrawnil \cellx3780\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4968\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid8589712\yts48 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid11159002 Estate of Roger of Bully\cell References to Royal estates at the same named place\cell }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\insrsid14162963\charrsid11159002 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts48\trgaph108\trleft-108\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 \trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3888\clshdrawnil \cellx3780\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4968\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\row }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid8589712\yts48 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid11159002 9,6 East Markham \par 9,7;26 Headon \par 9,8;27 Upton \par 9,13 Kirton \par 9,13 Walesby \par 9,19;23 Ordsall \par \par 9,21 Misson \par 9,24-25 Ranby \par 9,32 Elkesley \par 9,33 Babworth \par 9,34 'North}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963 '}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid11159002 Morton \par 9,37 Perlethorpe \par 9,40 Warsop \par 9,41 Clumber \par 9,42;71 "Odestorp" \par 9,50 Carlton-in-Lindrick \par 9,51 Lound \par 9,54 Barnby Moor \par 9,61 Carlton-on-Trent \par 9,91 Thorpe-in-the-Glebe \par 9,102 Kneeton \par 9,106 Screverton \par 9,107 Car Colston \par 9,108-109 Flintham \par 9,112-113 Fenton \par 9,114 Sturton-le-Steeple \par 9,115 North Wheatley \par 9,120 Walkeringham \par 9,121;123 Misterton \par 9,122 Gringley-on-the-Hill \par 9,126 Clayworth \par 9,127-128 Clarborough \par 9,130 South Leverton \par 9,132 Mattersey\cell 1,3 (part of Dunham-on-Trent, 1,1) \par 1,6 (part of Dunham-on-Trent, 1,1) \par 1,7 (part of Dunham-on-Trent, 1,1) \par 1,19;24}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963 }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid11159002 (part of Grimston 1,17; part of Mansfield, 1,23) \par 1,20 (part of Grimston, 1,17) \par 1,5 (part of Dunham-on-Trent 1,1); 1,12 (part of Bothamsall, 1,9) \par 1,65 (part of Kirton-in-Lindsey, LIN 1,38) \par 1,13-14 (part of Bothamsall, 1,9) \par 1,10 (part of Bothamsall, 1,9) \par 1,12 (part of Bothamsall, 1,9) \par 1,11 (see Morton, part of Bothamsall, 1,9) \par 1,24;26;30 (part of Mansfield, 1,23) \par 1,24-25 (part of Mansfield, 1,23) \par 1,24 (part of Mansfield, 1,23) \par 1,12 (part of Bothamsall, 1,9) \par 1,24;30 (part of Mansfield, 1,23) \par 1,16 (part of Bothamsall, 1,9) \par 1,16 (part of Bothamsall, 1,9) \par 1,21;24}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963 }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid11159002 (part of Grimston 1,17; part of Mansfield, 1,23) \par }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963 1,60}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid11159002 (part of Upper Broughton, 1,59) \par 1,62 (part of Flintham?, 1,61) \par 1,55 (part of Orston, 1,51) \par 1,56 (part of Orston, 1,51) \par part of the }{\i\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid11159002 caput}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14162963\charrsid11159002 of the royal manor (1,61) \par 1,33 (part of Mansfield, 1,23) \par 1,35 (part of Mansfield, 1,23) \par 1,36 (part of Mansfield, 1,23) \par 1,37 (part of Mansfield, 1,23) \par 1,38 (part of Mansfield, 1,23) \par 1,43? (part of Mansfield, 1,23) \par 1,40 (part of Mansfield, 1,23) \par 1,41(part of Mansfield, 1,23) \par 1,32 (part of Mansfield, 1,23) \par 1,15 (part of Bothamsall, 1,9) \par \par \par \cell }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\insrsid14162963\charrsid11159002 \trowd \irow1\irowband1\lastrow \ts48\trgaph108\trleft-108\trbrdrt \brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 \trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3888\clshdrawnil \cellx3780\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4968\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\row }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid801729 {\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \par \tab These lands of Roger's appear to have been derived from all the principal royal estates except Arnold, though only in the case of Flintham (1,61) did he hold part of a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 caput}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . Because his estates had a multitude of English owners before 1066, the grants were not made from the royal estates directly to Roger himself. These men were probably 'king's thanes' to whom or to whose ancestors some king had granted these lands. It is noteworthy that other parts of some of these places are held by other of the king's thanes (chapter 30), suggesting that those estates had the same origin; see \{Introduction: Manorial Organization). \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The rationale for constructing Roger's fief from this ra ther than that estate held by an Englishman may well have been strategic, for though he held lands throughout Nottinghamshire, he had a particular concentration of estates on the Nottinghamshire-Yorkshire border, near Blyth and Tickhill. This conglomerati on of estates on an important border and around the major lines of communication northwards was probably not fortuitous; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 223; Roffe; 'Norman Tenants-in-Chief'; Crook, 'Nottinghamhire and the Crown', p. 26.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab The manors in this large fief are entered in blocks according to the wapentakes in which they lay, and the wapentakes themselves are entered in the standard sequence; see \{Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes\} . All the necessary wapentake heads were supplied by the scribe. Some Jurisdictions are not in the same wapentake as their parent manors, but this is not uncommon and does not upset the sequence which is: \par \tab \tab 9,1-5 Newark Wapentake \par \tab \tab 9,6-58 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake \par \tab \tab 9,59-71 'Lythe' Wapentake \par \tab \tab 9,72-76 Thurgarton Wapentake \par \tab \tab 9,77-89 Rushcliffe Wapentake. \par \tab \tab 9,90-94 Broxtowe Wapentake. \par \tab \tab 9,95-111 Bingham Wapentake \par \tab \tab 9,112-131 Oswaldbeck Wapentake. \par \tab \tab (The final entry (9,132) is in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, but is both a Jurisdiction and}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab might have been added.)}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,1\tab ELSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. Elston itself was a chapelry that named the parish, but was ecclesiastically in East Stoke Ancient Parish at an early date: Youngs, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 359. It lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 (ano ther part is below a Newark wapentake head at 9,1) as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3;5. 20,4-5.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OTHENKAR [* SON OF ALNOTH *]. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Odincar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Odincarle}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Odincarl}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Oudenecar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Othenkar}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 l}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ): von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 342. The Phillimore printed edition has Odincar here and elsewhere, together with Othencarl in Lincolnshire; these have now been standardized as Othenkar. The Alecto edition has Othenkar. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In view of the rarity of this name and the fact that all the occurrences in Domesday Nottinghamshire are as predecessors of Roger of Bully (9,1;76;92;96;100;106;108), it is likely that they represent the same in dividual. On the possibility that he was the son of Alnoth; see 3,2 Normanton note and 9,92 Othenkar note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NORMAN THE PRIEST. He is otherwise unknown. However, a Norman of Lincoln holds a church in the borough of Derby (DBY B7) and could conceivably be the same man. \par \tab \tab The Domesday form of his name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Norman}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , is Norman French. It is used in the present edition only for the 1086 holders, whereas in the Phillimore printed translations for several counties Norman was used for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E. }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holders as well, though the forms for them (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Norman}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Normannus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) almost certainly represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Northmann}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 331-32). The Alecto edition has Norman for 1086 holders, Northmann for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ones.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 5 OXEN IN A PLOUGH. The remaining 3 oxen, needed to make a team of eight, no doubt belonged to some other estate. There is a deficiency of \'bd plough (4 oxen) at the nearby manor of Cotham (7,1).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,2\tab SHELTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 14,8. 20,2.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FLAWBOROUGH. This was a chapelry of Staunton Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233 For other parts, see 11,1;3;5.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALSI. On this name, see S5 Alsi note. Five of Roger of Bully's predecessors were named Alsi (9,2;43;77;90;95), but as this name-form was very common and might represent one of th ree Old English names it would be unwise to suggest that they represented the same individual, though the Alsi in 9,43 is likely to have been the son of Karski (9,43 Alsi note). Moreover, the only holdings that are at all near each other are Wysall (9,90: SK6027)) and Tollerton (9,95: SK6134). Even these are in different wapentakes and separated from each other by Rushcliffe Wapentake.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ROBERT [* THE BURSAR *], ROGER'S MAN. He is possibly to be identified with Robert the bursar (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 dispensator}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) who witnessed Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth; see the }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); and 9,49 Blyth note. On the name Robert, see 2,3 Robert note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IN THE OUTER MARGIN level with the first and second lines of this entry (not next to the last line of the previous entry as Farley printed it) is an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 r }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 for }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 require}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , 'enquire'). There is nothing obviously missing or inaccurate in this entry, but, as with the nine other instances of this (including the one at 30,3), his source may have ben unclear and he guessed the reading, but decided to check it and it turned out to be correct. On these marginal requests for information, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 124-26 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 The Story of Domesday Book}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , pp. 190-91).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,3\tab CLIFTON. North Clifton was an Ancient Parish which contained the township of South Clifton. Both probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as they did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 one Clifton is associated with Harby (6,4;9) and the other with Spalford (6,4. 9,4). For other parts of Clifton, see 6,8;10-12. 9,5.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This Clifton can be distinguised from the Clifton that lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake by its apparent presence here in Newark Wapentake. There is no doubt that Roger of Bully held at North Clifton, for it is held (as }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Northe Clifton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hordeby}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) in }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 100, in Newark Wapentake from the honour of Tickhill. However, there was also an estate in }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Suthe Clifton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 whose overlord is not given in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 100, and this might imply that Roger held in both places cal led Clifton, as the only other estates in either were held by the Bishop of Lincoln (6,8;10-12). Roger holds another estate in a 'Clifton' at 9,5. The present estate is likely to have been in the same Clifton as that of 6,11 with which it shares a church. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ODHGRIM. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Oudgrim}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Outgrim}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Swedish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'d8dhgrim}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Norse }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Authgrimr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 70. The printed Phillimore edition has Oudgrim here, but Authgrimr in LIN 4,72; these have now been standardized as Odhgrim. The Alecto edition has \'d8 dhgrim. These are the only two occurrences of this name in Domesday, but the places are too far apart for it to be likely that the same individual was involved.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ROGER [* OF LOUVETOT * ], ROGER'S MAN. This Roger is identified as Roger's man in 9,3;44;62;69;90;107-108;120;122;129, and it is possible that he is Roger of Louvetot. Certainly this man's great nephew, William of Louvetot, founded Worksop Priory before 1120 and granted to it a l l the churches that were in the lordship that he held of the honour of Blyth (= Tickhill); that is, the churches of Gringley-on the-Hill (9,122). Misterton (9,121), Walkeringham (9,120), Normanton-on-Trent (9,69), Car Colston (9,107), Willoughby-on-the Wo lds (9,92), Wysall (9,90) and half of the church of Treswell (9,129): }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 226}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . The church of Treswell was no doubt shared with Count Alan (2,9), though no church is mentioned here in Domesday nor in several of the other places. All ex cept Misterton and Willoughby-on-the-Wolds were held by Roger, Roger (of Bully)'s man in 1086. In the case of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, no subtenant is recorded, but in the case of Misterton the form of words is simply 'Roger has... '. It seems probable th a t this Roger too in fact is Roger, Roger's man, and it casts some doubt on the identity of the other plain Rogers listed in this fief (9,12;28;39-40;43;60;65;72-74;76-77;79-80;82;84;88;94-97;100;102-104;115) who might otherwise be assumed to be Roger of B u lly. Only at 9,131 is the Roger explicitly said to be Roger of Bully. Even the fact that some of these Rogers' holdings are in lordship does not prove that they were all held by Roger of Bully, as Roger's man Roger, identified here as 'of Louvetot' is spe cifically said in 9,90;107 to have ploughs 'in lordship'. That Roger's man Roger is Roger of Louvetot was argued by Stenton in }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 226, and it remains likely, though the circumstances in which William de Louvetot came to be holding this portion of the honour of Tickhill in the early twelfth century are not entirely clear; see the }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, pp. cxvi-cxvii). The family came from Louvetot in the French }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 d\'e9partement of Seine-Maritime }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 (arrondissement Rouen, canton Caude bec-en-Caux); see Loyd, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 55; }{\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 411}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 .}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On Worksop Priory, see 9,43 Worksop note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE FOURTH PART OF A CHURCH. There is another quarter-church at Clifton (6,11), but the remaining half does not appear in Domesday.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On the accusative case for the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 part\'e7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (and also for the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of the meadow acres), see 1,1 fishery note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,4\tab A JURISDICTION. Spalford was no doubt a Jurisdiction of Clifton (9,3).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SPALFORD. This was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of North Clifton. Like North and South Clifton (6,8;10-12. 9,3;5) it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For another part, see 6,4.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,5\tab BROADHOLME. This was a hamlet of Thorney Ancient Parish. Like Thorney (6,4) it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086. For another part, see 21,3.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OR CLIFTON. Scribe B interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VEL CLIFTVNE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 BRODEHOLM}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . This is the only alternative place -name provided by him, though the main scribe of Great Domesday recorded them several times, all in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire (also in circuit VI), and not always as a correction. At the same time as this interlineation scribe B added details of a holdin g in Newton (9,97), another one in 10,52 and perhaps the villagers' ploughs in 10,16; the scratchy pen used for these is also very like the pen used for the addition of a Jurisdiction and of a detail of a mill in 5,8, but the colour of the ink for these is different to that used here. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, see 1,12 bovates note. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Clifton is no doubt North Clifton, the Ancient Parish, or South Clifton, its township; see 9,3 Clifton note. It is not clear why the alternative name was interlined. There may have been conflict in the sources used by the main scribe, and it is possible that Broadholme had once belonged to Clifton, and was still recorded under that name in some of the documents on which the Domesday Survey was bas ed. Broadholme thus particularizes what was formerly part of Clifton.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALWY. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aluui}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aluuius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Eluui}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aeluui}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) - could represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6lfwig}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6thelwig}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ealdwig}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 157-58, under }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Al-wig}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , and see also p. 142, under }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Al-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -wy for Old English }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 -wig}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 as it reflected the spelling in Domesday. Some of th e people called Alwy in the present edition appear under Alfwy in the Phillimore printed translations. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Alecto edition has Alwig for those appearing under }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Al-wig}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . Some of those called Alwy in the present edition appear under Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6thelwig}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 189-90, followed by Alecto, but the Domesday forms (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ailwius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ailuuin}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ailuin}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aelwi}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aeluuin}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aluui}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aluui}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aluuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) etc.) lack the medial }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -d-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -g-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 that JRM thought was necessary for inclusion under that name. On the confusion between the second elements }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -wig}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -wine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , see von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , \'a7 148.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab There are four occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottin ghamshire, all predecessors of Roger of Bully (9,5;12;22;70), but as the name-form Alwy was very common and could represent one of three Old English names, it would be unwise to suggest they represented the same individual.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,6\tab [EAST] MARKHAM. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as 'Great Markham'. It was in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The honour of Tickhill (descent from Roger of Bully) certainly held land in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Estmarcham}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; }{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 see }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , ii. pp. 26, 305, and East Markham is probably the identity of Domesday's plain }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Marcham}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 here since West Markham (9,28-30) is separately identified by Domesday as }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Westmarcham}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 .}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab EDWY . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Eduui}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Edui}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aeduui}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Eduuius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Eluui}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Eadwig}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 238. JRM preferred the first element Ed- for Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ead-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and the second element -wy for Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -wig}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , as they were closer to the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Eadwig. \par \tab \tab There are only two occurrences of an Edwy in Domesday Nottinghamshire (the other is at Boughton, 9,16), both predecessors of Roger of Bully and their holdings are 4 \'bd miles apart, so it is pos sible that they represent the same individual, despite the commonness of the name-form and the two estates not being contiguous.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GEOFFREY, ROGER'S MAN. The Domesday forms of Geoffrey - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Goisfridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gosfridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gaufridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gaufridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gaosfridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent 't wo or, possibly, three Old German names usually latinized in early documents as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Galfridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gaufridus}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Goisfridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gosfridus}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ' (Reaney, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , under Jeffray etc.). }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Goisfridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gosfridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 represent Old German }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gosfrid}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Romance }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Josfrid}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : Forssner, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 125-26. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gaufridus}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 apparently could represent one of a series of Old German names such as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gaufrid}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gautfred,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Waldfrid}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Walfrid}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ibidem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 101-102. Forssner commented on the confusion of these two names and also that between the latter and Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 God}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 frid}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (on whom, see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ibidem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 118-19). The modern name Geoffrey, chosen by JRM and also used in the Alecto edition, derives from ME }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Geffrey}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , from Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Geuffroi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Jeufroi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Jefroi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (Reaney, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ibidem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ). See also Dodgson and Palmer, 'Introduction', }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Index of Persons}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. ix. \par \tab \tab According to }{\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 232, Geoffrey (}{\i\insrsid6823374 Goisfrid}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 us}{\insrsid6823374 ]) here and in 9,33;36;116;118-119 might be the same as Roger's steward who }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Godefridus dapifer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) witnessed Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth; see the }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); and 9,49 Blyth note. The occasional confusion between the names Geoffrey and Godfrey was commented u pon by Forssner (see above), but there seems to be no proof whether Roger's subtenant was Geoffrey or Godfrey.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FOR THE TRANSPOSITION SIGN next to the last line of this entry, see 9,7 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,7\tab THIS ENTRY and the next two (9,8-9) were added together by the main scribe of Great Domesday across the foot of both columns on folio 284cd below the last ruled horizontal line. A rubricated transposition sign links them with a similar sign (unrubricated) in the outer margin next to the last line of the manor o f [East] Markham on folio 284c (9,6). These three entries were probably written in the same campaign as the other rubricated added entries in Nottinghamshire; see 1,31 entry note. For the entry for Misson added immediately below the third of these entries , which may have been written at the same time as them, see 9,21 entry note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HEADON. }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Headon was part of the Ancient Parish of Headon-cum-Upton. The name is now represented by the settlements of Headon and Nether Headon (both at SK7477). }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Headon probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,6. 9,26.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In the manuscript }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 hedune}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is clear, as it is in the Ordnan ce Survey facsimile, but in the Alecto facsimile the reproduction is very poor, perhaps because the ink did not take particularly well and some of the place-name was written in the outer tramlines of this column. On other problems of reproduction in that facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION OF [EAST] MARKHAM. The Latin might appear to use the preposition }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('in') because the phrase is elliptical: '(Its) jurisdiction (lies in) [East] Markham', with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 soca}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 having an abstract sense. However, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 soca in}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ... seems to be exactly parallel to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 berewica in}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ... as both are used to describe dependencies of a manor. Since }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Berewica}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 can only have a concrete sense, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is there being used idiomatically (see 1,17 outlier note). The same appears to be true of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 soca}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , that is, it has a concrete sense of 'jurisdiction-land', 'sokeland' and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is also used idiomatically, the natural translation therefore being 'a Jurisdiction of ... ' and implying some longer phrase such as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 soca jacens in hoc manerio}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (' Jurisdiction-land' or 'sokeland lying in' (that is, 'pertaining to') 'this manor'). }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Soca huius maneri}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 i ('Jurisdiction' or 'Sokeland of this manor') is common in Domesday (see, for example 9,13), but with a place-name some preposition is needed since the place-name-itself cannot be given a genitival case ending. An alternative to Latin }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('in') is the use of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 de}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('of') as in 9,81: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 soca de Hulmo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('a Jurisdiction of Holme [Pierrepont]') which would require }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 est }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (' it is') to make it into a clause. On these grounds, throughout the translation 'a Jurisdiction of ... ' has been used for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 soca in}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ... .}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,8\tab THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday before the county was rubricated; see 9,7 entry note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab UPTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Upton was part of the Ancient Parish of Headon-cum-Upton. It }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,7. 9,27.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,9\tab THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday before the county was rubricated; see 9,7 entry note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GAMSTON. This is one of two different places called Gamston. The present one was a chapelry of Blyth Ancient Parish. It lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 (a part is below a wapentake head at 16,1) as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other parts, see 16,1-2.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 GARDEN. See 1,44 garden note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WHICH BELONG TO [EAST] MARKHAM. That is, to Roger of Bully's manor (9,6).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WHICH BELONGS TO EATON. That is, to Roger of Bully's manor (9,20).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,10\tab THERE ALSO ^[[EAST] MARKHAM]^. In the manuscript this entry immediately follows that for [East] Markham (9,6), so it is clear to what the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ibid\'e7 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('there also') refers. However, the numbering of the Phillimore printed edition, which takes account of the three entries added across the foot of folio 284cd and linked to 9,6 by transposition signs (9,7 entry note) and which is retained here in that order, might suggest that the 'there also' refers to the entry at 9,9 (Gamston). The Penguin edition of the Alecto translati on has this entry immediately after the one for East Markham because it prints the three added entries after the one for West Markham (9,28), though it omits the transposition signs as usual.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 For East Markham, 9,6 Markham note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FRANI. On this name, see 4,6 Frani note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab TUROLD, ROGER'S MAN. Two different Turolds, Turold of Qui\'e8vrecourt and Turold brother of Fulco of Lisors, witnessed Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth; see the }{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209, and p. xxv); and 9,49 Blyth note. The Turold of 9,50 can be identified with }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turold of Qui\'e8 vrecourt because of his family's connection with Carlton-in-Lindrick (9,50; see 9,50 Turold note), but the identity of the other Turolds (9,10;46;59;70) is uncertain, althoug h those of 9,46;70 might be Fulco's brother (see 9,46 Turold note and 9,70 men note). These are the only occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire. }{\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 430, under Turold de Cheuerchort (Qui\'e9vrecourt for }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Qui\'e8vrecourt}{\insrsid6823374 ) has four folio references for the five tenants of Roger of Bully called Turold: folio 285d (= 9,70), folio 285c (= 9,59), folio 285b (= 9,46 or 9,50), folio 284c (= 9,10). She notes that there is a possible confusion with Turold de Lisores, whom she lis ts next (}{\i\insrsid6823374 ibidem}{\insrsid6823374 , pp. 430-31) and has a reference for folio 285b (= 9,46 or 9,50).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of this 1086 holder - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turold}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turald}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Torold}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] - are a Latinization of the Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thorvald}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , which gave rise to the French names }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 h}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 )}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ouroude}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Troude}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc: Dauzat, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Dictionnaire des Noms et Pr\'e9noms de France}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . In the printed Phillimore edition the forms Turold, Thorald and Thoraldr appear; these have now been standardized as Turold. The Alecto edition has Turold here.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,11\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THER E ALSO ^[[EAST] MARKHAM]^. In the manuscript this entry follows that for 9,10, which itself succeeds that for East Markham (9,6); on the possible problem caused by the Phillimore numbering of the added entries 9,7-9 and the order in the present edition, s ee 9,10 there note. On [East] Markham, see 9,6 Markham note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODWIN. On this name, see 6,9 Godwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ULFKIL. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlchil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlchel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlchetel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlchet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ulketel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlketel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 l}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 )}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ulfchetel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ulfketel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlchete}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Olketel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ofchetel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc. - represent Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ulfkell}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ulfkil}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 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 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -chetel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -ketel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in a number of Domesday forms may suggest that the name Ulfketil or Ulfketel was also current then; see 30,2 Ulfkil note. The Alecto edition has Ulfkil here. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Rog er of Bully had seven predecessors with this name in Nottinghamshire (9,11;32;40-41;51;66;128) and four in Yorkshire (YKS 10W8;12-13;27), but no documentary evidence has so far been to connect them and it was a common name.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab It is possible that Ulfkil continued to hold land in East Markham, though the phrasing }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ibi Vlchel 7 iiii. soch}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 emanni}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 ii. bord}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 arii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 h}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 abe}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 nt .i. car}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\fs22\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 u}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 cam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 dim}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 idiam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], with no reference to Ulfkil as Roger's subtenant or his 'having' the Freemen and smallholders, is unhelpful. It might indicate, however, that Ulfkil had been demoted to 'villager' status, merely sharing the 1 \'bd ploughs with the other population.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,12\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab TUXFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In the Alecto facsimile there is no red-lining on }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 TVXFARNE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , though it is clear in the manuscript, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. On similar omissions of the rubrication on place-names, see 2,2 there note, and, on other problems of reproduction in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALWY. On this name, see 9,5 Alwy note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFMER. On other possible holdings of Wulfmer in Nottinghamshire and on his name, see 2,9 Wulfmer note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 MILL. The case of the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 i. molin'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is unclear, but has been assumed to be accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,13\tab JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. That is, of Tuxford (9,12).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab KIRTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other references to Kirton, see 1,19;24. 12,2. 17,2, and on the Domesday name-form, see 1,19 Kirton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WALESBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,20. 12,4. 16,10. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In the Alecto facsimile the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 es}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of this place-name }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Walesbi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is only partly reproduced, though they are clear in the manuscript and in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. On other poor reproductions in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,14\tab EGMANTON. This Jurisdiction of Tuxford (9,12) was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For another part, see 9,15.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,15\tab 3M. Normally the number written above the marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M' }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 was the same as the number of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holders recorded; see 3,4 2M note. However, only Thorkil and Wulfmer are mentioned here, suggesting that one of them had two manors in Egmanton that were combined into one by Roger of Bully.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab EGMANTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For another part, see 9,14.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORKIL. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turchil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Torchil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turchill}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turchetel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Torchetel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turketel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Torchill}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Torchel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thurchill}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thorkil}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thorkell}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 394-95. The Phillimore printed edition has the forms Thorkell, Thorketel and Thorketill (the last following Fellows Jensen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 309-11); these have now been standardized as Thorkil, although the presence in Domesday of a few -}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 chetel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -ketel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 endings suggests that there might have been two forms of this name current then. The Alecto edition has Thorkil here.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Roger of Bully had four predecessors with this name (9,15;57;59-60), but no documentary evidence has been so far found to connect them and it was a common name.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFMER. On other possible holdings of Wulfmer in Nottinghamshire and on his name, see 2,9 Wulfmer note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE THIRD PART. The main scribe of Great Domesday had written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .iii. part\'e7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 which could be read as abbreviating either }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .iii. partes }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('3 parts') or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .iii. partem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('the third part'). Scribe B clarified this by interlining }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ti\'e2 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (the last letters of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 tertiam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 'third') above the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 4,7 part note. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,16\tab B OUGHTON. This was a chapelry of Kneesall Ancient Parish. Kneesall probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086, but in later times parts of the Ancient Parish were in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake. These included Boughton (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228), and it seems probable that Boughton was also in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086; see 17,9 Kneesall note. For another part, see 17,1.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab EDWY . It is possible that he was the same as Roger of Bully's predecessor in East Markham; on this and on the name Edwy, see 9,6 Edwy note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,17\tab OLLERTON. This was a chapelry of Edwinstowe Ancient Parish. Like Edwinstowe itself (1,24;28) it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For another part, see 17,3.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALWOLD. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid6823374 Aluuold}{\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\insrsid6823374 us}{\insrsid6823374 ),}{\i\insrsid6823374 Alwaldus}{\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\insrsid6823374 Aeluuold}{\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\insrsid6823374 us}{\insrsid6823374 ),}{\i\insrsid6823374 Aluuol}{\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\insrsid6823374 Alnold }{\insrsid6823374 (a scribal error for }{\i\insrsid6823374 Aluold}{\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\insrsid6823374 Aluoldus}{\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\insrsid6823374 Aluolt}{\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\insrsid6823374 Aluol}{\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\insrsid6823374 Aluort}{\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\insrsid6823374 Eluuold}{\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\insrsid6823374 Eluolt}{ \insrsid6823374 ) could represent Old English }{\i\insrsid6823374 \'c6lfweald }{\insrsid6823374 or Old English }{\i\insrsid6823374 \'c6thelweald}{\insrsid6823374 : }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. }{\insrsid6823374 154-55, under }{\i\insrsid6823374 Al-weald}{\insrsid6823374 , and see also p. 142, under }{\i\insrsid6823374 Al-}{\insrsid6823374 . JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -wold for Old English }{\i\insrsid6823374 -weald}{\insrsid6823374 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. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Alecto edition has Alweald.}{ \insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The only other occurrence of an Alwold in Domesday Notting hamshire is as one of Roger of Bully's predecessors in Skegby (9,66), but it was a very common name-form which could represent one of two Old English names and no documentary evidence has been so far found to connect them.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 9,18\tab COTTAM?. This is not Cotham in Newark Wapentake, as }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 260, followed by }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 212, and }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Domesday Gazetteer}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , since all the other 50 places in this chapter are placed in their right wapentakes. Cottam in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake was }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Cotum }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 in 1280, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 29 (JRM). However, despite JRM's report, and the spelling Cotham that appears in }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 260, the map between pp. 246 and 247 in the same volume}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 by its positioning of Cotham shows that in fact Cottam in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake was intended: }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Cotune}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 appears on that map south of Leverton and underlined in green to indicate that it was an estate of Roger of Bully.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The situation is a little more complicated than JRM's note suggests. Cottam was a chapelry of }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 the Ancient Parish of }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 South Leverton. South Leverton probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086. However, according to the identifications of Glasscock (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), pp. 227-28), }{\insrsid6823374 Cottam was then divided, one portion being taxed with South Leverton and the other with Ragnall (1,1; it lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086). By 1334 Oswaldbeck and 'Bassetlaw' Wapentakes had merged, but the Lay Subsidy lar gely groups manors according to their former wapentakes and it is clear that parts of Cottam lay in both. Possibly part of Cottam was silently included by Domesday in South Leverton;}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; and 1,32 Leverton note}{\insrsid6823374 . }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ragnall, on the othe r hand, was, in 1086, part of the royal manor of Dunham-on-Trent (1,1) and clearly lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake. Geographically, Cottam lay in the area of Oswaldbeck Wapentake. It is conceivable, however, that in 1086, a part of Cottam was a detachment of 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake. It was mapped as such in the Alecto edition. However, there is no evident reason why this should be so in 1086, as the place is described in Domesday as a manor and there is no stated link with Ragnall or with any other place.}{ \insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab There is no question that the Domesday }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Cotune}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is the same as the }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Cotum juxta Dunham}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 held by the Earl of Lancaster in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109, for he was then in charge of the honour of Tickhill (descent from Roger of Bully). Cottam is not exactly close to Dunh am-on-Trent. It is four miles distant, but that may not be important if the intention was to distinguish this place from the Cotham in Newark Wapentake 21 miles away. Nonetheless, it seems impossible to envisage a boundary for Cottam that could make part o f it continuous with 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, and it is hazardous to postulate a detachment when the problem may be one of identification: there is a suspicion that the present holding is a lost place in Dunham-on-Trent. However, it is possible that Cottam originated as a part of Dunham-on-Trent and that when wapentakes were laid out, the link was so strong, that it was included with Dunham-on-Trent in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, as a detached place, a rarity in the Danelaw counties.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HARDWULF . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hardulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hardul}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Heardwulf}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 288. JRM preferred the first element Hard- for the Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Heard-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , as it reflected the Domesday spelling. The Alecto edition has Heardwulf.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The only other occurrences of this name in Domesday are in YKS 29W42 (where it appears as Heardwulf in the printed Phillimore edition) and in DEV 3,79. No documentary evidence has been so far found to connect them.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FULCO [ * OF LISORS *], ROGER'S MAN. In view of the rarity of the name, this Fulco and all the others in Roger of Bully's fief (9,18;20;41;55;64;70;126-127), which account for all the occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire, are almost certainly Fulc o of Lisors. Fulco is identified as such in DBY 16,1 (the land of Roger of Bully) as a witness of Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth, as well as a donor of lands; see the }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209, and pp. xxiv-xxv); and 9,49 Blyth note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Fulco}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Fulcho}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Fulco}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Folco}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 98. Some of the people named Fulco in the present edition appear as Fulk in some of the Phillimore printed translations. The Alecto edition has Fulk here.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 Fulco's place of origin could either be Lisores in French d\'e9partement of Calvados (arrondissement Lisieux, canton Livarot) or Lisors in the d\'e9 partement of Eure (arrondissement Les Andelys, canton Lyons-la-For\'eat). He was an important tenant of Roger of Bully. His wife was called Albreda and they had a son, Robert; see }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 201.}{\insrsid801729 \par }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid801729 {\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 9,19\tab 4M. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 See 3,4 2M note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid801729 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ORDSALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,5;12-13. 9,23. 30,56.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OSWARD . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Osuuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Osuuart}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Osuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] - represent Old English }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Osweard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 340-41. JRM preferred the second element -ward for the Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -weard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , as it reflected the majority of the Domesday spellings. The Alecto edition has Osweard, except for the 1086 holder in NFK 8,44, where the form is Osward. \par \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORSTEN. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turstan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turstan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turstin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Tursten}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turstane}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turtin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thorsten}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Norse }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thorsteinn}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 396. In the printed Phillimore edition this }{\i\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\insrsid6823374 holder appears as Thurstan and (for YKS) as Thorsteinn; these have now been standardized as Thorsten. }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Alecto edition has Thorsten here.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab It is tempting to think that all Roger of Bully's predecessors with this name (9,19;37;76;101) were the same individual, but the presence of two occurrences within the present entry may suggest th at there were at least two men whose lands passed to Roger. These are the only occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ORDRIC . The Domesday forms - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ordric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ordricus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ordric}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 336-37. In the printed Phillimore edition of Northamptonshire the form Orderic appears; this has now been standardized as Ordric. The Alecto edition also has Ordric. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ^[ANOTHER]^ THORSTEN. The two occurrences of this name in this entry suggest that there were two different people called Thorsten, each with a manor, that was combined with others by Roger of Bully. It is just pos sible, however, that Thorsten had had two separate small manors in Ordsall. \par \tab \tab On this name, see 9,19 Thorsten note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,20\tab 10M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab EATON. This was an Ancient Parish, and, until 1841, a peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Southwell (5,1), d erived from the Archbishop of York's holding (5,8). It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For another part, see 5,8.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid801729 {\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab EACH HAD HIS HALL. This emphasises that there were 1 0 manors, in case it might be concluded that some of the ten men held jointly. The existence of a hall from which the estate was managed and at which dues and services were rendered appears to be an important element in defining a }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 manerium}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 which itself contains the idea of 'dwelling', 'residing'; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 224; Stenton, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Types of Manorial Structure}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 31-32, 57-59}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab SIXTH PART. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday failed to interline }{\i\f720\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 t\'e2}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (= }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 tam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , the last three letters of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 sextam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 'sixth'), though he may have thought that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 part\'e7 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 partem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , accusative singular; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 habuerunt}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 'they had', implied) was sufficient to show that it was the sixth part of 1 bovate, not 6 parts, although the horizontal abbreviation was occasionally used by him to indicate an omitted letter other than }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 m}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . He was frequently lax in clarifying whether the number was an ordinal or a cardinal one; sometimes he corrected himself, but often scribe B corrected him; see 4,7 part note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid801729 {\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FULCO [* OF LISORS *], ROGER'S MAN. On this identif ication and on the name Fulco, see 9,18 Fulco note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 MILLS, 20s; MEADOW, 60 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative, as may be }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 molin'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 1,1 fishery note and 5,9 mill note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab THERE IS A HOLE in the parchment in this entry; the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesd ay wrote around it. Farley printed the text to indicate this hole, as he did for the text on the other side of it (6,15), though he did not always do this. For the patch that was later applied, see 6,16 hole note. Compare 11,33 Radcliffe note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In the Ale cto facsimile the writing around this hole, especially on the right of it, is blurred, though it is clear in the manuscript and in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. On other problems of reproduction in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FOR THE TRANSPOSITION SIGN next to the last line of this entry, see 9,21 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,21\tab THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday at the foot of folio 284c immediately below three entries that he had added across the foot of both columns on folio 28 4cd (see 9,7 entry note). It was written slightly askew, but was probably done at the same time as them, the darker colour of the ink used for it being due to the smoothness of the parchment here. For other rubricated entries added by him, see 1,31 entry n ote. A rubricated transposition sign beside this entry corresponds to an unrubricated sign in the centre margin next to the last line of the manor of Eaton written on folio 284d (9,20). The scribe used a different design for this pair of transpositions si g ns to the one used for the set linking the three entries added above it, as was his practice to avoid confusion; compare 9,81 entry note. He probably discovered this entry, the status of which is unknown, when he found the entry for Gamston (9,9), added j ust above it, because it contained a garden that belonged to Eaton. The main scribe also added details of two other holdings in Misson, though after rubrication had taken place; see 1,65 entry note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MISSON. This was an Ancient Parish divided between Nottin ghamshire and Lincolnshire until a boundary change in 1886 placed the parish entirely in Nottinghamshire. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. If so, it will, in 1086, have been detached from that wapentake by the presence of }{\insrsid6823374 Scaftworth (5,8), Everton (5,8. 9,117;124) and Harwell (9,117;124) which appear to have lain in Oswaldbeck Wapentake then, though they were later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake when Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged with it. }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 For other parts of Misson, see 1,65 (duplicated in 30,44). 1,66. 30,43.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation this place-name appears wrongly as Mission here (as also at 1,65); it is correct in the Alecto edition.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IT BELONGS TO EATON. That is, to Roger of Bully's manor (9,20). The exact relationship is not stated.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,22\tab GROVE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALWY. On this name, see 9,5 Alwy note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OSMUND. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Osmund}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hosmund}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hosmunt}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Osmund}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 340, though he mentioned that a possible base is also Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Asmundr}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Asmund}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . The Alecto edition also has Osmund.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ROBERT [* THE BURSAR *], ROGER'S MAN. On his possible identity and his name, see 9,2 Robert note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,23\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Gr eat Domesday in the centre margin of folio 284cd, slightly closer to the right-hand column next to the manor of Grove (9,22), of which it may have been a member. This entry does not seem to have been done at the same time as any of the other added entries that were never rubricated, of which a list is given in 1,19 entry note. For another addition of a holding in Ordsall, see 30,56. \par \tab \tab This entry is not included in the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation; for other entries in Nottinghamshire which are similarly missing from it, see 2,3 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ORDSALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other parts, see 1, 5;12-13. 9,19. 30,56. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab It is not unreasonable to assume that the main scribe inserted this portion of Ordsall at this point to indicate that it belonged to Grove (9,22), since it is placed next to Grove and above a Jurisdiction of it (Ranby, 9,24). Ordsal l and Grove are adjacent on the ground, but no relationship is explicitly stated in the text.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,24\tab RANBY. This was a hamlet of Babworth Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other parts, see 1,13-14. 9,25.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab OF GROVE OF GROVE ["SIC"]. Grove is Roger of Bully's manor (9,22).}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in Graue}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 on the second line of this entry and then a bit later partially interlined it at the end of the first line, probably when he wrote on the line below that another part of Ranby (9,25) was a Jurisdiction of Eaton (rather than, as expected, of Grove) and thought he should clarify the position of this part.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,25\tab RANBY. See 9,24 Ranby note. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote this brief entry in the space left after details of another holding in Ranby, separating it from them with a gallows sign. There is no indication that the present entry was added, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 pace}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Black and Roffe, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 32}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : the pen, ink colour and writing are identical to those of the preceding text.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION OF EATON. That is, of Roger of Bully's manor (9,20).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,26\tab HEADON. }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Headon was part of the Ancient Parish of Headon-cum-Upton. The name is now represented by the settlements of Headon and Nether Headon (both at SK7477). }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Headon probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,6. 9,7.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODRIC. On this name, see 2,10 Godric note. Roger of Bully had nine predecessors with the name Godric in Nottinghamshire (9,26;28;40;59;82;89;94;105;129), one in Derbyshire (DBY 16,2) and four in Yorkshire (YKS 10W7;10;16;37). Only for the Godric here in 9,94 is there any documentary evidence as to his identity (see 9,94 Godric note); no other such evidence has so far been found to connect the other predecessors and Godric was a very common name.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab EACH HAD A HALL. This emphasises that there were seven manors here in 1066, though the marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 does not record this; see 9,20 hall note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [THEY HAD]. This is implied from the accusative in the Latin for 'the third part'.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WILLIAM [* THE PRIEST *], ROGER'S MAN. Here and at 9,111 (the only two occurrences of a Wi lliam as a tenant of Roger of Bully) he is possibly to be identified with William the priest who witnessed Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth; see the }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); and 9,49 Blyth note. See also }{\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 495, though she gives a folio reference only for the entry at 9,111. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On the name William, see B9 William note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,27\tab UPTON. }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Upton was part of the Ancient Parish of Headon-cum-Upton. It }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake i n 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,7. 9,8.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This part was presumably a Jurisdiction of Headon (9,26).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 2 OXEN. That is, for a quarter of a plough; see 1,6 ox note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 9,28\tab WEST MARKHAM. Or Little Markham, now Markham Clinton; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p.}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 56, and the Ordnance Survey maps (JRM). Unusually Domesday distinguishes this Markham as West Markham; compare 1,13 Ordsall note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab West Markham was an Ancient Parish. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228, where it is listed as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Parva Marckham}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . For other parts, see 9,29-30}{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 .}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODRIC. See 9,26 Godric note, and on this name, see 2,10 Godric note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab CLARON HOLDS IT. The name Claron occurs only twice in Domesday Book, both times as a tenant of Roger of Bully in Nottinghamshire (9,28;32). He is probably to be identified with the Claron who witnessed Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth; see the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); and 9,49 Blyth note. A man who was probably his son, Arnold son of Claron, witnessed the grant of land in Carlton-in-Lindrick (9,50) by Ralph}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of Qui\'e8vrecourt to Worksop Priory; see }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 225; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , pp. 173-74. \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In both instances (9,28;32) the Domesday form is }{\i\insrsid6823374 Claron}{\insrsid6823374 . }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 According to Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 54-55, it may be linked to the name }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Clare}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 m}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 bald }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - which is a hybrid of Latin }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 clarus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('bright', 'illustrious') and Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -bald}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . A more likely origin is in the Latin word }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 clarus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 itself, in the sense of 'illustrious' and which was originally used as a byname. The form }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Claron}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 could have been derived from the accusative case (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 clarum}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), the common case-origin of most French words, or the termination might be by analogy with names such as Hugon (from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hugonem}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ); compare the development of the Old French word }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 claron}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('clarion'). See Dauzat, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Dictionnaire des Noms et Pr\'e9noms de France}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , under }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Clair}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . The Alecto edition has Claron.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,29\tab WEST MARKHAM. See 9,28 Markham note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION OF TUXFORD. That is, of Roger of Bully's manor (9,12). This portion of West Markham and the one that follows were presumably plac ed here, rather than next to the manors of which they were Jurisdictions, because they were all originally included under West Markham in a schedule arranged by vills.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 6 FREEMEN. The Phillimore printed edition mistranslates }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 vi soch}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 emanni}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] as '6 Frenchmen '. The same error occurs in its edition of Lincolnshire at 32,21. Both mistakes were perpetuated in the first version of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Domesday Explorer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,30\tab THERE ALSO ^[WEST MARKHAM]^. See 9,28 Markham note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION OF GROVE. That is, of Roger of Bully's manor (9,22).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION OF EATON. That is, of Roger of Bully's manor (9,20).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION OF [WEST] DRAYTON. That is, of Roger of Bully's manor (9,31).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,31\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [WEST] DRAYTON. This was a chapelry of }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 the Ancient Parish of }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 East Markham. Like East Markham itself (1,3. 9,6;10-11) it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For another part, see 16,11. Roger of Bully's holding was at }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Parva Drayton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ' (West Drayton: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 48) in}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 304, }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and at }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 West Drayton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , held in 1316 by the Earl of Lancaster (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109).}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Farley misprinted }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 DTRAITONE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 for this place-name; it is clearly }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 DRAITONE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the manuscript. For other place-name errors of his in this county, see 22,1 Kilvington note and 14,8 Shelton note, for a verb mistranscribed, see 2,2 Osbern note and for figure errors, see 12,1 carucates note and 13,6 carucates note; compare 6,3 Barnby note, 9,70 bovates note and 17,17 Hawksworth note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SWEIN [* SON OF SVAVI *]. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 A person called Swein was Roger of Bully's predecessor in DBY 16,3 and on several of his holdings in Yorkshi re (where he is called Sveinn in the Phillimore printed translation ). In LIN C9 Swein son of Svavi had held a messuage in Lincoln which passed to Roger of Bully, so it is possible that his predecessor here and elsewhere was Svavi's son, though Swein was a very common name and no}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . On these names, see S5 Swein note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFSTAN . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlstan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlestan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vltan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlfstan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wlstan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vltainus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vstanus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc . - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wulfstan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 425. The Alecto edition also has Wulfstan. There are only two occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire, both predecessors of Roger of Bully (see also 9,55); a Wulfstan was also his predecessor in YKS 10W27, but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect any of them, the Nottinghamshire holdings were not close and Wulfstan was a common name.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AND 2 PARTS OF 1 BOVATE. Scribe B interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 .ii. partes .i. bou'.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (with }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 as}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - the last two letters of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 duas}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , '2' - interlined above the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .ii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) above the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .iiii. bou' t'r\'ea}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 written by the main scribe of Great Domesday. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note. These 'parts' were almost certainly thirds as the third part of 1 bovate in [West] Drayton is recorded in 16,11.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,32\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ELKESLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other parts, see 1,10. 30,41.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab "LOCRE". It is not clear what name is represented by the Domesday form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Locre}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , which only occurs once; von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 321, suggested Old Norse }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lokkr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , but it seems safer to leave it in its Domesday form. The Alecto edition has Locre.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ULFKIL. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab CLARON . On this name, see 9,28 Claron note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,33\tab BABWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For another part, see 1,12.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFMER. On other possible holdings of Wulfmer in Nottinghamshire and on his name, see 2,9 Wulfmer note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GEOFFREY, ROGER'S MAN. On his name, see 9,6 Geoffrey note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,34\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 'NORTH' MORTON. The Domesday form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Nordermortune }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 means 'northern' or 'northerly' Morton, and is presumably the same place as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Nortmortun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (30,42). Other related names are }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Mortune}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (1,11) and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 altera Mortune}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (1,11). Morton was a settlement in Babworth Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. See 1,11 Morton note and 1,13 Ordsall note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ASFRITH. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Asford}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Asfort}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Asuert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Asfrith}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Asfrothr}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 165. In the Phillimore printed edition the forms Asferth and Asfrothr appear; these have now been standardized as Asfrith. The Alecto edition has Asfrith. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LEOFKETEL . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lefchil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lufchel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent the hypothetical Anglo-Scandinavian name }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leofketel}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 313. In the Phillimore printed edition of Nottinghamshire the form Leofkell appears, while in that for Yorkshire the form is Leofketill (following Fellows Jensen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 186); these have now been standardized as Leofketel. The Alecto edition has Leofketel. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab There are the only two occurrences of this name in Domesday: here and in YKS 5W21 (as a predecessor of the Count of Mortain), but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 9,35\tab "CALDECOTES". This is not, as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , i. p. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 261, and }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Domesday Gazetteer}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , Old Coates, Oldcoates or Oldcotes, whose spellings derive from 'owl', not 'cold' (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 99), but probably a lost place (JRM).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The form given by JRM in the Phillimore printed edition 'Cold Coates' is a hypothetical updating: the place is not evidenced after 1086. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries. A possible identification, assuming a loss of prefix, would be with Coates (in }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 the Ancient Parish of }{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 North Leverton in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake): }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 34.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab However, Fulco of Lisors gave land in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Oulecotes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Olecotes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to Blyth Priory, the foundation of his overlord, Roger of Bully, in the late eleventh or early twelfth century: the }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 333 pp. 214-15); see 9,49 Blyth note. He had presumably acquired this land after 1086. Moreover, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Ulecotes}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 is a Tickhill fee in }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Rotuli Hundredorum}{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 304. Oldcotes lies at SK5888 in Styrrup township of Blyth Ancient Parish. Styrrup itself }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 was also held by Roger of Bully (9,57-58) and it could be that Oldcotes was an unnamed part of one of those estates rather than being the representative of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Cotune}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . However,}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 neither portion of Styrrup was held from Roger by Fulco.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab KA RSKI [* FATHER OF ALSI *]. As the name Karski (on which see S5 Karski note) only appears five times in Domesday Book (here and in 9,53 and as the father of Alsi in S5, and twice in Derbyshire: DBY 1,33. 6,4), it is probable that they were the same individ ual.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,36\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab CUCKNEY. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Norton Cuckney. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For another part, see 22,2. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Liber de Welbeck}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , vi. p. 872) concerning Norton (in Cuckney, SK5771) records how a certain Fleming called Joceus }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 de Flemmaugh}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 came to England with William the Conqueror and was given land forming a third of a knight's fee at Nort on in Cuckney. In Cuckney at that time was a dreng called Gamalbere who held 2 carucates in return for shoeing the king's horse when he came to Mansfield and for other services due on two carucates whenever military service in Wales was required. Gamalber e survived until the reign of Henry I, and after his death the king gave the two carucates to Richard son of Joceus. There is no reason for this story to have been invented, but, although it covers the reign of William I its only point of contact with Dome s day is that there were 2 carucates at Cuckney in 1066 and 1086 (22,2), though Domesday also records one carucate in the present entry. There are no drengs listed in Nottinghamshire, although this category of population may be hidden under another name, bu t they are frequent in the territory between the Ribble and the Mersey (CHS R2-3). However, both parts of Cuckney have 1066 and 1086 holders who are not Gamalbere or Joceus. This may be an omission from Domesday or Joceus and Gamalbere might represent a la y er of under-tenancy that is not routinely recorded in Domesday, or the land concerned might not be that recorded under Cuckney in Domesday, but an unnamed part of Mansfield (1,23-44), although it is difficult to see why so large a holding would not be nam e d as a dependency. One straw to clutch is that a Gamal and a Swein were joint holders of Gamston (16,1) and it is just possible that Gamal(bere) was a also a joint holder with Swein on the two carucates of 22,2, but was omitted from Domesday. Gamston was in the same wapentake ('Bassetlaw' Wapentake) as Cuckney, but not adjacent to it. It is nonetheless possible that the Cuckney of 9,36 was actually at Norton and that this was Joceus' land. On all this, see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{ \insrsid6823374 , i. p. 243}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Some support for the above story comes from }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 the }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 300, where it is said that Cuckney was held by a service that involved shoeing the king's horse: }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Dicunt quod Willelmus de Faucumbers tenuit in capite de domino Rege unum feodum militis in villa de C UKENAY per servicium quod ferrabit palefridum domini Regis cum venerit apud MAN'EFELD si fuerit deferatus et }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ... ('They [the jurors] say that William de Faucumbers held in chief from the lord king a knight's fee in the vill of Cuckney by the service that he will shoe the palfrey of the lord king when he comes to Mansfield, if it has lost a shoe and ... ').}{ \insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Richard son of Joceus founded Welbeck Abbey (SK5674) in 1153 for Premonstratensian canons; see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 129;}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Medieval Religious Houses}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , pp. 185, 192.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 It was no doubt built on the land of Norton in Cuckney.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALRIC. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid6823374 Alric}{\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\insrsid6823374 us}{\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\insrsid6823374 , Elric}{\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\insrsid6823374 us}{ \insrsid6823374 )}{\i\insrsid6823374 , Aelric}{\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\insrsid6823374 us}{\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\insrsid6823374 , Alrich, Alrist}{\insrsid6823374 (a scribal error) - could represent Old English }{\i\insrsid6823374 \'c6thelric}{ \insrsid6823374 or Old English }{\i\insrsid6823374 \'c6lfric}{\insrsid6823374 : }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp.}{\insrsid6823374 150-51, under }{\i\insrsid6823374 Al-ric}{\insrsid6823374 , and see also p. 142, under }{\i\insrsid6823374 Al-}{\insrsid6823374 . JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, as does }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 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 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -u-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or } {\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -f-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 required by JRM for inclusion under Aelfric, or the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -d-}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -g-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 required by him for inclusion under Aethelric.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFSI. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlsi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wlsi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wlsinus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlsius}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlsy}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wulfsige}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 424-25. JRM preferred the second element -si for Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -sige}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , as it reflected more closely the forms found in Domesday. Wulfsige, however, appears in the Phillimore printed translations for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire; it has now been standardized as Wulfsi. The Alecto edition has Wulfsige. \par \tab \tab Roger of Bully had six predecessors with the name Wulfsi (9,36;39;44;46;60;65), but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a common name; only the holdings in 9,44;46 are close.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GEOFFREY, ROGER'S MAN. On his name, see 9,6 Geoffrey note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,37\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab PERLETHORPE. This was a chapelry of Edwinstowe Ancient Parish. Like Edwinstowe itself (1,24;28) it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other references to Perlethorpe, see 1,24;26;30, and for the name, see 1,24 Perlethorpe note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORSTEN. On this name, see 9,19 Thorsten note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFMER. On other possible holdings of Wulfmer in Nottinghamshire and on his name, see 2,9 Wulfmer note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab RICHARD [* THE PRIEST *], ROGER'S MAN. He is possibly to be identified with Richard the priest who witnessed Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth; see the }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); and 9,49 Blyth note. See also }{\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 367, who gives a folio reference corresponding to the present entry. A Richard, tenant of Roger, occurs in Leicestershire (LEC 18,4-5), }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a common name, on which, see B16 Richard note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 7 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND [***] FURLONGS. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a space for the number of furlongs to be inserted, but work probably stopped on Domesday B ook before the information was found.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,38\tab GLEADTHORPE. This was a settlement in Warsop Ancient Parish. Like Warsop itself (1,24-25. 9,40. 30,53), it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086; see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 102. It is now represented by Gleadthorpe Grange (SK592700).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 4 BOVATES OF LAND [***] TAXABLE. The main scribe of Great Domesday had originally written }{\i\f713\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .iii. bou' t'r\'ea}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and then probably a fraction of 1 bovate before his }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ad g'ld'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : an }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 can still be seen and then a large space before }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .i. bou'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . Scribe B added a fourth minim, with a new }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 after it,}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to the end of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .iii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and erased the fraction of 1 bovate. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,39\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [OLD] CLIPSTONE. Clipstone was a township of Edwinstowe Ancient Parish. Like Edwinstowe itself (1,24;28) it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233, it is listed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown although there appears to have been no royal connection in 1086. The affix 'Old' probably dates from the creation of New Clipstone in 1930; see Youngs, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 358; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 73. \par \tab \tab Certain tithes here were confirmed on Blyth Priory by its founder, Roger of Bully, in 1088: the }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); see 9,49 Blyth note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OSBERN. Roger of Bully was preceded on three estates by a man called Osbern (9,39;70;119), but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them, the estates were not close and it was a common name, on which, see 2,2 Osbern note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFSI. On this name, see 9,36 Wulfsi note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 MILL. The case of the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 i. molin'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is unclear, but has been assumed to be accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. See 1,45 woodland note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,40\tab 3M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WARSOP. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other references to Warsop, see 1,24-25. 30,53. Warsop is now divided into Market Warsop (SK6557) and Church Warsop (SK5668).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODRIC. See 9,26 Godric note, and on this name, see 2,10 Godric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LEOFGEAT. On this name, see 2,6 Leofgeat note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ULFKIL. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HALF A MILL-SITE. The other half does not appear in Domesday. It was possibly omitted from one of the other entries for Warsop.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,41\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab CLUMBER. This was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of Worksop St Mary and St Cuthbert. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For another part, see 1,24.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AETHELWOLD. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Adelold}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Adeluuol}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Athelwolth}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Adeluuald}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Adelwold}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Adelold}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Edeluuald}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6thelweald}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 188. JRM preferred the second element - wold for the Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -weald}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , as it reflected the Domesday spelling. The Alecto edition has Aethelweald, except for those men holding in 1086 and for KEN 5,67;84-85;167;198, where it has Adelold. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ULFKIL. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab PART, 2 BOVATES ... IS WASTE. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 pars \'e7 wasta}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('part is waste') and then decided to interline the exact amount (2 bovates), the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ii. bo}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 vatae}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] being in apposition to the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 pars}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . Thus the Phillimore printed translation ('Part of 2 bovates ... is waste') is inaccurate. When the scribe continued }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in alia}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 parte}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], ('in the other [part]'), using }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 alia}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('another') as often for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 altera }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('the other'), he was referring to the remaining 3 bovates.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FULCO [* OF LISORS *]. On this identification and on the name Fulco, see 9,18 Fulco note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab UNDER ROGER. On the use of Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 sub}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , see 3,4 under note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 MILL. The case of the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .i. mol'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is unclear, but has been assumed to be accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,42\tab "ODESTORP". On the form of this place-name, see 1,12 "Odestorp" note. This place does not appear to be attested after 1086; the name-form used in the Phillimore printed edition ('Odsthorpe') is misleading in this respect. In the present context, as in 1,12, "Odestorp" is surrounded by places in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, but t he evidence from its other occurrences (9,71. 30,12) is equivocal. Nonetheless, on balance it seems likely that it was in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [WEST] RETFORD. East and West Retford were adjacent Ancient Parishes. They probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as they did later. For West Retford, see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. In }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 304, }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Westretteford}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is a Tickhill fee and in}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108, the same place is held by the king and the Earl of Lancaster. The latter is holder of the Tickhill barony and his portion represents the present holding. The king held nothing in either Retford in 1086, but he may have acquired an interest in West Retford consequent on his creating the borough of East Retford, probably on the land of Clarborough (1,41); see 1,41 Clarborough note. For other parts, see 5,8. 9,71.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 4 OXEN. That is, for half a plough; see 1,6 ox note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION OF CLUMBER. That is, of Roger of Bully's manor (9,41).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,43\tab WORKSOP. This was the Ancient Parish of Worksop St Mary and St Cuthbert. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. In the latter it is Worksop }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 cum membris}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab A priory for Augustinian canons was founded here after 1119 by William of Louvetot, nephew of Roger (of Louvetot) who may account for some or all of the occurrences of Roger, Roger's man, in this fief; see 9,3 Roger note. The priory was given the church o f Worksop and land there and all the lordship churches that William held of the honour of Blyth (= Tickhill), that is the churches of Gringley-on-the-Hill (9,122), Misterton (9,121), Walkeringham (9,120), Nomanton-on-Trent (9,69), Car Colston (9,107), Will oughby-on-the-Wolds (9,92) and Wysall (9,90) and half of the church of Treswell (9,129); }{\insrsid6823374 see }{\i\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid6823374 , v. p. 118; }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 226, ii. p. 125; }{\i\insrsid6823374 Worksop Cartulary}{\insrsid6823374 ; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Medieval Religious Houses}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 145, 180. The church of Treswell was no doubt shared with Count Alan (2,9).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALSI [* SON OF KARSKI *]. He is identifiable from S5 where Alsi son of Karski is said to have had various rights over Worksop. On his name, see S5 Alsi note; see also 9,2 Alsi note, and on his f ather, see 9,35 Karski note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 7 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,44\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 'ROOLTON'. This lost place, site unknown, lay in the Ancient Parish of Worksop St Mary and St Cuthbert: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 108. It will thus have been in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFSI. On this name, see 9,36 Wulfsi note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ARNKETIL. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Archil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Archel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Archetel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Archillus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Danish}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Arnketil}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Norse}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Arnkell}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 163. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Arkell, Arketel and Arnketill (the last, in YKS and LIN, following Fellows Jensen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 14-16); these have now been standardized as Arnketil. The presence in Domesday Book of so many occurrences of the forms }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Archil}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Archel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 may, however, suggest that these men were known by the Old Norse name. The Alecto edition has Arnketil here. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Another man with this name was Roger's predecessor in Sturton-le-Steeple (9,114), and in two manors in Yorkshire (YKS 10W8;39), so it is possible that they were the same person, though no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a co mmon name in Domesday Book. An Arnketil held Clarborough (30,54: SK7383) which is within three miles of Sturton-le-Steeple (9,114: SK7883), but both these places are ten miles or more from Worksop where 'Roolton' lay.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ROGER [* OF LOUVETOT *], ROGER'S MAN. On this identification, see 9,3 Roger note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THERE ALSO. That is, in 'Roolton'. This Jurisdiction of 'Roolton', which also lay in 'Roolton', should have been numbered as a separate entry in the Phillimore printed edition, as the similar Jurisdiction in Sty rrup at 9,58 was separated from the manor there.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,45\tab BILBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. The grid reference (SK6383) is to Bilby Farm. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For the possibility that this was included in the grant to the Archbishop of York of Sutton and Scrooby in 958, see 5,7 Sutton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GRIMKEL. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Grinchel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Grinchil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gri}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 m}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 chel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gri}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 m}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 )}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 chil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gri}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 m}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 chetel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gri}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 m}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ketel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Grinchet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Grimkel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Grimkell}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 275. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Grimkel, Grimkell, Grimketel and Grimketill (the last, in YKS and LIN, following Fellows Jensen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 107-108); these have now been standardized as Grimkel. However, the existence of forms in Domesday ending }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -chetel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -ketel }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 may suggest that in 1086 there existed a name-form Grimketil as well as Grimkel. The Alecto edition has Grimkel here. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Roger of Bully's predecessor in Clayworth (9,126) was also called Grimkel, possibly the same man, as the holdings are about seven miles apart.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab INGRAM , ROGER'S MAN. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ingram}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ingrannus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ing}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ram}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , or perhaps }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ingelram}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 with loss of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 l}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 73-74. In the Phillimore printed translation the name Ingran appears. The Alecto edition has Ingram. There are only three occurrences of this name in Domesday. The Ingram here is probably the same as Roger of Bully's subtenant in DBY 16,6-7.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 6 ACRES. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The case of the Latin }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,46\tab HODSOCK. This was a lordship in Blyth Ancient Parish which extended into Yorkshire. A Civil Parish of Hodsock, entirely in Nottinghamshire, was created in 1866; see Youngs, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 361. Like Blyth itself (9,49) it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086. The Phillimore printed edition indexes two Hodsocks (at SK 5886 and SK 6185). These references appear to refer to the same estate. Like many Domesday holdings, Hodsock is represented by a scatter of names whi c h are all within the boundary of the original estate: Hodsock itself is at SK612851. There is a Hodsock Grange (SK587867), a Hodsock Woodhouse (SK594862), a Hodsock Park (SK598871), a Hodsock Cottage (SK605869), a Hodsock Lodge Farm (SK600863), a Hodsock Priory (SK611853) and a Hodsock Priory Farm (SK613853).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFSI. On this name, see 9,36 Wulfsi note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab TUROLD, ROGER'S MAN. Two different Turolds, Turold of Qui\'e8vrecourt and Turold brother of Fulco of Lisors, witnessed Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth; see the }{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); and 9,49 Blyth note. The Turold of 9,50 can be identified with }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turold of Qui\'e8vrec ourt because of his family's connection with Carlton-in-Lindrick (9,50; see 9,50 Turold note), but the identity of the other Turolds (9,10;46;59;70) is uncertain. However, since Fulco of Lisors gave Hodsock to Blyth Priory (the }{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary: Timson, no. 333 pp. 214-215}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) it is possible that he acquired it from the Turold who was his brother; see the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, p. xxv); and 9,70 men note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 For further discussion of this, including on the name Turold, see 9,10 Turold note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,47\tab TH IS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY and the next one (9,48) were added together by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the outer margin of folio 285b, next to the entry for Blyth (9,49) which was a Jurisdiction of Hodsock (9,46). The Phillimore printed edition numbere d them and indexed them as if these holdings were in Hodsock. This may well be correct, though they were certainly not Jurisdictions of it (9,49 jurisdiction note). The main scribe seems to have made an attempt to link at least the first of these two addit ions to Hodsock by adding a hook to the top of what was already an exceptionally tall capital }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 I}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; this was something he did also with other added entries; see 11,13 entry note, 23,2 entry note and compare WOR 8,25 entry note. The parchment in the margi n above these additions is rather discoloured and has a small lump in it, perhaps the reason why he did not write them level with the start of the Hodsock entry, but elsewhere in Great Domesday he was not deterred by such slight imperfections. The }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ibid' }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of the second added entry, however, need not have referred to the same place as the first one and no later evidence of these holdings has so far been found. The use of transposition signs would have been very helpful. Compare 9,10 there note. The scribes of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Abbreviatio}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (folio 203v) and the Breviate (folios 145v-146r) wrote these entries in the order Hodsock, its Jurisdiction in Blyth, the Jurisdictions of Mansfield and Bothamsall (that is, 9,46;49;47-48), so they obviously thought that the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ibidem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 referred to Blyth in both cases.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For other entries added by the main scribe that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In the Alecto edition these entries appear in the margin level with the entry for Blyth (9,49). Neither of them appear in the Penguin e dition of the Alecto translation; for other entries in Nottinghamshire which are similarly missing from it, see 2,3 entry note. \par \tab \tab In some drafts of the Domesday material, all parts of the village of Hodsock were probably together in a schedule that was ter ritorially arranged. The scribes of the putative circuit volume or the main scribe of Great Domesday would have had to draw off material fief by fief. It is probable that the main Domesday scribe missed these Jurisdictions of two royal manors when he was compiling the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Terra Regis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , and missed them or ignored them when he was working first on the fief of Roger of Bully. However, a check of his material probably showed him that they had not yet been entered. He therefore wrote them in the margin here. However, he may have inserted them in the wrong fief, being drawn to that of Roger of Bully because these Jurisdictions lay in Hodsock which occurs nowhere else. There is, however, nothing else to connect them with Roger of Bully's fief, and they probably belong rightly in the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Terra Regis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THERE ALSO ^[* HODSOCK? *]^. For the difficulty in deciding whether the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ibid}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 em}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] refers to Hodsock (9,46), see 9,47 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION OF THE KING'S MANOR OF MANSFIELD. That is, of his manor of Mansfield (1,23).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,48\tab TH IS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the outer margin of folio 285b after the previous one (9,47) and at the same time as it; see 9,47 entry note. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THERE ALSO ^[* HODSOCK? *]^. See 9,47 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION OF THE KING'S MANOR OF BOTHAMSALL. That is, of his manor of Bothamsall (1,9).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IT PAYS TAX. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 g}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ld}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 at}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]. The Phillimore printed translation has 'taxable' as if the Latin were }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ad geldum} {\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , and the Alecto edition has 'and [it is] to the geld' (its usual translation of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ad geldum}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ). It is possible that lack of space in the margin led the main scribe of Great Domesday to omit }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 est ad}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 before }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 g'ld'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (which would then have abbreviated }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 geldum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), but }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 geldat}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 makes perfect sense.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,49\tab A JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. That is, of Hodsock (9,46), the description of which immediately precedes this entry in the manuscript. The Phillimore printed edition mistakenly put this heading above the two entries added in the margin (9,47-48), though they specifically state that they are Jurisdictions of Mansfield and Bothamsall respectively. The layout of the present edition, as also of the printed Phillimore one, with this Jurisdiction of Hodsock separat ed from that manor by the two entries (which are probably, but not certainly in Hodsock: 9,47 entry note) does not make this clear.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BLYTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The Ancient Parish had chapelries at Austerfield and Bawtry in Yorkshire, an anomaly only removed with the creation of separate Civil Parishes in 1866 which left Blyth entirely in Nottinghamshire; see Youngs, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Local Admini strative Units}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 356. It is not certain how far this reflects the situation in 1086. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 In 1088 Roger of Bully and his wife Muriel founded Blyth Priory. The Blyth Priory Cartulary includes its foundation charter (no. 325 pp. 207-209), which gives a detailed list of }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 consuetudines}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('customs')}{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 exactly contemporary with Domesday. Roger granted }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 ecclesiam de Blida et totam villam integre cum omnibus appendiciis suis et consuetudinibus}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 sicuti homines eiusdem ville michi faciebant}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 scilicet arare}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 karare}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 falcare}{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 bladum meum secare}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 fenum meum facere}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 marchetum dare}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 stangnum }{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 (sic) }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 molendini facere }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('the church of Blyth and the whole village entirely, with all its dependencies and the customary dues, as the men of this village used to perform for me, namely ploughing, carting, mowing, reaping my corn, making my hay, paying marriage-dues, making the mill pond'). The grant included tolls, ferry and market and }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 omnes dignitates quas habebam in eadem villa}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 scilicet soc et sac}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 tol et them} {\cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 et infangethief}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 ferrum et fossam}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 et furcas}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 cum aliis libertatibus}{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 uti tunc temporis tenebam de rege }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('all the pri vileges which I had in this village, namely full jurisdiction, market rights, thief-taking, iron and ditch, and gallows, with the other freedoms that I then had from the king'). 'Hanging Field' in the adjoining parish of Styrrup (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 304) might have been the gallows site. The}{\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 'privileges' of sentencing men to ordeal by iron and ditch (i.e. water) and to be hanged}{\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 were not accorded to all landholders (JRM).}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab According to the foundation charter, '40 shillings of English money' were to be paid annually to the church of Holy Trinity in Rouen. Roger of Bully had already sold the tithes of Bully itself to Holy Trinity, Rouen, in 1060 or in 1064 (Timson, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. xiv = Round, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Calendar of Documents: France}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 23 no. 83) and, in 1086 or 1087, he issued a charter in its favour containing many of the lands and tithes that were in his foundation charter of Blyth Priory. It appears that these were given to Holy Trinity, Rouen, in preparation for the foundation of Blyth. On Blyth Priory, see}{\insrsid6823374 }{\i\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid6823374 , iv. pp. 623-33;}{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. pp. 225-26, ii. pp. 83-84; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Medieval Religious Houses}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 52, 60; Timson, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , pp. xiv-xxxii}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The lands granted were the church and vill of Blyth (9,46), toll and passage for the monks from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Radeford}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (perhaps the crossing of the River Ryton in Worksop) in Nottinghamshire to 'Thornewad' (probably the crossing of the River Thorne in Yorkshire, West Riding) and from 'Frodestan' (unidentif ied) to the River Idle, also Elton (9,100), Beighton (DBY 16,3) and what he had in Barnby Moor (9,54). This last is less likely to be Barnby-on-Don (Yorkshire, West Riding). On }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Radeford}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('Radford' in Worksop), see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 107, and on the toll, see Timson, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. ciii. It is not at all certain that it is the same toll that Domesday records as attached to Gunthorpe (9,74) in 1086; see 9,74 toll note. On the relation of this toll to that of Nottingham, see B20 Nottingham note. In addition Roger gave various sorts of tithe in [North] Wheatley (9,115), Marnham (9,64-65), Appleby (LIN 17,2), Laughton-en-le-Morthen (YKS 10W1), Clifford (GLS 1,37), Bingham (9,97-98), Salt b y (LEC 18,3), Garthorpe (part of Saltby, LEC 18,3), Bescaby (part of Saltby, LEC 18,3), [East] Bridgford (9,100-101), Lowdham (NTT 9,75), Gunthorpe (9,74), Clipstone (9,39) and Croxton (either in Lincolnshire or in Leicestershire). Assington (SUF 34,3) wa s mentioned in the grant to Holy Trinity, Rouen, and seems to have been omitted.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The witnesses to the foundation charter were Gilbert the priest, Richard the priest, William the priest, Fulco of Lisors, Turold his brother, Arnold of Bully, Godfrey the steward, Turold of Qui \'e8vrecourt, Claron, Ralph }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Novi Fori}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Payne}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 gladicus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Robert the bursar and W(alter) of Aincourt. With the exception of Walter and possibly Godfrey (9,6 Geoffrey note), these were all probably Roger of Bully's tenants and can be tentativel y identified with some of the plain names that occur in Domesday. Some of these made gifts of their own. Fulco of Lisors gave land in Harworth (9,55), Billingley (YKS 10W25), Costock (9,94), "Caldecotes" (9,35), Styrrup (9,57-58), Martin (9,56), Blyth (9, 49) and Hodsock (9,46). Turold of Qui\'e8vrecourt (in the French d\'e9partement of Seine-Maritime, arrondissement Dieppe, canton Neufch\'e2 tel-en-Bray) was probably the holder of Carlton-in Lindrick (9,50) which his family held for some generations. Ralph of Qui\'e8vre court, probably his son, founded Wallingwells Priory, probably in the reign of King Stephen, in his park at Carlton-in Lindrick; }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 89}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . Ralph } {\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Novi Fori}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , from Neufmarch\'e9 (in the French d\'e9partement of Seine-Maritime, canton Gournai-e n-Brai) had a brother Payne and a nephew William who both gave land to Blyth Priory. On this, see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 225.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The monks' toll and passage were confirmed by King Henry I (the Blyth Priory Cartulary: Timson, no 293 p. 188) and by King Henry II (the }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary: Timson, no. 326 p. 210)}{\insrsid6823374 . } {\cf1\insrsid6823374 The toll would have helped the monks provide the hospitality for travellers on the highroad, that is, on the Great North Road, what is now the A1 trunk road.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Fulco of Lisors gave land in Blyth to the foundation of his overlord, Roger of Bully, in the late eleventh or early twelfth century (the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary: Timson, no. 333 pp. 214-215) though he is not recorded as holding there in 1086.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 1 ACRE. }{\insrsid6823374 The case of the Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\insrsid6823374 is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,50\tab 6M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab CARLTON[-IN-LINDRICK]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other references to this place, see 1,24;30.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab EACH HAD A HALL. This emphasises that there were six manors here in 1066 as recorded by the marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VIM'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 9,20 hall note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab TUROLD [* OF QUIEVRECOURT *], ROGER'S MAN. Two men called Turold he ld from Roger of Bully. One was the brother of Fulco of Lisors; see 9,46 Turold note. The present Turold is almost certainly to be identified with Turold of Qui\'e8vrecourt (in the French d\'e9partement of Seine-Maritime, arrondissement and canton Neufch \'e2tel-en-Bray) who was a witness to Roger of Bully's charter founding his Priory of Blyth; see the }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209, and pp. xxv-xxvi), and }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,49 Blyth note. This is because the Qui\'e8vrecourts, his successors, held Carlton-in Lindrick for some generations. On his origin, see Keats-Rohan, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 430; }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Loyd, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 21.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,51\tab LOUND. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Sutton-cum-Lound. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other parts, see 1,16. 5,7. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In the manuscript this place-name was lined through in red, as expected, though the ink is faint on the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ND}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 LVND}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . There is no red-lining in the Alecto fac simile; see 2,2 there note for other instances of this, and, on other problems of reproduction in that facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note. In the Ordnance Survey facsimile, where the rubrication was applied as a separate exercise, it appears clearly on all of the place-name.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ULFKIL. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,52\tab SERLBY. This was a hamlet of Harworth Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids} {\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AELFRIC. On this name, see 5,6 Aelfric note. Roger of Bully was also preceded by an Aelfric in High Marnham (9,64), but the two holdings are 12 miles apart, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and Aelfric was a very common name.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GILBERT [* THE PRIEST *], ROGER'S MAN. He is possibly to be identified with Gilbert the priest who witnessed Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth; see the }{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 214,}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 a nd 9,49 Blyth note. This is the only occurrence of a Gilbert as a tenant of Roger of Bully.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday form of his name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gislebertus }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (often abbreviated as }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gisleb't'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), represents Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gisilbert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gislebert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gillebert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gilbert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gislebert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 l}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ebert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 115-16. The Alecto edition also has Gilbert.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 MILL. The case of the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 i. molin'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is unclear, but has been assumed to be accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab VALUE ... [20]s. In the manuscript the second letter after the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 x}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 falls on the inner of the two tramlines delimiting the writing space of this column and it is hard to tell what it is. It resembles a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 c}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 rather than an }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 x}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , but Farley read }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 xx}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and '90s' would be a very high value for 1 \'bd bovates: all but one of the holdings of this size in Nottinghamshire had values of less than 8s in 1086.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,53\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab TORWORTH. This was a township of Blyth Ancient Parish. The township extended into Yorkshire, but was turned into a Nottinghamshire Civil Parish in 1866, losing its Yorkshire portion; see Youngs, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 369. Like Blyth itself (9,49) it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. }{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For the possibility that this is the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thuresby}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of the grant to the Archbishop of York of Sutton and Scrooby in 958, see 5,7 Sutton note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab BRICTSI . }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Brixi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Bricsi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Bricsi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Brixi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Brixe}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old English }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Beorhtsige}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 198. JRM preferred the first element Brict- for Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Beorht-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and the second element -si for Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -sige}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , as they reflected more closely the Do mesday spelling. The Alecto edition has Beorhtsige. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab KARSKI }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [* FATHER OF ALSI *]}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 . }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On his possible identity and his name, see 9,35 Karski note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab HAD. In the manuscript there is an ink blot over the }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 r}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 of }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 h'br'}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 habuerunt}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , '(they) had') and the }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Br}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 of }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Brixi}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , but the writing is clear. In }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 the Alecto facsimile there appears to be an }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 i}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 h'br'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; on other problems of reproduction in that facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note. In the Ordnance Survey facsimile there is no sign of the ink blot and the reading is as in the manuscript.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab "I" [***] AZO. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 I}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and then left space for about three letters before writing }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Azo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . One would expect }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ibi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 here, as in the previous entry, but it is unclear why he did not complete the word, or erase the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 I}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AZO THE PRIEST. The Domesday forms of this 1086 tenant - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Azo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Asso}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Azo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Azzo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Atso}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Adso}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old French}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ace}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Asse}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 39-40. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Azo and Azor; these have now been standardized as Azo. The Alecto edition has Azo. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,54\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BARNBY [MOOR]. This was a township of Blyth Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 'What he had in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Barnebeia}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ' was confirmed o n Blyth Priory by its founder, Roger of Bully, in 1088; see the }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); and 9,49 Blyth note. T}{\insrsid6823374 his formula indicates that he did not hold the whole vill in 1086; }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 for another part, see 1,16.}{\insrsid6823374 The identification is more probable than Barnby Dun, sometimes known as Barnby-on-Don, which is in Yorkshire (YKS 10W30). \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For the possibility that this estate was silently included in the grant to the Archbishop of York of Sutton and Scrooby in 958, see 5,7 Sutton note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORFRIDH . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turuert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turuerd}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turuer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turuet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Toruet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Toruert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Toruerd}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Toruort}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turued}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Tureuert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent OSwedish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thorfridh}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and the hypothetical Old Norse name }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thorfrothr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 392. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Thorferth and Thorfrothr; these have now been standardized as Thorfridh. The Alecto edition has Thorfridh.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Thorfridh who was Roger of Bully's predecessor in Bole (9,118) may be the same person; the estates were about ten miles apart.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SWARTI. The Domesday form of this }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 T.R.E. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 holder, who only appears here in Domesday, is }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Sorte}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . It is the Old Danish byname }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Swarti}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , Old Norse }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Svarti}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 : }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 von Feilitzen, } {\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 379. The Alecto edition has Swarti.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,55\tab 3M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HARWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WADA . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wada}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wade}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wada}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 407, who included also the form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wado}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 which occurs in SOM and DE V. However, the forms in the corresponding entries in Exon for these suggest otherwise; see DEV 15,49 Wado note. The Alecto edition follows von Feilitzen and has Wada for all these forms. \par \tab \tab There are only two occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottingham shire, the other being as a predecessor of Gilbert of Ghent in Ollerton (17,3), but the estates are not close to each other and there is no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holders, although the name Wada is uncommon in Domesday Book.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 The name Wada occurs on seven holdings in Domesday Book and may represent four, five or six individuals. Although there are no tenurial associations or other links to any other Wada, the name is so rare this Wada could be the same individual a s either he of Brampton (DBY 8,2) or of Ollerton (17,3) (JP).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFGEAT. On this name, see 6,8 Wulfgeat note. There are six predecessors of Roger of Bully with this name (9,55;73;102-104;107), but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect th em and it was a common name. The holdings at 9,103-104 were only about three miles apart and that at 9,73 was about seven miles from the former.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFSTAN . On this name, see 9,31 Wulfstan note. There are only two occurrences of this name in D omesday Nottinghamshire, both predecessors of Roger of Bully (see also 9,31); a Wulfstan was also his predecessor in YKS 10W27. However, the estates are not close to each other, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holders and Wulfstan was a common name.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FULCO [* OF LISORS *], ROGER'S MAN. On this identification and on the name Fulco, see 9,18 Fulco note. Fulco of Lisors gave land in Harworth to Blyth Priory, the foundation of his overlord, Roger of Bully, in the late elevent h or early twelfth century: the }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 333 pp. 214-15); see 9,49 Blyth note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,56\tab MARTIN. This was a settlement in Harworth Ancient Parish; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 80. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. The grid reference is to Martin Hall Cottages (SK636941) which are where Martin itself is located on the first series Ordnance Survey map (sheet 82 of 1830; reprinted as sheet 28 in 1970). Martin Grange is at SK643942.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Fulco of Lisors gave land in Martin to Blyth Priory, the foundation of his overlord, Roger of Bully, in the late eleventh or early twelfth century: the }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 333 pp. 214-15); see 9,49 Blyth note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,57\tab 3M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab STYRRUP. This was a township of Blyth Ancient Parish. Like Blyth itself (9,49) it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Fulco of Lisors gave land in Styrrup, to Blyth Priory, the foundation of his overlord, Roger of Bully, in the late eleventh or early twelfth century: the }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 333 pp. 214-15); see 9,49 Blyth note. He presumably acquired it after 1086.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In the manuscript there are three ink blots on and round the }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 A}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 of the place-name }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 ESTIRAPE}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , partially obscuring this letter; they are clearly visible on the Alecto facsimile, but not on the Ordnance Survey facsimile.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LEOFING. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leuing}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leuinc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Liuing}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Louincus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc.}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leofing, Lyfing}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 312. The Alecto edition has Lyfing here.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab There are only two occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire, the other being a pre decessor of Ilbert of Lacy (20,6), but the estates are not close to each other, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holders and Leofing was a common name.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORKIL. On this name, see 9,15 Thorkil note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LEOFRIC. On this name , see 7,1 Leofric note. A man called Leofric was also Roger of Bully's predecessor in Fenton (9,112), but that is about 13 miles from Syrrup, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holders and Leofric was a common name.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BERNARD, ROGER'S MAN. The Domesday forms of this name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Bernard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], represents Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Berenard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Bernard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Bernart}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : Forssner, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 46. The Alecto edition also has Bernard. \par \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WITH \'bd CARUCATE OF THIS LAND. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined this detail; compare the similar interlineation in 9,65.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,58\tab THERE ALSO ^[STYRRUP]^. See 9,57 Styrrup note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,59\tab KELHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 11,19. 15,3. 18,4. 30,45.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORKIL. On this name, see 9,15 Thorkil note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODRIC. See 9,26 Godric note, and on this name, see 2,10 Godric note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE. Further third parts of a bovate in Kelham are recorded in 11,19 and 15,3 and 2 parts of 1 bovate in 30,45, but Kelham's total is still an unsatis factory 25 and two-thirds bovates.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab TUROLD, ROGER'S MAN. Two different Turolds, Turold of Qui\'e8vrecourt and Turold brother of Fulco of Lisors, witnessed Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth; see the }{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); and 9,49 Blyth note. The Turold of 9,50 can be identified with }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turold of Qui\'e8 vrecourt (9,50 Turold note), but the identity of the other Turolds (9,10;46;59;70) is uncertain, although those of 9,46;70 mi ght be Fulco's brother (see 9,46 Turold note and 9,70 men note). For further discussion of this, including on the name Turold, see 9,10 Turold note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 16 FURLONGS LONG AND 74 VIRGATES WIDE. On this linear virgate, see 1,34 virgates note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,60\tab HOCKERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,17. 11,8.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFSI. On this name, see 9,36 Wulfsi note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORKIL. On this name, see 9,15 Thorkil note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 4 FURLONGS AND 4 VIRGATES WIDE. The virgate is here used as a linear measure; see 1,34 virgates note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,61\tab CARLTON[-ON-TRENT]. This was a chapelry of Norwell Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other references to this place, see 1,24. 2,5. 12,10;23. 30,2.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The position of this entry for Carlton-on-Trent in the text suggests a connection with Hockerton, of which it was possibly a Jurisdiction. However, the text provides no other evidence that this is so, and it may be that the only connection between H ockerton and this part of Carlton-on-Trent is that they were both put in Roger's fief from a schedule of places in 'Lythe' Wapentake. Other parts of Carlton-on-Trent are Jurisdictions of Grimston (1,17), of Mansfield (1,23), apparently of Sutton-on-Trent (2,5), of Laxton (12,1), and of Shelford (12,19). Many of these places are as far from Carlton-on-Trent as Hockerton, or further, and it may be that in origin these links are}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to a particular resource, perhaps meadow beside the salty and tidal River Trent.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,62\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GRASSTHORPE. This was a township of Marnham Ancient Parish. Like High Marnham and Low Marnham themselves (9,64-65) it probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab DUNNING. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Dunning}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Dunninc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Donning}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Dunniht}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Donninc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old English }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Dunning}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 228. The Alecto edition has Dunning. \par \tab \tab A man called Dunning was one of Roger of Bully's predecessors in Ecclesfield in Yorkshire (YKS 10W16), but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them, nor the thane Dunning who had held 'Eastern' Chilwell in Nottin ghamshire (30,52), which is about 25 miles from Grassthorpe.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GRIM. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Grim}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Grimus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Grimmus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Grim}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Grimr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 276. The printed Phill imore edition for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire have the Old Norse form; this has now been standardized as Grim. The Alecto edition has Grim. \par \tab \tab Roger of Bully had three predecessors called Grim (9,62;70;112). Grassthorpe (SK7967) is adjacent to Weston (9,70: SK7767) and Fenton (9,112: SK 7983) is about ten miles away, but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holders. The only other holding of a man called Grim in this county is at Watnall (10,45: SK 5045), but that is over 25 mil es from Grassthorpe and Weston.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE FOURTH PART. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iiii. part'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 should probably be extended to }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iiii. partem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('fourth part'), despite the omission of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 tam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (the last three letters of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 quartam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 'fourth') interlined above the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iiii}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , as also in the assessment of the adjacent estate at Marnham (9,64). The alternative, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iiii partes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('4 parts'), is less likely.}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 On the ambiguity of this phrase and its clarification by both the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday and scribe B, see 4,7 part note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ROGER [* OF LOUVETOT *], ROGER'S MAN. On this identification, see 9,3 Roger note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,63\tab SUTTON[-ON-TRENT]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 2,4. 9,67. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This place was presumably a Jurisdiction of Grassthorpe (9,61).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,64\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MARNHAM. High Mar nham and Low Marnham were settlements in Marnham Ancient Parish. Marnham probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Domesday disti nguishes 'Marnham' from 'another Marnham' (9,65), but it seems impossible to say which 1086 estate corresponds to the two modern settlements, although }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 263, has them as High Marnham and Low Marnham respectively}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 9,65 another note. Roger of Bully certainly held two places called Marnham because in 1302-1303 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 94) }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 North Marnham}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Suth Marnham}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (corresponding respectively to High Marnham and Low Marnham) were both held from the honour of Tickhill.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AELFRIC. On this name, see 5,6 Aelfric note. Roger of Bully was also preceded by an Aelfric in Serlby (9,52), but that is 12 miles from Marnham, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holders and Aelfric was a very common name.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab DENE . }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Dane}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Dene}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Dena}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Dene}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 223. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Dena and Dene; these have now been standardized as Dene. The Alecto edition has Dene. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab THE FOURTH PART. On the ambiguity of the Latin }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 iiii. part'}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , see 9,62 part note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab FULCO }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [* OF LISORS *]}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , ROGER'S MAN. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On this identification and on the name Fulco, see 9,18 Fulco note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The manuscript has }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Fulo }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 for }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Fulco }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 (JRM).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,65\tab IN ANOTHER MARNHAM. High Marnham and Low Marnham were settlements in Marnham Ancient Parish. Marnham probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334} {\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 The Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 alia}{\insrsid6823374 ('another') tends to be used as a scribal d evice in lists, where it draws attention to a second estate of the same name. It does not, in itself, suggest the existence of two separate vills, or settlements or villages. It simply means that there were two separate estates in the vill of Marnham in 1 086, both with the same name. They are distinguished as they had separate }{\i\insrsid6823374 T.R.E}{\insrsid6823374 . holders, and they probably represent a stage in the dissolution of a single estate called Marnham. The }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday}{\insrsid6823374 would have meant the same if he had simply put }{\i\insrsid6823374 ibidem}{\insrsid6823374 ('there also') or }{\i\insrsid6823374 in eadem villa}{ \insrsid6823374 ('in the same village'). It is therefore unnecessary and perhaps anachronistic for the purposes of translation to distinguish one estate from the other since the exact identification of the estates is not known a nd it is uncertain which is which, if in fact both existed in 1086 and there was a direct relationship between the 1086 estates and the later villages. The first distinction between them was in 1227 when }{\i\insrsid6823374 Suth Marnham}{\insrsid6823374 is recorded: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 190. There is a fishery recorded on the present estate, but both High Marnham and Low Marnham have the River Trent as their eastern boundary. }{\insrsid6823374 On this use of 'another', see Thorn, 'Manorial Affixes'. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Certain tithes here were confirmed on Blyth Priory by its founder, Roger of Bully, in 1088: the }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); see 9,49 Blyth note. They were probably from this Marnham which Roger held in lordship in 1086 rather than from that of 9,64 subinfeudated to Fulco [* of Lisors *].}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFSI. On this name, see 9,36 Wulfsi note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WITH 40 ACRES OF LAND. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined this detail; compare the similar interlineation in 9,57.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 MILL, 4s; 1 FISHERY; MEADOW, 24 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\f720\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 piscari\'e2}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 are accusative as may be }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 molin'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 1,1 fishery note and 5,9 mill note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,66\tab SKEGBY. This is one of two different places called Skegby in Domesday Nottinghamshire (for the other one, see 1,23). It was a settlement in Marnham Ancient Parish. Like Marnham itself (9,64-65), it probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab ALWOLD. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On this name, see 9,17 Alwold note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab ULFKIL. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,67\tab JURISDICTION. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Soca}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is probably short for}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Soca huius manerii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('jurisdiction of this manor') as in 9,46. It couples Sutton-on-Trent and Normanton-on-Trent (9,67-68) with the manor of Skegby (9,66).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SUTTON[-ON-TRENT]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 2,4. 9,63.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,68\tab NO RMANTON[-ON-TRENT]. This is one of several places called Normanton in Nottinghamshire, two of which were later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe. This is the Normanton that is coupled with Ossington (15,1), Weston (9,70), Sutton-on-Trent ( 9,63;67) and Grassthorpe (9,62) in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106, and which probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086. It was an Ancient Parish. For other parts, see 6,14. 9,69.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,69\tab 5M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NORMANTON[-ON-TRENT]. See 9,68 Normanton note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IUSTEN . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Justan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Justen}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Justan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Justin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Iusten}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Iosteinn}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 301. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Justa n, Justin and Josteinn; these have now been standardized as Iusten. The Alecto edition has Iusten.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab There are only a handful of occurrences of this name in Domesday Book, so it is likely that the two predecessors of Roger of Bully were the same individual (9,69;101), though East Bridgford (9,101) is about 16 miles from Normanton-on-Trent.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \{\{}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ASLAK\}\}. DURAND . Scribe B interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Durand.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aseloc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , written by the main scribe of Great Domesday, and then underlined that name for deletion. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aseloc}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 already appears on the next line as the name of another of the five thanes. For Scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, see 1,12 bovates note. The Penguin edition of the Alecto translation does not indicate that the name is deleted; for its other failings of this nature in Nottinghamshire, see 1,16 bovates note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday form of this replacement name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Durand}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), represents Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Durand}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 229. The Alecto editio n has Durand. The only other occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire is that of the tenant-in-chief Durand Malet (NTT 26).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALWARD . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aluuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Eluuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aeluuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aluuart}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aluard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Awart}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - could represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6lfweard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6thelweard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , or even Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Halwarth}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 155-57, under }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Al-weard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , and see also p. 142, under }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Al-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . JRM }{ \insrsid6823374 followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -ward for Old English }{\i\insrsid6823374 -weard}{\insrsid6823374 , as it reflected the majority of the Domesday spellings. }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Alward, Alfward, occasionally Aethelwear d, and in Yorkshire Alweard; these have now been standardized as Alward. The Alecto edition has Alweard for those appearing under }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Al-weard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . Some of those called Alward in the present edition appear under Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6lfweard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 181, but only because the forms in the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Liber Exoniensis}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 suggest this, or because of other evidence. Some also appear under Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6thelweard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 188-89, as they do in the Alecto edition, but their Domesday forms lack the medial \-} {\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -d-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -g-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 that JRM thought necessary for inclusion under that form. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFMER. On other possible holdings of Wulfmer in Nottinghamshire and on his name, see 2,9 Wulfmer note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ASLAK . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aslac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aseloc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aslacus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Haslec}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Anslec}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Danish }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aslak}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aslakr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , though the form }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aseloc }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 here, if not an error for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aselac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , might represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aslogh}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 168. The printed Phillimore edition for Lincolnshire has the Old Norse form; this has now been standardized as Aslak. The Alecto edition has Asla k. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab EACH HAD HIS HALL.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 This emphasises that there were five manors here in 1066, already recorded by the marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VM'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 9,20 hall note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE FIFTH PART. On the ambiguity of the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 v. part'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , see 9,62 part note and 4,7 part note. Here, in view of there being five holders in 1066, it is very unlikely that it abbreviates }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 v. partes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('5 parts'). The combined lands would have totalled 6 bovates.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ROGER [* OF LOUVETOT *], ROGER'S MAN. William of Louvetot, the great nephew of Roger, gave the church of Normanton-on-Trent to Worksop Priory; see 9,3 Roger note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 12 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,70\tab 6M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WESTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab ALMER. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Almar}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 us}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ), }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Almer}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 us}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Elmer}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 us}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Elmar}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 us}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Aelmar}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 us}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ),}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Aelmer}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 us}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , Aelmaer}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 us}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ),}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Almaer}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 us}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ),}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Elmaer}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 us}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 - could represent either Old English }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \'c6lfm}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'e6}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 r}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 or Old English }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \'c6thelm}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'e6}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 r}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 : }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 p. 147-48, under }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Al-m}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'e6}{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 r}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , and see also p. 142, under }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Al-}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -mer for Old English }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 -m}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'e6}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 r\-}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 as more of the Domesday forms had }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 -mer}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 than }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 -maer}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Alecto edition has Almaer for those listed in von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 147-48, under }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Al-m\'e6r}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . However, a number of names rendered in the present edition as Almer (generally because under }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Al-m\'e6r}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in von Feilitzen) a ppear in the Phillimore printed translations as Aelmer, whereas JRM apparently intended to reserve that name for those Domesday forms beginning }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aeil-}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ail-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Eil-}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ai-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , which represent Old English }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6thelm\'e6r}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . Some also appear under Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6thelm\'e6r}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 184-85, but their forms lack the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -d-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -g}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - that JRM regarded as a prerequisite for inclusion under Aethelmer.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab There are only two occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottingham shire (the other is in 10,46, a distant holding), but no evidence has so far been found to connect them and Almer was a very common name-form which could represent two Old English names.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALWY. On this name, see 9,5 Alwy note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab OSBERN. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Roger of Bully was p receded on three estates by a man called Osbern (9,39;70;119), but they are all about 13 miles apart, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holders and Osbern was a common name, on which see 2,2 Osbern note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab GRIM. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On this name, see 9,62 Grim note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab EDRIC . }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Edric}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aedricus}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Edericus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Eadricus}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Headricus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc. - represent Old English }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Eadric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 233-36. JRM preferred the first element}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ed- for Old English }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ead-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , as the vast majority of Domesday forms have }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ed-}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . In the Phillimore printed translations of LIN and YKS, however, the form Eadric was used; it has now been standardized as Edric. The Alecto edition has Eadric, except for SFK 6,203 (where it has Edric, perhaps an error).}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 This is the only occurrence of this name in}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 This tiny holding was probably the only possession of this man. There was only one other Edric within 100 miles and his modest property had no apparent connections with Weston (JP).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab STENULF . }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Steinulf}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Stainulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Stenulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Stemulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (an error for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Steinulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) - represent Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Steinolfr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Swedish }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Stenulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 373-74. JRM preferred the Old Swedish form as it is closer to the Domesday forms. In s ome Phillimore printed translations, however, the forms Steinulf and Steinulfr appear; they have here been standardized as Stenulf. The Alecto edition has Stenulf.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Domesday Nottinghamshire, but a Stenulf was Ro ger of Bully's predecessor in Rowthorne in Derbyshire (DBY 16,8) and, according to JP (DBY 5,1 Stenulf note), he may be the same as the Stenulf who was Roger of Poitou's predecessor in that county, one of whose holdings was Sutton Scarsdale.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab EACH HAD HIS HALL.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 This emphasises that there were six manors here in 1066, already recorded by the marginal }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VIM'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 9,20 hall note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \{\{}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 AND EACH 1 BOVATE OF LAND}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \}\}}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . BETWEEN THEM [THEY HAD] 6 \'bd BOVATES. Scribe B interlined }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Int' om's .vi. bouatas.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 above the phrase }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 7 un}{\i\f720\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 'q'sq' .i. b\'f4 t're}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , written by the }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday (and similar to the one in 9,69). He then underlined for deletion that phrase, probably because he did not know which of the 6 thanes had or shared the half-bovate. JRM thought that the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 dim'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 on the next line should also have been deleted, but if the total assessment was 6 bovates and there were 6 thanes, then there would have been no need to delete the previous phrase or interline the replacement. Farley misprinted }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 bouatis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , the dative or ablative plural case, which is meaningless in this sentence, and he printed a lower-case }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 i}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and a separate vertical: scribe B had extended the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 I}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 downwards to form an insertion mark. For other of Farley's rare mistakes, see 9,31 Drayton note. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Penguin edition of the Alecto translation does not indicate the deletion of these words; for its other failings of this nature in Nottinghamshire, see 1,16 bovates note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FULCO [* OF LISORS *], ROBERT [* THE BURSAR *] AND TUROLD, ROGER'S MEN. Fulco is probably Fulco of Lisors, as in other occurrences in this chapter; on this and on the name Fulco, see 9,18 Fulco note. On the name Robert, see 2,3 Robert note, and on his possible identification with Robert the bursar (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 dispensator}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) who witnessed Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth, see the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); and 9,2 Robert note and 9,49 Blyth note. }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Two different Turolds, Turold of Qui\'e8vrecourt and Turold brother of Fulco of Lisors, also witnessed this charter; see the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209, and p. xxv). The Turold of 9,50 can be identified with }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turold of Qui\'e8vre court (9,50 Turold note), but the identity of the other Turolds (9,10;46;59;70) is uncertain, although the mention of Fulco here makes it probable that this Turold was his brother, as was probably the Turold in 9,46 (9,46 Turold note). For further discuss ion of this, including on the name Turold, see 9,10 Turold note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,71\tab ALSO JURISDICTION THERE. That is, of Weston (9,70). Both places seem to have lain in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab "ODESTORP". On the form of this name, see 1,12 "Odestorp" note. This place does not appear to be attested after 1086; the name-form used in the Phillimore printed edition ('Odsthorpe') is misleading in this respect. Its wapentake is uncertain but it most probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake; see 1,12 "Odestorp" note. For other parts, see 1,12. 9,42. 30,12.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [WEST] RETFORD. East and West Retford were adjacent Ancient Parishes. They probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as they did later. For West Retford, see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. East Retford was a borough in the Middle Ages: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 103; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 5,8. 9,42.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE FOURTH PART OF 1 MILL. More of this mill (a h alf) is probably to be found at another part of "Odestorp" (30,12) which suggests that the site was there rather than at West Retford. The final quarter is not to be found in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,72\tab GEDLING. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 12,16-17.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab DUNSTAN . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Dunstan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Dunestan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Dunstan}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 228-29. The Alecto edition has Dunstan. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire. \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Dunstan is an uncommon name, occurring on 17 holdings and probably representing between four and five individuals. There are only three Dunstans between Somerset and Yorkshire. They lay on either side of the border between Derbyshire (DBY 9,2: Etwall). 11,4: Hallam) and Nottinghamshire, each about 1 5 miles from its neighbour. Although there are no tenurial or other links between them, their relative proximity and isolation from other Dunstans makes it possible that the three holdings had belonged to one individual (JP).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE THIRD PART. On the ambiguity of the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. part'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , see 9,62 part note and 4,7 part note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 10 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,73\tab EPPERSTONE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 9,72) as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For another part, see 14,5.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WOODBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,18-19. 14,5. 30,6;9-10.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFGEAT. On this name, see 6,8 Wulfgeat note, and compare 9,55 Wulfgeat note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 12 OXEN. That is, for 1\'bd ploughs; see 1,6 ox note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 3 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , accusative, here in error; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,74\tab GUNTHORPE. This was a township of Lowdham Ancient Parish. Like Lowdham itself, it probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Certain tithes here were confirmed on Blyth Priory by its founder, Roger of Bully, in 1088; the }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); see 9,49 Blyth note.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab MORCAR. It is not certain whether this is Morcar, Earl of Northumbria; see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. pp. 223-24. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On the n ame Morcar and the earl, see 1,58 Morcar note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 Earl Morcar was the brother of Earl Edwin, son of Earl Algar and grandson of Earl Leofric and Countess Godiva. Although the name Morcar occurs over 150 times in Domesday Book, it probably represents only eig ht individuals, which makes the task of identifying the earl where his title has been omitted easier than it is for his brother (Earl Edwin). As no other Morcar is recorded as a lord of men, the Morcar of BUK 12,31 is likely to have been the earl even tho u gh the holding is close to those of Morcar . The Morcar holdings in Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire all devolved upon Roger of Bully which makes it probable that they had been held by one individual, almost certainly the earl in view of the value (\'a3 15) of the handsome manor of Gunthorpe (9,74), one of the half-dozen most valuable manors in the county, and barely 10 miles from the earl's manor of 'Newbold' (1,58). In Yorkshire, there can scarcely be any doubt that the Morcar who ha d held the royal manors, or those (whose values suggest most had been royal) which devolved upon Drogo of la Beuvri\'e8 re, or the Bishop of Durham. Probably, though less certainly, the large manors acquired by Count Alan of Brittany had also been held by the earl. Apart from the holdings held by Morcar , the remaining Yorkshire properties were all connected to one or more of these holdings attributed to the earl. In Lincolnshire as in Yorkshire, Earl Morcar was evidently the predecessor of Drogo o f la Beuvri\'e8re (LIN 30), several of whose manors cluster around Skillington (2,37) and Sempringham (27,57) to which they had been connected in the past, making it likely that the Morcar on those holdings and others in the same fiefs was the earl: }{ \i\insrsid6823374 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid6823374 , edited by Dorothy Whitelock, no. 39, pp. 95-97, 207-12. The remaining Lincolnshire holdings (LIN 56,9-10) were close to his manors of Bassingham (LIN 30,27) and Carlton (LIN 1,26), and substantial enough to please an earl. See also Clarke, }{ \i\insrsid6823374 English Nobility}{\insrsid6823374 , pp. 215-217, whose list omits the dependencies of manors and BUK 12,31. 23,2. CHS 2,21. YKS 6W2;5-6. 6N162. (6E1) (JP).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab A TOLL AND A BOAT. Gunthorpe is on the River Trent, opposite East Bridgford, already called }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Brugeford}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 in Domesday,}{\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 where the bridge may have marked the limit of navigation for sea-going vessels (JRM).}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Phillimore printed translation has 'tolls' in error; it also has 'ship'. Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 nauis}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 does not distinguish 'boat' from 'ship'. It is conceivable, however, that the }{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 nauis}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 here is a ferry, or a fishing-boat, rather than a 'sea-going vessel'. The Alecto edition has '[ferry] boat'.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab It is not certain if the toll and the boat are connected. The toll may have been imposed on the ferry or for travelling along the river or for using the bridge from East Bridgford. However, it is possibly a wider right to toll over this corner of Nottinghamshire, in which case it might be that given by Roger to his foundation of Blyth Priory; see 9,49 Blyth note; }{\insrsid6823374 Roffe, \lquote Introduction', }{\i\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 21.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 FISHERIES. These were evidently on the River Trent.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab EXACTIONS. These were paid to the lord. }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Tailla }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 in Domesday, unlike the later }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 tallagium}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 is normally confined}{\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 to larger manors with }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 sochemanni }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ['Freemen'],}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 especially in north-east Mercia. The word is regularly}{ \insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 explained as }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 exactio}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ;}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 see the texts cited in Du Cange, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Glossarium}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 under }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 tallia }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 8 (JRM). This is the only occurrence of the word in Nottinghamshire, though it is frequent in Lincolnshire; see}{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire }{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 242. }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 The Alecto edition has 'tallage' for }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 tailla}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 .}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,75\tab BURTON [JOYCE]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For another part, see 12,18.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LOWDHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Certain tithes here were confirmed on Blyth Priory by its founder, Roger of Bully, in 1088; the }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); see 9,49 Blyth note.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION OF GUNTHORPE. That is, of Roger of Bully's manor (9,74).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,76\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OXTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,11. 11,11.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORSTEN. On this name, see 9,19 Thorsten note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OTHENKAR [* SON OF ALNOTH *]. On his possible identification and the form of his name, see 9,1 Othenkar note and 3,2 Normanton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 MILL. The case of the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 i. molin'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is unclear, but has been assumed to be accusative; see 1 ,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,77\tab STANFORD[-ON-SOAR]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For another part, see 28,1.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALSI. On his name, see S5 Alsi note; see also 9,2 Alsi note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \'bd MILL. There is no sign of the rest of the mill in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,78\tab NORMANTON[-ON-SOAR]. This is one of several places called Normanton in Nottinghamshire. Normanton-on-Soar was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 (o ne of the estates being below a Rushcliffe wapentake head at 30,14) as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 3,2. 4,1. 30,14;16. \par \tab \tab For the possible grant of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday see 3,2 Normanton note. \par \tab \tab The identification of this Normanton is confirmed by }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109, where }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Normanton super Sor }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in Rushcliffe Wapentake is held by T[homas] Earl of Lancaster.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION. That is, presumably of Stanford-on-Soar (9,77).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,79\tab THRUMPTON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Ratcliffe-on-Soar. Like Ratcliffe-on-Soar itself (30,20) it probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,4. 23,2.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LEOFWIN. On this name, see S5 Leofwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALNOTH. On this name, see 5,11 Alnoth note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,80\tab HOLME [PIERREPONT]. This was an Ancient Parish. The position of this estate in Domesday suggests that it was in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086, though it later lay in Bingham Wapentake: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For the difficulty of allocating this a nd adjacent estates to the correct 1086 wapentake, see 10,12 Adbolton note. The Phillimore printed edition places it in Rushcliffe Wapentake.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORTH. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Toret}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Tored}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Tord}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Tort}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Toreth}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thoret}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thored}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thorth}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thorthr}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 396-97. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Thored and Thorthr; these have now been standardized as Thorth. The Alecto edition has Thorth. \par \tab \tab A Thorth was a predecessor of Ralph of Lim\'e9sy in Hawton (14,1), but that place is distant from Holme Pierrepoint and no evidence has so far been found to connect the two men.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 MILL ... MEADOW, 80 ACRES. 1 MILL. The cases of the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .i. molin'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 are unclear, but might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,81\tab THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the foot margin of folio 286b; rubricated transposition signs link it to the manor of Holme Pierrepont written in the adjacent co lumn (9,81). He used a different design for them, to distinguish them from the other set on this page (for the addition of Thorpe[-in-the-Glebe], 9,91); compare 9,21 entry note. This entry was probably written in the same campaign as the other rubricated added entries in Nottinghamshire, but certainly as the entry for Thorpe[-in-the-Glebe]; see 1,31 entry note. However, it must have been written after that entry or the scribe would have put it at the foot of folio 286a closer to where it belonged.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BASSINGF IELD. This was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of Holme Pierrepont. Holme Pierrepont itself (9,80) was probably in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 9,77) though it was later in Bingham Wapentake; see 9,80 Holme note. Bassingfield both here and at 1 0,13 could have been in either wapentake, though it was later in Bingham Wapentake: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. As a Jurisdiction of Holme Pierrepont, it was not necessarily in the same wapentake as its parent manor, though thi s seems probable. For the difficulty of allocating this and adjacent estates to the correct 1086 wapentake, see 10,12 Adbolton note. The Phillimore printed edition places it in Rushcliffe Wapentake.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 PARTS OF 1 BOVATE. For the other third of this bovate, see 10,13.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION OF HOLME PIERREPONT. That is, of Roger of Bully's manor (9,80). On the use of Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 de}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('of'), see 9,7 jurisdiction note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 15 ACRES. }{\insrsid6823374 The case of the Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\insrsid6823374 is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,82\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab PLUMTREE. This was an Ancient Parish. In later times it was divided between the wapentakes of Rushcliffe and Bingham. In Bingham Wapentake were the townships of Plumtree itself and Clipston; in Rushciffe Wapentake was Normanton-on-the-Wolds: Youngs, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 366. However, Plumtree is placed in Rushcliffe Wapentake in }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230, and the order of Domesday suggests that it was similarly in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFHEAH . }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlfac}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlfah}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlfeg}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlfech}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlfag}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wlfah}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlfeih}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlfegh}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wulfheah}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 420-21. The Alecto edition has Wulfheah. On the form }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vnfac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in 9,84 probably being a scribal error for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlfac}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , see 9,84 Wulfheah note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Roger of Bully had three predecessors named Wulfheah here (9,82;84;112; these are the only occurrences in Domesday Nottinghamshire) and five in Yorkshire (10W11-14;16). It is possible that the Wulfheahs in Nottinghamshire were the same individual: Normanton-on-the-Wolds (9,84) is adjacent to Plumtree here, though Fenton (9,112) is about 13 miles away. There is nothing, however, to suggest that he is the same as any of the Wulf heahs in Yorkshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab GODRIC. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 See 9,26 Godric note, and on this name, see 2,10 Godric note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab HAD. }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 h'b' }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 for normal plural }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 h'b'r' }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (JRM).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab [***]. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday may deliberately have left the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 space for four or five letters after }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Godric}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , though it is hard to see what was missing here, or he may just have wanted to avoid writing too close to the overrun from the previous entry.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab WITH. Either a word is missing, or }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 de }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 is superfluous (JRM). The Alecto edition has 'had on [}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 sic}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ]'.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 12 BOVATES OF LAND. On this assessment's link with Normanton-on-the-Wolds, see 9,84 Normanton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,83\tab ALSO A JURISDICTION THERE. That is, Ruddington is a Jurisdiction of Plumtree (9,82).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab RUDDINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 1109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 2,6. 17,15. 25,2.} {\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 33 ACRES. }{\insrsid6823374 The case of the Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\insrsid6823374 is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,84\tab NORMANTON[-ON-THE-W OLDS]. This was a township of Plumtree Ancient Parish. In later times, Plumtree Ancient Parish was divided between the wapentakes of Rushcliffe and Bingham. In Bingham Wapentake were the townships of Plumtree itself and Clipston; in Rushciffe Wapentake wa s Normanton-on-the-Wolds: Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 366. In 1086, however, Plumtree appears to have been in Rushcliffe Wapentake (see 9,82 Plumtree note). Normanton-on-the-Wolds is similarly in the same run of Domesday places in Rushcliffe Wapentake and was listed in that wapentake in }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,85. 10,10.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab There are several places called Normanton in Nottinghamshire and two of them (Normanton-on-the-Wolds and Normanton-on-Soar) lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake. Apart from other details the identification of the present Normanton is reinforced by its assessment. The 6 bovates here plus the 4 \'bd bovates at 9,85 and the 1 \'bd bovates of 10,10 make 1\'bd carucates which together with the 12 bovates of Plumtree (9,82) make a three-carucate unit; see \{Introduction: Carucation\}. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In the manuscript an ink-blot above the marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 has a darker rim; in the Alecto facsimile it appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 with an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 o}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above it. The Ordnance Survey facsimile does not reproduce this blot at all. On other unusual reproductions in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFHEAH . The Domesday form }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Vnfac}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 understood as Old Swedish }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Ofegh }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 in }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 von Feilitzen, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 p. 334. A misspelling of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Vlfac}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (9,82), comparable with }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Vnlof }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 for }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Vlnot }{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (10,24) is more probable (JRM). }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Alecto edition has Ufagr, which is the Old Danish runic form.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 See 9,82 Wulfheah note. See also Fellows Jensen, 'Domesday Tenants in Lincolnshire', }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Nomina}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (1985), p. 35. Wulfheah is more likely because he was Roger's predecessor in the adjacent manor of Plumtree (9,82) and also in 9,112 (see 9,82 Wulfheah note) and an outlier of Normanton (9,85) 'lay in' Plumtree.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,85\tab THERE ALSO ^[NORMANTON[-ON-THE WOLDS]]^. See 9,84 Normanton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IT LIES IN [THE LANDS OF] PLUMTREE. That is, in Roger of Bully's manor (9,82). There seems to be no real distinction between this and the statement in 9,86 that Stanton-on-the-Wolds 'belongs to Plumtree'. }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 The Alecto edition has 'It belongs to'.\tab }{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,86\tab THE MAIN SCRIBE of Great Domesday probably decided to write the details of two dependencies of Plumtree (9,86-87) after including another one that lay in Normanton-on-the-Wolds, the manor he had just described (9,84), though he should really have put them next to the manor of Plumtree (9,82) and its Jurisdiction in Ruddington (9.83).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab STANTON[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 4,5-6. 10,10. At 28,2 Stanton-on-the-Wolds has been deleted and Leake substituted for it.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 5 OXEN IN A PLOUGH. The remaining 3 oxen needed to make a team of eight were probably from the adjacent estate at Widmerpool (30,48).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IT BELONGS TO PLUMTREE. That is, to Roger of Bully's manor (9,82).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,87\tab KEYWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other p arts, see 4,7. 9,88. 10,10. 13,7. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the first letter of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Cauorde}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 over the erasure of probably two letters.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IT BELONGS TO PLUMTREE. That is, to Roger of Bully's manor (9,82).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,88\tab 3M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab KEYWORTH. See 9,87 Keyworth note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HAROLD . On this name, see 3,1 Harold note. \par \tab \tab }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 No Harold other than the earl held anywhere near Keyworth in 1066, and the status of this holding makes it improbable that this is Earl Harold. This was probably the sole holding of this Harold (JP).}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab RICHARD. On the name Richard, see B16 Richard note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FRANI. On this name, see 4,6 Frani note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 PARTS OF 1 BOVATE. These 'parts' were almost certainly thirds as the third part of 1 bovate in Keyworth is recorded in 4,7.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 4 FREEMEN. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of Freemen from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .i.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .iiii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , perhaps at an early stage as the pen and colour of ink are the same as for the adjacent text.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,89\tab LEAKE. East Leake (SK5526) and West Leake (SK5226) were adjacent Ancient Parishes. They probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as they did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 4,4. 24,1. 28,2. \par \tab \tab Roger of Bully's holding can probably be identified as East Leake because it is held as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Esterleyk}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109, by T[homas], Earl of Lancaster. However, the matter is complicated by the fact that the lands of both Roger of Bully and of Henry of Fer rers were in the hands of the honour of Lancaster in the fourteenth century. Henry of Ferrers held both a manor and an outlier called Leake (24,1), possibly separate places. West Leake was certainly a Ferrers holding as it was later part of the honour of Tutbury. East Leake is later found divided into several portions which probably represent the situation in 1086, where the Count of Mortain, Roger of Bully, Henry of Ferrers and Robert son of William had an interest in Leake; see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 103; and 24,1 Leake note}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODRIC. See 9,26 Godric note, and on this name, see 2,10 Godric note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ARNULF, ROGER'S MAN. He only occurs in Domesday Nottinghamshire as a tenant of Roger of Bully. Nothing is known about him unless he is the same man (though the names are different ones; see below) as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ernoldus de Buulli}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('of Bully', perhaps a relative) who witnessed Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth; see the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 192 (who calls him Roger's brother);}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 and 9,49 Blyth note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of this 1086 holder - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ernulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Arnulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hernulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) - represent the very common Old German name }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Arnulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , } {\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Arnolf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc: Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 35-36. The forms }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Arnoulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Arnulf}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) are recorded in Dauzat, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Dictionnaire des Noms et Pr \'e9noms de France}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , under }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Arnou}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . The printed Phillimore edition has Ernulf here, while YKS 9W54 has Earnwulf; these have now been standardized as Arnulf. The Alecto edition has Ernulf. \par \tab \tab The form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ernoldus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of the Blyth Priory Cartulary (see above) represents Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Arnald}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Arnold}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc: Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 33-35. \par \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 The name Ernwulf occurs on nine holdings in Domesday Book, each pro bably belonging to a different individual. None of the holdings are substantial, all are distant from each other, and none shared English predecessors or Norman tenants-in-chief. Five of the holdings were pre-Conquest tenures, four post-Conquest. The tena nt of Leake has been identified as the brother of the tenant-in-chief of the holding, Roger of Bully: Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 192. This modest holding was the extent of Roger's generosity: no other Ernwulf (or Arnulf) held from him elsewhere in Domesday (JP). \par \tab \tab The foundation charter of Blyth Priory (the Blyth Priory Cartulary: Timson, }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 no. 325 pp. 207-209) }{\insrsid6823374 does not state that }{\i\insrsid6823374 Ernoldus de Buulli}{\insrsid6823374 was Roger's brother, but in the time of Henry III Robert de Vipont in claiming the castle and vill of Tickhill stated that he was; see Timson, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary}{\insrsid6823374 , pp. xiv-xv.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 8 ACRES. }{\insrsid6823374 The Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 ac}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 ra}{\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\insrsid6823374 s}{\insrsid6823374 is accusative after 'Arnulf ... has'.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,90\tab 3M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab IN BROXTOWE WAPENTAKE. The manors in the five places named [in 9,90-94], with the exception of}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 part of Willoughby[-on-the-Wolds] (16,5 Willoughby note), are entered under Broxtowe [Wapentake] in four separate chapters,}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 although separated from it geographically by Rushcliffe [Wapentake]. Since the total assessment of}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 these Broxtowe [Wapentake] lands is a quarter of a bovate short of 12 carucates, they may have originally formed a}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 small hundred; see S1 hundreds note (JRM); }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 see also }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 265 note 1}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . There it is also pointed out that in the manors in this detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, the number of ploughlands is equal to the number of carucates, which is a characteristic of the main body of Broxtowe Wapentake, whereas in other wapentakes the average ratio of ploughlands to carucates is more than 2 to1. This bald statement disguises a considerable complexity. For example, not all the estates in Broxtowe Wapentake have the same number of ca rucates and ploughlands, whereas such equivalence is found sporadically in other wapentakes, though not in Rushcliffe Wapentake which separates the two portions of Broxtowe Wapentake. This is more fully discussed in \{Introduction: Small Hundreds\}.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The hazards of attempting to reconstruct 'small hundreds' (assumed to be of 12-carucates) are also described in \{Introduction: Small Hundreds\} . This detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake was, however, in the extreme south of the county, against the county bo undary and the names of the places within it are known. Assuming that all occurrences of the places have been correctly identified (and that the Willoughby of 24,3 is not Willoughby-on-the-Wolds; see 24,3 Willoughby note), the only other uncertainty is wh e ther any of the places were divided between wapentakes. If it can be assumed that those estates where the ratio of ploughlands to carucates is unequal lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake, then two parts of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (10,10. 16,5) lay there. Those es t ates where the carucates and ploughlands are the same are at Costock (9,94. 10,11;53. 15,5), Rempstone (9,94. 10,54. 15,6), Thorpe-in-the-Glebe (1,60), Wysall (9,90) and Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (9,92. 16,12. 30,35). These are more likely to have lain in t he detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake. Estates that lack an estimate of plough-teams are at Thorpe-in-the Glebe (9,91) and at Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (9,93. 30,26).}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14162963 \cbpat8 {\cf1\insrsid14162963 \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts48\trgaph108\trleft-108\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 \trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx2844\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx5796\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid8589712\yts48 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 Bovates and Ploughlands Equivalent\cell Bovates and Ploughlands Unequal\cell Insufficient Information\cell }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts48\trgaph108\trleft-108\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl \brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 \trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx2844\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx5796\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\row }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid8589712\yts48 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 Costock (10,11) 1}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 b}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 .}{ \fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 \par Costock (10,53) 2}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 b}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 .}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 \par Costock (15,5) 14 b}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 .}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 \par }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 Costock}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 , Rempstone (9,94) 13}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 b}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 .}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 \par Rempstone (10,54) 6}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 b}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 .}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 \par Rempstone (15,6) 6}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 b}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 .}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 \par Thorpe-in-the-Glebe (1,60) 10}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 b}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 .}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 \par Wysall (9,90) 24}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 b}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 .}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 \par Willoughby}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 * }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 (9,92) 6}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 b}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 .}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 \par Willoughby}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 * (16,12}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 )}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 5}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 b}{ \fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 .}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 \par Willoughby}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 * }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 (30,35) 3}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 b}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 .}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 \cell Willoughby}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 * }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 (10,10) 2 \'bd}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 b}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 .}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 \par Willoughby}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 * }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 (16,5) 6 \'bd}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 b}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 . + \u8532\'3f}{ \fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 b}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 .}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 \par \cell Thorpe-in-the-Glebe (9,91) 7}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 b.}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 \par Willoughby}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 * (9}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 ,93) \'bc b}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 .}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 \par Willoughby}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 * (3}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 0,26) 2 \'bd}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 b.}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 \cell }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 \trowd \irow1\irowband1\lastrow \ts48\trgaph108\trleft-108\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 \trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx2844\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx5796\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2952\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14162963 \cbpat8 { \fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963\charrsid1248081 For simplicity carucates have been converted to bovates at 8 bovates to the carucate.}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid14162963 \par * Willoughby-on-the-Wolds \par \par }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid801729 {\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab Geographically speaking, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe is trapped against the county boundary by the other estates evidenced as lying in this detachment of Broxtowe Wapentake. It could not have had a portion in Rushcliffe Wapentake unless that was itself a detachment. If one includes in the detachment of Broxtowe Wapentake all the estates where carucates and ploughlands are equal plus the lands where there is no indication of the ratio of carucates to ploughlands, there is a grand total of 99\'be bovates. However, by deducting two of the estates where there is no indication as to whether the carucates and ploughlands are equal or unequal, \'bc bovate and 2\'bd bovates at Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (9,93. 30,26), and in the case of 30,26, there are other possible grounds for thinking that it lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake (see 30,26 Willoughby note), then the total is 97 bovates, that is 1 bovate in excess of 12 carucates at 8 bovates to the carucate. There is a danger here that sums will dictate interpretation. Thu s the ideal total of 96 bovates could be obtained by assuming that the 1 bovate of Costock (10,11) lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake, but that would mean undermining or abandoning the notion that estates where ploughlands and carucates are equal lay in Broxtowe Wapentake. The \'bc bovate at Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (9,93) lies among a group of places that are under a Broxtowe wapentake head (9,90-94), but the entry is added and may have been put near an occurrence of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds without attention being pai d to the wapentake in which it lay. It could therefore have been in Rushcliffe Wapentake. Ostensibly, the same argument could apply to another added entry in the same group, for Thorpe-in-the-Glebe (9,91). However, it is suggested above that it would have been geographically impossible for Thorpe-in-the-Glebe to be in Rushcliffe Wapentake. If the detachment contained 97 bovates (= 12 carucates and 1 bovate), the rest of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, assumed to be in Rushcliffe Wapentake (9,93. 10,10. 16,5. 30,2 6), amounted to 11 \'be bovates plus two-thirds of a bovate. The respective figures are tantalisingly close to 96 and 12. \par \tab \tab It should be emphasised, however, that the above reconstruction of the detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake is highly speculative and rel ies only on a difference of assessment (the equivalence or unequality of carucates and ploughlands) and on the allocation of 'floating' estates to one wapentake or the other purely in order to reach a satisfactory total. Neither of these amounts to solid evidence and this discussion has only been included to examine what JRM appears to have concluded.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WYSALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It is listed under a Broxtowe wapentake head in Domesday and appears to have been one of the five places (Costock, Rempst one, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall), parts or all of which, in 1086, formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and \{Introduction: }{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \}. It was later in Rushcliffe Wapentake: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab "ESTAN" . The Domesday form, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Estan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), could represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6thelstan}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Eadstan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , according to von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 182. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Estan, Aestan and Alstan; in view of the uncertainty it has been thought better in the present edition to keep to the Domesday form. The Alecto edition has Aestan for both this spelling and for }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aestan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], except for NFK 4,22, where it has Estan. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 Apart from the Bishop of Hereford, the name }{\i\insrsid6823374 Estan}{\insrsid6823374 occurs on 15 h oldings in Domesday Book, probably representing seven or eight individuals. These three}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 }{\insrsid6823374 holdings devolved upon the same tenant-in-chief who is unlikely to had had two predecessors with the uncommon name of }{ \i\insrsid6823374 Estan}{\insrsid6823374 (JP).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALSI. On his name, see S5 Alsi note; see also 9,2 Alsi note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GLADWIN . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gladuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gladuine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gleduin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] - represent the hypothetical Old English }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gl\'e6dwine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 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 Gl \'e6dwine. \par \tab \tab The name Gladwin occurs only eight times in Domesday Book, and it is possible that Roger of Bully's predecessor here was the same person as William Peverel's predecessors (10,16;65, the only other occurrences in this county) and as one of the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holders of Sandiacre in DBY 17,15. However, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them, nor them to any of the other }{ \i\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\insrsid6823374 holders (STS 13,7. BUK 12,18. LIN 4,76) or to the single 1086 tenant (LEC 14,24).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab More than half of the Gladwin s occur within a 15-mile radius of Stapleford, Nottinghamshire. William Peverel's predecessor at Stapleford, less than a mile away, was probably the same individual as was his predecessor at Selston (10,16;65). The holding of the other Gladwin in Nottingh a mshire (9,90), which devolved upon Roger of Bully, lay at a similar distance from Stapleford as Selston, and were of comparable size and status. This, plus the comparative rarity of the name, suggests they were held by the same man. It should be noted, ho wever, that Robin Fleming's thesis on the bulk grant of some Nottinghamshire wapentakes to Peverel and Bully (see 6,7 Edric note) points to the opposite conclusion though Robin Fleming herself, in a confusing passage (}{\i\insrsid6823374 Kings and Noble}{ \insrsid6823374 s, p. 148), identifies the Nottinghamshire Gladwins as one individual (JP).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab R}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 OGER [* OF LOUVETOT *], ROGER'S MAN. William of Louvetot, the great nephew of Roger, gave the church of Wysall to Worksop Priory; see 9,3 Roger note. The church is mentioned in Domesday.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,91\tab THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday at the foot of folio 286b below the last ruled horizontal line. Rubricated transposition signs link it to the manor of Wysall, of which it was a Jurisdiction, that he had written earlier in this column (9,90 ) . It was probably written in the same campaign as the other rubricated added entries in Nottinghamshire, but almost certainly at the same time as the entry for Bassingfield (9,81); see 1,31 entry note. For an entry added immediately below it, but after th e county had been rubricated, see 9,93 entry note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IN THE KING'S THORPE. That is, Thorpe[-in-the-Glebe], held by King William (1,60), but not by King Edward in 1066. The main scribe of Great Domesday probably interlined }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Regis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Torp}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 because of the commonness of this place-name (it occurs eight times in Domesday Nottinghamshire). The king also held land in Perlethorpe (1,24;26;30), but it lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Thorpe-in-the-Glebe was an Ancient Parish, often known as Thorpe, sometimes also as T horpe Bochart. It is listed under a Broxtowe wapentake head in Domesday and appears to have been one of the five places (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which, in 1086, formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and \{Introduction: }{\insrsid6823374 Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \} . It later lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For another part, see 1,60 and for the deserted medieval village here, see 1,60 Thorpe note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WHICH BELONG TO WYSALL. That is, to Roger of Bully's manor (9,90). The next word }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Soca }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('A Jurisdiction') defines the relationship.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,92\tab WILLOUGHBY[-ON- THE-WOLDS]. This was an Ancient Parish. It appears to be included in Broxtowe Wapentake by Domesday (head at 9,90), and to have been one of the five places (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which , in 1086, formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and \{Introduction: }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \}. It was later in Rushcliffe Wapentake: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,93. 10,10. 16,5;12. 30,26;35. Of these it is possible that three parts (10,10. 16,5. 30,26) were in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 and that Willoughby-on-the-Wolds was divided unequally between the two wapentakes.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Domesday gives no subtenant but it is possible that Roger, Roger's man, who may be Roger of Louvetot, was in fact holding or acquired a subtenancy here later, because his nephew (William of Louvetot) gave the church at Willoughby-on-th e-Wolds to Worksop Priory; see 9,3 Roger note. No church is mentioned in Domesday.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OTHENKAR [* SON OF ALNOTH *]. He is possibly the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Oingar }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 son of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alnoth}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of Nottingham by whom an unidentified piece of land was given to St Cuthbert's of Durham soon after Do mesday. The location of the other lands named in the grant suggests that Willoughby-in-the-Wolds might have been the estate intended; see 3,2 Normanton note. On his name, }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 see 9,1 Othenkar note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,93\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of G reat Domesday in the foot margin of folio 286a after his addition of a rubricated entry for Thorpe-in-the-Glebe (9,91) which was a Jurisdiction of Wysall. This entry, however, does not belong to Wysall too, but possibly to the manor of Willoughby-on-the-W o lds (9,92), although the scribe failed to include transposition signs; see 9,93 Willoughby note. It was added at the same time as a holding in Tithby (11,13), also in the foot margin and whose status is similarly not recorded, and as three place-name corr ections (see 11,11 Oxton note, 17,17 Hawksworth note and 28,2 Leake note) and as an addition in 28,2 (28,2 Stanford note).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab It seems that this particular part of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds may have lain in Rushcliffe Wapentake (see 9,90 Broxtowe note), while the part at 9,92 was in Broxtowe Wapentake. The scribe may simply have placed it here because it was part of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, ignoring any difference of wapentakes.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WILLOUGHBY[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. See 9,92 Willoughby note. \par \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Do mesday did not indicate the status of this piece of land. It could be a Jurisdiction of the manor of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (9,92), or it could be an abandoned piece of land, with no holder, only included here because it was part of Willoughby. See 9,93 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,94\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab COSTOCK. This was an Ancient Parish. The estates here (9,94. 10,11;53. 15,5) appear to have been among the five places (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which in 1086 formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and \{Introduction: }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \}. It later lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,11;53. 15,5.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For the probable grant of some of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday, see 3,2 Normanton note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Fulco of Lisors also gave land in Costock to Blyth Priory, the foundation of his overlord, Roger of Bully, in the late eleventh or early twelfth century: the }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 333 pp. 214-15); see 9,49 Blyth note. He had presumably acquired it after 1086.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab REMPSTONE. This was an Ancient Parish. It appears to have been one of the five places (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which, in 1086, formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and \{Introduction: }{\insrsid6823374 Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \}. It later lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,54. 15,6.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 Repestone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 COTINGESTOCHE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . It is not clear which }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holder held which manor or whether both held both jointly.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODRIC [* SON OF FREDEGIS *]. For the probable identity of this Godric, derived from a grant to St Cuthbert's of Durham, made soon after Domesday; see 3,2 Normanton note. See also 9,26 Godric note, and on this name, see 2,10 Godric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALGAR. On this name, see 1,59 Algar note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 13 OXEN. The estimates for the various parts of Costock and Rempstone, which are either combined in the text or in adjacent entries (9,9 4. 10,11;53-54. 15,5-6) make up land for 42 oxen (13+1+2+6+14+6), or five plough-teams plus two oxen; see 1,6 ox note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 CARUCATE OF THIS LAND IS WASTE. The total size is given as 13 bovates, so just under two-thirds of the estate (8 bovates) is waste.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,95\tab TOLLERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALSI. On his name, see S5 Alsi note; see also 9,2 Alsi note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 8 FREEMEN WITH 3 \'bd PLOUGHS. In Domesday Nottinghamshire the Freemen appear to share the ploughs with the villagers, smallholders etc. (\{Introduction: Layout and Content of Entries\} ), but here and in 30,5;43 their ploughs are listed separately; compare 6,1 freemen note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 MILLS. The case of the Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 i. molin'}{\insrsid6823374 is unclear, but might be accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,96\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAMCOTE. This was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of Holme Pierrepont. Holme Pierrepont itself (9,80) may have lain in Rushcliffe Wap entake in 1086, but Lamcote was clearly in Bingham Wapentake: two other parts (15,7. 30,36) lay directly below a Bingham wapentake head. It was in the same wapentake later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104. It is represented by Lamcote Field, a settlement.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FRANI. On this name, see 4,6 Frani note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OTHENKAR [* SON OF ALNOTH *]. On his possible identity and the form of his name, see 9,1 Othenkar note and 3,2 Normanton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE. The main scribe of Great Domesday had written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. part'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 which co uld be read as abbreviating either }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. partes }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('3 parts') or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. partem}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('the third part'). Scribe B clarified this by interlining }{\i\f720\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ti\'e2 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (the last letters of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 tertiam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 'third') above the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and adding an }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 part'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to produce }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 partem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 4,7 part note. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note. Another third part of a bovate in Lamcote is recorded in 30,36, but there is no sign of the final third of a bovate.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 2 ACRES. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , accusative; see 1,9 meadow note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,97\tab BINGHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It evidently lay in the wapentake to which it gave its name in 1086 as later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 103; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Certain tithes here were confirmed on Blyth Priory by its founder, Roger of Bully, in 1088; the }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); see 9,49 Blyth note.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [* EARL *] TOSTI. }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 It is not certain whether this is Tosti, Earl of Northumbria; see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 224, and B2 Tosti note. \par \tab \tab Although the name Tosti occurs almost 100 times in Domesday Book it is not a common name. Once holdings plausibly be attributed to the earl and Tosti (see LIN 4,17 Tosti note) have been excluded, only five holding s remain, probably held by four individuals, all of them of minor landholders. In the absence of other significant landholders of his name, the task of identifying the earl where he is not accorded his title is simplified. There can be little doubt, for i n stance, that the Tosti who held the huge royal manor of Falsgrave (YKS 1Y3) was the earl, as also the royal manor of Hemingbrough (YKS 1Y3). The scale, status, and absence of other suitable candidates also make it likely that he had held the substantial m a nors at Polhampton (HAM 31,1), Buckworth (HUN 10,1), Bingham (9,97) and, less certainly, the anonymous holding from Guy of Raimbeaucourt in Northamptonshire (NTH 41,2). The Tosti who held Halmonds Frome from Queen Edith is also likely to have been the ear l; and since no tenant-in-chief will have had two predecessors with the same uncommon name, he will have been the Tosti who held Putley, if the }{\i\insrsid6823374 Thostin}{\insrsid6823374 of that holding is, in fact, a Tosti (HEF 10,4;29). The Tosti of IoW7,22 is shown to be the earl by the l ink with his manor of Freshwater (IoW1,5), and there can be no doubt that the Tosti who 'went from England' of NFK 10,83 was the earl also. Finally, the Tosti who held a minuscule property at Worthing (SUS 13,37) was probably also the earl since his fathe r and brother held in the same vill and the holding 'lay in' the large manor of Sompting, held from the Crown by a Leofwin who was surely the earl, his brother. See Clarke,}{\i\insrsid6823374 English Nobility}{\insrsid6823374 , pp. 191-94, who omits HAM S2 and NTH 41,2 from his list (JP).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IN NEWTON 3 BOVATES TAXABLE. Scribe B added this sentence in a space left at the end of the entry. It is not clear whether this is a separate entry, deserving a number (compare 10,52), and whether, separately numbered or not, it is a dependency of Bingham, t o which it is adjacent. For other work done in the same campaign as this addition, see 9,5 Clifton note. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including the details of five members of manors, see 1,12 bovates note. \par \tab \tab If he had been checking a territorially-arranged document that was the source, perhaps one stage removed, of Domesday Nottinghamshire (which might account for the standard order of vills within different fiefs: \{Introduction: Order of Vills\} ), he should have entered this detai l on Newton at some point between 9,75 (Burton Joyce) and 9,99 (Shelford), as the order of these vills in chapter 12 is Burton Joyce, Newton, Shelford (12,18-20). He may have added it where he did because the only other space available, at the end of 9,95 , has a series of ink blots there, assuming they were there then. Of course, his source may not have been this putative territorially-arranged text.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Newton was a settlement in Shelford Ancient Parish; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 242. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For another part, see 12,20.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,98\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THERE ALSO ^[BINGHAM]^. See 9,97 Bingham note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday lined the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 IBID\'c7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 through in red, albeit rather faintly; this is not reproduced in the Alecto facsimile; see also 2,2 there note and 5,3 Hickling note. Because the rubrication was applied separately by hand in the Ordnance Survey facsimile it ap pears here as clearer than in the manuscript.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HOGA. The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hoga}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , which only occurs here in Domesday, represents the Old English byname }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hoga}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , meaning 'careful', 'prudent': von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 291. The Alecto edition has Hoga.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HELGHI . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Helghi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Helghin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Helge}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Helga}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Helghi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Helgi}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 288. The printe d Phillimore edition has the form Helgi, but this has now been changed to the form Helghi. The Alecto edition has Helghi. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This name only occurs here and in 9,111, and three times in Sussex as predecessors of the Count of Mortain and Earl Roger (SUS 10,65 . 11,46;116). Despite the rarity of it in Domesday, it is unlikely that the Sussex }{\i\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\insrsid6823374 holders are the same as Roger of Bully's predecessor here and in 9,111 (Owthorpe, about 4 \'bd miles away from Bingham, though not adjacent to it);}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 24 ACRES. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The case of the Latin }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,99\tab SHELFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For another part, see 12,19.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION OF BINGHAM. That is, of Roger of Bully's manor (9,98).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,100\tab [EAST] BRIDGFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 103; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. West Bridgford was in Rushcliffe Wapentake.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Certain tithes here were confirmed on Blyth Priory by its founder, Roger of Bully, in 1088; the }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); see 9,49 Blyth note.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OTHENKAR [* SON OF ALNOTH *]. On his possible identity and the form of his name, see 9,1 Othenkar note and 3,2 Normanton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,101\tab 3M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THERE ALSO ^[[EAST] BRIDGFORD]^. See 9,100 Bridgford note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORSTEN. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 r}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turstan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , extending it downwards to act as an insertion mark. This correction was probably done while he was writing the entry or soon afterwards as the pen and ink are the same as for the surrounding text. In the Alecto facsimile, however, this }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 r}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 looks much paler for some reason; on other problems of reproduction there, see 5,3 Hickling note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On this name, see 9,19 Thorsten note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ROSSKELL . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Roschil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Roschel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ruschil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Roschet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hrosskell}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, } {\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 294. JRM preferred not to include the initial H of the Old Norse name, as it is not present in any of the Domesday spellings. The printed Phillimore edition of Yorkshire has the form Rossketill, following Fellows Jensen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 225-26; this has now been standardized as Rosskell. The Alecto edition has Hrosskell. \par \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire. The only other occurrences are in Yorkshire (as predecessors of the king, Count Alan, Ilbert of Lacy and William of Percy), but no documentary or other evidence has so far been found to connect th em.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IUSTEN . On this name, see 9,69 Iusten note. There are only a handful of occurrences of this name in Domesday Book, so it is likely that the two predecessors of Roger of Bully (9,69;101) were the same individual, though Normanton-on-Trent (9,69) is about 16 miles from East Bridgford.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE LAND IS NOT CULTIVATED. Presumably this is little different from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 terra wasta}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('waste', 'derelict land') which can similarly have a value.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,102\tab KNEETON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 103; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 1,62. 2,7-8.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFGEAT. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On this name, see 6,8 Wulfgeat note, and compare 9,55 Wulfgeat note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab THIRD PART. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On the ambiguity of the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. part'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , which could also abbreviate }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. partes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('3 parts'), see 4,6 parts note and, for its clarification, see 4,7 part note. It has here been taken to abbreviate }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii partem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , as in the Alecto edition.} {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,103\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SAXONDALE. This was a township of Shelford Ancient Parish. Like Shelford itself (9,99. 12,19) it probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 103; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. The Domesday name is represented by Saxondale (SK6839) and Upper Saxondale (SK6739).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFGEAT. On this name, see 6,8 Wulfgeat note, and compare 9,55 Wulfgeat note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OSPAK . In view of the rarity of this name in Domesday Book, it is possible that he is the same as the Ospak who was Count Alan's predecessor in Sibthorpe (2,1) which is just over six miles from Saxondale but in a different wapentake; on this and on this name, see 2,1 Ospak note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,104\tab CLIPSTON. This was a township of Plumtree Ancient Parish. In later times, Plumtree Ancient Parish was divided b etween the wapentakes of Rushcliffe and Bingham. In Bingham Wapentake were the townships of Plumtree itself and Clipston; in Rushciffe Wapentake was Normanton-on-the-Wolds: Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 366. However, Plumtree is apparently in Rushcliffe Wapentake in Domesday (see 9,82 Plumtree note). Clipston is here in a run of places in Bingham Wapentake and was in the same wapentake later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFGEAT. On this name, see 6,8 Wulfgeat note, and compare 9,55 Wulfgeat note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 9,105\tab 'WARBY'. This is a lost place in Plumtree Ancient Parish, presumably in that portion of the parish that was in Bingham Wapentake, judging by the order of Domesday at this point; see 9,82 Plumtree note. The name survived in Warby Gate (1790), the form of which suggests that Domesday }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Wareberg}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Warberga}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , which is Old English }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 weard-beorg}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ('watch-hill'), had by then been assimilated to place-names with the Scandinavian termination -}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 by }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ('farm', 'homestead'). See }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 240. There is no trace of 'Warby' on Ordnance Survey maps. Beresford, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lost Villages of England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 379, locates it at SK621333. For another part, see 16,8.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODRIC. See 9,26 Godric note, and on this name, see 2,10 Godric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 12 OXEN. That is, for 1\'bd ploughs; see 1,6 ox note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,106\tab SCREVETON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 1,55. 7,6, and for the meaning of the name, see 1,55 Screveton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OTHENKAR [* SON OF ALNOTH *]. On his possible identity and the form of his name, see 9,1 Othenkar note and 3,2 Normanton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,107\tab [CAR] COLSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 1,56. 11,24. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This Colston can be distinguished from Colston Bassett that also lay in Bingham Wapentake, by the later descent of the manor: it is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ker Colston}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 held by the heirs of Oliver }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 de Lovetot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 101.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFGEAT. On this name, see 6,8 Wulfgeat note, and compare 9,55 Wulfgeat note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ROGER [* OF LOUVETOT *], ROGER'S MAN. William of Louvetot, the great nephew of Roger, gave the church of Car Colston to Worksop Priory; see 9,3 Roger note. No church is mentioned in Domesday.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,108\tab FLINTHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 103; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 1,61. 9,109. 11,25. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OTHENKAR [* SON OF ALNOTH *]. On his possible identification and the form of his name, see 9,1 Othenkar note and 3,2 Normanton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ROGER [* OF LOUVETOT *], ROGER'S MAN. On this identification, see 9,3 Roger note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,109\tab THERE ALSO ^[FLINTHAM]^. See 9,108 Flintham note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION OF KNEETON. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 That is, of Roger of Bully's manor (9,102).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab ERNWIN THE PRIEST. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ernuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ernuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Erneuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] - represent Old English }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Earnwine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 244. JRM preferred the first element Ern- for Old English}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Earn- }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and the second element -win for Old English \-}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -wine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , because they reflected the Domesday spellings. The form Earnwine, however, appears in the Phillimore printed translations for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire; it has now been standardized as Ernwin. The Alecto edition has Earnwine.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On the possible scribal confusion between the names Ernwin and Ernwy, s}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ee 16,5 Ernwy note and 30,11 Ernwy note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,110\tab ELTON. This was an Ancient Parish, known ecclesiastically as Elton-on-the-Hill. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This village was confirmed on Blyth Priory by its founder, Roger of Bully in 1088: the }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); see 9,49 Blyth note.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MORCAR. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 It is not certain whether this is Morcar, Earl of Northumbria; see }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 224. See also JP's note in 9,74 Morcar note. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On this name, see 1,58 Morcar note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab RALPH [* OF NEUF-MARCHE *], ROGER'S MAN. Ralph is possibly Ralph }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Novi Fori}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , that is, from Neuf-March\'e9 (in the French d\'e9partement of Seine-Maritime, arrondissement Dieppe, canton Gournai-en-Bray) who was a witness to Roger of Bully's foundation charter for Blyth Priory; see Timson, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. xxvi; and }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 9,49 Blyth note. S}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ee also }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Loyd, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 72;}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 336}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . This is the only occurrence of a Ralph as a tenant of Roger of Bully. On the name Ralph, see 6,8 Ralph note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,111\tab OWTHORPE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 12,21. 26,1.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HELGHI . He is probably the same as Roger of Bully's predecessor in Bingham }{\insrsid6823374 (9,98, about 4 \'bd miles away, though not adjacent to Owthorpe)}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; on this and on his name, see 9,98 Helghi note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WILLIAM [* THE PRIEST *], ROGER'S MAN. On his possible identity, see 9,26 William note. On the name William, see B9 William note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,112\tab 3M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FENTON. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Sturton-le-Steeple. It lay in 'Oswaldbeck' Wapentake in 1086. It was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,33. 9,113.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday failed to rubricate this place-name, possibly because having lined-through in vermilion the Oswaldbeck wapentake head immediately above the entry, he skipped past the entry itse lf. For his other failures in rubrication in this county, see 1,10 manor note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFHEAH }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . On this name, see 9,82 Wulfheah note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LEOFRIC. On this name, see 7,1 Leofric note. A man called Leofric was also Roger of Bully's predecessor in Styrru p (9,57), but that is about 13 miles from Syrrup, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holders and Leofric was a common name.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GRIM. On this name, see 9,62 Grim note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE. The main scribe of Great Domesday had written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. part'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 which could be read as abbreviating either }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. partes }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('3 parts') or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. partem}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('the third part'). Scribe B clarified this by interlining }{\i\f720\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ci\'e2 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (the last letters of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 terciam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 'third') above the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and adding an }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 part'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to produce }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 partem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 4,7 part note. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note. The other 2 parts of the bovate in Fenton are recorded in the next entry (9,113). For scribe B's additi on of land in Fenton, see 1,33 entry note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND [FOR *** PLOUGHS]. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T'ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Terra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), put no }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 after it and left space for one or two letters before writing }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wasta ...}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . The entry has no plough estimate in it, so it would seem that, despite the smallness of the gap, he meant the estimate to be added later, presumably interlining it or writing it in the outer margin. The account of Eastwood (10,32) has identical wording, though there the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T'ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is the last word in the li ne, so the margin would have been the obvious place for the missing details. On such spaces left for the completion of the plough estimate, see 1,59 land note.}{\insrsid6823374 The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Phillimore printed edition did not translate the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T'ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 at all here, though it did in the identical entry at 10,32. }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 The Alecto edition has 'The land is waste ... ', ignoring the space after }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 T'ra}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 and the capital }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 W}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 for }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Wasta}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , though in 10,32 it acknowledged the gap after }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 T'ra}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 .}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IT IS WASTE, EXCEPT FOR 1 SMALLHOLDER. On this unusual phrase, see 1,12 waste note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,113\tab THERE ALSO ^[FENTON]^. See 9,112 Fenton note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab SPEARHAFOC . }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sperhauoc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sparhauoc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sp}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 hauoc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sperauoc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sp}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 auoc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old English }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Spearhafoc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 369. It means 'sparrow-hawk' and as Sparrowhawk is still used as a surname, JRM decided to translate this Old English name. However, it has been decided for the present edition to keep to the Old English name, as the Alecto edition does.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab It is probable that all three references to Spearhafoc as a predecessor of Roger of Bully (9,113-114;116) are to the same man; the holdings are within half a mile of each other and are contiguous. The only other occurrences of this name are in Suffolk.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 PARTS OF 1 BOVATE. These 'parts' were almost certainly thirds as in the preceding entry for Fenton (9,112) there is the third part of 1 bovate.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WITH FULL JURISDICTION, WITHOUT A HALL. This seems to imply that this part of Fenton was not a manor (see 9,20 hall note), but could become one. Clearly the case was exceptional, since the lord had full jurisdiction but no hall in which to exercise that jurisdiction. A related exception , concerning justice rather than jurisdiction, occurs in Cheshire, where of Acton (CHS 8,16) Domeday says: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hoc manerium habet suum placitum in aula domini sui }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('This manor has its assembly in the lord's hall') which is referred to earlier in the entry as a court (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 curia}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ). }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Placitum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is 'a plea', but in the context means 'an assembly where pleas are heard'. The lord would not normally hold his court anywhere but in his principal manor in the shire; see Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 91; }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire }{\insrsid6823374 , i. pp. 224-25. \par \tab \tab On the meaning of 'full jurisdiction', see B14 jurisdiction note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,114\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab STURTON[-LE-STEEPLE]. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Sturton-le-Clay. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For another part, see 1,35.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SPEARHAFOC . On his probable identity and his name, see 9,113 Spearhafoc note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ARNKETIL. On this name, see 9,44 Arnketil note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 7 OXEN IN A PLOUGH. Oxen can only work in pairs, but the missing ox is not recorded on any adjacent estate; compare 11,31 oxen note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 8 ACRES. }{\insrsid6823374 The case of the Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\insrsid6823374 is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 SILVER MARKS. That is, \'a31 6s 8d.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,115\tab 5M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [NORTH] WHEATLEY. North Wheatley and South Wheatley were separate Ancient Parishes. South Wheatley (5,4) was a peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Southwell (5,1) until 1841. Part of North Wheatley (1,36. 9,115) subsequently passed to Westminster Abbe y and was its peculiar until the Dissolution of the monasteries. Both places are adjacent. They probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as they were later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Certain tithes here were confirmed on Blyth Priory by its founder, Roger of Bully, in 1088: the }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); see 9,49 Blyth note.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab VILLAGERS. Scribe B wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 uill'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 over the era sure of a word by the main scribe of Great Domesday; it is not clear what was originally there, but it was probably another category of population. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, see 1,12 bovates note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 5 ACRES. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The case of the Latin }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,116\tab '[WEST] BURTON'. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. In the latter source it is called }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Burton' Super Trent}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . For another part, see 5,4.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The name now survives only as that of a Civil Parish. The deserted medieval village of 'West Burton' lies at SK798855, West Burton power station is at SK788853; see }{\insrsid6823374 Beresford, }{ \i\insrsid6823374 Lost Villages of England}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 377.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SPEARHAFOC . On his probable identity and his name, see 9,113 Spearhafoc note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GEOFFREY, ROGER'S MAN. On his possible identity and his name, see 9,6 Geoffrey note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 FISHERY, 200 EELS. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 i. piscaria cc }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ducen}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 tar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 um}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 anguill}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 arum}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], the main scribe of Great Domesday interlining }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 tar'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to indicate the genitive plural. The genitive could be 'defining', that is, 'a fishery co nsisting of 200 eels'. Alternatively the 200 eels might be a measure of its capacity ('for 200 eels'), as the count of those present would vary, if it could be done at all. On the other hand the exact number of sheep on an estate is given in the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Liber Exoniensis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and in Little Domesday. However, a render of 200 eels from the fishery is the most likely meaning, the main scribe of Great Domesday using the plain genitive case instead of the more usual preposition }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 de }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('of', 'at') or part of the verb }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 reddere}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('to render', 'to pay'); see WOR 2,68. 19,6. 20,5 etc. As eels were counted in sticks of 25, the 200 here would be 8 sticks, a common render from a mill[-pond] in Domesday. }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 The Alecto edition has '1 fishery [rendering] 200 eels}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 '. 'West Burton' was beside a loop of the former course of the River Trent. The river now flows more directly northwards. The old channel is known as Burton Round.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,117\tab ALSO JURISDICTION THERE. That is, Everton and Harwell were Jurisdictions of 'West Burton' (9,116).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab EVERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other parts, both Jurisdictions, see 5,8. 9,124.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HARWE LL. This was in the township of Everton-cum-Harwell in Everton Ancient Parish. Like Everton itself (5,8. 9,117;124) it probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086 : }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227. For another part, also linked with Everton and a Jurisdiction, see 9,124.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 3 PARTS OF 1 BOVATE. In another entry for a Jurisdiction in Harwell and Everton (9,124) 3 parts of a bovate are also recorded. If these 'parts' wer e quarters, the total assessment of these two Jurisdictions would have been 6 \'bd bovates. However, 1 carucate and the third part of a bovate are recorded for a further Jurisdiction in Everton (5,8). It might be tempting, therefore, to think that the '3 part s' in both entries for Harwell and Everton was a scribal error for 'the third part', making the total assessment for this vill1 carucate and 6 bovates (or 2 carucates and 6 bovates if the adjacent holding at Scaftworth, 5,8, is included). However, unlike in other entries, the main scribe of Great Domesday clearly wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. partes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 here while scribe B corrected his ambiguous }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. part'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in 9,124 to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. partes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (9,124 parts note), so it would seem that '3 parts' was the correct reading. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 1 \'bd ACRES. }{\insrsid6823374 The case of the Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\insrsid6823374 is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,118\tab BOLE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227. For other parts, see 5,4. 9,125, and for the identification, see 5,4 Bole note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORFRIDH . The Thorfridh who was Roger of Bully's predecessor in Barnby Moor (9,54) may be the same person ; the estates are about ten miles apart. On this name, see 9,54 Thorfridh note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WHOSE JURISDICTION IS IN SAUNDBY. Saundby was divided between the king and the Archbishop of York (1,44. 5,4).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GEOFFREY, ROGER'S MAN. On his possible identity and his name, see 9,6 Geoffrey note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,119\tab BECKINGHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227. For another part, see 5,4.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OSBERN. Roger of Bully was preceded on three estates by a man called Osbern (9,39;70;119), but they are all about 13 miles apart, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holders and Osbern was a common name, on which see 2,2 Osbern note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GEOFFREY, ROGER'S MAN. On his possible identity and his name, see 9,6 Geoffrey note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 15 ACRES. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The Latin }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ac}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ra}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 s}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is accusative after 'Geoffrey ... has'. The Phillimore printed translation has a full stop after Geoffrey's plough in error. The Alecto edition has a comma and then 'and'. Compare 1,2 meadow note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,120\tab WALKERINGHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227. For another part, see 1,37.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AETHELSTAN. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Adestan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Athestanus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Achestan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] - represent Old English }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6thelstan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 188. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Aethelstan and Athelstan, the latter probably influenced by the accepted form of t he king's name; these have now been standardized as Aethelstan. However, von Feilitzen included under }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aethelstan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 some references whose Domesday forms JRM did not accept as representing this name, as they lacked the medial }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -d-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -g-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . The Alecto edition has Aethelstan.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The only other occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire is in 18,6, as a predecessor of Gilbert Tison, but no evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a fairly common name.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NO PLOUGH ESTIMATE is recorded for this manor at Walkeringham and no space was left for the later insertion of it, as in other entries (1,59 land note). However, this information is given for the Jurisdiction there at 1,37. The main scribe of Great Domesday included plough estimates in the maj o rity of the entries in this county, so these omissions were probably accidental, either on his part or because the information was missing in his source. There are similar omissions in one of the entries for Kelham (15,3), and in two for Lamcote (15,7. 30 ,36).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ROGER [* OF LOUVETOT *], ROGER'S MAN. William of Louvetot, the great nephew of Roger, gave the church of Walkeringham to Worksop Priory; see 9,3 Roger note. No church is mentioned in Domesday.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,121\tab 5M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MISTERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227. For other parts, see 1,38. 9,123.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab ROGER HAS. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 P lain Roger here contrasts with Roger, Roger's man, in the surrounding entries (9,120;122) and it might be thought that this Roger is Roger of Bully himself. However, William of Louvetot gave the church of Misterton to Worksop Priory and it is possible tha t the present Roger is his great uncle, Roger of Louvetot, and that the main scribe of Great Domesday should have written Roger, Roger's man, here as well; see 9,3 Roger note. The church is mentioned in this entry.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,122\tab 7M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GRINGLEY[-ON-THE-HILL]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: } {\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107. For discussion of the identification, see 1,4 Gringley note, and for a possible other part, see 1,43.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ROGER [* OF LOUVETOT *], ROGER'S MAN. William of Louvetot, the great nephew of Roger, gave the church of Gringley-on-the-Hill to Worksop Priory; see 9,3 Roger note. A church is mentioned in this entry.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,123\tab ALSO JURISDICTION THERE. That is, Misterton (9,123) and Harwell and Everton (9,124), were Jurisdictions of Gringley-on-the-Hill (9,122).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MISTERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227. For other parts, see 1,38. 9,121.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 12 OXEN. That is, for 1\'bd ploughs; see 1,6 ox note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,124\tab HARWELL. This was in the townshi p of Everton-cum-Harwell in Everton Ancient Parish. Like Everton itself (5,8. 9,117;124) it probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227. For another part, also linked with Everton and a Jurisdiction, see 9,117.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab EVERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other parts, both Jurisdictions, see 5,8. 9,117.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 3 PARTS OF 1 BOVATE. The main scribe of Great Domesday had written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. part'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 which could be read as abbreviating either }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. partes }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('3 parts') or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. partem} {\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('the third part'). Scribe B clarified this by interlining }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 es}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (the last two letters of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 tres}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , '3') and adding }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 e }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 after the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 part}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and turning the original lightning-shaped abbreviation sign by his colleague into a superscript }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; compare 10,57 parts note. On t he ambiguity of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. part'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , see 4,7 part note. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note. In another entry for a Jurisdiction in Harwell and Everton (9,117) 3 parts of a bov ate are also recorded (clearly written as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. partes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , perhaps the source of scribe B's correction). See 9,117 parts note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,125\tab BOLE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227. For other parts, see 5,4. 9,118, and for the identification, see 5,4 Bole note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFMER. On other possible holdings of Wulfmer in Nottinghamshire and on his name, see 2,9 Wulfmer note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE FOURTH PART OF A CHURCH. Bole (SK7987) is close to South Leverton (9,130: SK7881) where there was half a church, but it seems probable that the other half of the South Leverton church should have been entered under Count Alan' s holding there (2,10); see 9,130 church note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 MILLS, 32s. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 molin'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 almost certainly abbreviates the accusative }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 molinos}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , as the part-church and the acres of meadow are accusative and the object of 'Roger has'. See 5,9 mill note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,126\tab CLAYWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227. For another part, see 1,40.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GRIMKEL. On this name, see 9,45 Grimkel note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 4 OXEN. That is, for half a plough; see 1,6 ox note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FULCO [* OF LISORS *], ROGER'S MAN. On this identification and on the name Fulco, see 9,18 Fulco note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW 2 \'bd FURLONGS LONG. The Phillimore printed translation omits the 'long' in error, as did the first version of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Domesday Explorer }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab PERCHES. See B20 perches note. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the accusative }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 p}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ticas}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in error; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,127\tab CLARBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227. For other parts, see 1,41. 5,8. 9,128. 30,39;54.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab REGNVALD. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ragenald}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rainald}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rainald}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ragenal}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ragenalt}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Regnvald}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ragnaldr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 346-4 7. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Reginald and Ragnaldr; these have now been standardized as Regnvald. The Alecto edition has Regnvald. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab There are three occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire (9,127. 14,2. 17,2), but no tenuria l or other evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a fairly common name. A man called Regnvald was also Roger of Bully's predecessor in Yorkshire (YKS 10W14).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FULCO [* OF LISORS *], ROGER'S MAN. On this identification and on the name Fulco, see 9,18 Fulco note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 7 ACRES. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , accusative; see 1,9 meadow note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,128\tab THERE ALSO ^[CLARBOROUGH]^. See 9,127 Clarborough note. The main scribe of Great Domesday did not rubricate the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 IBID\'c7}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , perhaps because he was unsure of the status of the holding: it had no marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 B' }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to indicate whether it was a manor, outlier or Jurisdiction, but it had a value, and although he wrote a rustic}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 I}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 for }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (as he generally did for dependencies) he wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 IBID\'c7}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in capitals as for a manor. On other failures of rubrication in this county, see 1,10 manor note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ULFKIL. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WITH FULL JURISDICTION. This seems parallel to a holding in Fenton (9,113) where 'Spearhafoc held with full jurisdiction, without a hall'; see 9,113 jurisdiction note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 On the meaning of 'full jurisdiction', see B14 jurisdiction note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 2 OXEN. That is, for a quarter of a plough; see 1,6 ox note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 1 ACRE. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 i. acra p'ti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . The }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 acra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 could be either nominative singular (as translated in the Phillimore printed edition) or ablative singular after }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 cum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (as in }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 the Alecto edition). If the latter, the meadow would have belonged to th e smallholders, rather than being part of the general manorial resources, as was the pasturable woodland, which was given a new sentence. Compare 10,6 acre note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,129\tab TRESWELL. This was an Ancient Parish and regarded as a peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdict ion of the dean and chapter of York because of the archbishop's holding there (2,9). It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Tresswell}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 and Leverton (9,130), were adjoining places, both equally divided with Count Alan (2,9) (JRM).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODRIC. See 9,26 Godric note, and on this name, see 2,10 Godric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE THIRD PART ... OF 1 BOVATE. The main scribe of Great Domesday had written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. part'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 with }{ \i\f720\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ti\'e2 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (the last letters of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 tertiam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 'third') interlined above the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . Scribe B further clarified the reading as 'the third part' by inserting an }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in darker ink after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 part'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , although it was not really necessary because of the interlineation. On the ambiguity of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. part'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 without the interlineation and scribe B's clarification of it, see 4,7 part note. Another third part of a bovate in Treswell is recorded in 2,9; see also 9,129 bovate note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE FIFTEENTH PART OF 1 BOVATE . This is a very unusual fraction and there is no record of the other four-fifteenths, assuming that the third parts of a bovate here and in 2,9 represent a total of ten-fifteenths.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ROGER [* OF LOUVETOT *] , ROGER'S MAN. William of Louvetot, the great nephew of Roger, gave the half of the church of Treswell to Worksop Priory; see 9,3 Roger note. No church is mentioned in Domesday, but it was presumably shared with Count Alan (2,9).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,130\tab [SOUTH] LEVERTON. Bo th North Leverton and South Leverton were Ancient Parishes. They were adjacent and probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 for they were later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), pp. 227-28. For other parts, see 1,32. 2,10. 5,4. The present holding appears to have been at South Leverton; }{\insrsid6823374 see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 251 note 3. For North Leverton, see 5,4. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The status of this part of Leverton is not given. The presence of a value suggests that it was not a Jurisdiction, but the absence of a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holder might imply that it was not a manor. It could thus be an outlier of Treswell (9,129). The other part of Leverton (2,10) held by Count Alan, and also following an entry for Treswell (2,9), similarly lacks an indication of status; see 2,10 Alan note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In fact these two entries for South Leverton need to be read together, since it appears that what was perhaps a double manor in 1066 or a single manor jointly held, and which may have continued into William's reign as a manor jointly held by Count Alan and Roger of Bully, has been imperfectly divided between their respective fiefs; see 2,10 Alan note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 3 \'bd BOVATES AND A HALF OF THE FIFTH PART OF 1 BOVATE. The size of the added entry for South Leverton at 2,10 is exactly double this at 7 bovates and the fifth part of a bovate. See 9,130 value note and 9,130 land note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HALF A CHURCH. The other half does not appear in Domesday, but it seems probable that it was omitted from Count Alan's estate here (2,10), because the scribe failed to divide the resources that he and Roger of Bully held in South Leverton properly between their estates; see 2,10 Leverton note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ROGER HAS HALF OF THIS WOODLAND AND MEADOW. The other half, l ike that of the church, was probably part of Count Alan's holding in Leverton (2,10); see 2,10 Alan note. A less likely possibility is that the woodland and meadow were shared half and half by Roger and the villagers.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab VALUE 10s. The value of the added entry for South Leverton at 2,10 is exactly double this at 20s; see 9,130 bovates note and 9,130 land note .}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 1 PLOUGH. This plough estimate is misplaced at the end of the entry, probably briefly omitted by the ma in scribe of Great Domesday, rather than added, as the pen and ink used for it are the same as those for the rest of the entry.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The plough estimate of the added entry for South Leverton at 2,10 is exactly double this at 2 ploughs; see 9,130 bovates note and 9,130 value note .}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space, though the reason for this is not clear, as Treswell is not definitely a multiple estate and Rampton, the next entry (9,131), is in the same wapentake as the pr eceding places, so the space is unlikely to have been left for the later insertion of a wapentake head. On other one-line spaces left within fiefs, see 1,44 after note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,131\tab 7M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab RAMPTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE FIFTH PART OF 1 BOVATE. The main scribe of Great Domesday had written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iiii. part'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 t\'e2}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (the last letters of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 quartam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 'fourth') interlined above it. Scribe B erased the last two minims of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iiii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and joined the first two together to form a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 v}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and then added an }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 part'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to clarify further that it abbreviated }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 partem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . Compare 4 ,7 part note. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note. There is no further reference to parts of a bovate in Rampton.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 3\'bd FISHERIES. These were no doubt on the River Trent. The other half does not appear in Domesday.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,132\tab THIS ENTRY was written by the main scribe of Great Domesday afte r one for Rampton, of which it seems to have been a Jurisdiction, in a blank space after it. Although there is not the usual rubrication on the initial }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 I}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , it may have been written at the same time as the manor of Rampton and the entries above it or very soon afterwards. The pen and ink used are very like those of the preceding text, and occasionally the scribe did fail to rubricate the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 I}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , especially when Jurisdictions were involved which did not have their place-names through-lined in vermilion. Moreo ver, the inclusion of the marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 oca}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] is very rare in entries added after rubrication.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MATTERSEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For another part, see 1,15. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Mattersey is said to be a Jurisdiction and its position in the text suggests that it is connected with Rampton (9,131). However, if it was a late entry, it may merely be a piece of jurisdiction-land belonging to Roger of Bully of which the head manor has been omitted or is entered elsewhere in this chapter.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the column (19 lines), perhaps in case he needed to add details of further holdings of Roger of Bul ly or for aesthetic reasons.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10\tab THIS FIEF was misnumbered }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 IX}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 by the main scribe of Great Domesday; see NTT 7 fief note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND OF WILLIAM PEVEREL. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 William Peverel came to England early, possibly with the Conqueror in 1066, and was given charge of the castle that the king erected in Nottingham in 1068 on his way to suppress the first northern revolt. William held land in Normandy, possibly near Barfleur in the French d\'e9 partement of Manche. The similarity of their names suggests that he may have been related t o Ranulf Peverel, the Domesday holder. William Peverel had a castle at Castleton in the Peak District which became the centre of the barony or honour of the Peak. He founded the priory of St James in Northampton and Lenton Priory in Nottinghamshire as a c e ll of Cluny Abbey. He had a daughter Adeliza who married Richard de Redvers. On William's death in 1114, his son, William II, succeeded him, but his lands were seized 1153-1154 by Henry of Anjou (King Henry II). William was accused of poisoning and he ret i red to a monastery. Some of his lands were given to Robert of Ferrers, Earl of Derby, who was married to Margaret the daughter of William II of Peverel, but other lands, still forming the honour of Peverel, were retained by the crown. Richard I granted th e castle and honour of the Peak to his brother John. On the lands that formed the honour of Peverel, see Farrer, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Honors and Knights' Fees}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. pp. 146-259. See also }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 228; Sanders, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 English Baronies}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 136; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 494. \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab William Peverel had a special importance in the south of Nottinghamshire. He held no estates in Oswaldbeck Wapentake and only one (10,64) in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake. On the other hand he held much of Broxtowe Wapentake. He had a particular conc entration of estates to the west of the borough of Nottingham and sat astride the major roads leading west and south from it. It appears that this was not fortuitous, but that the lands of a number of minor }{\i\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\insrsid6823374 holders were given to William Peverel, if they lay in the south, or to Roger of Bully, if they lay in the north. The intention was seemingly not to give them complete control of particular areas, but to give them predominance there; see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 228; Roffe, 'Norman Tenants-in-Chief'; Crook, 'Nottinghamhire and the Crown', p. 26.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On the name William, see B9 William note. Peverel (Domesday }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Peurel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 for William, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Peurellus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Piperellus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 for Ranulf) is from Old French }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Peurel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 piperellus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , diminutive of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 piper}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('pepper'). The diminutive suffix -}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ellus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 could mean 'small' or be affectionate 'sweet little'. If peppercorn is meant, the reference could be to William's rotundity or his dark hair or features; see Tengvik, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Old English Bynames}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 326. }{\insrsid6823374 Reaney, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\insrsid6823374 , und er Peverall suggests that the reference might also be to a character trait: ' a small man with a fiery, peppery temper'. A peppercorn is also wrinkled, so William might have been a rather small, rotund and shrivelled individual.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab There are an unusual number of Englishmen in this fief who appear to have held estates both in 1066 and 1086 and whose holdings have to some extent been redrawn; see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , i. pp. 229-30.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab There are no wapentake heads in this chapter, but later evidence of the wa pentake in which the estates lay suggest that the bulk of this fief (10,2-61) is entered in the regular order of wapentakes found in the county. However, at the beginning, the main scribe of Great Domesday entered a place in Thurgarton Wapentake, then app a rently discovered one in Newark Wapentake (usually the first wapentake to be entered), before he wrote another estate in Thurgarton Wapentake (10,3). Thus the regular order begins at 10,2 and continues until the end of 10,61. At the end of the chapter he seems to have discovered two holdings (10,62-63) in Broxtowe Wapentake (lands in which he had already entered), then three estates (10,64-66) were added post-scriptally:}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 10,1 [Thurgarton Wapentake] \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab _____________________________}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 10,2 [Newark Wapentake] \par \tab \tab 10,3 [Thurgarton Wapentake] \par \tab \tab 10,4-14 [Rushcliffe Wapentake] \par \tab \tab 10,15-54 [Broxtowe Wapentake] \par \tab \tab 10,55-61 [Bingham Wapentake] \par \tab _____________________________ \par \tab \tab 10,62-63 [Broxtowe Wapentake] \par \tab _____________________________}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 10,64-66 (Added Entries: 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, Broxtowe Wapentake)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,1\tab [THURGARTON WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Colwick (10,1). As much of this fief is in the standard order of wapentakes, it seems that the main scr ibe of Great Domesday may have briefly missed the single estate that lay in Newark Wapentake (10,2) and begun with Thurgarton Wapentake (fourth in order) having found nothing for 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake or 'Lythe' Wapentake, which usually come second and th ird. During checking later he found a holding in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, however, and entered it after rubrication had taken place (10,64 entry note).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab COLWICK. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 12,17. 30,8. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In the Middle Ages, there were two estates here, Colwick and 'East Colwick' sometimes called 'Nether Colwick' and 'Over Colwick'. Judging by the parallel lists of estates and of tenants in }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105, it seems probable that 'Over Colwick' was the estate held by Geoffrey Alselin in 1086 (12,17), whereas the Peverel holding was }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Est Colwik'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 1001. This will have been the same as 'Nether Colwick', being in that part of Colwick that is close to the River Trent. The presence of a church on the 1086 estate suggests that the centre of 'East Colwick' could have been near Colwick Rectory, marked on the first series Ordnance Survey one-inch map sheet 71 of 1836 (reprint sheet 35 of 1970) at SK611400.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODRIC. William Peverel had five predecessors called Godric (10,1;27;59;61;66), but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a very common name; compare 9,26 Godric note. On this name, see 2,10 Godric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 SLAVES. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 In common with the other counties in circuit VI, slaves were very rarely, if ever, recorded in Domesday. There is no mention of them in Domesday Lincolnshire, Yorkshire or Huntingdonshire and there are only 20 in Derbyshire and 26 here in Nottinghamshire, including 2 female slaves, who are recorded rarely in Domesday Book; see also 10,16;39. 11,10. 12,1;16;18. 30,46. The reason for their omission is unknown. T hey certainly existed: for example, the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Inquisitio Eliensis Breviate}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 records them for four of the five estates that Ely Abbey held in Huntingdonshire (see HUN 4 Ely note). In the present county they are generally listed with the Freemen, villagers and small holders and before their ploughs, but in this entry they appear between the priest and church and the resources and in 12,1 they are after the rest of the population and before the resources.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 MILL. For its location, see Gill, 'Colwick Hall and Church' p. 39.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HALF A FISHERY. The other 'half' may have been at Radcliffe-on-Trent (10,55) which lies on the other bank of the River Trent, where there was the site of half a fishery and the third part of a fishery. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab "WALANN" HOLDS IT. This is the only occurrence in Domesday Book of the name-form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Walann}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] and it is not clear what name it represents. There is no mention of it in Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . It may be corrupt: if at some stage in the Domesday process an abbreviation line through the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 l }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 were omitted, the form could be }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Walerannus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , one of the Domesday forms of Old German }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Walahram}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Walaram}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Walerannus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Galerant}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : Forssner (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ibidem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 241). William Peverel has no other subtenants with a name-form resembling this, ho wever. The Phillimore printed translation has Waland, but this is unlikely because of the presence of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 nn'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the Domesday form. The Old German }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Waland}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 occurs only once in Domesday of a 1066 holder in the form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Waland }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (WOR 8,14). The Alecto edition has Walan here, but it seems better to reserve judgement and keep to the Domesday form.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,2\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Sibthorpe (10,2). Places lying in Newark Wapentake would normally be entere d first in a Nottinghamshire fief. It is possible that the main scribe of Great Domesday missed this estate at first, but then entered it as soon as he found it, thus interleaving it between two places in Thurgarton Wapentake (10,1;3).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SIBTHORPE. This was an Ancient Parish, based on a collegiate church that lay in another estate here: Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Local Administrative Units}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 367. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 2,1-2. 20,1.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LEOFWIN. On this name, see S5 Leofwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORBIORN . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turbern}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turber}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Torber}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Torbern}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Torbern}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thurb}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] - represent Old Danish }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thorbiorn}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 392. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Thorbern and Thorbjorn; these have now been standardized as Thorbiorn. The Alecto edition has Thorbiorn. \par \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 13 OXEN. That is, for a plough and five oxen; see 1,6 ox note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ROBERT, WILLIAM'S MAN. At least two different Roberts held from William Peverel: Robert of H\'e9rils and Robert of Pavilly. The only other occurrence of a Robert holding from William Peverel in Nottinghamshire is at 10,16, where the identity with Robert of H\'e9rils is established. The identity of the present Robert is uncertain. On the name Robert, see 2,3 Robert note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 5 VILLAGERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected their number from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 by superimposing a large }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 v}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 on top of the two minims. He made an identical correction to the number of smallholders in Old Basford (10,22). On a third large }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 v}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in a correction, see 30,1 Freemen note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MILL ... MEADOW, 17 ACRES.}{\insrsid6823374 The cases of the Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 i. molin'}{\insrsid6823374 and of }{\i\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\insrsid6823374 are unclear; they might be accusative after 'Robert ... has'; see 5,15 meadow note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,3\tab [THURGARTON WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Gonalston (10,3). The fief began wi th a place in Thurgarton Wapentake, but was followed by one in Newark Wapentake; see 10,1 Thurgarton note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GONALSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 14,6. 30,49.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In a confirmation of Edward II to Lenton Priory, which includes what purports to be William Peverel's original charter (}{\i\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid6823374 , v. p. 111 no. I; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 see 10,24 William's note), but which includes gifts that were perhaps made subsequently, a certain }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Erebertus}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 gave two-thirds of the lordship tithes in Gonalston. In 1086 Gonalston was held in lordship and there is no subtenant given. However, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Erebertus}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is probably Herbert Peverel (Round, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Calendar of Documents}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 France}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 506 no. 1383), called }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Herbertus miles meus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('Herbert my soldier' or 'my knight') by William Peverel in the Lenton Cartulary. He was probably a relative; see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 229.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MILTON. This presumed outlier of Gonalston was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of West Markham, sometimes known as Markham Clinton; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 56. Like West Markham itself (9,28-30) it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab YOUNG WULFSI. There were three predecessors of William Peverel with this specific name (10,3;16;35); these are the only occurrences of it in Domesday Nottinghamshire. They were probably the same individual. It is possible that the men called Wulfsi who were his predecessors in 10,29-30 were also Young Wulfsi, though Wulfsi was a common name. Compare also 10,39 Wulfsi note. On the name Wulfsi, see}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 9,36 Wulfsi note. }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Cilt}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 means a young man of noble birth, translated by plain 'young' or 'child' in the Phillimore printed edition. }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Alecto edition has Cild.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 TRIBUTARIES. }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Censores}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 censitores}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 censarii}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 chiefly in north-east Mercia, Yorkshire, Essex and}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Dorset, paid tribute in money, not wor k; see S3 death-duty note (JRM). This is their only appearance in }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 MILLS ... MEADOW, 10 ACRES.}{\insrsid6823374 The cases of the Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 ii. molin'}{\insrsid6823374 and of }{\i\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\insrsid6823374 are unclear; they might be accusative; see 1,1 fishery note and 5,15 meadow note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,4\tab [RUSHCLIFFE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Thrumpton and Clifton (10,4-5).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THRUMPTON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Ratcliffe-on-Soar. Like Ratcliffe-on-Soar itself (30,20) it probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,79. 23,2.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab STAPLEWIN . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Stapleuine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Stapleuuinus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Stapleuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent the hypothetical Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Stapolwine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 372-73. JRM preferred the second element -win for Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -wine}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , and would have kept to the Domesday form for the first element. The Alecto edition has Stapolwine. In 10,16 Staplewin had held land in Stapleford and von Feilitzen (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ibidem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) suggested that the first element of this personal name derived from that place-name. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab As this name only occurs in Domesday here and in 10,16 and in DBY 1,35 in an estate in Mapperley administered by William Peverel, it is likely that they represent the same individual.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 3 PARTS. On the ambiguity of the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. part'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , see 4,6 parts note and, for its clarification, see 4,7 part note. It has here been taken to abbreviate }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. partes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , as in 4,6, though, unlike for that entry, the other assessments of Thrumpton do not provide any help in determining the meaning.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,5\tab CLIFTON. This was part of the Ancient Parish of Clifton-with-Glapton. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,6. 13,3. 30,25. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This Clifton can be distinguished from the other Domesday 'Clifton', representing North Clifton and South Clifton (6,8;10-12. 9,3;5) in Newark Wapentake, by wapentake and tenure: in }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 91, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Clifton cum membris}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('Clifton with members') in Rushcliffe Wapentake is held from the honour of Peverel; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 287.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab COUNTESS [* GYTHA *] GODA. In most of his Northamptonshire holdings, William Peverel succeeded}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (Countess) Gytha (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Gitde}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 );}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 at Adstock in Buckinghamshire (BUK 16,8) his predecessor was 'Gytha}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Gethe}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 wife of Earl Ralph [of Hereford, nephew of King Edward]'. [At Haversham and Stoke Goldington (BUK 16,9-10) she is called 'Countess Gytha'.] At Woolley in Berkshire}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (BRK 24,1) William succeeded Earl Ralph himself. His Nottinghamshire predecessor, Countess 'Goda', is}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 therefore a misspelling of 'Gytha'. She is evidently also the Goda [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Gode}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ] who held Edwalton (23,1),}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 since Ed walton belonged to Stockerston (LEC 13,15), also formerly held by Earl}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Ralph. She named her son Harold, and is easily confused with her namesake, Countess}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Gytha, wife of Earl Godwin and mother of King Harold (JRM). In two other estates in Buckinghamshire Countess Gytha preceded William Peverel (16,9-10). It is likely that the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Goda}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , whose man had held Rushden (Bedfordshire) beforeWilliam Peverel, was also a mistake for Countess Gytha. Compare RUT 1,5 Goda note. See also }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 228}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On the name Goda, see S5 Goda note. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 She may have been the daughter of Osgod }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 "}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Clapa}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 "}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 and widow of Tovi the proud: Williams, 'The King's Nephew', pp. 327-43; see also p. 333 note 36. In all these cases, the particular reasons for the identifications are also s upported by the fact that Countess Goda is not known to have held land anywhere north Twyford in Buckinghamshire. When the two countesses are accounted for, there are only four other occurrences of the name Gytha in Domesday Book, any of which could refer to Countess Gytha of Hereford though only those at Tilton in Leicestershire and Walton in Warwickshire lay within the territory in which she and her family held land. Tilton lay just 10 miles from her husband's manor of Stockerston (LEC 10,15) and a clust e r of his other holdings, and Walton a similar distance from her son's manor of Burton Dassett (WAR 38,2), itself a few miles from his father's manor at Mollington (NTH 35,26); in view of the rarity of the name, it is perhaps more likely than not that both properties had been held by Countess Gytha. The remaining holdings of a Gytha, in Lincolnshire (LIN 53,6) and Yorkshire (5E35-36), are perhaps more likely to have belonged to other individuals given that her family had no known associations with either co unty. See also Clarke, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 English Nobility}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , pp. 225-26, whose list omits dependencies and BDF 22,2. LEC 2,7. NTH 35,22. NTT 10,5. 23,1. RUT 1,5-6 and WAR 16,10 (JP).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,6\tab THIS ENTRY for a holding in Clifton was lined through for deletion after it had been rubr icated. It is not clear whether this was done by the main scribe of Great Domesday (perhaps when he added the entry for Barton-in-Fabis in the margin, 10,7) or whether scribe B did it when he added land in Adbolton further down this column (10,12). It was almost certainly deleted because it was discovered to be a duplicate of an entry on folio 292d (30,25), where Ulfkil held in chief, rather than as a subtenant of William Peverel. It was presumably written here at first in error because all parts of Clifto n were together in a territorially-arranged schedule. Clifton should have been split up and distributed among the various fiefs in the creation of the putative circuit volume, but this portion may have not been moved then and was only noticed later by the scribe of Great Domesday. For another deleted entry that was a duplicate, see 10,23 entry note. \par \tab \tab For Clifton, see 10,5 Clifton note. \par \tab \tab The Penguin edition of the Alecto translation does not indicate the deletion of this entry; for its other failings of this nature in Nottinghamshire, see 1,16 bovates note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ULFKIL. On this name, s ee 9,11 Ulfkil note. William Peverel had three predecessors called Ulfkil (10,6;32;34), possibly the same individual, though no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a common name. On his being the Ulfkil of 30,25, see 10,6 entry note; see also 30,2 Ulfkil note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 1 ACRE. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 could abbreviate either the accusative singular }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 acram}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , after 'Ulfkil ... has' (see 1,9 meadow note and 5,15 meadow note) or the ablative singular }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 acra}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 cu}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 m}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], meaning that the meadow was linked to the villager and his oxen. Compare 9,128 acre note. This ambiguity also occurs in 30,25;34;43.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,7\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the outer margin of folio 287b, next to a holding in Wilford (10,8 ), which was a Jurisdiction of Clifton (detailed two entries previously). As most of the rest of the column is occupied by further Jurisdictions of Clifton, it is very likely that the present entry was also one. It was probably added at the same time as t wo unrubricated entries in the king's fief (1,65-66).}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This entry is not included in the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation; for other entries in Nottinghamshire which are similarly missing from it, see 2,3 entry note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BARTON[-IN-FABIS]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 For other parts, see 13,1-2. 30,23.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Although the main scribe did not indicate the status of this piece of land, i t is very likely to have been another Jurisdiction of Clifton (10,5): 10,7 entry note. The absence of a value statement for it also suggests that it was a member of a manor.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 3 ACRES. }{\insrsid6823374 The case of the Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\insrsid6823374 is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,8\tab WILFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday inadvertently began rubricating this place-name, though it was not his practice to do so with members of manors: there is a very fine red line on }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wile}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wilesforde}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION. The position of this entry immediately below the manor of Clifton (ignoring the deleted entry: 10,6 entry note) almost certainly indicates that it was a Jurisdiction of Clifton.} {\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HALF A FISHERY. This half at Wilford (SK5637) is probably complemented by the half at Radford (10,15), which is not far away (SK5540) and whose lands probably extended to the River Trent.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,9\tab [WEST] BRIDGFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. East Bridgford lay in Bingham Wapentake. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For the difficulty of allocating this and adjacent estates to the correct 1086 wapentake, see 10,12 Adbolton note. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 102, Gervase }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 de Clifton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holds }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Clifton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wilford cum membris}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Briggeford ad Pontem}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Stanton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 from the honour of Peverel. These are respectively Clifton (10,5), Wilford (10,8), West Bridgford (10,9) and Stanton-on-the-Wolds (10,10). 'Bridgford at the Bridge' is West Bridgford: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 231. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In the Alecto facsimile the first }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Brigeforde}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is barely visible, as if it had been poorly erased. It is clear in the manuscript (although the ink did not take properly on a small part of the letter), as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. On other problems of reproduction in the Alecto facsimile , see 5,3 Hickling note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION. Like the previous entry for Wilford this holding was almost certainly a Jurisdiction of Clifton (10,5).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 12 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,10\tab NORMANTON[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. This was a township of Plumtree Ancient Parish. In later times, Plumtree Ancient Parish was divided between the wapentakes of Rushcliffe and Bingham. In Bingham Wapentake were the townships of Plumtree itself and Clipston; in Rushciffe Wapentake was Normanton- on-the-Wolds: Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 366. In 1086, however, Plumtree appears to have been in Rushcliffe Wapentake (see 9,82 Plumtree note). Normanton-on-the-Wolds is similarly in the same run of places in Rushcliffe Wapentake at 9,84 and was listed in that wapentake in }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. The present portion is a Jurisdiction of Clifton, so is not necessarily in the same wapentake (Rushcliffe Wapentake), though it is listed among Jurisdictions which were in that wapentake.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1\'bd BOVATES. On this assessment's link with that of Plumtree and of other estates in Normanton-on-the-Wolds, see 9,84 Normanton note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab KEYWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 4,7. 9,87-88. 13,7. }{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WILLOUGHBY[ON-THE-WOLDS]. This was an Ancient Parish. Parts appear to be included in Broxtowe Wapentake by Domesday at 9,90. 16,12 and 30,35. This place is one of the five (Cos tock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which, in 1086, formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and \{Introduction: }{ \insrsid6823374 Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . It was later in Rushcliffe Wapentake: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,92-3. 16,5;12. 30,26;35. Of these it is possible that two (16,5. 30,26) were in Rushcliffe Wapent ake in 1086 and that Willoughby-on-the-Wolds was divided unequally between the two wapentakes; see 16,5 Willoughby note. The present part of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, as a Jurisdiction of Clifton (10,5), could also, like Clifton, have been in Rushcliffe Wa p entake. Here in the text it lies between Keyworth and Stanton-on-the-Wolds, both of which appear to be in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086. As Jurisdictions tend to be entered in distinct groups if they are in different wapentakes, it is possible that this pa rt of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds also lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 \'bd BOVATES. Scribe B interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .ii. bo' 7 dim'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In Willebi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , using a darker ink to that used by the main scribe of Great Domesday for the rest of the text here. The main scribe h ad interlined the extents of the other Jurisdictions in this entry, but had omitted this one and presumably could not add it when he interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In Stantun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above the lordship plough three lines below. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab STANTON[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 4,5-6. 9,86. At 28,2 Stanton-on-the-Wolds has been deleted and Leake substituted for it. \par \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In Stantun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 10,10 bovates note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab JURISDICTION OF CLIFTON. That is, of William Peverel's manor (10,5).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IN STANTON[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. For the interlineation of this phrase, see 10,10 bovates note. The 2 acres of meadow were probably also in this village.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 2 ACRES. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , accusative, after 'William has in lordship'. The Phillimore printed translation does not indica te this, putting the meadow in a separate sentence; the Alecto edition has a comma before the meadow. For another example of the meadow being part of the lordship, see 30,36. See also 1,9 meadow note and 1,1 fishery note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,11\tab COSTOCK. This was an Ancient Parish. The manors here (9,94. 10,53. 15,5) appear to have been among the five places (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which in 1086 formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake. These Costock manors are embedded in the text in groups of places that lay in Broxtowe Wapentake. However, because the present part of Costock is a Jurisdiction (of Clifton), it is not possible to determine in which w apentake it lay. Clifton itself (10,5) lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake, as did the several Jurisdictions in 10,10. Adbolton (added at 10,12) may have been in Bingham Wapentake. The fact that the carucates and ploughlands are equivalent in this part of Costock might, however, suggest that it lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and \{Introduction: }{\insrsid6823374 Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \} . It later lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake with other places that in 1086 formed the detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 oca}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] states that this land is a Jurisdiction, presumably of Clifton (10,5).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 1 OX. The estimates for the various parts of Cos tock and Rempstone, which are either combined in the text or in adjacent entries (9,94. 10,11;53-54. 15,5-6) make up land for 42 oxen (13+1+2+6+14+6), or 5 plough-teams plus two oxen; see 1,6 ox note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab As the plough estimate normally precedes the details of population and resources (\{Introduction: Layout and Content of Entries\} ), the main scribe of Great Domesday probably briefly omitted it or it was misplaced in his source.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,12\tab THIS ENTRY was added by scribe B in a space left at the end of the previous entry (10,11) at the same time as other additions; see 9,5 Clifton note. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including five members of manors, see 1,12 bovates note. It is possible that it duplicates part of an entry already included by the main scribe later in William Peverel's fief (10,56) where there are 6 bovates in a manor of Adbolton.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ADBOLTON. This was an Ancient Parish. The other reference to Adbolton is to a manor (10,56), which appears to have lain in BinghamWapentake in 1086 (heading inserted at 10,55); on its perhaps being a duplicate of the present holding, see 10,12 entry note. Adbolton was in Bingham Wapentake later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. The present added entry is not designated as a manor, outlier or Jurisdic tion, in which case it could have been in Bingham Wapentake, though its position suggests that it was another Jurisdiction of Clifton (10,5). If it was a manor, it would appear to have been in Rushcliffe Wapentake (heading at 10,4), or was in Bingham Wape ntake and had been inserted in the wrong place (places in that wapentake were entered near the end of this chapter; see NTT 10 William note). \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Adbolton is one of a group of estates that lay at the junction of Bingham Wapentake and Rushcliffe Wapentake wher e the evidence for the wapentakes in which they lay in 1086 is equivocal or geographically unlikely. This group consists of Adbolton, Holme Pierrepont, Gamston and Bassingfield. Ostensibly Adbolton lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086, but east of it and sepa r ating it from the body of Bingham Wapentake was Holme Pierrepont (9,80), a manor and an Ancient Parish, placed by Domesday in a run of estates in Rushcliffe Wapentake (heading at 9,77). Both Adbolton and Holme Pierrepont were in Bingham Wapentake after 10 8 6. To the east of Holme Pierrepont lay Radcliffe-on-Trent (10,55. 11,33), an Ancient Parish and apparently in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as later, also Lamcote (9,96. 15,7. 30,36) of which the last two parts were directly below a Bingham wapentake head. La m cote was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of Holme Pierrepont. South of Adbolton and Holme Pierrepont lay West Bridgford (10,9), an Ancient Parish, apparently in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it was later; also Gamston (10,14) which was a township of the A ncient Parish of West Bridgford and an outlier of Clifton (10,5) and either in Bingham Wapentake or Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086, and later in Bingham Wapentake; finally Bassingfield (9,81. 10,13), a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of Holme Pierrepont, and i n 1086 a Jurisdiction of both Holme Pierrepont and Clifton. Bassingfield could, in 1086, have been either in Bingham Wapentake or Rushcliffe Wapentake, though it was later in Bingham Wapentake. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The obstruction to a simple division between wapentakes is Ad bolton. It appears isolated from Bingham Wapentake. It could have been an outlying portion of that wapentake in 1086, perhaps because of some older linkage between estates that is invisible in Domesday, although such detached portions are unusual in the D anelaw counties. It is possible, however, that the marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 anerium}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) at 10,56 is in error and that it was really an outlier or Jurisdiction of Radcliffe-on-Trent (10,55), in which case it could have been, like other such dependencies, in a different wapen take. A further possibility is that the whole entry (10,56) is misplaced and that the entry at 10,12 (it is no more than a note) for an estate of the same size (6 bovates) is meant to indicate its proper place as a dependency of Clifton (10,5), in which c a se it was not necessarily in Bingham Wapentake. There seems, conversely, no reason to doubt that Holme Pierrepont (9,80) was in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 despite its being in Bingham Wapentake later; it is not only said to be a manor, but has a Jurisdi c tion of its own (Bassingfield, 9,81). Geographically speaking, it seems that if Holme Pierrepont was in Rushcliffe Wapentake, then Bassingfield was as well. No doubt Gamston was also there because of its connection with West Bridgford. This would imply th a t the lands which formed the Ancient Parish of Holme Pierrepont were divided between wapentakes in 1086. Such a division is not unusual: the Ancient Parish of West Bridgford was so divided later as was that of Plumtree in 1086 and later; see 9,82 Plumtree note. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Phillimore printed edition places it in Rushcliffe Wapentake, but JRM regarded it as divided between wapentakes, the other portion lying in Bingham Wapentake (note to 10,55).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,13\tab BASSINGFIELD. This was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of Holme Pierrepont. Holme Pierrepont itself (9,81) was probably in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 9,77) though it was later in Bingham Wapentake; see 9,80 Holme note. Bassingfield both here and at 9,81 could have been in either wapentake, though it was later in Bingham Wapentake: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For the difficulty` of allocating this and adjacent estates to the correct 1086 wapentake, see 10,12 Adbolton note. The Phillimore printed edition places it in Rushcliffe Wapentake. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 oca}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] indicates that this land is a Jurisdiction, presumably of Clifton (10,5).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. part'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 almost certainly here abbreviates }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. partem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , rather than }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. partes}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('3 parts', which is how it is translated in both the Phillimore printed edition and the Alecto edition), despite there being no }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ci\'e2 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (the last letters of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 terciam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 'third') interlined above the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , because in the other holding at Bassingfield (9,81) '2 parts of 1 bovate' are recorded. On the ambiguity of the Latin }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. part'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , see 4,6 parts note and, for its clarification, see 4,7 part note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,14\tab GAMSTON. This was one of two places called Gamston in Nottinghamshire. It was a township of the Ancient Parish of West Bridgford and like We st Bridgford itself (10,9), it probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086, though it was later in Bingham. Wapentake: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For the difficulty of allocating this and adjacent estates to the correct 1086 wapentake, see 10,12 Adbolton note. The Phillimore printed edition places it in Rushcliffe Wapentake \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 oca}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] indicates that this land is a Jurisdiction, presumably of Clifton (10,5).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,15\tab [BROXTOWE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the large number of places that follow (10,15-54).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab RADFORD. This was the Ancient Parish of Radford St Peter. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay S ubsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 At some time before 1108 William Peverel founded Lenton Priory on his Nottinghamshire land (10,24) and gave it 'to god and the church of Cluny'. Among his gifts, confirmed by Henry I, were the vill of Radford; see }{\i\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum }{\insrsid6823374 , v. p. 113 no. II, calendared in }{\i\insrsid6823374 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 162 no. 1282; see also }{\i\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid6823374 , v. p. 111 no. I; }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 91; Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid6823374 , pp. 97, 100. In the list of gifts, Radford is followed by }{\i\insrsid6823374 Morthon}{\insrsid6823374 , no doubt to be identified with 'Morton' (10,17) and }{\i\insrsid6823374 Kichton}{\insrsid6823374 . This last is Keighton (SK 5438), associated with Radford in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229, and probably an unnamed part of it in 1086.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab AELFRIC. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On this name, see 5,6 Aelfric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab HALF A FISHERY. This appears to be connected to the half a fishery at Wilford (10,8). Wilford lies at SK5637, on the River Trent. The settlement of Radford (SK5540) is not by the river}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 but its lands probably extrended to its banks.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFNOTH . }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlnod}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlnod}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlnoth}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlnoth}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlnoht}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlnot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wlnod}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wlnod}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vuenot}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Oruenot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vnlot}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (an error for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlnot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) - represent Old English }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wulfnoth}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 422. The Alecto edition has Wulfnoth.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab There are only two occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire, the other being in the adjacent holding at Old Lenton (10,24; see 10,24 Wulfnoth note on t he Domesday form), so it is likely that these two predecessors of William Peverel represent the same individual.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab AS THANELAND. Land reserved by a lord, commonly a church, for the maintenance of a}{\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 thane, armed and mounted; usually inalienable, and not automatically heritable (JRM).}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The use of the Latin preposition }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 in}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 in Tainlande}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ) is idiomatic: he holds it 'in the form of thaneland'.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,16\tab 4M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab STAPLEFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab YOUNG WULFSI. On the name Wulfsi, see 9,36 Wulfsi note; see also 10,3 Wulfsi note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab STAPLEWIN . On his p robably being the same individual as William Peverel's predecessor in 10,4 and as the predecessor of an estate in Mapperley (Derbyshire) managed by William, see 10,4 Staplewin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODWIN. On this name, see 6,9 Godwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GLADWIN . It is pr obable that he is the same as William Peverel's predecessor in 10,65, and less likely, but possible (in view of the comparative rarity of this name in Domesday Book), that the Gladwin who had held Wysall before Roger of Bully (9,90) was also this man. On the form of this name, see 9,90 Gladwin note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ROBERT [* OF HERILS *] HOLDS FROM HIM. In a confirmation of Edward II to Lenton Priory, which includes what purports to be William Peverel's original charter (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , v. p. 111 no. I; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 see 10,24 William's note), but which includes gifts that were perhaps made subsequently, a certain Geoffrey }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 de Heriz}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 gave two-thirds of the lordship tithes in Stapleford. This probably implies that the 1086 holder was Robert }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 de Heriz}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , who has also been identified in Derbyshire; see }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 229}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . Robert }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 de}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Heriz}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 himself gave two-thirds of the tithes of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hesburna}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (unidentified) and }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ossecropht}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Oxcroft in Bolsover, Derbyshire) }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to Lenton Priory. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 His place of origin was H\'e9rils, said to lie in the French commune of Maison, in the canton of Tr\'e9vi\'e8res, in the d\'e9partement of Calvados; see Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , pp. 376-77. \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The interlineation of this sentence by the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday was probably done while he was writing the entry, but if n ot, he was apparently unable to add the villagers' ploughs at the same time; see 10,16 ploughs note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WITH 6 PLOUGHS. Scribe B interlined }{\i\f720\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 c\'fb .vi. car'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above, but after the villagers, almost certainly because the tail of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 g }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 g'ld' }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the line above pre vented him from writing it immediately above them: the slaves would most probably not have had ploughs, though see 10,1 slaves note. For other additions perhaps made at the same time as this, see 9,5 Clifton note. For his other contributions to Domesday N ottinghamshire, see 1,12 bovates note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 SLAVES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 seruos}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative plural, the object of 'William has ... Robert holds', as presumably are the 6 villagers (Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 uill'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 1,1 villagers note). On slaves, see 10,1 slaves note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 10,17\tab 'MORTON'. It was 'near Nottingham but now lost' according to }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 270 note 1.}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 It is not found on any Ordnance Survey map, nor is there an apparent trace among the street-names of Nottingham. It was given the Grid Reference SK5638 in t he Phillimore printed edition and is called Morton in Lenton, and located 'possibly at Dunkirk Farm (SK 547373)' in }{\insrsid6823374 Beresford, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Lost Villages of England}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 378; see Beresford and Hurst, }{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Deserted Medieval Villages}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 200. It is not certain if the proposed location is based on good evidence. No 'Morton' in Broxtowe Wapentake appears in the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , though the order of Domesday suggests that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Mortvne}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 lay there; this implies that the editors have found no post-Domesday evidence or are unable to allocate the place to a parish.}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 This place was given to Lenton Priory by William Peverel and it is possible that an assumed proximity to Old Lenton itself, and the presence in Lenton parish of Moorbridge Cottages and a 'Morefeld' (both containing the first element of }{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Mortun}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 e: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 149}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ) have led to a guess that has become a fact. If this is is, it may be that the place is entirely lost and should be left as "Mortune".}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 At some time before 1108 William Peverel founded Len ton Priory on his Nottinghamshire land (10,24) and gave it 'to god and the church of Cluny'. Among his gifts, confirmed by Henry I, was the vill of }{\i\insrsid6823374 Morthon}{\insrsid6823374 ; see }{\i\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{ \insrsid6823374 , v. p. 113 no. II, calendared in }{\i\insrsid6823374 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 162 no. 1282; see also }{\i\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid6823374 , v. p. 111 no. I; }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 91; Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid6823374 , pp. 97, 100.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BOVI . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Boui}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Bou}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Bovi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 204-205. The Alecto edition has Bovi. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire. \par \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 The name Bovi occurs on eight holdings, six of them in central England. Those in Leice stershire and Warwickshire, which devolved upon the Count of Meulun, are grouped around the two Northamptonshire holdings (one of which had been retained by the king in order to build a castle at Rockingham). Given this pattern and the rarity of the name, it is likely that they had been held by one individual before the Conquest. The sixth holding, in Nottinghamshire, is no more distant from this group than the holdings of the Count of Meulun are from each other, so this too may have belonged to the same i ndividual (JP). \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Arlescote is one of the two estates in Warwickshire that Bovi held }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (WAR 16,56).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 12 OXEN. That is, for 1\'bd ploughs; see 1,6 ox note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 10,18\tab NEWBOUND. }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Neubold}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 in the middle of fifty consecutive entries for Broxtowe Wapentake, is unlikely to be Newbold in Bingham (1,58), as }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Domesday Gazetteer}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 (p. 237). It is probably Newbound, by Teversal, in Broxtowe Wapentake, called 'Newbold' until the eighteenth century: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 136 (JRM). The older identification probably depended on assuming that Morcar, the }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 holder of the present esatate, was the same man as Earl Morcar who held Newbold (1,58).}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Newbound was a settlement in Teversall Ancient Parish. Like Teversall i tself (13,8) it probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later. The grid reference is to Newbound Farm (SK490631).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MORCAR. This individual has not been identified. He was not necessarily Earl Morcar. On this name, see 1,58 Morcar note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 40 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,19\tab [OLD] LENTON. Lenton was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other pa rts, see 1,48. 10,24, and for Lenton Priory, see 10,24 William's note. The name Old Lenton has arisen in distinction to the adjacent and recent estate called New Lenton (SK5539).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION OF NEWBOUND. That is, of William Peverel's manor (10,18).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 4 SMALLHOLDERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iiii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and added a new dot after it, probably at an early stage as the pen and ink are the same as those for the surrounding text.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 MILL. The case of the Latin }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 i. molin'}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is unclear, but might be accusative like the ploughs of the Freemen and smallholders; compare 5,15 meadow note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,20\tab 3M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LINBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 234, it is classed as Ancient Demesne, though there is no trace of a royal connection in Domesday. It presumably came to the king on the confiscation of the honour of Peverel.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,21\tab PAPPLEWICK. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For another part, see 30,29.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 At some time before 1108 William Peverel founded Lenton Priory on his Nottinghamshire land (10,24) and ga ve it 'to god and the church of Cluny'. Among his gifts, confirmed by Henry I, were 'what he had in Papplewick', this formula indicating that he did not hold the whole vill; see }{\i\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid6823374 , v. p. 113 no. II, calendared in }{\i\insrsid6823374 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 162 no. 1282; see also }{\i\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid6823374 , v. p. 111 no. I; }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{ \insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 91; Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid6823374 , pp. 97, 100.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 5 BOVATES OF LAND ARE ATTACHED TO THIS MANOR. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In Papeluuic .v. bouatae terrae adiacent huic Manerio}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is awkward. It appears to mean that there are in Papplewick 5 bovates which are attached to, that is, 'belong to' Linby (10,20). The normal Latin would be }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Huic manerio adiacent. v. bouvatae in Papeluuic}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('To this manor [Linby] are attached 5 bovates in Papplewick'). The two places are adjacent. Presumably the main scribe of Great Domesday had already written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In Papeluuic}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 before deciding exactly what to write, and had to force the following Latin. Similar phrasing occurs at 10,41: }{ \i\f713\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In Brochelestou adiacent v acr\'ea}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('In Broxtowe 5 acres are attached'), meaning that there are in Broxtowe 5 acres that are attached to (that is, 'belong to') Nuthall (10,40). Again, the two places are near to one another. In both cases JRM, editor of the Phillimore printed edition, seems to have been misled into allocating separate section numbers.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,22\tab [OLD] BASFORD. Basford was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other references to this place, see 10,23;51-52. 30,28;34. Old Basford probably acquired its affix on the creation of New Basford in 1847.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALWIN. On this name, see S5 Alwin note. William Peverel had four predecess ors in Nottinghamshire called Alwin (10,22;34;48;64), and several in Buckinghamshire, called either King Edward's thane or Queen Edith's thane, and two in Oxfordshire, but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a very com mon name-form that could represent up to four Old English names.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SAXFRITH , WILLIAM'S MAN. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sasford}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Saxford}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Saxford}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Seaxfrith}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 357. JRM preferred the first element Sax- for the Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Seax-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Saxfrid, Sasfrid and, in Yorkshire in error, Saexfrith; these have now been standardized as Saxfrith. The Alecto edition has Seaxfrith for the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 holders, but Sasfrid for the 1086 ones.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab William's tenant and man Saxfrith in 10,51 (also in Old Basford and the only other occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire) was almost certainly the same individual. It is likely that William's other tenants with this name (NTH 35,9-11. LEC 25,5) are also the same man, in view of the comparatively few occurrences of this name in Domesday Book (there are only a dozen other occurrences). See 10,51 Payne note.}{\insrsid6823374 According to Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 417, Saxfrith was the father of Philip of Essebi.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 5 SMALLHOLDERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected their number from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 by superimposing a large }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 v}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 mostly on top of the two minims and added a new dot after it. He made an identic al correction to the number of villagers in Sibthorpe (10,2). On a third large }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 v}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in a correction, see 30,1 Freemen note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,23\tab THIS ENTRY was struck through for deletion, probably by scribe B at the same time as he added virtually identical information on the next folio (10,52): the ink used for that entry is the same darker colour as that used for the deletion line here. The only difference between the two accounts is the omission in 10,52 of the phrase 'it is now in William's charge', which is similar to the one in 10,24. There are two possibilities. Either the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the present entry after the wrong manor of Old Basford or scribe B found an entry for 1 bovate held by Skuli in Old Basford, thought that it had been omitted and so added it, then discovered his mistake and deleted the first entry; see 10,52 entry note. In view of the duplication of material caused when other entries were added (see \{Introduction: Duplicate Entries\} ) - because lack of time precluded checking throug h the original text every time one or other of the two scribes found an apparent omitted entry - the second possibility is more likely. There is a further apparent duplicate of this information in another entry for Old Basford (30,28) where the main scrib e later interlined 'and Skuli [had] 1 bovate - it is waste', though there that holding and another one by Aelfric are designated as manors. For another deleted entry that was a duplicate, see 10,6 entry note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 Roffe, \lquote Introduction', }{\i\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 9, attributes the correction to the scribe's desire to include Old Basford in its correct hundred, with its different ratio of ploughs to carucates, arguing that lands where ploughlands and carucates were equal were in a different hundred to that whe re the ploughlands exceeded the carucates. He says: ' In William Peverel's }{\i\insrsid6823374 breve}{\insrsid6823374 the land of Skuli is entered in the first section but was marked for deletion, only to be enrolled some twenty-seven entries later in the second hundred in which Old Basford l ay'. This rather assumes that the deletion of the first occurrence of Old Basford preceded the inscription of it a second time. Roffe was not aware that scribe B was responsible for the added entry and the deletion. On the complexity of the relation of pl oughlands to carucates and on the hundredal implications, if any, see \{Introduction: Small Hundreds\}. \par \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Penguin edition of the Alecto translation does not indicate the deletion of this entry at all; for its other failings of this nature in Nottinghamshire, see 1,16 bovates note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SKULI . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Escul}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Escule}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Scula}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Scule}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sclula}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Escula}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Skuli}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 366. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Skuli and (here in Nottinghamshire, in error) Aswulf; these have now been standardized as Skuli. The Alecto edition has Skuli. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The three references to Skuli in Domesday Nottinghamshire (10,23;52. 30,28) are to the same person; on the likelihood that they are duplicate entries, see 10,23 entry note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IN WILLIAM'S CHARGE. See 10,24 William's note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,24\tab [OLD] LENTON. Lenton was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other parts, see 1,48. 10,19. The name Old Lenton has arisen in distinction to the adjacent and recent estate called New Lenton (SK5539).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFNOTH . }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Vnlof}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 explained as 'Olaf' in }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 von Feilitzen, }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 335; but in the next line called }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 isd}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 em}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Vlnod }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ('the same Wulfnoth'). Wulfnoth is also spelt }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Vlnof }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 in Dorset (}{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Liber Exoniensis}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , folio 60a), and in Kent the same person}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is given as }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Vnlot }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 and }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Vlnot }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (KEN 5,158;167), see 9,84 Wulfheah note (JRM).}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On the name Wulfnoth, see 10,15 Wulfnoth note. The Alecto edition has 'Olaf ... the same Olaf'. However, in view of the closeness of the only two holdings in which Wulfnoth appears in this county (the other being Radford, 10,15), h is being William Peverel's predecessor there too, the number of Englishmen who retained their land in this fief (NTT 10 William note), and the rarity of the Old Norse/Old Danish name }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Olafr}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 /}{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Olaf}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , it is very likely that }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Vnlof}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 is a simple scribal error for }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Vlnod}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , as also probably in LIN C14 (}{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Vnlof presbiter}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 : a Wulfnoth (}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Vlnod'}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ) the priest occurs in C14 who must be the same man). See }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , i. pp. 229-30; Fellows Jensen, }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \lquote Domesday Tenants in Lincolnshire\rquote ,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 pp. 34-35.}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Instances like this indicate how difficult it is to link a Domesday form with a particular Saxon, Danish, Norman, Fleming or Breton name.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NOW IN WILLIAM'S CHARGE. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in custodia Will}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 elm}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 i}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 custodia}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 meaning 'guarding' or 'keeping'. The sense is that this is not part of William's own fief, but that he is looking after it for someone else. It is difficult to see why it was not included in NTT 30, the land of the king's thanes. It may be that Wulfnoth (probably the holder of 1 bovate of thaneland in 10,15: 10,15 Wulfnoth note), who was permitted to retain his 1066 estate, held it under the supervision of William Peverel, or William may have been acting as the king's agent or bailiff, farming the estate on the king's behalf; see Round, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Geoffrey of Mandeville}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , appendix I pp. 297-98; }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 228}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . For other instances in Nottinghamshire, see 10,23;32. In Derbyshire, William is also in charge of (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 custodit}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) several estates for the king; see DBY 1,29;32;35-32.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab It seems that William subse quently acquired this estate and gave it to Lenton Priory which he founded at some time before 1108 and gave to the monks of Cluny. That priory was explicitly said to have been founded on his lordship land (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 149) and it is not certain if th e gift included the Jurisdiction of Newbound (10,19) that was also in [Old] Lenton. The gift of [Old]Lenton specifically excluded 4 mills. Other estates in Nottinghamshire and elsewhere were given by his tenants}{\insrsid6823374 ; see }{\i\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid6823374 , v. p. 113 no. II, calendared in }{\i\insrsid6823374 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 162 no. 1282; see also }{\i\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid6823374 , v. p. 111 no. I; }{ \i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 91; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Medieval Religious Houses}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 97, 100. This grant was confirmed in 1121 by Henry I and he added a number of gifts and liberties, including a eight-day fair at the feast of St Martin: }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 162 no.1282.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 MILL, 10s; MEADOW, 10 ACRES; UNDERWOOD, 10 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 for the underwood is accusative, so it is likely that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 molin'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 are also accusative; see 1,1 fishery note, 5,9 mill note and 5,15 meadow note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,25\tab TOTON. This was a township of Attenborough Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab HEALFDENE. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On this name, see 4,1 Healfdene note. It is likely that William Peverel's predecesso r in Nuthall (10,40) was the same person as his predecessor here; the estates are just over six miles apart.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab He was perhaps the same man as the king's thane of that name, who held land in Cromwell (30,4), and was an ancestor of the medieval lords Cromwell; }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 234, though Stenton did not refer to this Healfdene; see 30,2 Healfdene note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WARNER , WILLIAM'S MAN. In a confirmation of Edward II to Lenton Priory, which includes what purports to be William Peverel's original charter (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , v. p. 111 no. I; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 see 10,24 William's note), but which includes gifts that were perhaps made subsequently, Robert son of Warner gave two-thirds of the lordship tithes in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thonethona}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [Toton]. He was probably the son of the Domesday tenant Warner.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Warneri}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Warnerus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Garner}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Warnari}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Warinhari}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Warinher}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc., Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Garnier}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 247-48. The Alecto edition also has Warner.} {\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Warner, William's man, is also a subtenant of William Peverel in 10,35 and a Warner was his subtenant in DBY 7,5-6, probably all the same person. }{\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{ \i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 461, has six references to folio 276b (Derbyshire) wh en there are only two references to Warner there, perhaps because six places are named (including Shirland), though see 2,3 Robert note on her referencing policy and compare 11,3 Mauger note, 17,16 Robert note and DBY 10,4 Robert note. See also 15,10 Warn er note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HALF A CHURCH AND A PRIEST. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ibi dim}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 idia}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 aecl}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 esi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 a 7 p}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 res}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 b}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ite}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]r. The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 dimidia}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('half') could presumably govern the priest as well, being shorthand for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ibi dimidia aecclesia et dimidius presbyter}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , since half-villagers occur in Domesday. This priest is, however, probably a whole one: the other half of the church is probably at Chilwell and 'Eastern' Chilwell (13,4) where no priest is mentioned; although there is an unmatched half church also at Ba rton-in-Fabis (13,1); see 13,1 church note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A SMALL WILLOW-BED. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 paruu}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 m}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 salictu}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 m}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 salictum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is a collective noun from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 salix}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('a willow') and meaning a 'willow-plantation', 'a wood of willows'. Willow wood was used among other things for the making of baskets, fences and wattles.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab These willows were probably adjacent to the 4 acres of willow-bed at Chilwell and 'Eastern' Chilwell (13,4): Toton had a Jurisdiction in Chilwell (10,26). Both will have lain on the fringes of the River Trent. These are the only occurrences of willow-beds in Domesday Book.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,26\tab A JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. That is, Chilwell is a Jurisdiction of Toton (10,25). For the possibility that this entry is duplicated in the added entry at 13,5, see 13,5 entry note.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab CHILWELL. This was a hamlet of Attenborough Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other references to Chilwell, see 13,1;4-5, and for 'Eastern' Chilwell, see 13,1;4. 30,52.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In a confirmation of King Edward II to Lenton Priory, which includes what purports to be William Peverel's original charter (}{\i\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid6823374 , v. p. 111 no. I), but which includes gifts that were perhaps made subsequently, a certain Norman }{\i\insrsid6823374 de Montfaltrel}{\insrsid6823374 gave two-thirds of the lordship tithes in }{\i\insrsid6823374 Chilwella}{\insrsid6823374 ,}{ \i\insrsid6823374 }{\insrsid6823374 presumably this estate, as well as in two other places, one in Derbyshire and one in Northamptonshire. No Domesday tenant is named, but this Norman may have been on the estate, or he may have acquired it after 1086.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \{\{}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 5\}\} 3 BOVATES. Scribe B interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .iii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .v.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 written by the main scribe of Great Domesday, which he then underlined for deletion. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including ninetee n to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note. The Phillimore printed edition has '8 bovates', but the underlining shows that the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .iii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 was not to be added to the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .v.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; compare 10,33 bovates note. The first version of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Domesday Explorer }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 had '5 8 bovates'. On the possible significance of this correction, see 13,5 entry note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,27\tab STRELLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 111; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,28. 30,31.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODRIC. See 10,1 Godric note, and on this name, see 2,10 Godric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODWIN THE PRIEST. }{\insrsid6823374 William's predecessor in Adbolton (10,56) was Godwin the priest and he is almost certainly the same as this man: these are the only occurrences of this per son in this county and many Englishmen in William's fief retained their land (NTT 10 William note); see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. pp. 229-30. Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 223, implies that both are William's tenants. She states that descent was to the }{\i\insrsid6823374 Stredlegh}{\insrsid6823374 family (named from Strelley) but does not say }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 if Godwin was its progenitor}{\insrsid6823374 . A plain Godwin was a subtenant of William at Costock (10,53). He may have been the same man, but the name was a very common one \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On the name Godwin, see 6,9 Godwin note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,28\tab THERE ALSO ^[STRELLEY]^. See 10,27 Strelley note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BRUN . The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Brun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), represents Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Brun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , though in some cases it might represent Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Brunn}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Danish/Old Swedish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Brun}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 209. JRM may have preferred the modern name Brown (the translation of the Old English word and the form used in the Phillimore printed translation), but the Domesday form corresponds to the Old English name and so it has been altered to that in the present edition. The Alecto edition has Brun. \par \tab \tab William Peverel's predecessor in Brinsley (10,31), about 5 miles from Strelley, was probably the same man.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AMBROSE HOLDS. The Domesday form of Ambrose, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ambrosius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , is the Latinization of the Greek adjective meaning 'immortal', 'divine', derived from the word for ambrosia, the food of the gods; Ambrose was a celebrated fourth-century church father and the Bishop of Milan. The Alecto edition has Ambrose. \par \tab \tab All th e men called Ambrose in Domesday Book were tenants of William Peverel and so were almost certainly the same person: here and in 10,39, where he is described as William's man, and in BDF 22,1 (Tilsworth), BUK 16,8 and NTH 35,12-13;26. According to }{ \insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 150, he was succeeded in the early twelfth century by two sisters, perhaps his daughters.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,29\tab GREASLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For another part, see 10,30.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFSI. On this name, see 9,36 Wulfsi note; see also 10,3 Wulfsi note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,30\tab THERE ALSO ^[GREASLEY]^. See 10,29 Greasley note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFSI. On this name, see 9,36 Wulfsi note; see also 10,3 Wulfsi note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AELRIC HOLDS. On this name, see 2,3 Aelric note. It is likely that he was the same as William's subtenant in Brinsley (10,31), and might be the same as one of his predecessors in Bilborough (10,39), as a number of Englishmen retained some of their holdings in William Peverel's fief (NTT 10 William note), though he is not included in the list given in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , i. pp. 229-30. The Aelric who was William's predecessor in Hargrave (NTH 35,15) might be the same person too.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Brinsley and Greasley are only 2 \'bd miles from each other and the estates centred on them could have been contiguous. Greasley and Bilborough are less than 4 miles from each other and Brinsley is less than 6 miles from Bilborough.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,31\tab BRINSLEY. This was a settlement in Greasley Ancient Parish. Like Greasley itself (10,29-30) it probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab BRUN . On his name and probable identification, see 10,28 Brun note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab AELRIC HAS. See 10,30 Alric note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab UNDER WILLIAM. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On the use of Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 sub}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , see 3,4 under note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab VILLAGER WHO HAVE [HAS]. The Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 i. vill' habentes }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is either an error for }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 habens}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ;}{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 or else a figure, or an}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 entry of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 bordarii}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 has been omitted (JRM).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 2 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,32\tab EASTWOOD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Estewic}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and later forms such as }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Estweit}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (1165 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pipe Roll}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) suggest derivation from Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 east}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and Old Norrse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 thveit}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('east clearing'). The termination 'wood' appears much later as an alternative (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Eastwait alias Eastwood}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 16 08); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 144.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ULFKIL. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 10,6 Ulfkil note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND [FOR *** PLOUGHS]. On the space left by the main scribe of Great Domesday for the later completion of the plough estimate, see 9,112 land note and 1,59 land note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WILLLIAM HAS CHARGE [OF IT]. It is possible that Ulfkil had retained his land after 1066, but had now died, though the land had not been re-granted, or that William Peverel had been superimposed on Ulfkil;}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 see 10,24 William's note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,33\tab NEWTHORPE. This was a hamlet of Greasley Ancient Parish. Like Greasley itself (10,29-30) it probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 4,8. 10,62-63.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 At some time before 1108 William Peverel founded Lenton Priory on his Nottinghamshire land (10,24) and gave it 'to god and the church of Cluny'. Among his gifts, confirmed by Henry I, were 'what he had in Newthorpe', this formula indicating that h e did not hold the whole vill; see }{\i\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid6823374 , v. p. 113 no. II, calendared in }{\i\insrsid6823374 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 162 no. 1282; see also }{\i\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid6823374 , v. p. 111 no. I; }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 91; Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid6823374 , pp. 97, 100.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GRIMKEL . On this name, see 9,45 Grimkel note. William Peverel was preceded on five holdings by a Grimkel (10,33;43;47;62), and a Grimkel was his tenant in 10,46. They were probably the same person, as the holdings in 10,33;62 were in Newthorpe and those in 10,43;46 were in Watnall. It looks as if he had lost his manors in Newthorpe, Kimberley (10,47) and Watnall (10,43), but had been made one of William's two subtenants in a Jurisdiction in Watnall (1 0,46). On the number of Englishmen holding land from William Peverel in this county, see NTT 10 William note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 7 BOVATES. Scribe B interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .ii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .v.} {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 written by the main scribe of Great Domesday, but as he did not underline that for deletion (as he did the original number of bovates in 10,26) he probably intended the number to be }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .vii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab It is interesting that in the other manor in Newthorpe in this fief (10,62), also held by Grimkel in 1066, waste and with land for \'bd plough, 5 bovates are recorded; a further 2 bovates there are recorded at 10,63, which are also waste, though these are said to be an outlier of Kimberley (10,47) and there is land for 2 oxen. For the possibility that the entry at 10,62 is a duplicate of the present one, and that scribe B made a mistake by interlining the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ii.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , see 10,62 Broxtowe note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,34\tab 3M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BEESTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALFHEAH . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Elfag}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aelfech}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aelfag}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alfah}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alfeg}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alfahc(us)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Elfeg}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alfac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alfag}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alfa}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aelfec}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aelfeth}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alfeih}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alfec}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alfega}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Elfac }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6lfheah}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 174. JRM preferred the first element Alf- for Old English }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'c6lf-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 as it reflected more closely the spellings in Domesday. The Alecto edition has \'c6lfheah. For a misidentification of the form }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alfa}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in 30,29, see 30,29 Alfheah note. \par \tab \tab William Peverel was also preceded by an Alfheah in Old Basford (10,51) and he had a predecessor of that name in South Normanton (DBY 7,4), prob ably the same man, as might be the Alfheah who had held Papplewick (30,29): Beeston, Old Basford and Papplewick are within 3-7 miles of each other and South Normanton is about 9 miles away.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALWIN. On this name, see S5 Alwin note; see also 10,22 Alwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ULFKIL. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 10,6 Ulfkil note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 4 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of ploughs from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iiii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , adding a new dot at the end. Probab ly at the same time he corrected the number of villagers and their ploughs. His source may have been unclear here (see 10,34 [***] note) or he had inadvertently taken the original figures from the details of another holding.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 17 VILLAGERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected an original }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 xiiii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 xvii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 by superimposing in a darker ink a large }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 v}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 over the first two minims; see 10,34 land note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 9 PLOUGHS. In the same darker ink as he had used for his correction to the number of villagers the main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of ploughs from }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 viii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 viii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , adding a new dot at the end; see 10,34 land note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a space between }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ibi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 xx}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , the last two letters of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 viginti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , '20', interlined ab ove it). The reading in his source may have been unclear and he wanted to check it; if so, it was correct and so no alteration was necessary. See 10,34 land note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,35\tab WOLLATON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 111; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For another part, see 1,47.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab YOUNG WULFSI. On the name Wulfsi, see 9,36 Wulfsi note; see also 10,3 Wulfsi note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 \'bd CARUCATES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 car'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 abbreviates }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 carucata}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('carucate'), not }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 caruca}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('plough') as it is translated in the Phillimore edtition and in the first version of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Domesday Explorer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . The presence of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ad g}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ld}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 um}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('taxable') proves that 'plough' is not meant, though the main scribe of Great Domesday usually added }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 terrae}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 car'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 because of the possible ambiguity. }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 The Alecto edition has '1 \'bd carucates'.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WARNER, WILLIAM'S MAN. See 10,25 Warner note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,36\tab COSSALL. This was a chapelry of Wollaton Ancient Parish and, like Wollaton itself (1,47. 10,35), it probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For another part, see 13,12.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AN OUTLIER. Presumably of Wollaton (10,35).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,37\tab BRAMCOTE. This was a chapelry of Attenborough Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For another part, see 29,1. For the possibility that the entry added by the main scribe of Great Domesday among members of the royal manor of Mansfield (1,46) was a duplicate of the present entry, see 1,46 entry note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION. Presumably of Wollaton (10,35).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 6 BOVATES. See 1,46 bovates note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,38\tab 'SUTTON [PASSEYS]'. This lost place lay in Wollaton Ancient Parish. The information given in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 154, and in }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Beresford, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Lost Villages of England}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 377, and in }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Beresford and Hurst, }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Deserted Medieval Villages}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 201,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 should now be rejected in favour of Cameron, 'Deserted Medieval Village of Sutton Passeys'. Cameron gives a detailed history and topography of the estate and suggests that its centre lay at SK544400.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Like Wollaton itself (1,47. 10,35) 'Sutton Passeys' probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 111; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. The affix 'Passeys' comes from a later holder: John }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Passeys}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 held }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sutton' Passeys}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 }{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 314.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For the probability that this entry was duplicated in an entry added after rubrication, see 30,55 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION. Presumably of Wollaton (10,35).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,39\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BILBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 111; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For another part, see 1,50.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AELRIC . On this name, see 2,3 Aelric note. On his possible identification, see 10,30 Aelric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFSI [SON OF ?] SWEIN. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlsi. Suen. vii. bou' }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 over erasure. He may have omitted }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 filius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 before }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Suen}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (the suggestion of the printed Phillimore translation) or an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 before it, making the }{\i\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\insrsid6823374 holders Aelric, Wulfsi and Swein, though the marginal }{\i\insrsid6823374 II M'.}{\insrsid6823374 would then be an error for }{\i\insrsid6823374 III M'}{\insrsid6823374 , unless two of the three men held jointly. His source may have been unclear.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 The Alecto edition has 'Wulfsige [and] Swein'.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On the name Wulfsi, see 9,36 Wulfsi note, and compare 10,3 Wulfsi note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR AS MANY OXEN. That is for 7, not quite a full plough-team; see 1,6 ox note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AMBROSE , WILLIAM'S MAN. See 10,28 Ambrose note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 4 SLAVES. See 10,1 slaves note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,40\tab NUTHALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For another part, see 30,32.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab HEALFDENE. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On this name, see 4,1 Healfdene note. It is likely that William Peverel's predecessor in Toton (10,25) was the same person as his predecessor here; the estates are just over six miles apart.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab He was perhaps the same man as the king's thane of that name, who held land in Cromwell (30,4), and was an ancestor of the medieval lords Cromwell; }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 234, though Stenton did not refer to this Healfdene and the other holding in Nuthall (30,32) was not held by Healfdene; see 30,2 Healfdene note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,41\tab BROXTOWE. This was a chapelry of Bilborough Ancient Parish. It named the wapentake in which it lay in 1086 and was still there later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 1,49. 28,3.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 5 ACRES ARE ATTACHED. The Latin appears to mean that there are in Broxtowe 5 acres that are attached to (that is, 'belong to') Nuthall ; the two places are near to one another. For the awkwardness of the Latin here, see 10,21 attached note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,42\tab WATNALL. This was a hamlet of Greasley Ancient Parish. Like Greasley itself (10,29-30) it probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. Watnall is represented by Watnall Cantelupe (SK5045) and Watnall Chaworth (SK5046). For other parts, see 10,43-46.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The five entries for Watnall in this fief (10,42-46) amount to 2 carucates, of which 6 bovates are Jurisdictions (10,42;45-46). There is some disorder in the arrangement of the material which suggests that the main scribe of Great Domesday had some difficulty in separating these five estates from a schedule in which they were en g rossed in an entry for the vill of Watnall. The first entry for Watnall (10,42) seems occasioned by the fact that it was a Jurisdiction of Nuthall (10,40) but this presumably led on to the inscription of the entries for Watnall which followed. The entry f or the manor at 10,43 lacks population and a value, while that for the other manor (10,44) lacks all details apart from the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . holder and the taxable extent. There follows an estate (10,45) that is both in Watnall and a Jurisdiction of one of the manors of Watnall, presumably of the last to be entered (10,44). Finally comes another Jurisdiction in Watnall (10,46) this time of Bulwell. In the Phillimore printed edition this last Jurisdiction appears to have a plough estimate, ploughs, population, woodlan d pasture, a value and a statement that 'Jocelyn and Grimkel hold it', as these details are continuous with the statement 'Jurisdiction of Bulwell'. In the manuscript, however, these details begin on a separate line and they almost certainly do not relate to the Jurisdiction, but to the manor at 10,44. But there is a further possibility that these details also supply those missing from the other manor (10,43). It may be that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 there was one manor in Watnall, held by Grimkel and Siward, but that it was b eing treated as two in 1086 because one was a lordship manor of William Peverel and the other was held by Grimkel (presumably the same man) and Jocelyn as subtenants. If so, the scribe introduced two confusions: firstly by inserting the two Jurisdictions (10,45-46) in the middle of the details of the manor that he had begun at 10,44, and secondly in failing to divide the details of the single }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 manor that had become two in 1086. It is even possible that the woodland pasture of 10,43 is duplicated by th at at 10,46 (with a figure error of 2 for 3 or 3 for 2 in the width), and that a single quantity of woodland pasture (5 furlongs by 2 or 3 furlongs) should be divided between the two manors. For a parallel instance, see Hawton (14,1-3) where there are two manorial entries, a Jurisdiction and the value of the whole apparently given at the end; see 14,3 value note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Roffe (}{\insrsid6823374 \lquote Introduction', }{\i\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 11) attributes this unusual treatment to the fact that Bulwell and two parts of Watnall lay in three separate hundreds, but this seems improbable; see \{Introduction: Small Hundreds\}.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION. That is, presumably, of Nuthall (10,40).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,43\tab WATNALL. On this place, see 10,42 Watnall note. No value is given for this entry and no population. T hey may have been omitted, or the value at least may be included in the value statement at 10,46; see 10,42 Watnall note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GRIMKEL . On this name, see 9,45 Grimkel note; see also 10,33 Grimkel note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,44\tab WATNALL. On this place, see 10,42 Watnall note. This entry lacks all details apart from the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . holder and the taxable extent. They may have been omitted, or the value at least may be included in the value statement at 10,46; see 10,42 Watnall note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SIWARD. On this name, see S5 Siward note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,45\tab THERE ALSO ^[WATNALL]^. On this place, see 10,42 Watnall note. This entry and and the first two sentences of 10,46, comprising the two Jurisdictions in Watnall, appear to interrupt the details of the manor begu n at 10,44. The rest of 10,46, beginning with 'Land for 1 plough', is a continuation of the details of the manor of Watnall (10,44); see 10,42 Watnall note}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GRIM. On this name, see 9,62 Grim note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION OF WATNALL. That is, this part of Watnall is a Jurisdiction of one of the manors of Watnall (10,43-44), probably of the last mentioned (10,44).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,46\tab THERE ALSO ^[WATNALL]^. On this place, see 10,42 Watnall note. The first two sentences of this entry, like the whole of the previous one, appear to i nterrupt the details of the manor begun at 10,44. The rest of 10,46, beginning with 'Land for 1 plough', is a continuation of the details of the manor of Watnall (10,44); see 10,42 Watnall note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALMER. On this name, see 9,70 Almer note. There are only two occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire (the other is in 9,70), but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a very common name-form representing two Old English names.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION OF BULWELL. That is, of William Peverel's manor there (10,66; on its addition, see 10,66 Bulwell note).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 1 PLOUGH ... HOLD IT. These details do not belong to the present Jurisdiction, but appear to be a continuation of those for the manor of Watnall at 10,44 and possibly of those for the one at 10,43; see 10,42 Watnall note and compare 14,3 lands note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab JOCELYN. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gozelin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Godzelinus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Goscelinus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gautselin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gauzlin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Goz(e)lin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old French}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Goscelin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gosselin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Jocelin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Joscelin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Joselin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc: Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 128-29. Jocelyn, which also derives from these names (Reaney, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), was chosen by JRM. The Alecto edition has Joscelin.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In a confirmation of Edward II to Lenton Priory, which includes what purports to be William Peverel's original charter (}{\i\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid6823374 , v. p. 111 no. I; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 see 10,24 William's note), but which includes gifts that were perhaps made subsequently, a certain }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Goscelin}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 gave two-thirds of the lordship tithes in Watnall. He was probably William's tenant Jocelyn.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In 1129 Watnall was held by Ralph son of Ingelran. }{\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 237, suggests that he might have acquired it through marriage to a daughter and heiress of Jocelyn. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The only other occurrence of the name Jocelyn in Domesday Nottinghamshire is as a tenant of Ralph of Buron (15,9).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GRIMKEL . On this name, see 9,45 Grimkel note; see also 10,33 Grimkel note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,47\tab KIMBERLEY. This was a chapelry of Greasley Ancient Parish. Like Greasley itself (10,29-30) it probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 111; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. }{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab AZUR. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On this name, see S5 Azur note. He might be the same person as William Peverel's predecessor in Barnstone (10,61), but it is about 16 miles from Kimberley, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and Azur was a common name.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab GRIMKEL }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 . }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On this name, see 9,45 Grimkel note; see also 10,33 Grimkel note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,48\tab THERE ALSO ^[KIMBERLEY]^, IN AWSWORTH. Scribe B interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In EldEVRDE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 IBIDE'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 written by the main scribe of Great Domesday. As he did not delete the latter, he probably intended the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In Eldevrde}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to give a more specific name to what was part of the estate of Kimberley. The two are adjacent (at SK4944 and SK4844). The scribes of the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Abbreviatio}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (folio 204v) and of the Breviate (folio 147r), however, assumed that th is was a replacement name. Compare DBY 6,70 there note. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, see 1,12 bovates note. \par \tab \tab Awsworth was a chapelry of Nuthall Ancient Parish. Like Nuthall itself (10,40. 30,32) it probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For another part, see 30,33. There is no reason to think that that is a duplicate of the present entry, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 pace}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Black and Roffe, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 32, as the holders in 1066 and 1086 are different and there is no mention of the manor in 10,33 being waste.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALWIN. On this name, see S5 Alwin note; see also 10,22 Alwin note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WILLIAM HAS CHARGE [OF IT]. See 10,24 William's note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,49\tab HUCKNALL. Hucknall Torkard was an Ancient Parish. Domesday }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hochenale}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is represented by the adjacent settlements of Hucknall (SK5349) and Hucknall Torkard (SK5348). Hucknall and Hucknall Torkard lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 (the entry for Hucknall at 15,4 is beneath a wapentake head) as they did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab There is another Hucknall in Nottinghamshire, Hucknall-under-Huthwaite, which was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of Sutton-in-Ashfield. This Hucknall first occurs as }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hodweit}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in 1199 and the addition }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hokenhale}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hockenall}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is first found in the fourteenth century; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 119. This Hucknall (Hucknall-under-Huthwaite) is not related to the Domesday estate of Hucknall and Hucknall Torkard, but was presumably part of Sutton-in-Ashfield (1,23, part of Mansfield) in 1086.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,50\tab MARGINAL }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . The Phillimore printed translation has a marginal }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Manerium}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('manor') in error.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HEMPSHILL. This was a settlement in Nuthall Ancient Parish. Like Nuthall itself (10,40. 30,32) it probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later; see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 150.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ITS JURISDICTION LIES IN BULWELL AND WATNALL. That is, in William Peverel's manors (10,66 and 10,43-44 respectively). On the addition of the entry for Bulwell, see 10,66 Bulwell note. It is unusual for jurisdiction to be split in this way, though a part of Watnall (10,46) was a Jurisdiction of Bulwell and another part of Watnall (10,45) was a Jurisdiction of Watnall itself. It is possi ble that Watnall and Bulwell themselves had been a unit and that when they split the units's jurisdiction was split also. \par \tab \tab The Phillimore printed translation has 'The jurisdiction... '. However, the Latin reads }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 H' SOCA}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . The }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 H'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 could be expanded to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Haec}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (feminine nominative singular agreeing with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 soca}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) and would give a concrete sense to }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 soca}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('this Jurisdiction'). The use of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iacet in}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 soca}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is unusual, but paralleled at 30,55: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 soca iacet in Ollauestone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('the jurisdiction lies in Wollaton') where }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 soca}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 appears to have an abstract sense and the genitive singular }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 huius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('the jurisdiction of it') is implied. In the present entry the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 H' }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 could stand for }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Huius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and so the meaning would be abstract ('The jurisdiction of this land lies in ... '), being similar in meaning to 9,118: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 de quibus est soca in Sandebi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('whose jurisdiction is in Saundby') and 11,15: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 de qua soca pertinet ad Sudwelle}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('Its jurisdiction belongs to Southwell'). The phrase }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iacet in}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('lies in') is often equivalent to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 pertinet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('belongs to').}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,51\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [OLD] BASFORD. Basford was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,22-23;52. 30,28;34. Old Basford probably acquired its affix on the creation of New Basford in 1847. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In a confirmation of Edward II to Lenton Priory, which includes what purports to be William Peverel's original charter (}{\i\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid6823374 , v. p. 111 no. I; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 see 10,24 William's note), but which includes gifts that were perhaps made subsequently, a certain }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Saped}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 gave two-thirds of the lordship tithes in Basford. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Saped}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 could be a mangled form of the name of the 1086 holder, Saxfrith. Robert son of Payne also gave the same in Basford; he is presumably the son of the 1086 holder Payne.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALFHEAH . On this name and probable identification, see 10,34 Alfheah note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALGOT . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Algod}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alcot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Algolt}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aelgotus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Algot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Algot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 146, though he stated that derivation from Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Adalgot }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc. was theoreticially possible. The last three forms are of 1086 tenants. The Alecto edition has Algot for both }{\i\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\insrsid6823374 and 1086 holders.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire. The only other }{\i\insrsid6823374 T.R.E. }{\insrsid6823374 holder called Algot was a monk in WOR 8,6 and unlikely to have been the same individual as the Algot here..}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR AS MANY PLOUGHS AND OXEN. That is, for two ploughs and three oxen; see 1,6 ox note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab PAYNE . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pagan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pagen}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent the medieval Latin word }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 paganus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 paien}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 'a heathen; rustic; child whose baptism has been put off': von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 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 deci ded 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.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire. According to }{\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 321, he was the same person as William Peverel's subtenant in BUK 16,3 (Tetchwick). LEC 25,3 and NTH 35,8. Certainly it is likely that the Payne of LEC 25,3 and NTH 35,8 were the same as the Payne in this entry, as Saxfrith, Payne's co-ten ant here, was also William's subtenant in LEC 25,5 and NTH 35,9-11.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AND SAXFRITH , WILLIAM'S MEN, HAVE. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 Sasfrid'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pagen}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . Probably at the same time he corrected }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 h \'f4es Will'i h'nt}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 over the erasure of an original (}{\i\f720\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 h\'f4}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 )}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Will'i h't}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('William's man, has').}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On the probable identity of Saxfrith and his name, see 10,22 Saxfrith note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 3 MILLS, 25s 4d; MEADOW, 6 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra} {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative, as may be }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 molin'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 1,1 fishery note and 5,9 mill note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab UNDERWOOD. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 silua minuta}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is nominative, unlike the meadow acres, probably deliberately as the main scribe of Great Domesday regularly put the woodland (pasturable woodland and underwood) in a new sentence; see 1,1 fishery note. The Phillimo re printed translation as usual includes it with the other resources and the Alecto edition has a comma before it.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,52\tab THIS ENTRY was added by scribe B in a space left at the end of the previous entry (10,51) at the same time as several other additions; see 9,5 Clifton note. He may have been responsible for the deletion, by striking through, of the rubricated entry on the previous folio (10,23) which read 'There also [that is, in Old Basford] Skuli had 1 bovate of land taxable; it is now in William's cha r ge': the deletion line is in the same darker ink as the present addition. On the possible reasons for this and for Roffe's view, see 10,23 entry note. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including five other members of manors, see 1,12 bovates note. \par \tab \tab There is a further apparent duplicate of this information in another entry for Old Basford (30,28) where the main scribe interlined 'and Skuli [had] 1 bovate - it is waste', though there that holding and another one by Aelfric are d esignated as manors.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THERE ALSO ^[[OLD] BASFORD]^. See 10,51 Basford note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SKULI. On this name, see 10,23 Skuli note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,53\tab COSTOCK. This was an Ancient Parish. The manors here (9,94. 10,53. 15,5) appear to have been among the five places (Costock, Remps tone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which in 1086 formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and \{Introduction: }{\insrsid6823374 Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \}. Costock later lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,94. 10,11. 15,5.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For the probable grant of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday, see 3,2 Normanton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FREDEGIS [* FATHER OF GODRIC *]. He was probably the father of Godric who had held another part of Costock (9,94) and who was probably holding it himself when it was granted soon after 1086 to St Cuthbert's of Durham; see 3,2 Normanton note. See also 10,5 5 Fredegis note. \par \tab \tab On this name, see 2,1 Fredegis note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 2 OXEN. The estimates for the various parts of Costock and Rempstone, which are either combined in the text or in adjacent entries (9,94. 10,11;53-54. 15,5-6) make up land for 42 oxen (13+1+2+6+14+6), or five plough-teams plus 2 oxen.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODWIN. It is not certain, in view of the commonness of this name, whether this is the same subtenant of Wiliam as Godwin the priest; see 10,27 Godwin note. On this name, see 6,9 Godwin note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab UNDER WILLIAM. On the use of Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 sub}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , see 3,4 under note}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 VILLAGERS [HAVE] 1 PLOUGH AND MEADOW, 3 ACRES. The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative plural and so must be the object of a verb such as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 habent}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('have') which was omitted in error by the main scribe of Great Domesday here, but included for the virtually identical next entry (10,54). The Phillimore printed translation has '[who have]', but a main verb is needed in this sentence.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,54\tab REMPSTONE. T his was an Ancient Parish. and appears to have been one of the five places (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which, in 1086, formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and \{Introduction: }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \}. It later lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,94. 15,6.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FREDEGIS [* FATHER OF GODRIC *]. On this name, see 2,1 Fredegis note; see also 10,53 Fredegis note and 10,55 Fredegis note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 6 OXEN. The estimates for the various parts of Costock and Rempstone, which are either combined in the text or in adjacent entries (9,94. 10,11;53-54. 15, 5-6) make up land for 42 oxen (13+1+2+6+14+6), or five plough-teams plus 2 oxen.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,55\tab 2M. Only one }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holder, Fredegis, is recorded for Radcliffe-on-Trent, but the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 IIM' }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the margin indicate that in 1066 there were two manors there; see 3,4 2M note. As William Peverel had two subtenants, Fredegis (almost certainly the same man as the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holder) and Wulfgeat, it is possible that the main scribe of Great Domesday or the scribe of a predecessor text omitted a second }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holder, possibly Wulfgeat. The alternative, unless the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 II}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is an error, would be that Fredegis held two estates in Radcliffe-on-Trent.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [BINGHAM WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the estates that follow (10,55-61).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab JRM's note read: 'Radcliffe is li sted in Bingham (11,33), Holme Pierrepont (9,80) in Rushcliffe; Adbolton (10,12;56) therefore seems equally divided between the wapentakes as was Willoughby; 16,5 Willoughby note.' On the division of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, see 9,90 Broxtowe note and 16, 5 Willoughby note. For a discussion of Adbolton, see 10,12 Adbolton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab RADCLIFFE[-ON-TRENT]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For another part, see 11,33. For the difficulty of allocating this and adjacent estates to the correct 1086 wapentake, see 10,12 Adbolton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FREDEGIS [* FATHER OF GODRIC *]. On this name, see 2,1 Fredegis note. Unusually, Fredegis appears to have held Radcliffe-on -Trent both in 1066 and 1086. A man of this name had also held Costock (10,53) and Rempstone (10,54) in 1066 and a Fredegis held Tithby (10,57) in 1086; on the probability that he was the father of Godric, see 10,53 Fredegis note. This may represent some attempt at reduction and re-allocation of a holding; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , i. pp. 229-30.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFGEAT . On this name, see 6,8 Wulfgeat note. It is possible that he is the same as William Peverel's predecessor in Manton (10,64) and that, like Fredegis, he continued to hold in 1086, albeit not his original land. The only other occurrence of a Wulfgeat holding in 1066 and also in 1086 in this county is in 30,1, the land of the king's thanes, and he may be the same person as William's predecessor and subtenant. On the re-allocation of lands of Englishmen, see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , i. pp. 229-30, though Stenton did not include in his list the Wulfgeat who had held Manton.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab UNDER WILLIAM. On the use of Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 sub}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , see 3,4 under note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 18 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE SITE OF HALF A FISHERY AND THE THIRD PART OF 1 FISHERY. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 sed}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 em}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 piscar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iae}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 dimidiae 7 t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 cia}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 m}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 part}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 em}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 uni[us] piscar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iae}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], showing that the third part of the fishery exists and is not merely a site. There was half a fishery at Colwick (10,1) on the other side of the River Trent. On the accusative cases, see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,56\tab ADBOLTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It apparently lay in BinghamWapentake in 1086 (here it is in a sequence of places in that wapentake) as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For another part, possibly a duplicate, see 10,12. This possible duplication was not realized in the Phillimor e printed edition which places that part of Adbolton in Rushcliffe Wapentake. For the difficulty of allocating this and adjacent estates to the correct 1086 wapentake, see 10,12 Adbolton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODWIN THE PRIEST. This Godwin the priest may be the same as the 1086 holder of Strelley; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , i. pp. 229-30; and 10,27 Godwin note. On this name, see 6,9 Godwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 7 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , accusative, here in error; see 1,1 fishery note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,57\tab TITHBY. This was an Ancient Parish, known ecclesiastically as Tithby with Cropwell Butler. Tithby probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For another part, see 11,13.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFRIC. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note. William Peverel had three predecessors called Wulfric (10,57-58;65), possibly the same person, though no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a very common name.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THREE PARTS OF 1 BOVATE. The main scribe of Great Domesday had probably written }{\i\f720\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 t'ci\'e2 part\'e7 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('third part') and scribe B erased the }{\i\f720\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 'ci\'e2 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and the abbreviation sign above the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 e }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 parte}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , then wrote }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 res}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 after the remaining }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (he had accidentally erased the foot of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , so had to overwrite it) and added an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 parte}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to make 'parts'. Compare 9,124 parts note and 4,7 part note. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, see 1,12 bovates note. No other parts of a bovate for Tithby are recorded. \par \tab \tab In the Alecto facsimile the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 tres}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 tref}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , that is, with a bar through the long }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , though the Ordnance Survey facsimile reads }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 tres}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . On other problems of reproduction in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FREDEGIS [* FATHER OF GODRIC *] HOLDS IT. On this name, see 2,1 Fredegis note; see also 10,53 Fredegis note and 10,55 Fredegis note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab UNDER WILLIAM. On the use of Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 sub}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , see 3,4 under note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,58\tab WIVERTON. Wiverton Hall was an extra-parochial place, created a Civil Parish in 1858; see Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Local Administrative Units}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 370. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 10,60. 11,29;32. 27,2. The grid reference is to Wiverton Hall (SK713363).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFRIC. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note; see also 10,57 Wulfric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,59\tab LANGAR. This was part of the Ancient Parish of Langar-cum-Barnstone. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For another part, see 11,28.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODRIC. See 10,1 Godric note, and on this name, see 2,10 Godric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 MILLS, 5s; MEADOW, 50 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative, as may be }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 molin'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 1,1 fishery note and 5,9 mill note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 FREEMAN. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 francus homo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 6,1 freemen note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,60\tab WIVERTON. Administratively, the area known as Wiverton Hall was an extra-parochial place, created a Civil Parish in 1858; see Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 370. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 10,58. 11,29;32. 27,2. The grid reference is to Wiverton Hall (SK713363).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION. That is, presumably of Langar (10,59). The manor of Wiverton occurs in the entry before that (10,58).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 3 \'bd BOVATES. The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 was written partly over erasure by the main scribe of Great Domesday: he seems to have originally written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , then erased the first two minim before adding ithem back again and interlining }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 es}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (the last two letters of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 tres}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , '3') in clarification.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,61\tab BARNSTONE. This was part of the Ancient Parish of Langar-cum-Barnstone. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For another part, see 11,27.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODRIC. See 10,1 Godric note, and on this name, see 2,10 Godric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AZUR. On this name, see S5 Azur note; see also 10,47 Azur note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HAD A HALL EACH. This emphasizes that there were two separate manors here in 1066, though the marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 does not record this; see 9,20 hall note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab EACH HAD. The possession of identical amounts by Godric and Azur suggests that they might be brothers with an equal share in their inheritance.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,62\tab [BROXTOWE WAPENTAKE]. This heading is supplied from evidence of the location of Newthorpe (10,62). Places in Broxtowe Wapentake have already been entered (10,15-54), but material for these two entries (10,62-63) must have been found after the bulk of estates in Broxtowe Wapentake had been inscribed. However, they are not later additions to the text, unlike entries 10,64-66. \par \tab \tab It is possible that this entry is a duplicate of 10,33, also a manor which had likewise been held by Grimkel, had land for \'bd plough and was waste in 1086, and which before the interlineation of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .ii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 by scribe B (10,33 bovat es note) was also assessed at 5 bovates. The main scribe of Great Domesday may thus have discovered this entry with its associated holding of 2 bovates (10,63) which were an outlier of Kimberley (10,47) and thought he had not included either the manor or the 2 bovates there. Scribe B might then have 'corrected' the 5 bovates in 10,33, not realizing that the extra 2 bovates in Newthorpe were an outlier, not a manor.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NEWTHORPE. This was a hamlet of Greasley Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 4,8. 10,33;63. For the possibility that the entry at 10,33 is a duplicate of the present one, see 10,62 Broxtowe note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GRIMKEL. On this name, see 9,45 Grimkel note; see also 10,33 Grimkel note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,63\tab THERE ALSO ^[NEWTHORPE]^. See 10,62 Newthorpe note and 10,62 Broxtowe note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AN OUTLIER OF KIMBERLEY. That is, Newthorpe is an outlier of William Peverel's manor of Kimberley (10,47).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BOTH WASTE. This refers to the two parts of Newthorpe (10,62-63).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,64\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY and the next two (10,65-66) were added together by the main scribe of Great Domesday in part of a large space left by him at the end of William Peverel's fief on fol io 288b. He did not keep exactly to the scored lines, managing to get eight lines of writing onto seven ruled lines. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. However, these entries may have been added even later as t hey contain formulae (such as 'as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 manor(s)', 'is' in the plough estimate, '1 plough there', and in the value statements) that are not found elsewhere in this county or in circuit VI, except in added entries, but in circuits written subsequently; they also lack the marginal }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 IIM'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the case of 10,64 and }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 IIIM'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the case of 10,65), as often happened with added entries. These are features of some other added entries, especially those that were never rubricated, and suggests that the main scribe returned to work on a county long after it and others in its circuit had been completed. In Nottinghamshire such entries with these 'unusual' formulae are 2,3. 5,6;12. 10,64-66. 12,12;23. 13,12-13. 16,12. 20,8. 30,13.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The main scribe failed to indicate that the f irst manor was in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake and that the second and third were in Broxtowe Wapentake, though this is a failing in all but a few of the entries he added after rubrication (LEC 1,12 entry note).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied fro m evidence for the location of Manton (10,64). It would be expected that a place or places in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake would have been entered after those in Newark Wapentake, at the beginning of the fief, which is largely in the standard wapentake order for this county. However, at the very beginning of the fief, the wapentakes are confused and it would also have been easy for the scribe to have missed this single estate in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MANTON. This was a settlement in }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 the Ancient Parish of }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Worksop St Mary and St Cuthbert. Like Worksop itself (9,43) it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 and is probably counted among its unnamed members in later documents; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 107.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALWIN. On this name, see S5 Alwin note; see also 10,22 Alwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFGEAT . On this name, see 6,8 Wulfgeat note; see also 10,55 Wulfgeat note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AS 2 MANORS. This phrase takes the place of an expected marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 IIM'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 10,64 entry note. It is a formula not found in circuit VI, except in added entries (as here also in 20,8 and 30,55), but it occurs in most of the circuits written after it. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE VALUE WAS AND IS. This is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in adde d entries (it also appears in this county in 13,13), but is regularly found in the other circuits, especially circuit II, probably the last one to be written up. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note. Compare 5,6 formerly note and 2,3 value no te.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,65\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY and the previous one (10,64) and the next one (10,66) were added together by the main scribe of Great Domesday in part of a large space left by him at the end of William Peverel's fief on folio 288b. He did not keep exactly to the scored lines, managing to get eight lines of writing onto seven ruled lines. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. Some of the formulae found in them are not found elsewhere in circuit VI; see 10,64 entry note and 5,6 formerly note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [BROXTOWE WAPENTAKE]. This and the following place (Bulwell, 10,66) were presumably found as the result of a check. Places in Broxtowe Wapentake had already been entered (10,15-54;62).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SELSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFMER. On other possible holdings of Wulfmer in Nottinghamshire and on his name, see 2,9 Wulfmer note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GLADWIN . He is probably the same as William Peverel's predecessor in 10,16, and might be the same as Roger of Bully's predecessor in Wysall (9,90) in view of the comparative rarity of this name in Domesday Book. On the form of this nam e, see 9,90 Gladwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFRIC. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note; see also 10,57 Wulfric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AS 3 MANORS. This takes the place of an expected marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 IIIM'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 10,64 entry note. It is a formula not found in circuit VI, except in added entries, but it occurs in most of the circuits written after it. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 1 PLOUGH. The main scribe of Great Domesday included }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'e7 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 est}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 'is') in the plough estimate in this added entry, as he also did in the entry fo r Ranskill (5,12) that he added on folio 283b. These are the only occurrences of the verb in this formula in Domesday Nottinghamshire; see 5,12 plough note. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FORMERLY 8s; VALUE NOW 10s. This is a formula n ot found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries; see 5,6 formerly note and compare 2,3 value note and 10,64 value note. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 10,66\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY and the two previous ones (10,64-65) were add ed together by the main scribe of Great Domesday in part of a large space left by him at the end of William Peverel's fief on folio 288b. He did not keep exactly to the scored lines, managing to get eight lines of writing onto seven ruled lines. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. Some of the formulae found in them are not found elsewhere in circuit VI; see 10,64 entry note and 5,6 formerly note. See 10,66 Bulwell note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BULWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. Geographically it must have lain in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 234, it is listed as Ancient Demesne, though there is no royal connection evidenced in 1086; it probably came into the king's hands by the escheat of the honour of Peverel. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Bulwell had already been referred to twice earlier in William Peverel's fief as having the jurisdiction over land in Watnall and Hempshill (10,46;50), but the manor itself had not been described; this addition rectifies the omission (compare DBY 6, 101 entry note).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODRIC. See 10,1 Godric note, and on this name, see 2,10 Godric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AS A MANOR. This takes the place of the marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and is a formula not found in circuit VI, except in added entries (see also here in 5,6. 12,12. 16,12 and 30,10), but it occurs in most of the circuits written after it. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 PLOUGH THERE. This formula is only found here in Nottinghamshire, but compare the similar formula in two other added unrubricated entries (13,12. 1 6,12) and 5,6 plough note and 30,10 ploughs note. It does not occur anywhere else in circuit VI, though it is common in circuits written up later. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FORMERLY 12s; VALUE NOW 5s. On this formula, not found in circuit VI, except in added unrubricated entries, see 5,6 formerly note and compare 2,3 value note and 10,64 value note. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FOR A MISPLACED ENTRY after the entry for Bulwell in the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation, see 11,25 Flintham note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11\tab THIS FIEF was misnumbered }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 X}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 by the main scribe of Great Domesday; see NTT 7 fief note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND OF WALTER OF AINCOURT. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 He probably came from Ancourt, in the French d\'e9partement of Seine-Maritime, arrondissement Dieppe, canton Offranville (Loyd, }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 2), rather than from Aincourt, formerly in the French d\'e9 partement of Seine-et-Oise, arrondissement Mantes, canton Magny, now in that of Val-d'Oise, arrondissement Pontoise, canton Magny-en-Vexin (see Tengvik, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Old English Bynames}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 66). He was ancestor of the family of Deyncourt. His successor was his son Ralph who founded Thurgarton Priory in Nottinghamshire. See Sanders, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 English Baronies}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 15; Keats-Rohan, }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 448. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On the name Walter, see S5 Walter note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab The lands in this fief are entered in wapentakal groups in standard county order. However, wapentake heads have to be supplied throughout the chapter.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 11,1-7 [Newark Wapentake] \par \tab \tab 11,8-9 ['Lythe' Wapentake]}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 11,10-21 [Thurgarton Wapentake] Entry 11,12 is interrupted by an addition (11,13) in}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4275473 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Bingham Wapentake. \par \tab \tab 11,22-33 [Bingham Wapentake].}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,1\tab [NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the manors which follow (11,1-7).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FLAWBOROUGH. This was a chapelry of Staunton Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233 For other parts, see 9,2. 11,3;5.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFRIC. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,2\tab STAUNTON[-IN-THE-VALE]. Staunton was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Staunton with Flawborough. It is called Staunton-in-the-Vale (of Belvoir) to distinguish it from Staunton-on-the-Wolds; see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 217. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For another part, see 1,53.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORI . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Tori}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thori}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thuri}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thure}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Norse /Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thorir}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 393. JRM preferred Thori as the Domesday forms lack a final }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 r}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . However, in the Phillimore printed translations for YKS and LIN the form Thorir appears and for SFK the form Thuri: these have now been standardized as Thori. The Alecto edition has Thorir. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This name only occurs in Domesday Nottinghamshire as a predecessor of Walter of Aincourt (11,2;4;6;8-9;11;18;20;22;24-25); a Thori was also his predecessor in some of his estates in Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and Northamptonshire. No documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them, but it is likely that they were the same man.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,3\tab JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. The three lands which follow were all in the same wapentake (Newark Wapentake) as Staunton[-in-the-Vale] (11,2).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALVERTON. This was a hamlet of Kilvington Ancient Parish. Like Kilvington itself (6,3. 20,2. 22,1) it probably lay in NewarkWapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 20,2. 22,1.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FLAWBOROUGH. This was a chapelry of Staunton Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 9,2. 11,1;5.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 'DALLINGTON'. This lost place lay in Flawborough Ancient Parish and apparently formed the lower part of Flawborough itself at approximately SK778429; see Thoroton, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Antiquities of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iii. p. 116; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 214; }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Beresford and Hurst, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Deserted Medieval Villages}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 200.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab MAUGER HOLDS IT. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Malger}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Malgerius}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Maugier}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : Forssner, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 184. However, Dauzat (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Dictionnaire des Noms et Pr\'e9noms de France}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , under }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Mauger}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) suggested a Germanic origin: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Amal-gari}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , with loss of the initial letter. The Alecto edition has Mauger.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire and Walter of Aincourt has no other tenants called Mauger. According to }{\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{ \i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 294, citing Foulds, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Thurgarton Cartulary}{\insrsid6823374 , pp. xliii, xlvii-xlviii, he was probably the ancestor of Geoffrey of Staunton (named from Staunton-in-the -Vale manor, 11,2) and Thomas of Rolleston. She has three references to folio 288c, but there is only one mention of Mauger there, though the jurisdiction of Staunton lay in three places; on her referencing policy, see 2,3 Robert note and compare 15,10 Wa rner note and 17,16 Robert note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,4\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab COTHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,4. 7,1. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For a grant of tithes from here by Walter of Aincourt to St Mary's of York, see 11,26 Granby note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SWEIN. On this name, see S5 Swein note. Walter of Aincourt was preceded four times by a Swein (11,4;12;14;33), as also in DBY 8,4, and once by a Young Swein (11,10, who was also his predecessor in DBY 8,1;3;5-6); it is hard to prove, in the absence of documentary evidence, whether any or all of them referred to the same person, as Swein was a very common name.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORI . On his possible identity and his name, see 11,2 Thori note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A PRIEST AND A CHURCH. Walter's son, Ralph of Aincourt, granted this church to the Abbey of Thurgarton which he founded; see 11,12 Thurgarton note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,5\tab A JURISDICTION. This makes this part of Flawborough a Jurisdiction of Cotham (11,4).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FLAWBOROUGH. This was a chapelry of Staunton Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233 For other parts, see 9,2. 11,1;3.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 24 ACRES. This information is given twice. It is possible that the first occurrence is in error, the only meadow in Flawborough being held by the 5 Freemen. However, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Domesday Geography of Northern England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 260, hesitantly treats this holding as having 48 acres of meadow.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,6\tab [EAST] STOKE. This was an Ancient Parish, known ecclesiastically as East Stoke with Syerston. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3. 20,3. 21,1. It is represented by East Stoke (SK7549) and Stoke Hall (SK7450). 'East' is probably relative to Stoke Bardolph (SK6441).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORI . On his possible identity and his name, see 11,2 Thori note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OSBERT HOLDS IT. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Osb}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Oseb}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 er}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] - represent either Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Osbeorht}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Osbert}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 388. The Old German form is more likely for the 1086 holders, who are more frequent than the }{\i\insrsid6823374 T.R.E. }{\insrsid6823374 ones. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Alecto edition has Osbert mostly, though Osbeorht for YKS C36. Sometimes there was scribal confusion between the forms }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Osbertus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Osbernus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (Osbern). This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire and Walter of Aincourt has no other tenants with this name.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,7\tab HAWTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3. 14,1-3. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 oca}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] suggests that Hawton was a Jurisdiction of East Stoke (11,6).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space, possibly in case he found another Jurisdiction of East Stoke or, ev en less likely, to mark the end of the account of that estate and its dependency, but as the next entry was in 'Lythe' Wapentake (whereas all the entries up to there were in Newark Wapentake) he may have left it for the later insertion of the wapentake he ad. For a list of other one-line spaces left within fiefs, see 1,44 after note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,8\tab ['LYTHE' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Hockerton and Knapthorne (11,8-9).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HOCKERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,17. 9,60.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORI . On his possible identity and his name, see 11,2 Thori note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 16 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,9\tab KNAPTHORPE. This was a hamlet of Caunton Ancient Parish. Like Caunton itself (5,16. 12,8), it probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 12,7;22. 30,3.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For a grant of tithes from here by Walter of Aincourt to St Mary's of York, see 11,26 Granby note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORI . On his possible identity and his name, see 11,2 Thori note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 2 ACRES. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The case of the Latin }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,10\tab [THURGARTON WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the places that follow (11,11-12;14-21). On the added entry at 11,13, see 11,13 entry note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BULCOTE. This was a chapelry of }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 the Ancient Parish of}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Burton Joyce. Like Burton Joyce itself (9,75. 12,18) it probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab YOUNG SWEIN. On the name Swein, see S5 Swein note. }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Cilt}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 means a young man of noble birth, translated by plain 'young' or 'child ' in the Phillimore printed edition. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Alecto edition has Cild. Some or all of Walter of Aincourt's predecessors called simply Swein may be the same as Young Swein; see 11,4 Swein note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 SLAVES. See 10,1 slaves note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 11,11\tab OXTON. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday had originally written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 OXETVNE}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , but then after he had rubricated it he drew a wavy line under all of it except the initial }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 O }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and then interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 STVNE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in correction: Oxton was spelt }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ostone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in 5,11 and 9,76. This correction was done using a pale r ink than he had used for the original place-name and at the same time he added the entry for Tithby in the foot margin (11,13 entry note) and made other corrections and additions; see 9,93 entry note. In the Alecto facsimile the deletion line is not vis ible under the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 X}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of the original place-name and it is not visible at all in the Ordnance Survey facsimile.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,11. 9,76.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORI . On his possible identity and his name, see 11,2 Thori note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 4 ACRES. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , accusative, after '1 smallholder who has'. The Phillimore printed transla tion does not indicate this, but puts the meadow in a separate sentence; the Alecto edition has a comma before it. See 1,2 meadow note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,12\tab THURGARTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It named the wapentake in which it must have lain in 1086. It was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. }{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For a grant of tithes from here by Walter of Aincourt to St Mary's of York, see 11,26 Granby note. Walter's son, Ralph of Aincourt, on the advice o f Archbishop Thurstan of York (1119-1140) granted to the church of St Peter of Thurgarton at some time after 1119 but probably before 1133 the churches of his lordship lands at Granby (11,26) and Cotham (11,4), as well as a mill on the River Greet and fou r bovates of land: the Thurgarton Cartulary (Foulds, p. 567 no. 988). This seems to have been the first step that led to the founding of the Augustinian priory of Thurgarton. There are signs, however, that the conventual life actually began at Fiskerton. I t was Ralph of Aincourt (Deyncourt) who between 1140 and 1149 really founded the priory. In the so-called second foundation charter (the Thurgarton Cartulary: Foulds, pp. 3-4 no. 1) he gave Thurgarton (11,12), Fiskerton (presumably the manor,11,20, rather t han the Jurisdictions and possible alienations of 11,15;21, or perhaps all), the park next to Thurgarton and all the churches of his lands named as at Granby (11,26), Cotham (11,4), Swayfield (LIN 7,41?, possibly a post-1086 acquisition), Potter Hanworth ( LIN 31,17), Scopwick (LIN 31,14), Kirkby Green (LIN 31,14), Branston (LIN 31,11), Blankney (LIN 31,16), Elmton (DBY 8,5) and Upper Langwith (presumably part of Elmton (DBY 8,5) or of Stony Houghton (DBY 8,6)). A number of these churches are not recorded i n Domesday, but the list does not include all the churches that Domesday does mention on Walter's lands. See }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , vi. p. 191; Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Medieval Religious Houses}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 144, 176; }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 230, ii. p. 120; Foulds, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Thurgarton Cartulary}{\insrsid6823374 , pp. xviii-xxi.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 'HORSEPOOL'. This is a lost place in Thurgarton Ancient Parish. It apparently lay at SK706478, but is not found on Ordnance Survey maps; see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 273 note 2; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 178; }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Beresford and Hurst, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Deserted Medieval Villages}{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 200.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SWEIN. On this name, see S5 Swein note; see also 11,4 Swein note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,13\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was a}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 dded by the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday in}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 the foot margin of folio 288c below the last ruled horizontal line, interrupting the entry for Thurg arton (11,12). He did not include any transposition signs for this brief entry for Tithby, but seems to have tried to link it with the text above by deliberately extending upwards the }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 I}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 of }{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 In}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 (already exceptionally tall) and giving it a hook; see 9,47 entry note and 23,2 entry note and }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 compare WOR 8,25 entry note}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 . As places in this county were generally arranged by wapentake and as those in Bingham Wapentake (in which Tithby lay) had been entered on 288d, the reason for his adding this entry with those in T hurgarton Wapentake is likely to have been its association with the previous entry. However, the link with the manor of Thurgarton is not specified. As regularly with dependent land, and anyway with entries added after rubrication, he did not include a he ad for Bingham Wapentake above it. He wrote this entry at the same time as the unrubricated entry for Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (9,93), }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 also in the foot margin and whose status is similarly missing,}{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 and as several other corrections and additions; see 9,93 entry note. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation this entry appears in the middle of the entry for Thurgarton (11,12) before its population, which is misleading.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab TITHBY. This was an Ancient Parish, known ecclesiastically as Tithby with Cropwell Butler. Tithby probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For another part, see 10,57.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,14\tab HOVERINGHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SWEIN. On this name, see S5 Swein note; see also 11,4 Swein note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,15\tab FI SKERTON. This was a township of Rolleston Ancient Parish. Like Rolleston itself it probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. Fo r other parts, see 11,20-21. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Walter's son, Ralph of Aincourt, granted 'Fiskerton' to the Abbey of Thurgarton which he founded. It is most likely that he granted the manor (11,20), rather than the Jurisdictions and possible alienations (11,15;21); see 11,12 Thurgarton note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ITS JURISDICTION BELONGS TO SOUTHWELL. That is, to the collegiate church of Southwell, held under the Archbishop of York (5,1) of which two-thirds of Fiskerton had probably once been an integral part; see 5,1 Southwell note and 5,1 out liers note. The jurisdictional tie probably indicates that this land had once 'belonged' to Southwell church and this is borne out by the absence of a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holder, which suggests that the Southwell church had held it under the archbishop in 1066. There w ere several estates in this fief that had apparently been drawn out of the lands of Southwell church (11,15-17;21). Of the others Morton (11,16) appears to have originally been given in its entirety with Southwell. Farnsfield (11,17) may also have been al ienated, while the king's portion (1,22) had perhaps been the part that never formed part of the grant. A further part of Fiskerton (11,21) looks like an alienation.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,16\tab MORTON. This was one of several places called Morton in Nottinghamshire. It was a chapelry of Southwell Ancient Parish and was abolished for civil purposes in 1884 to help create the Civil Parish of Fiskerton-cum-Morton and abolished ecclesiastically in 1 886 to help form the Ecclesiastical Parish of Rolleston-with-Morton. Like Southwell itself (5,1) it probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For another part, see 13,13.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WHOSE JURISDICTION BELONGS TO SOUTHWELL. See 11,15 Southwell note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,17\tab FARNSFIELD. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For another reference to Farnsfield, see 1,22.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IN THE JURISDICTION OF SOUTHWELL. See 11,15 Southwell note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE OTHER [IN THE JURISDICTION] OF THE KING. That is, of the royal holding at Farnsfield (1,22), the entry for whi ch states that in Farnsfield the king has 1 bovate of land taxable near Nottingham. The royal estate at Farnsfield may not have been granted to the Archbishop of York with the other part; see 5,1 outliers note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab HUNDRED OF SOUTHWELL. This and the hundreds of Blidworth and Plumtree (18,7. 24,1) may be survivals of small hundreds (S1 hundreds note) (JRM). At least a part of Farnsfield had been an outlier of the manor of Southwell (5,1) and from this entry it would apppear that both parts (1,22. 5,1) were in its hundred; see 5,1 Southwell note and \{Introduction: Small Hundreds\}. For Roffe (}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \lquote Introduction', }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 8), this hundred is mentioned exceptionally because royal land did not 'participate in the system'. He appears to see the sense a s being 'the other bovate is the king's, but despite the fact that royal land is not assigned to hundreds, this piece is, to the hundred of Southwell'. However, it is possible that the contrast is not between this piece of royal land and other royal land o utside the hundredal system, but with the other bovate of Farnsfield which is in the soke of Southwell. Thus the emphasis is 'one bovate is a Jurisdiction of Southwell, but the other is not; it is a Jurisdiction of the king. However, both are in the hundr ed of Southwell, which, apart from this royal bovate, otherwise consists entirely of land held by the Archbishop of York'. There is no reason to think that these 'small hundreds' took account of tenure; they are more a product of carucation: see \{ Introduction: Small Hundreds\} . There is probably no suggestion of irregularity here, since not all of Farnsfield was given to the Archbishop of York with Southwell, and the king's holding may represent the portion that remained ouside the grant; see 5,1 Southwell note. \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. pp. 218-19, the manor of Southwell and the hundred of Southwell were the same. However, although these hundreds are sometimes casually called 12-carucate hundreds, the information does not exist to reconstruct them in Nott inghamshire. In the case of Leicestershire where there is good later evidence, they were larger.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,18\tab ROLLESTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,6. 7,5.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORI . On his possible identity and his name, see 11,2 Thori note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,19\tab A JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. That is, of Rolleston (11,18). Kelham was in a different wapentake ('Lythe' Wapentake) to Rolleston (Thurgarton Wapentake).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab KELHAM. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote all but the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 C}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Calun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 over an erasure, presumably of a longer place-name as it is well-spaced.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 (part of Kelham is below a 'Lythe' wapentake head at 9,59) and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 9,59. 15,3. 18,4. 30,45.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE. Further third parts of a bovate in Kelham are recorded in 9,59 and 15,3 and there are 2 parts of 1 bovate in 30,45.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 50 VIRGATES WIDE. The virgate is here used as a linear measure as in other parts of Kelham; see 1,34 virgates note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,20\tab FISKERTON. This was a township of Rolleston Ancient Parish. Like Rolleston itself it probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 11,15;21. \par \tab \tab It is possible that this estate had formerly been part of the archiepiscopal manor of Southwell (5,1), although Fiskerton was not given in its entirety to the archbishop in 956 and it seems probable that t his manor is the part which at that time was retained by the king.. See 5,1 Southwell note and 5,1 outliers note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORI . On his possible identity and his name, see 11,2 Thori note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 FISHERY; 1 FERRY. These resources are also found at South well (5,1). Since part of Fiskerton was part of Southwell, it is possible that the fisheries and ferries were near to each other. Both no doubt were on the River Trent; see 5,1 ferry note. There is still a ferry at Fiskerton (at SK7451).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,21\tab FISKERTON. This was a township of Rolleston Ancient Parish. Like Rolleston itself it probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 11,15;20. \par \tab \tab Walter's son, Ralph of Aincourt, granted 'Fiskerton' to the Abbey of Thurgarton which he founded. It is most likely that he granted the manor (11,20), rather than the Jurisdictions and possible alienations (11,15;21); see 11,12 Thurgarton note.} {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE ARCHBISHOP ^[OF YORK]^ HAS ITS JURISDICTION. It is likely that this estate had formerly been part of the archiepiscopal manor of Southwell (5,1) and been alienated from it after 1066 like 11,15-17 whose format it shares; see 5,1 outliers note and 11,15 Southwell note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,22\tab [BINGHAM WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the estates listed in 11,22-33.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ASLOCKTON. This was a township of Whatton Ancient Parish. Like the settlement of Whatton-in-the-Vale itself (17,16), it probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 1,57. 17,18. 20,6. 30,37.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORI . On his possible identity and his name, see 11,2 Thori note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WALKELIN , WALTER'S MAN. The Domesday forms - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Walcelin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Walkelinus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Walchelinus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent a Norman French diminutive form of Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Walho }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Walico}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 239. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Walkelin and Walchelin; these have now been standardized as Walkelin. The Alecto edition has Walkelin. \par \tab \tab Walter of Aincourt's subtenant Walkelin in 11,24 is almost certainly the same man; these are the only occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire. On his possible successors, see }{\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 445.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 \'bd PLOUGHS. See 20,6 oxen note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 24 ACRES. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The Latin }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ac}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ra}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 s}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,23\tab HAWKSWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 103; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For another part, see 17,17.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION. That is, presumably, of Aslockton (11,22).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,24\tab [CAR] COLSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 1,56. 9,107.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORI . On his possible identity and his name, see 11,2 Thori note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 \'bd BOVATES. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of whole bovates from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .i.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 by adding a second minim over the first}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and then adding a new one.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WALKELIN . He is probably the same as Walter's man in 11,22; On this name, see 11,22 Walkelin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,25\tab FLINTHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 103; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 1,61. 9,108-109.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For some infathomable reason most of this entry appears in the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation after that for Bulwell (10,66, the last entry in William Peverel's fief) with the rest (the dimensions of the underwood and the value) after the entry for Car Colston (10,24). This is very misleading. It appears in its correct place in the Alecto county edition.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORI . On his possible identity and his name, see 11,2 Thori note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab REGINALD , WALTER'S MAN. The Domesday forms of this subtenant - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rainaldus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Renoldus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Raynold}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Reinaldus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old German }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Raginald}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Reginald}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rainald}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc: Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 208. Although the majority form, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rainaldus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , suggests that in 1086 the person wa s called by the Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rainald}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 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 Regi nald, except for the present entry, where it has Reynold. \par \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire, but Walter of Aincourt's man Reginald also occurs in LIN 31,3;5 and is almost certainly the same person.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 24 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above the original }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in correction, making them bolder.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,26\tab GRANBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For another part, see 27,1.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This was the most valuable of Walter of Aincourt's manors and he seems to have held the whole vill; see 27,2 Colston note. In the so-called Shire Customs (S5) he is listed as having full jurisdiction and market-rights over this manor and Morton (11,16). After 1086, Walter granted the tithes of Cotham, Knapthorpe, Thurgarton, Granby and Hickling (11,4;9;12;26;30) and of Blankney (LIN 31,16) and Potter Hanworth (LIN 31,17) as well as the church of Belton (LIN 31,1) to S t Mary's Abbey of York: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iii. p. 549; Foulds, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thurgarton Cartulary}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. xx; see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 230. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Granby descended in his family, being held as }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Granby et Sotton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Graneby et Sutton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , that is Granby and Sutton [SK7637], by Edmund }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Deyncurt}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 de Eynecourt}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in 1284-85 and 1302-2 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. pp. 91, 101).}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In the Alecto facsimile this place-name appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 GRANESI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , not the clearly-written }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 GRANEBI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of the manuscript. On the problems apparently caused in that facsimile by th e red ink applied over letters, see 5,3 Hickling note. It appears more clearly as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 GRANEBI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the Ordnance Survey facsimile, perhaps because the rubrication was carried out as a separate exercise.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HEMMING . The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Haminc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Haming}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Haming}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Haiminc}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 m }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ing}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hem}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 m}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ingr}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 288-89. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Hemming, Heming and Hemingr; these have now been standardized as Hemming. The Alecto edition has Hemming.}{\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire, but he is almost certainly the same as Walter of Aincourt's predecessor in Lincolnshire (LIN 31,11;16), who enjoyed full jurisdiction and market rights there in 1066 (LIN T5).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab TAXABLE. There is a space between }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ad}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 gld'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , probably because the main scribe of Great Domesday could not write on the raised edge of wha t seems to be scar-tissue in the parchment here; he left smaller spaces before the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iiii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of the lordship ploughs and after the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 car'.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the villagers' ploughs in the next two lines. He avoided this area when he later added the entry for Cossall (13,12) on t he verso. Similar imperfections in the parchment of this folio appear in the entry for Langar (11,28).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A PRIEST AND A CHURCH. Walter's son, Ralph of Aincourt, granted this church to the Abbey of Thurgarton which he founded; see 11,12 Thurgarton note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,27\tab JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. That is, of Granby (11,27).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BARNSTONE. This was part of the Ancient Parish of Langar-cum-Barnstone. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For a nother part, see 10,61.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 OXEN PLOUGHING. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ii boues arantes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . This last word is a participle and is scarcely likely to be used as an otiose adjective ('2 ploughing oxen') as in the Phillimore printed translation. The sense is that the men have two ploughs and a quarter of a plough which is in use. The other six oxen required to make a team (1,6 ox note) are no doubt those given under Langar (11,28) which is adjacent to Barnstone. The phrase, however, seems to add nothing substantial to the comm oner phrase '}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 x}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ploughs and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 y}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 oxen', and appears to be equivalent to the sentence }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 habet .ii. boues in caruca }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('he has 2 oxen in a plough') as at 30,37 and to the phrase }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 arantes .ii. bobus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('who plough with 2 oxen') at 21,1.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,28\tab LANGAR. This was part of the Ancient Parish of Langar-cum-Barnstone. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For another part, see 10,59. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 oca}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] indicates that this was a Jurisdiction, presumably of Granby (11,26).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 6 OXEN PLOUGHING. See 11,27 ploughing note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HALF A CHURCH. The other half does not appear in Domesday. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 dimid'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 over the parchment imperfection described in 11,26 tacable note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 13 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , accusative, here in error; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,29\tab WIVERTON. Wiverton Hall was an extra-parochial place, created a Civil Parish in 1858; see Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Local Administrative Units}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 370. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 10,58;60. 11,32. 27,2. The grid reference is to Wiverton Hall (SK713363). \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 oca}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] indicates that this was a Jurisdiction, presumably of Granby (11,26).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 OXEN PLOUGHING. See 11,27 ploughing note. The two oxen ploughing here are presumably to be associated with the two oxen, not specifically said to be ploughing, at Wiverton (10,60). The odd half-plough remaining may be at Tithby (10,57), but, to be certain, a complete study of all the ploughs in the wapentake would be needed.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,30\tab HICKLING. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 5,3. 20,8, and for a bequest here to Ramsey Abbey, see 5,3 Hickling note. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 oca}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] indicates that this was a Jurisdiction, presumably of Granby (11,26). \par \tab \tab For a grant of tithes from here by Walter of Aincourt to St Mary's of York, see 11,26 Granby note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,31\tab KINOULTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For a nother part, see 30,38 and for a bequest here to Ramsey Abbey, see 5,3 Hickling note. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The present village of Kinoulton (at SK662304) is not the earlier site which is the deserted 'Old Kinoulton' at SK676306. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 oca}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] indicates that this was a Jurisdiction, presumably of Granby (11,26). \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In the manuscript this place-name is written clearly as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Chineltune}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , but in the Alecto facsimile and, to a lesser extent, in the Ordnance Survey facsimile it appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Chinebtune}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . On other problems of reprodu ction in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 7 OXEN PLOUGHING. See 11,27 ploughing note and compare 9,114 oxen note. There were three oxen ploughing at another part of Kinoulton (30,38) and 2 oxen at Hickling and Cropwell Bishop (5,3), making 1\'bd ploughs, but a complete plough is elusive.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 11,32\tab CROPWELL [BUTLER]. This was a township of Tithby Ancient Parish. It lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 (wapentake head above another part at 16,6) as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 16,6. 20,7.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 oca}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] indicates that this and Wiverton were Jurisdictions, presumably of Granby (11,26).}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This Cropwell is clearly different to Cropwell Bishop (5,3) though close to it. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 91, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Crophill Botiller}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 was held with Kinoulton (11,31) by Edmund, the king's brother.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WIVERTON. Wiverton Hall was an extra-parochial place, created a Civil Parish in 1858; see Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Local Administrative Units}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 370. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 10,58;60. 11,29. 27,2. The grid reference is to Wiverton Hall (SK713363). }{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 11,33\tab RADCLIFFE[-ON-TRENT]. In the manuscript there is a tear or cut in the parchment of folio 289 that has been patched on the recto, round which the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the last line of the previous entry (11,32) and the first three lines of this entry, splitting this place-name after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 RA}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . The other side of this defect can be seen within the entry for a Jurisdiction of Hawton (14,3). Farley indicated this in both entries, except that he left no space in }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 RADECLIVE }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 itself. Compare 6,15 hole note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For another part, see 10,55. For the difficulty of allocating this and adjacent estates to the correct 1086 wapentake, see 10,12 Adbolton note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SWEIN. On this name, see S5 Swein note; see also 11,4 Swein note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left the remaining 19 lines of the column blank, perhaps in case he found further holdings of Walter of Aincourt, though probably for aesthetic reasons.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 12\tab LAND OF GEOFFREY ALSELIN.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 His principal estate was at Laxton (12,1). By the thirteenth century his lands formed the barony of Shelford (named from the Domesday estate, NTT 12,19) divided between the families of Everingham and Bardolf; the portion of the barony held by the Everingham family was sometimes known as the barony of Everingham. This division appears to date from the reign of King Henry I when the lands were split between Ralph }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Hanselin }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , presumably his son, and Robert }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 de Caux }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (or}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Calz}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ) (probably from La Chaux in the French d\'e9 partement of Orne, arrondissement Alen\'e7on, canton Carrouges); see Sanders, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 English Baronies}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 76. According to Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 224, Ralph }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 de Caux }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 was the son of Geoffrey's brother. Some of Geoffrey's successors, who took the surname }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Halselin}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 us}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ) or }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Hanselin}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 us}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ) occasionally appear in documents as }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 de Halselin}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 de Hanselin}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , but this is presumably because the name looks like that of a place; it seems that }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Alselin}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Alselinus}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is not a toponym, but a patronymic: Old German and Old French }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Alselin}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (Tengvik, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Old English Bynames}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 213). See }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 231.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On the name Geoffrey, see B13 Geoffrey note. I}{\insrsid6823374 n the Phillimore printed edition Geoffrey is called Geoffrey of Als elin in DBY 9 chapter heading and in LEC 28,1, despite the form being plain }{\i\insrsid6823374 Alselin}{\insrsid6823374 in both instances with no }{\i\insrsid6823374 de}{\insrsid6823374 before it.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab The estates in this fief are entered in wapentakal groups in standard county order, apart from the final two entries which were later additions. All the wapentake headings need to be supplied.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 12,1-10 ['Bassetlaw' Wapentake]}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 12,11-15 ['Lythe' Wapentake] \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 12,16-18 [Thurgarton Wapentake]}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 12,19-21 [Bingham Wapentake] \par \tab \tab (Entries 12,22-23 - in 'Lythe' Wapentake - are later additions.)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 12,1\tab ['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Laxton (12,1).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAXTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This large multiple estate consisted of a head manor (Laxton) and nine Jurisdictions (12,2-10) . The first group of these (12,2-6) lay, like Laxton itself, in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake; the other group (12,7-10) were in 'Lythe' Wapentake. Six of these dependencies (Beesthorpe, Carlton-on-Trent, Eakring, Kirton, Ompton and Willoughby) were shared with M ansfield (1,24) which suggests that Laxton had once been a part of that great royal estate.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Laxton was Geoffrey Alselin's chief manor in Nottinghamshire and later became head of the barony of Everingham; see }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 231. It is }{ \i\insrsid6823374 Laxton cum Morhous}{\insrsid6823374 (Moorhouse in Laxton, SK7566) in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107. It is not certain whether Geoffrey Alselin established Laxton as the head of his entire fief, for he held valuable estates at Hallaton in Leicestershire, where there are traces of a Norman castle and in Lincolnshire. At his death, Shelford in Nottinghamshire (12,19) appears to have been the chief estate of those that remained in the Alselin line. See Stenton, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 First Century of English Feudalism}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 200 note 1; Cameron, 'Laxton before 1635'; Challis, 'Case Study at Laxton, Nottinghamshire'.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *]. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Toki was }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Geoffrey Alselin's only predecessor in Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire, and his chief predecessor in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire. On the ide ntification of these men and others with the same name Toki with the son of Auti, and on the forms of the names Toki and Auti in Domesday Book, see S5 Toki note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This man had had a church in Derby (DBY B5) and 2 \'bd churches as well as 30 messuages and a hall in Lincoln (LIN C4).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 CARUCATES OF LAND. Farley printed }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 .iii. car' }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 in error. There is a small hole in the manuscript after the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 .ii}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , as noted by JRM, but what he thought}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 '}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 might be the bottom of a third stroke below it' is merely the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 punctus}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 after the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ii}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , written after the hole, which was not as JRM suggested 'caused in the course}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 of a deliberate alteration from }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 iii }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 to }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ii}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 '. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .ii. car'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and did not alter it. For an identical mistake by Farley, see 13,6 carucates note , and for other errors of his, see 9,31 Drayton note. Interestingly, the scribes of both the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Abbreviatio}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (folio 205r) and the Breviate (folio 147v) made the same mistake as Farley here.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WALTER, GEOFFREY ALSELIN'S MAN. On the name Walter, see S5 Walter note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 5 MALE SLAVES, 1 FEMALE SLAVE. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 v. seru' . 7 i. ancill'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Seruus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (masculine) is usually translated in this edition simply as 'slave' with 'male' implied. Here 'male' has been inserted for clarity, because of the mention of an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ancilla}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('female slave'). See also 12,18: '1 male and 1 female slave'. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 As the next detail, the meadow acres, are in the accusative case, it would seem that the slaves were also, and the object of either 'Walter ... has' or '22 villagers and 7 smallholders who have'; see 1,1 fishery note. }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On slaves in this county, see 10,1 slaves note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 40 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 12,2\tab JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. This heading appears to govern the entries 12,2-10, except that 12,3 is not marked as a Jurisdiction, presumably because it consisted only of a garden.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab KIRTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other referenc es to Kirton, see 1,19;24. 9,13. 17,2, and on the Domesday name-form, see 1,19 Kirton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 12,3\tab WILLOUGHBY. This is one of three places called Willoughby in Nottinghamshire in 1086. It was a settlement in Walesby Ancient Parish, and seems to have been dis placed by it in importance. Like Walesby, it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086. For other parts, see 1,20;24. \par \tab \tab There is no marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 oca}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], presumably because a garden did not qualify as a Jurisdiction.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 GARDEN. See 1,44 garden note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WHICH BELONGS TO LAXTON. That is, to the head manor (12,1).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 12,4\tab WALESBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,20. 9,13. 16,10.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 12,5\tab EAKRING. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,24. 17,7-8.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 12,6\tab OMPTON. This was a township of Kneesall Ancien t Parish. Kneesall itself (17,9) seems to have lain in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086, but Ompton could have been in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake then, as it was later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. Later in the Middle Ages Kneesall was div ided between 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake and the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe. The townships of Kneesall and Kersall were in Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake, while the township of Ompton and the chapelry of Boughton were in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake; s ee Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 362. The same may have been true in 1086. For other parts of Ompton, see 1,24. 15,2. 17,10.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 12,7\tab KNAPTHORPE. This was a hamlet of Caunton Ancient Parish. Like Caunton itself (5,16. 12,8), it probably lay in 'Lyt he' Wapentake in 1086 and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 11,9. 12,22. 30,3.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 12,8\tab CAUNTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For another part, see 5,16.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 12,9\tab BEESTHORPE. This was a hamlet of Caunton Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 like Caunton itself (5,16. 12,8). For other references, see 1,21;24.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 12,10\tab CARLTON[-ON-TRENT]. This was a chapelry of Norwell Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other references to this place, see 1,21;24. 2,5. 9,61. 12,23. 30,2. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 1000, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Northkarleton}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is an Everingham fee, and in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 95, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 North Carlton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is held with Willoughby (12,15) in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe. 'North Carlton' is Carlton-on-Trent: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 182.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space, probably to mark the end of the account of the multiple estate of Laxton (12,1-10) before beginning that of North Mu skham (12,11-14). However, as North Muskham is in a different wapentake, it is possible that the space was for the later inclusion of a wapentake head. For a list of other one-line spaces left within fiefs, see 1,44 after note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 12,11\tab ['LYTHE' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of North Muskham (12,11).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NORTH MUSKHAM. Unusually (as at 5,2. 8,2. 30,7), Domesday distinguishes this Muskham as 'North'; see 1,13 Ordsall note. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wa pentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,2. 8,2. 12,12-13. 30,7. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The estates at North Muskham, South Muskham and Little Carlton (5,2;5. 8,2. 12,11-14. 30,7;46) formed a 12-carucate unit, and possibly a hundred; see \{Introduction: Small Hundreds\} and, on the identification of Carlton, see 5,5 Carlton note. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 North Muscham}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 together with }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Calneton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (Little Carlton, 12,15) was an Everingham fee in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 95; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 982.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFRIC. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 12,12\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the outer margin of folio 289b, level with anoth er manor in North Muskham (12,11). The formula for the value statement and the phrase 'as a manor' in this entry are not ones used anywhere in circuit VI, nor is the position of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holder, except in added entries, suggesting that this entry, like t hem, was added after this circuit had been written up; see 10,64 entry note. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. For another unrubricated addition of land in North Muskham, see 5,2, and for other holdings of Geo ffrey Alselin that were initially omitted, see 12,22-23 and LIN 64,11-14. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This entry is not included in the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation; for other entries in Nottinghamshire which are similarly missing from it, see 2,3 entry note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THERE ALSO ^[NORTH MUSKHAM]^. See 12,11 Muskham note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FORMERLY 100s; VALUE NOW \'a3 4. This is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries; see 5,6 formerly note and compare 2,3 value note and 10,64 value note. See also 10,64 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *] HELD IT AS A MANOR. On Toki son of Auti, see 12,1 Toki note. The phrase }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 pro Manerio}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('as a manor') takes the place of the marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M' }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 for }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Manerium }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('manor'). This formula is one not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries (as also here in 5,6. 10,66. 16,12 and 30,10), though it occurs in most of the circuits written up after it. Moreover, in Nottinghamshire the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holder is normally listed after the place-name and carucage and before the plough estimate (\{Introduction: Layout and Content of Entries\} ), not at the end of the entry as in some other circuits; see also here in 30,10, another entry added after rubrication. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 12,13\tab THERE ALSO ^[NORTH MUSKHAM]^. See 12,11 Muskham note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION. This entry relates directly to the first of the two manors of North Muskham (12,11) before the addition of 12,12.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 12,14\tab [LITTLE] CARLTON. The association of this }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Carletun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 with North Muskham suggests that it was Little Carlton (as identified by }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 211, in the 'Introduction') rather than Carlton-on-Trent as identified there in the translation (p. 276) and by the Phillimore printed edition. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 This was a settlement in }{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 the Ancient Parish of}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 South Muskham: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 193, although it is not there identified as a Domesday place, the first reference cited being }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 c}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .1180. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106, where it is associated with North Muskham. For another part, see 5,5.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This place is presumably a Jurisdiction of the first manor of North Muskham (12,11) as it was entered before the addition of the manor at 12,12. \par \tab \tab The estates at North Muskham, South Muskham and Little Carlton (5,2;5. 8,2. 12,11-14. 30,7;46) formed a 12-carucate unit, and possibly a hundred; see \{Introduction: Small Hundreds\}.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 FREEMEN WHO HAVE NOTHING. They cannot have been destitute. The 'nothing' particularly applies to the absence of part or all of a plough-team; see 4,4 nothing note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 12,15\tab WILLOUGHBY. This is one of three places called Willoughby in Nottinghamshire. The present Willoughby was a settlement in Norwell Ancient Parish and like Norwell (5,13) was prob ably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086. For other parts, see 5,15. 24,3. The grid reference is to Willoughby Farm (SK780625).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 95, Willoughby is held with Carlton-on-Trent (12,10) in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *]. See 12,1 Toki note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \'bd MILL. The other half does not appear in Domesday.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 12,16\tab [THURGARTON WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the manors of Stoke Bardolph and Burton Joyce (12,16;18).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab STOKE [BARDOLPH]. T his was a township of Gedling Ancient Parish. Like Gedling itself (9,72. 12,16-17) it probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GEDLING. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 (heading above another part at 9,72) and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 9,72. 12,17.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *]. See 12,1 Toki note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 6 SLAVES. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 vi. serui}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 xxi. bord'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , but did not indicate its position in the line below. It is unlikely that the slaves shared in the ploug hs of the villagers and smallholders. On slaves in this county, see 10,1 slaves note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 FISHERY. It no doubt lay on the River Trent which Stoke Bardolph abuts.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 12,17\tab MARGINAL }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . Carlton, Gedling and Colwick were presumably Jurisdictions of the manor of S toke Bardolph and Gedling (12,16).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab CARLTON. This was a hamlet in Gedling Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Carlton-by-Nottingham or Carlton-in-the-Willows. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GEDLING. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 (there is a Thurgarton wapentake heading above another part at 9,72) and it was later in the combined wa pentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 9,72. 12,16.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab COLWICK. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 10,1. 30,8. \par \tab \tab It is likely that Geoffrey Alselin's estate was at 'Over Colwick'; see 10,1 Colwick note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 12,18\tab BURTON [JOYCE]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For another part, see 9,75.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SWEIN. On this name, see S5 swein note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 MALE AND 1 FEMALE SLAVE. See 10,1 slaves note and 12,1 slaves note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 3 PLOUGHS. The Phillimore printed edition mistranslated the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .iii. car'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 as '2 ploughs'. This error was perpetuated in the first version of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Domesday Explorer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 12,19\tab [BINGHAM WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Shelford (12,19).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SHELFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For another part, see 9,99.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *]. See 12,1 Toki note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 FISHERY. This was no doubt on the River Trent which loops around Shelford.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 12,20\tab JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. This heading links Newton to Shelford (12,19), but it is not certain that it comprehends Owthorpe (12,21).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NEWTON. This was a settlement in Shelford Ancient Parish; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 242. It probably lay in BinghamWapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subs idy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For another part, see 9,97.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 12,21\tab OWTHORPE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 9,111. 26,1. \par \tab \tab There is no marginal designation of this estate as either manor or outlier or Jurisdiction. It might be a Jurisdiction of Shelford (12,19). However, the naming of a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E. }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holder suggests that this had been a manor.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *]. See 12,1 Toki note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NOTHING IS RECORDED THERE. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 nil ibi habet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ur}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]. The passive voice of the verb }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 habeo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('I have') has a number of meanings not possessed by the active voice, among them 'to be considered', 'to be judged', 'to be estimated, 'to be thought to be'. In the present context, the meaning could be restrictive ('nothing is assessed there' referring to the absence of a plough estimate) or it could be more general ('nothing is reckoned to be there') that is, this part of Owthorpe has no resources, or, foll owing the Phillimore printed translation, 'nothing is recorded'. The Alecto edition has 'Nothing is reckoned there'. 'Recording', in the sense of 'writing down','making a record of' is not the primary sense of the passive of the verb }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 habeo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , although it is clearly inherent in the meaning of BDF 12,1: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 canonici habent brevem regis in quo habetur quod ipse hoc manerium dedit aecclesiae Sancti Pauli}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('the canons have the king's writ in which it is recorded that he gave this manor himself to St Paul's Church'). Fo r other instances where either the sense 'reckoned' or the meaning 'recorded' would be suitable, see CAM 5,12. 25,10. DOR 12,13. GLS 1,43;56. HAM 69,48. HEF 10,72. WIL 1,5. 25,9.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 12,22\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY and the next one (12,23) were added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in most of the space left by him at the end of Geoffrey Alselin's fief. He did not keep to the scored lines but squeezed three lines of writing onto two ruled lines in order to retain a full line's space before the next fief. He f ailed to include the head for 'Lythe' Wapentake, as almost always with entries added after rubrication; neither of them were related to the previous entry for land in Owthorpe (12,21), which was in Bingham Wapentake. These two entries were probably done i n a large campaign of addition after rubrication that included all but the first entry (12,12) in the second Nottinghamshire quire (folios 289-296): 12,22-23. 13,5;12-14. 16,12. 20,8. 23,2. 30,10;13;42;53-56. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [* 'LYTHE' WAPENTAKE *]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Knapthorpe (12,22).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab KNAPTHORPE. This was a hamlet of Caunton Ancient Parish. Like Caunton itself (5,16. 12,8), it probably lay in 'Lythe' Wap entake in 1086 and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 11,9. 12,7. 30,3.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IT LIES IN [THE LANDS OF] NORWELL. That is, in Norwell (5,13), an estate held by the church of Southwell under the Archbishop of York. It seems likely that this was an alienation.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 12,23\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY and the previous one (12,22) were added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in most of the space left by him at the end of Geoffrey Alselin's fief; see 12,22 entry note. He added another holding in Carlton-on-Trent (2,5). For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab CARLTON[-ON-TRENT]. This was a chapelry of Norwell Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other references to this place, see 1,21;24. 2,5. 9,61. 12,10. 30,2. \par \tab \tab It is just possib le that this piece of land was also an alienation, that is, of part of the Archbishop of York's manor of South Muskham and Carlton-on-Trent (5,5). Alternatively, it might be a duplicate of the 2 bovates in 1,21 (a Jurisdiction of Grimston) or of the 2 bov ates in 1,24 (a Jurisdiction of Mansfield).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [VALUE] FORMERLY 8s; NOW 3s. This is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries; see 2,3 value note and compare 5,6 formerly note, 10,64 value note and 30,54 value note. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 13\tab LAND OF RALPH SON OF HUBERT. }{\insrsid6823374 He was the son of Hubert de Ryes (in the French d\'e9 partement of Calvados, arrondissement Bayeux) and his brothers were Adam son of Hubert and Eudo Dapifer. The four had saved the life of Duk e 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 }{\i\insrsid6823374 c}{\insrsid6823374 . 1187 between Henry de Stutteville and Hubert Fitz Ralph; see }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 54; }{\insrsid6823374 Sanders, }{\i\insrsid6823374 English Baronies}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 37; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 340. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On the name Ralph, see B10 Ralph note, and, on the name Hubert, see B12 Hubert note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab The lands in the body of this chapter lie in two wapentakes and these are entered in standard county order. Three entries were added at the end (13,12-14). All the wapent ake headings need to be supplied:}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 13,1-7 [Rushcliffe Wapentake] \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 13,8-12 [Broxtowe Wapentake] \par \tab \tab (13,12-14 are added entries for places lying in in Broxtowe, Thurgarton and Rushcliffe}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid4275473 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wapentakes).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 13,1\tab [RUSHCLIFFE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the manors of Barton-in-Fabis, Bunny and Keyworth (13,1-2;6-7).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BARTON[-IN-FABIS]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,7. 13,2. 30,23.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Barton-in-Fabis itself lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake, as did its outlier in Clifton (13,3). However, its dependencies in Chilwell (13,1;4) lay in Broxtowe Wapentake.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab LEOFRIC [* BROTHER OF LEOFNOTH *]. Leofric preceded Ralph son of Hubert in several Nottinghamshire estates (13,1;8;10) as well as in Derbyshire and Staffordshire. He was probably the brother of Leofnoth who was likewise a predecessor of Ralph son of Hubert; see 13,6 Leofnoth note and DBY 10,16 brother note. On the name Leofric, see 7,1 Leofric note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab WITH THE TWO [ESTATES CALLED] CHILWELL. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Chilwell was a hamlet of Attenborough Ancient Parish. 'Eastern' Chilwell, only evidenced in Domesday Book, wa s probably adjacent to Chilwell. Both probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as Chilwell did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other parts, see 10,26. 13,4-5, and for 'Eastern' Chilwell, see 13,4. 30,52. The specific reference here is to the two estates called Chilwell (13,4) that were a Jurisdiction of Barton-in-Fabis.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab These two estates called Chilwell were not distinguished from each other, later or now; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 142 (JRM).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab FREEMEN. Compare 7,5 Freemen note.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab HALF A CHURCH. The other half does not seem to appear in Domesday. However, there was a half-church at Toton (10,25: SK5034) and another half at Chilwell and 'Eastern' Chilwell (13,4: SK5135). All three are close to Barton-in-Fabi s (SK5232) and it is possible that two of these figures should in fact be quarters.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 13,2\tab THERE ALSO ^[BARTON-IN-FABIS]^. See 13,1 Barton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFRIC. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 13,3\tab CLIFTON. This was part of the Ancient Parish of Clifton-with-Glapton. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,5-6. 30,25.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BELONG TO BARTON-IN-FABIS. That is, probably to the first (larger) manor there (13,1), like the Chilwells in the next entry (13,4).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Phillimore printed translation has 'which belong', but the Latin is clearly }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 pertinent}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in full with no abbreviation sign above the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 nt}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ligature, though there is a black ink blot above them.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 13,4\tab CHILWELL. This was a hamlet of Attenborough Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other parts, see 10,26. 13,1;5.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 'EASTERN' CHILWELL. This place, only e videnced in Domesday Book, was probably adjacent to Chilwell (10,26. 13,1;4-5) which was a hamlet of Attenborough Ancient Parish. For an attempt to locate it, heavy with theory but lacking historical or archaeological evidence, see Cossons, 'East Chilwell and Keighton'. For a further part of 'Eastern' Chilwell, see 30,52.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION OF BARTON-IN-FABIS. That is, of the first manor there (13,1), where the 'two [estates called] Chilwell' are mentioned.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 OXEN PLOUGHING. See 11,27 ploughing note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HALF A CHURCH. The other half was probably at Toton (10,25), although there is an unmatched half a church also at Barton-in-Fabis (13,1); see 13,1 church note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WILLOW-BED, 4 ACRES. This was probably adjacent to the 'small willow-bed' at Toton (10,25); see 10,25 willow-bed note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 13,5\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY for 5 bovates in Chilwell was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday at the end of an entry for land in Chilwell and 'Eastern' Chilwell (13,4), which was a Jurisdiction of Barton-in-Fabis (13,1). It was wri tten at the same time as a large campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 entry note. The interlineation }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In Toluestone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('In Toton') may have been added slightly later in this campaign and is vital to the meaning, because, without it, the addition would imply that the 5 bovates in Chilwell were also sokeland of Barton-in-Fabis, rather than a dependency of Toton (10,25). Scribe B corrected 5 bovates to 3 bovates in another entry for Chilwell that was a Jurisdiction of Toton (10,26 bovates note), so i t is possible that there was confusion over this land and that this was the reason for its initial omission. Or the present entry could be a duplicate of 10,26, despite the difference in the number of bovates after correction, as was the case with a numbe r of added entries; see \{Introduction: Duplicate Entries\} . As the manor of Toton was held by William Peverel it is possible that this part of Chilwell rightly belongs in his fief rather than in that of Ralph son of Hubert, and this strengthens the case for the present entry being a duplicate. It is possible that in checking material relating to Chilwell in a territorially-arranged schedule (similar to the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) where all parts of the vill were listed together, the main scribe thought he had missed these 5 bovates and tacked them onto Chilwell in Domesday but in the wrong fief. This would have been even more likely if scribe B had already corrected the number of bovates in 10,26.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab CHILWELL. This was a hamlet of Attenborough Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other parts, see 10,26. 13,1;4-5.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION OF TOTON. The Latin read }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .v. bou}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 atae}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 de soca ad g}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 e}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ld}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 um}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] ('5 bovates of jurisdiction[-land] taxable' before the main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In Toluestone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('In Toton'). He should have deleted the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 de}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 when he made the addition because it no longer made grammatical sense. The Phillimore printed translation has '5 bovates of the Jurisdiction taxable, in Toton', which is misleading. The Alecto edition has '5 bovates of sokeland to the geld [belonging] to Toton'. However, the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is being used here in its usual sense in the phrase }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Soca in }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 X ('A Jurisdiction of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 X}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 '; see 1,17 outlier note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 13,6\tab BUNNY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab LEOFNOTH [* BROTHER OF LEOFRIC *]. Leofnoth preceded Ralph son of Hube rt in several Nottinghamshire estates (13,6;9;11-12) as well as in Derbyshire. He was probably the brother of Leofric who was likewise a predecessor of Ralph son of Hubert; see 13,1 Leofric note and DBY 10,16 brother note. }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leuenot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leuenod}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leueno}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leofnoth}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 313. The Alecto edition has Leofnoth.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 CARUCATES OF LAND. In the manuscript it is clearly }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 .ii. car'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ;}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Farley printed }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 .iii. car' }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 in error. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 For an identical mistake by him, see 12,1 carucates note, and for his other errors, see 9,31 Drayton note}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 13,7\tab KEYWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 4,7. 9,87-88. 10,10.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This place-name is lined through in red in the manuscript, as expected, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. There is no sign of this rubrication, however, in the Alecto fac simile; for other omissions of this sort there, see 2,2 there note, and, on other problems of reproduction, see 5,3 Hickling note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FRANI. On this name, see 4,6 Frani note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 3 ACRES.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The case of the Latin }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 13,8\tab [BROXTOWE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the manors of Teversal, Kirkby-in-Ashfield, Wansley and Annesley (13,8-11).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab TEVERSAL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LEOFRIC. See 13,1 Leofric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GEOFFREY. A Geoffrey was also a subtenant of Ralph son of Hubert in DBY 10,6 and there he may be identified as Geoffrey Ridel (DBY 10,6 Ge offrey note). However, there is no documentary evidence that the present Geoffrey is the same person and Geoffrey was a very common name, on which see B 13 Geoffrey note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 13,9\tab KIRKBY[-IN-ASHFIELD]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For another part, see 30,27.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LEOFNOTH. See 13,6 Leofnoth note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. For the interpretation of the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 silua per loca pastilis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , see 1,45 woodland note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 13,10\tab WANSLEY. This was a settlement in Selston Ancient Parish; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 131. Like Selston itself (10,65), it probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086. The grid reference for Wansley is to Wansley Hall (SK460512).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LEOFRIC. See 13,1 Leofric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HALF A CHURCH. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 dim' }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 eccl'a}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . There is no sign of the other half in Domesday.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 13,11\tab ANNESLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LEOFNOTH. See 13,6 Leofnoth note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 12 OXEN. That is, for 1\'bd ploughs; see 1,6 ox note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 3 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab RICHARD HOLDS IT. This is the only occurrence of a Richard holding from Ralph son of Hubert. His successor here and possible descendant was Ralph I Brito of Annesley; see }{\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 368. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On the name Richard, see B16 Richard note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 13,12\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY and the next two (13,13-14) were added together by the main scribe of Great Domesday in about half of the space originally left by him at the end of Ralph son of Hubert's fief on folio 289d. He did not keep to the scored lines but squeezed six lines of writing onto five ruled lines, though there were still five blank lines before the next fief. These entries were probably written during a large campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 entry note. However, the formulae use d for the ploughs and the value statement in the present entry are not used elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries, which suggests that it was added after he had finished work on the whole circuit; see 10,64 entry note. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. \par \tab \tab He avoided writing on the imperfection in the parchment at the end of the first two lines of this entry and after the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 x}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of the 1086 value; see 11,26 taxable note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab COSSALL. This was a chapelry of Wollaton Ancient Parish and, like Wollaton itself (1,47. 10,35), it probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For another part, see 10,36.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The entry looks manorial, but there is no marginal designation, as commonly with added entries.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LEOFNOTH. See 13,6 Leofnoth note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR AS MANY OXEN. That is, for 6 oxen, or three-quarters of a plough-team of eight, though there were 3 ploughs actually present.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 3 PLOUGHS THERE, WITH 3 VILLAGER S. This is a formula only found here and in the added entry for Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (16,12), and compare 10,66 plough note, 30,10 ploughs note and 5,6 plough note. It is not found anywhere in circuit VI, but occurs in other circuits written after it a nd is especially common in circuit II. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FORMERLY 16s; VALUE NOW 10s. This is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries; see 5,6 formerly note and compare 2,3 value note and 10,64 value note. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 13,13\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY, the previous one (13,12) and the next one (13,14) were added together by the main scribe of Great Domesday in about half of the space originally left by him at th e end of Ralph son of Hubert's fief on folio 289d. He did not keep to the scored lines but squeezed six lines of writing onto five ruled lines, though there were still five blank lines before the next fief. These entries were probably written during a lar g e campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 entry note. However, the formula used for the value statement is one not used elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries, which suggests that it was added after he had finished work on the whole ci r cuit; see 10,64 entry note. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. The previous entry was in Broxtowe Wapentake, like the entries before it, but the present entry is for land in Thurgarton, though he failed to incl ude the head for it, as he did for almost all the entries added by him after rubrication.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [* THURGARTON WAPENTAKE *]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Gibsmere (13,13).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GIBSMERE. This was a settlement in Bleasby Ancient Parish. Bleasby itself does not appear in Domesday. Gibsmere probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MORTON. This was one of several places called Morton in Nottinghamshire. It was a chapelry of Southwell Ancient Parish and was abolished for civil purposes in 1884 to help create the Civil Parish of Fisherton-cum-Morton and abolished ecclesiastically in 1886 to help form the Ecclesiastical Parish of Rolleston-with-Morton. Like Southwell itself (5,1), it probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For another part, see 11,16.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION OF SOUTHWELL. That is, of the collegiate church of Southwell, a possession of the Archbishop of York (5,1), of which both Morton and Gibsmere had probably once been an integral part; see 5,1 outliers note. The jurisdicti onal tie probably indicates that this land had once 'belonged' to Southwell church. Morton had probably been alienated and joined to Gibsmere.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE VALUE WAS AND IS 28s. This is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries; see 10,6 4 value note and compare 5,6 formerly note and 2,3 value note. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 13,14\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY and the two previous ones (13,12-13) were added together by the main scribe of Great Domesday in about half of t he space originally left by him at the end of Ralph son of Hubert's fief. He did not keep to the scored lines but squeezed six lines of writing onto five ruled lines, though there were still five blank lines before the next fief. These entries were probab l y written during a large campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 entry note. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. He failed to include the head for Rushcliffe Wapentake, as he did for almost all the ent ries added by him after rubrication. For a correction to this added entry that was made at an even later date, see 13,14 bovate note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [* RUSHCLIFFE WAPENTAKE *]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Widmerpool (13,14).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WIDMERPOOL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 30,47-48.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 BOVATE. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 i }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .i. bou' }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 over the erasure of a longer number or possibly an ink blot as the scraped area extends above and below the line; he either retained the two dots either side of the original number or he added new ones well spaced to fill the gap. He used a different pen to the one he had used for the rest of the entry.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IT IS AN ADJUNCT OF BUNNY. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iacet ad}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is similar in meaning to }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 adiacet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('is attached to'). The Phillimore printed translation has 'It lies with Bunny'. Bunny had been entered at 13,6, and presumably this dependency was missed by the main scribe of Great Domesday at first.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 14\tab LAND OF RALPH OF LIMESY. }{\insrsid6823374 He came from Lim\'e9sy in the French d\'e9 partement of Seine-Maritime, arrondissement Rouen, canton Pavilly. He was lord of Cavendish (Suffolk), which became head of a barony of that name. With his wife, he was founder of Hertford Priory as a cell of St Albans }{\i\insrsid6823374 c}{ \insrsid6823374 . 1093. He seems to have died shortly after, leaving a son also called Ralph. A probable daughter, Matilda, married Nicholas of Stafford. See Loyd, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 54; Sanders, }{ \i\insrsid6823374 English Baronies}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 29; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 334. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On the name Ralph, see B10 Ralph note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab The first two wapentakes (Newark Wapentake and Thurgarton Wapentake) in this chapter are entered in standard county order. However, the last two entries, which are nonetheless not postscrptal, contain additional land in Newark Wapentake. All the wapentake headings need to be supplied:}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 14,1-4 [Newark Wapentake] \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 14,5-6 [Thurgarton Wapentake] \par \tab ___________________________________ \par \tab \tab 14,7-8 [Newark Wapentake]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 14,1\tab [NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Hawton (14,1).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HAWTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3. 11,7. 14,2-3.} {\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORTH. On this name, see 9,80 Thorth note. A Thorth was a predecessor of Roger of Bully in Holme Pierrepoint (9,80), but that place is distant from Hawton and no evidence has so far been found to connect the two men.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A PRIEST AND 2 CHURCHES. If one church was at Hawton itself, it is not clear where the other was in this Ancient Parish which is devoid of other significant settlement. The answer may lie in the fact that Hawton itself (14,1-3), assesse d at 2 carucates and formerly containing 5 manors (14,1-2), as well as a Jurisdiction (14,3), could well have supported two churches.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE VALUE of this manor is presumably given at the end of the account of the combined manor of Hawton (14,2) and its Jurisdiction (14,3); see 14,3 value note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 14,2\tab 4M. See 3,4 2M note. Details of the population of these four combined manors and of the Jurisdiction there were entered in 14,3, as was their value and that of the other manor at Hawton (14,1); see 14,3 lands note and 14,3 value note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THERE ALSO ^[HAWTON]^. See 14,1 Hawton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BUGGI. On his possible identity and his name, see 6,7 Buggi note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab REGNVALD. On this name, see 9,127 Regnvald note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORFRIDH. On this name, see 9,54 Thorfridh note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ^[ANOTHER]^ BUGGI. This name is rare in Domesday Book (see 6,7 Buggi note), but it would seem that there were two people with this name holding land in Hawton, as there is }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 IIII M'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the margin next to this entry, denoting that it had been four manors in 1066. There is a sma ll possibility, however, that Buggi had had two separate estates in Hawton.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 14,3\tab THERE IS A TEAR OR CUT in the manuscript which has been neatly patched on the recto of folio 289. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote round this, as he usually did, and Farley also indicated it. For the position of this defect on the recto of this fol io, see 11,33 Radcliffe note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION. That is, of the manor of Hawton (14,2).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THERE ALSO ^[HAWTON]^. See 14,1 Hawton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab IN THESE LANDS. It would seem that the details of population refer to the manor and Jurisdiction at Hawton (14,2-3). The me ntion by the main scribe of Great Domesday of the Jurisdiction of Hawton interrupts the account of the manor. See 14,3 value note and compare the account of Watnall (10,42-46) which similarly has the manorial resources separated by Jurisdictions (10,46 la nd note and 10,42 Watnall note).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab ALFRED. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On this name, see 1,66 Alfred note. }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 See }{\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 139; she states that he was a 'tenant at Hawton, Nottinghamshire, of both Ralph fitz Hubert and Ralph de Limesi', but he was only a tenant of the latter.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab THESE FIVE MANORS. }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Hos}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 here treating }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 manerium }{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 as masculine, perhaps on the analogy of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 locus}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 place, which may normally be masculine or neuter in the plural, occasionally in the singular (JRM). }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Manerium}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is usually neuter and the correct adjective with }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 maneria}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 would have been }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 haec}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 may have unconsciously been influenced by the gender of the Freemen, villagers and smallholders that he has just written.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The five manors are the single one at Hawton (14,1) and the quadruple manor also there (14,2).}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab VALUE. It would seem that the value is that not only of the combined manor of Hawton and its Jurisdiction there (14,2-3), but of the other manor in Hawton (14,1) which otherwise lacks a value. The fact that Alfred held all five manors from Ralph of Lim\'e9sy was probably the reason for the their being given a joint value, though the main scribe of Great Domesday could have made this clearer by writing }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ual'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in full as the plural }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ualent}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . See 14,3 lands note and compare 10,42 Watnall note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 14,4\tab A JURISDICTION. That is, presumably of the combined manor of Hawton at 14,2, as the preceding entry (14,3) was for another Jurisdiction of it.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab DANETHORPE. This was a settlement in }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 the Ancient Parish of }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 North Collingham; see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 203. Like North Collingham and South Collingham (8,1. 14,8), it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. The Domesday name is represented by Danethorpe (SK847581) and Little Danethorpe Farm (SK836580).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A CHURCH AND A PRIEST WITH 1 PLOUGH. The possession of a plough by the priest, presumably with some land, may indicate that this was a superior church; see \{Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\} .}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 14,5\tab [THURGARTON WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Epperstone and Woodborough (14,5).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab EPPERSTONE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For another part, see 9,73.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WOODBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,18-19. 9,73. 14,5. 30,6;9-10.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFRIC. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On this name, see S5 Wulfric note. He might be the same as Ralph's predecessor in 14,7, though no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and Wulfric was a common name.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab ALSI. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On this name, see S5 Alsi note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab [WHO HAD] NO HALL. The sentence originally read 'Wulfric and Alsi had 3 carucates of land and 4 bovates taxable'. However, the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday }{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 interlined }{\i\f720\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 n' aul\'e2}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ( 'not a hall' or 'no hall', depending on whether the Latin intended for }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 n'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 was } {\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 non}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 or }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 nulla}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ) above Alsi but without rectifying the grammar of the sentence to accommodate the addition.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The interlineation draws attention to the fact that despite having no hall, this was a manor, or, more probably, that it had not been a double manor (in other words Wulfric had a hall, but Alsi did not); see 9,20 hall note. }{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab QUARTER. }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Ferding}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 a fourth part; often a 'furlong' (JRM). The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday i}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 nterlined }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 .}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 i. bo\'fb}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 above }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 ferding}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , but it is uncertain whether this is to be expanded to }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 i bouata}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , ablative case after }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 de}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 and therefore an explanation or gloss of the word }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 ferding}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('a ferding, that is 1 bovate'). Such an equation is factually incorrect, but the word }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 ferding}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 appears nowhere else in Circuit VI and the scribe may have been trying to make sense of the term. However, it is more likely that the expansion should be to }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 bouatae}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 (genitive c ase), the meaning then being (as in the Phillimore printed translation and in the Alecto edition) 'a quarter of 1 bovate'. A further possibility, suggested by }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 232, is that the }{ \i\insrsid6823374 i bo\'fb}{\insrsid6823374 was a replacement for }{\i\insrsid6823374 ferding}{\insrsid6823374 , but this would b e very odd as the Freemen would then have had '6 bovates and 1 bovate': if they had really had 7 bovates it would have been easier for the scribe to have added a minim to the }{\i\insrsid6823374 vi}{\insrsid6823374 and deleted the }{\i\insrsid6823374 7 ferding}{\insrsid6823374 .}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 14,6\tab GONALSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 10,3. 30,49.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Domesday does not indicate the status of this land. It is given no value, so it may have been a Jurisdiction, possibly of Epperstone and Woodborough (14,5). However, it may be included here merely because it was a piece of land belonging to Ralph of Lim\'e9sy in Thurgarton Wapentake.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \{\{}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 4 CARUCATES OF LAND}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \}\}}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 5 BOVATES AND THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE. The }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday underlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .iiii. car' t'r\'ea}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 for deletion and interlined }{\i\f720\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .v. bou' 7 t'ci\'e2' part\'e7 .i. bou'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above it, using a finer pen than he had for his original assessment. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Penguin edition of the Alecto translation does not indicate the deletion of these words; for its other failings of this nature in Nottinghamshire, see 1,16 bovates note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 14,7\tab [NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Thorpe (14,7). Lands in Newark Wapentake have already been entered in their normal place, at the head of the fief. These two further entries for land there are not postscriptal in Domesday, but might have been misplaced in the source used by the main scribe of Great Domesday or he might merely have briefly omitted them during editing it.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORPE. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Thorpe-near-Newark or Thorpe-by-Newark. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFRIC. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note; see also 14,5 Wulfric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MANFRED , RALPH'S MAN. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Mainfrid}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ],}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Meinfrid}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Manfred}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : Forssner, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 185-86. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Manfred and Manfrid; these have now been standardized as Manfred. The Alecto edition has Mainfrid and Manfred. \par \tab \tab He is almost certainly the same person as Ilbert of Lacy's tenant at the adjacent estate at East Stoke (20,3). The only other occurrences of this name in Domesday are as tenants of William of Mohun in Somerset and of William the goat in Devon.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 72 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 14,8\tab SHELTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 9,2. 20,2. \par \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sceltun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and then interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 h}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above and between the}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 c}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 e}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to produce }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Scheltun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . Farley misread this }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 h}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 as a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 t }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and printed it between the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 c}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; he was probably misled by the scribe writing the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 h}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the form it would be if joined to another letter, so that it resembled more closely half of a capital }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 H}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 than a lower-case }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 h}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . In the other occurrences of Shelton the spelling is }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sceltune}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sceltun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . Darby, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Domesday Gazetteer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , under Shelton, only has }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sceltun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) and not the corrected form. The places index to the Alecto edition, however, has }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Scheltun}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 for the present occurrence. The scribe of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Abbreviatio}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (folio 205v) has }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Scheltun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , but the scribe of the Breviate (folio 147v) has }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sceltvn}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . For other of Farley's rare mistakes, see 9,31 Drayton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab COLLINGHAM. North Collingham and South Collingham were adjacent Ancient Parishes. Collingham lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 (a portion is below a wapentake head at 8,1), as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For another part, see 8,1.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR [3] PLOUGHS. In the manuscript the number of ploughs appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .iii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , but with what might be part of a fourth minim above the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 after it; its top may have been erased or the main scribe of Great Domesday may have begun it and then realized his error. Farley read it as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .iiii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and it was translated as such in the Phillimore printed edition. The Alecto edition has '[There is] land for \'863\'86 ploughs'.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WOODLAND, NOT PASTURABLE. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 siluae n' past'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is probably to be extended to }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 siluae non pastilis }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (as in NTH 9,6), this being a negative version of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 silua pastilis}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('pasturable woodland'); see 1,1 woodland note. The Phillimore printed translation has 'woodland, not pasture' as if }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 siluae non pasturae}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 were being abbreviated; the Alecto edition has 'woodland, not for pasture'. See also DBY 1,28 woodland note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 ACRES AND 1 VIRGATE. It is unusual to mix these units of measurement in assessing woodland. Acres alone could have been used. This virgate is probably a square perch; see 1,3 4 virgates note and 16,3 virgate note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left four lines blank, perhaps in case he found further holdings of Ralph of Limesy, as he had done for Geoffrey Alselin and Ralph son of Hubert on this folio, thoug h he may have left them for aesthetic reasons.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 15\tab LAND OF RALPH OF BURON. }{\insrsid6823374 He probably came from one of two places called Buron in the French d\'e9 partement of Calvados; one is in the commune of Cairon, the other in that of Saint-Contest. He was lord of Horsel ey (Derbyshire) which became a head of a barony of that name under his successors. His heir was Hugh de Buron who died in 1156. Hugh's son Roger died in 1194 whereupon the fief escheated to the Crown, but was re-granted. See Sanders, }{\i\insrsid6823374 English Baronies}{\insrsid6823374 , pp. 122-23; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 331.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On the name Ralph, see B10 Ralph note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab The wapentakes, in which the estates in this fief lay, are entered in the standard county order (see \{Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes\}):}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 15,1-2 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 15,3 ['Lythe' Wapentake] \par \tab \tab 15,4-6 Broxtowe Wapentake \par \tab \tab 15,7-10 Bingham Wapentake.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 15,1\tab OSSINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. Domesday places it in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, though it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. It is adjacent to the putative boundary of 'Lythe' Wapentake.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 OsCHINTONE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , but corrected the second letter to a capital, though the result is not good. He made the same mistake with the place-name }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 EDVVOLTONE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (16,4) and corrected it.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OSMUND . On this name, see 9,22 Osmund note. Ralph of Buron's predecessor in Kelham (15,3) was called Osmund, as was his predecessor in Denby (DBY 11,3), pos sibly the same person, though no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a common name.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 28 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 15,2\tab OMPTON. This was a township of Kneesall Ancient Parish. Kne esall itself (17,9) seems to have lain in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086, but Ompton could have been in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake then, as it was later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. Later in the Middle Ages the townships of Kneesall and Kersall were in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe, while the township of Ompton and the chapelry of Boughton were in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake; see Youngs, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 362. The same may have been true in 1086. For other parts of Ompton, see 1,24. 12,6. 15,2. 17,10. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Domesday does not indicate the status of this piece of land. It lacks a value and was therefore probably a Jurisdiction, possibly of Ossington (15,10).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 15,3\tab ['LYTHE' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Kelham (15,3).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab KELHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 (part of Kelham is below a 'Lythe' wapentake head at 9,59) and it was later in th e combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 9,59. 11,19. 18,4. 30,45.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OSMUND . On this name, see 9,22 Osmund note; see also 15,1 Osmund note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE. The main scribe of Great Domesday had written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. part'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 which could be read as abbreviating either }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. partes }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('3 parts') or }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii. partem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('the third part'). Scribe B clarified this by interlining }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ti\'e2 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (the last letters of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 tertiam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 'third') above the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , erasing the original abbreviation sign after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 part'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and interlining an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'e7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above/after }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 part'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to produce }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 partem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 4,7 part note. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note. Further third parts of a bovate in Kelham are recorded in 9,59 and 11,19 and 2 parts of 1 bovate in 30,45.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WILLIAM, RALPH'S MAN. On this name, see B9 William note. He might be the same person as Ralph's tenant at Costock (15,5), but that is about 17 mi les from Kelham, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and William was a very common name.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 OXEN PLOUGHING. On this phrase, see 11,27 ploughing note. The remaining 6 oxen are not immediately apparent. The figures for all the estates in Kelham amount to 13 \'bd ploughs and these 2 oxen. There is a deficiency of \'bd plough at Hockerton (11,8) and at South Muskham (30,46) there are similarly 2 oxen in a plough. These places are close to each other: Kelham at SK7755, Hockerton at SK7156 and South Muskham at SK7957. However, there is still a deficiency of \'bd plough.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 9 ACRES. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , accusative; see 1,9 meadow note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab UNDERWOOD 8 FURLONGS LONG AND 12 VIRGATES WIDE. The virgate here is used, as in other parts of Kelham, as a linear measure; see 1,34 virgates note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NO PLOUGH ESTIMATE is recorded for this manor at Kelham and no space was left for the later insertion of it , as in other entries (1,59 land note). However, this information is given for all the other estates there. On the few similar omissions, see 9,120 plough note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 15,4\tab HUCKNALL. Hucknall Torkard was an Ancient Parish. Domesday }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hochenale}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is represented by the adjacent settlements of Hucknall (SK5349) and Hucknall Torkard (SK5348). Hucknall and Hucknall Torkard lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 (the entry for Hucknall at 15,4 is beneath a wapentake head) as they did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab There is another Hucknall in Nottinghamshire, Hucknall-under-Huthwaite, which was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of Sutton-in-Ashfield. This Hucknall first occurs as }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hodweit}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in 1199 and the addition }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hokenhale}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hockenall}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is first found in the fourteenth century; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 119. This Hucknall (Hucknall-under-Huthwaite) is not related to the Domesday estate of Hucknall and Hucknall Torkard, but was presumably part of Sutton-in-Ashfield (1,23, part of Mansfield) in 1086.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ULFKIL . On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note. Ralph of Buron was preceded on three estates by an Ulfkil (Hucknall, Rempstone and Lamcote: 15,4;6-7), perhaps the same person, though it was a common name and Hucknall is 9 \'bd miles from Lamcote and over 16 miles from Rempstone, while Lamcote is 9 \'bd miles from Rempstone. However, see 15,7 Ulfkil note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OSMUND , RALPH'S MAN. On this name, see 9,22 Osmund note. He might be the same person as Ralph's tenant at Lamcote (15,7), whe re Ulfkil had also preceded him, but it was a common name.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 15,5\tab COSTOCK. This was an Ancient Parish. The manors here (9,94. 10,53. 15,5) appear to have been among the five places (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which in 1086 formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\} . It later lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,94. 10,11;53.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SAERIC. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Seric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Saric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent the hypothetical Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S\'e6ric}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 354. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Saeric and Seric; these have now been standardized as Saeric. The Alecto edition has Saeric. The only other occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire is of a thane holding South Muskham (30, 46), which is, however, 23 miles away.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 14 OXEN. The estimates for the various parts of Costock and Rempstone, which are either combined in the text or in adjacent entries (9,94. 10,11;53-54. 15,5-6) make up land for 42 oxen (13+1+2+6+14+6), or five plough-teams plus 2 oxen.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WILLIAM, RALPH'S MAN. On this name, see B9 William note; see also 15,3 William note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 15,6\tab REMPSTONE. This was an Ancient Parish and appears to have been one of the five places (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughb y-on-the-Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which, in 1086, formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\} . It later lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,94. 10,54.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ULFKIL . On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 15,4 Ulfkil note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 6 OXEN. The estimates for the various parts of Costock and Rem pstone, which are either combined in the text or in adjacent entries (9,94. 10,11;53-54. 15,5-6) make up land for 42 oxen (13+1+2+6+14+6), or five plough-teams plus 2 oxen.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 15,7\tab LAMCOTE. This was a hamlet of }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 the Ancient Parish of}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Holme Pierrepont. Holme Pi errepont itself (9,80) may have lain in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086, but Lamcote was clearly in Bingham Wapentake: two parts (here and at 30,36) lie directly below a Bingham wapentake head. It was in the same wapentake later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104. For other parts, see 9,96. 30,36. It is represented by Lamcote Field, a settlement.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ULFKIL . On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 15,4 Ulfkil note. A person called Ulfkil had held another manor in Lamcote (30,36) and has been tentatively identified as the thane holding (in 1066 and 1086) elsewhere in chapter 30 (30,2 Ulfkil note); it is possible that he and this predecessor of Ralph of Buron are the same.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NO PLOUGH ESTIMATE is recorded for either this manor at Lamcote or for the one there at 30,36 and no space was left for the later insertion of it, as in other entries (1,59 land note). Roger of Bully's manor there (9,96) has this information, however. For the few other omissions of the plough estimate in this county, see 9,120 plough not e.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OSMUND , RALPH'S MAN. On this name, see 9,22 Osmund note; see also 15,4 Osmund note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 6 ACRES. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , accusative; see 1,9 meadow note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 15,8\tab COTGRAVE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 15,9-10. 16,7.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab "OGHE". The Domesday form of this name, which only appears here, has been retained, as von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 335, was unsure whether it represented Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ogga}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , or Old Norse/Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Uggi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . The Alecto edition has Oghe.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HALF A CHURCH. There is no sign of the other half in Domesday.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 15,9\tab THERE ALSO ^[COTGRAVE]^. Seee 15,8 Cotgrave note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORKIL. On this name, see 9,15 Thorkil note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab JOCELYN, RALPH'S MAN. On this name, see 10,46 Jocelyn note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 15,10\tab COTGRAVE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 15,8-9. 16,7.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WARNER . On the name Warner, see 10,25 Warner note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par \tab \tab As this Warner is the only other Warner in Nottinghamshire apart from William Peverel's subtenant in Toton and Wollaton (10,25;35; see10,25 Warner note), and indeed in the Midlands, and the present holding is 8 miles from Wollaton and 9 miles from Toton, which are within 4 miles of each other, it is possible that he is the same man, though there are no tenurial associations to support this and Toton and Wollaton are separated from Cotgrave by the River Trent (JP).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND OF THE SAME MANOR. That is, of the last-mentioned of the two manors of Cotgrave (15,9).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the remaining eight lines of the column, perhaps in case he found further holdings of Ralph of Buron, or for aesthetic reasons.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 16\tab LAND OF ROGER OF POITOU. }{\insrsid6823374 He was the third surviving son of Earl Roger of Montgommery and Mabel of Bell\'ea me. He had held a large fief in England which included what became the county of Lancashire. However, at the time of the Domesday Survey he was being partially dispossessed of his lands or his fief was being adjusted.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab JRM's note in the Phillimore printed edition reads: 'Roger of Poitou }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 had forfeited his lands into the King's hands in most counties; either he retained his Nottinghamshire lands, or the Sur vey was drafted before his forfeiture was known'. This presents the traditional view of the situation. Certainly, in 1086, Roger of Poitou is recorded as no longer holding some of his lands, but as still holding others. Moreover, it could be that part of t he difficulty in understanding the situation is that different counties reported at different times and some may have ignored a state of affairs that was considered temporary, as in the case of Bishop Odo of Bayeux who was actually in prison in Rouen in 1 0 86 but still holding lands according to some county schedules. However, there is no reason to think that Roger of Poitou was disgraced. He continued to hold extensive, but, in some cases, different lands into the reign of William Rufus. It is perhaps more likely that Roger's fief was being restructured; see Lewis, 'Introduction', }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The Lancashire Domesday}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , pp. 36-38.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 He was disgraced with the rest of the house of Montgommery in 1102 and retired to Aquitaine where his wife was countess of La Marche. He was n amed 'the Poitevin' (often translated as 'of Poitou') from his wife's inheritance. His descendants were heirs of La Marche; see Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 410. \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On the name Roger, see B8 Roger note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab The bulk of this chapter is laid out in the stand ard county order of wapentakes. However, it ends with three additional entries for 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, although these are not postscriptal, and with an added entry for an estate which probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 16,1-2 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake. \par \tab \tab 16,3 Thurgarton Wapentake \par \tab \tab 16,4-5 Rushcliffe Wapentake}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 16,6-8 Bingham Wapentake \par \tab \tab _______________________________}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 16,9-11 ['Bassetlaw' Wapentake] \par \tab \tab [16,12 Broxtowe? Wapentake]. This is an added entry.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 16,1\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GAMSTON. This is one o f two different places called Gamston. The present one was a chapelry of Blyth Ancient Parish. It lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 (a part is below a 'Bassetlaw' wapentake head at 16,2) as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other parts, see 9,9. 16,2.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GAMAL. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gamel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Game}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gamall}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gamal}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 257-58. In some of the Phillimore printed transl ations this name appeared as Gamal, and in others as Gamall; these have now been standardized as the Old Danish form. The Alecto edition has Gamal.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire, but a person called Gamal was Roger of Poitou's predecessor in LIN 16,32 and YKS 30W3;13;36, perhaps the same individual, though it was a very common name in those counties. In 1066 a Gamal had also held Nettleton (LIN 4,23) with Ketilbiorn who had also held in Gamston (16,2). It is possibl e that Gamal gave his name to this estate ('Gamal's }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 tun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 '), although }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 51, cautions against this on the grounds that Gamal 'is so common a name in the Danelaw'. \par \tab \tab See 9,36 Cuckney note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SWEIN. On this name, see S5 Swein note . He may be the same person as Roger's predecessor in West Drayton (16,11), which is adjacent to Gamston; a Swein was also his predecessor in LIN 16,10;28. However, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and Swein was a very common name.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 16,2\tab THERE ALSO ^[GAMSTON]^. See 16,1 Gamston note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab KETELBIORN. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Chetelbern}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Chetelbern}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ],}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Chetelb}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Chetelber}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Chetelbar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ketilbiorn}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 304. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Ketilbiorn and Ketelbern; these have now been standardized as Ketilbiorn. The Alecto edition has Ketilbiorn. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\b\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 The name Ketilbiorn occurs on more than two dozen holdings in Domesday Book, probably representing four or five individuals, of whom the most significant was the Ketilbiorn , one of the manors held }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E. }{\insrsid6823374 by Ketilbiorn in Lincolnshire (LIN 4,23). Although some of his holdings were held at different dates, lay in three counties, and were held from or devolved upon three tenants-in-chief, there are sufficient links between them to indicate that they had all belonged to a single individual. The pre-Conquest holdings in Lincolnshire, which devolved upon the Bishop of Bayeux and Osbern the priest, were intermingled with those acquired by the 1086 tenant of the same name, suggesting a common identity; and the Yorkshire holdin g of Worsborough was shared with one Gamal in 1086, as Nettleton had been in 1066, providing another link between Lincolnshire and Yorkshire and between the 1066 and 1086 Ketilbiorns. The form of the name at Worsborough, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Chetelber}{ \insrsid6823374 , occurs also in three adja cent holdings, all likely to have been held by the same man. The Nottinghamshire property, held by Ketilbiorn at both dates, lay midway between those in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, providing another link between the two counties and the 1066 and 1086 Keti lbiorns (JP).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. For the interpretation of the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 silua per loca pastilis}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , see 1,45 woodland note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 3 ACRES. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The Latin }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ac}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ra}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 s}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,9 meadow note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 16,3\tab CALVERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 5,10. 30,13.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFRIC. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note. Roger's predecessor in 16,6-7 may be the same as this Wulfric, though the estates are not close, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a common name.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NOW 2 VILLAGERS. In the manuscript a black ink blot covers the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 before the number, but it is clearly }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 1 VIRGATE. Meadow is usually measured in acres, but here and in 30,9 the square virgate is used; compare 14,8 virgate note which refers to its use with woodland. For its use else where in Domesday Nottinghamshire as a linear measure, see 1,34 virgates note. The main use of the virgate, as a square measure, is for arable in those counties that are assessed in hides (of which a virgate is a quarter).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 16,4\tab EDWALTON. This was a chapelr y of Ruddington Ancient Parish. Ruddington itself (2,6. 9,83. 17,15. 25,2) apppears to have lain in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as later. Edwalton is specifically placed in Rushcliffe Wapentake by Domesday (head at 16,4) and was in that wapentake later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For another part, see 23,1. \par \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote a small }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 d}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 EDVVOLTONE}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , but corrected it to a capital at once; he made the same mistake in the place-name }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 OSCHINTONE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (15,1) and corrected it.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab STIUPI. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Stepi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Stepiot\- }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent the Old Norse byname }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Stiupi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , meaning 'stepson'; von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 375. The printed Phillimore edition has the for ms Stepi and Stjupi; these have now been standardized as Stiupi. The Alecto edition has Stiupi. \par \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire and it only occurs twice elsewhere (LIN 3,1. 27,60), but no tenurial or other evidence has so far been found to connect them.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 16,5\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WILLOUGHBY[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. This was an Ancient Parish. Parts appear to be included in Broxtowe Wapentake by Domesday at 9,90 16,12 and 30,35. This place is one of the five (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall) that in 1086 formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and \{ Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}. It was later in Rushcliffe Wapentake: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,92-93. 10,10. 16,12. 30,26;35.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Two parts of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (10,10. 30,26) have been identified as probably lying in Rushc liffe Wapentake in 1086. It is probable that the present holding also was in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 (wapentake heading at 16,4) and that Willoughby-on-the-Wolds was divided unequally between the two wapentakes.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab GODRIC. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On this name, see 2,10 Godric note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab ERNWY. JRM's note in the Phillimore printed edition reads: 'He is possibly Ernwy the priest, who held from Roger of Poitou in Lincolnshire, and the future Lancashire; and from the king in Nottinghamshire (30,11). He may also be identical with Ernwin the priest, and some or all of the other persons entered as Ernwy or Erwin in Nottinghamshire.'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In fact, only one other person called Ernwy was connected with Roger of Poitou in this county, as his predecessor in Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (16,12) where he is not described as a priest. He may, however, be the same man as the present Ernwy. The priest who holds from Roger of Poitou in 'the future Lancashire' is Ernwin (YKS 30W40). His group of estates, consisting of Beetham and its members, later lay both i n Lancashire and in Westmorland. An Ernwin, not described as 'the priest' but as Roger of Poitou's man and possibly the same man, held from Roger of Poitou in Lincolnshire (LIN 16,1;33;47). Interlaced with these entries are ones where Roger's predecessor w a s also called Ernwin (LIN 16,2;4;7-8), and he was possibly, but not necessarily the same as his subtenant. The matter is further complicated by the fact that an Ernwin the priest occurs eleven times in Lincolnshire, but with no apparent connection with Ro ger of Poitou. There is an Ernwy the priest in Nottinghamshire at 30,11.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Farrer in }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Lancashire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 275, was inclined to identify all the 1086 Ernwins as Ernwin the priest and to regard the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Ernwin as the same man or his father. He silently con flated the two Ernwys of Nottinghamshire with Ernwin (his folio reference, 290, shows this). He further identified Ernwin the priest with the fief-holder in Bedfordshire (BDF 14), which he inherited from his father (unnamed) who was 'King Edward's man' (B DF 14,1). Farrer deduced from this that the 1086 Ernwin was a priest of King Edward and that his father was none other than Ernwin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Catenase}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ('cat's nose') (YKS CW32).}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ernui}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ernuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Arnui}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Erneuui}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Arnuinus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ernu}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ernuit}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc. - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Earnwig}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 243-44. JRM preferred Ern- for Old English }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Earn-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , as it reflected the majority of the Domesday spellings. Von Feilitzen pointed out the frequent confusion between the elements }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -wig}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -wine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (in this case }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Earnwig }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Earnwine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), making it impossible to classify the Domesday forms }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ernui}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ernuin}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 correctly: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ibidem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and \'a7148. The Alecto edition has Earnwig.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On the possible confusion between the names Ernwy and Ernwin, see also 30,11 Ernwy note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR 12 OXEN. That is, for 1\'bd ploughs}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 1,6 ox note}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 16,6\tab CROPWELL [BUTLER]. This was a township of Tithby Ancient Parish. It lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 11,32. 20,7.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFRIC. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note; see also 16,3 Wulfric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 16,7\tab COTGRAVE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 15,8-10.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFRIC. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note; see also 16,3 Wulfric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 16,8\tab 'WARBY'. }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 This is a lost place in Plumtree Ancient Parish, p resumably in that portion of the parish that was in Bingham Wapentake, judging by the order of Domesday at this point. The name survived in Warby Gate (1790), the form of which suggests that Domesday }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Warberga}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Wareberg}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 which is Old English }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 weard-beorg}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('watch-hill') had by then been assimilated to place-names with the Scandinavian termination -}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 by }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('farm', 'homestead'). See }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 240. There is no trace of 'Warby' on Ordnance Survey maps. Beresford, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lost Villages of England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 37 9, locates it at SK621333. For another part, see 9,105.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FREDEGIS. On this name, see 2,1 Fredegis note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 10 ACRES. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The Latin }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ac}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ra}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 s}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 16,9\tab ['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Haughton and West Drayton (16,9;11).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HAUGHTON. This was a chapelry within Bothamsall chapelry in Elkesley Ancient Parish. Both Bothamsall (1,9) and Elkesley (1,10. 9,32. 30,41) appear to have lain in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086. It is likely tha t Haughton was in that wapentake in 1086 as it was later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BALDRIC . On this name, see B3 Baldric note. The only other occurrences in Domesday Book of a Baldric holding in 1066 are in DBY 6,26 (Foston) and 6,49 (Hatton), as a predecessor of Henry of Ferrers. Although these places are far distant from H aughton, it is possible that the same individual was involved.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab PERCHES. See B20 perches note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 16,10\tab A JURISDICTION. That is, presumably of Haughton (16,9).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WALESBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,20. 9,13. 12,4.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 16,11\tab [WEST] DRAYTON. This was a chapelry of }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 the Ancient Parish of}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 East Markham. Like East Markham itself (1,3. 9,6;10-11) it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For another part, see 9,31.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SWEIN. On this name, see S5 Swein note; see also 16,1 Swein note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE. The other two-thirds of this bovate in [West] Drayton are recorded in 9,31, an addition made by scribe B.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFSI. On this name, see 9,36 Wulfsi note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NOW 5s 4d. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected an original }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .iii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .iiii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 by adding a fourth minim over the original }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 punctus}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 at the end and adding a new one, probably at an early stage because the pen and ink are the same as he used for the surrounding text. He interlined }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (the last two letters of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 quattuor}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , '4') in clarification.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 16,12\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in part of a four-line space left by him at the end of the fief of Roger of Poitou on folio 290b. It was probably written during a large campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 entry note. However, the formulae used for the status of this holding, for the ploughs and for the value statement are not found anywhere else in circuit VI, except in added entries, which suggests that it may have been added after he had finished work on the whole circuit; see 10,64 entry note. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. For the addition of other land in Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, see 9,93, and for other o f Roger's holdings that were added, see LIN 16,21;25-26.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [* BROXTOWE WAPENTAKE *]. The restoration of this wapentake head depends on the identification of Willoughby (16,12); see 16,12 Willoughby note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WILLOUGHBY[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. This }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wilgebi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , which could represent one of three places called Willoughby in Nottinghamshire, was identified by the Phillimore printed edition as the Willoughby that lay in Walesby (see 1,20;24.12,3). The presence of a 'Bassetlaw' wapentake heading at 16,9 and of Walesby itself at 16,10 may have influenced this identification. However, this entry was added to the fief and is not necessarily a part of 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake. Moreover, Ernwy, the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E. }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holder here, may well have been the same as the Ernwy who shared a double manor of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds with Godric (16,5). Furthermore, in this entry the number of carucates and of ploughlands are the same, an equivalence that is found particularly, though not at all exclusively, in Broxtowe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note. Thus, this entry has been tentatively identified with Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, and as one of the parts of it that lay in Broxtowe Wapentake; see 9,92 Willoughby note. This identification has also been suggested by Black and Roffe, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 32. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Willoughby-on-the-Wolds was an Ancient Parish. Some other parts (9,92. 16,5. 30,35) appear to be included in Broxtowe Wapentake by Domesday, though the whole vill was later in Rushcliffe Wapentake: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 23 0. For all the parts of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, see 9,92-93. 10,10. 16,5. 30,26;35.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ERNWY. See 16,5 Ernwy note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AS A MANOR. This phrase takes the place of the marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M' }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 for }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Manerium }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('manor') and is a formula not one found elsewhere in circuit VI, exc ept in added entries (as also here in 5,6. 10,66. 12,12 and 30,10), but it occurs in most of the circuits written up after it. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND FOR AS MANY OXEN. That is, for 5 oxen.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 PLOUGHS THERE, WITH. This is a formula not found anywhere else in circuit VI, except in added entries (it appears here also in 13,12 and compare 10,66 plough note and 30,10 ploughs note), but it occurs in circuits written up after it and is especially common in circuit II. On the sign ificance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FORMERLY 20s; VALUE NOW 10s. This is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries; see 5,6 formerly note and compare 2,3 value note and 10,64 value note. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 17\tab LAND OF GILBERT OF GHENT. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . He came from Ghent in Flanders and was the son of Ralph, lord of Alost, near Ghent and Gisla. Gilbert married Alice, daughter of Hugh de Montfort, and had several children including Walter, his heir, Emma, who married Alan de Percy, and another daughte r who married Ivo of Grandmesnil. Gilbert founded the monastery of Bardney (Lincolnshire) as a cell of Sainte-Foi of Conques. His estates descended through his heirs and formed the barony of Folkingham (Lincolnshire). See Sanders, }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 English Baronies}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 46; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 210. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On the name Gilbert, see 9,52 Gilbert note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab The manors in this fief are entered in the standard order of wapentakes in this county (\{Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes\}):}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 17,1-12 Newark Wapentake (error for 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake) \par \tab \tab 17,13-14 [Thurgarton Wapentake] \par \tab \tab 17,15 [Rushcliffe Wapentake] \par \tab \tab 17,16-18 Bingham Wapentake.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 17,1\tab NEWARK WAPENTAKE}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . ['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE]. In view of the location of the manors listed below (17,1-4;7-8 and probably 17,9;12) which were almost certainly in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086, the Newark wapentake head is erroneous. No doubt the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 mechanically entered the first wapentake name in the standard sequence, as several times in other counties, for example in Shropshire; see SHR }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 4,9,1. 4,11,5. 7,1}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 and \{ Introduction: Standard Order of Hundreds\}; also NTT \{Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes\}.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BOUGHTON. This was a chapelry of Kneesall Ancient Parish. Kneesall probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 10 86, but in later times parts of the Ancient Parish were in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake. These included Boughton (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228), and it seems probable that Boughton was also in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086; see 17,9 Kn eesall note. For another part, see 9,16.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab ULF [***] [* FENMAN *]. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday left a space for 3-4 letters after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlf}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 here and also in 17,4;9;12-13;16, but oddly not in 17,14-15. These spaces were probably for the later insertion of his byname, perhaps }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 fenisc}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('fenman') as he was Gilbert of Ghent's predecessor in DBY 13,1, HUN B2, LIN 24,1. CW17. CK 41 and also in CAM 23,1-6 (his byname provided by the corresponding entries in the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ). He failed to prov ide a byname in other entries in LIN 24, and for Gilbert's predecessor Ulf in BUK 22,2, in RUT 5,15 and in HUN 21, and left no space for its later insertion. His predecessor 'Ulf, a thane of King Edward's' in BDF 27,1 and BUK 22,1 was probably Ulf Fenman. The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Vlf fenisc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 who appears in S5 as having had full jurisdiction, market rights etc. over his land in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire strengthens the case for this identification.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On both the name Ulf and on 'Fenman', see S5 Ulf note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 17,2\tab KIRTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other references to Kirton, see 1,19;24. 9,13. 12,2, and on the Domesday name-form, see 1,19 Kirton note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab REGNVALD. On this name, see 9,127 Regnvald note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 17,3\tab OLLERTON. This was a chapelry of Edwinstowe Ancient Parish. Like Edwinstowe itself (1,24;28) it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For another part, see 9,17.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WADA . On this name, see 9,55 Wada note. There are only two occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire, the other being as a predecessor of Roger of Bully in Harworth (9,55), but the estates are not close to each other and no tenurial or other evidence has so far been found to connect these }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holders.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 The name Wada occurs on seven holdings in Domesday Book and may represent four, five or six individuals. Although there are no tenurial associations or other links to any other Wada, the name is so rare this Wada could be the same individual as either he of Brampton (DBY 8,2) or of Harworth (JP).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WILLIAM, GILBERT'S MAN. On this name, see B9 William note. He might be t he same as Gilbert's tenant in 17,7 (Eakring), which about three miles from Ollerton, but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and William was a very common name.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 17,4\tab RUFFORD. This was an extra-parochial place which was made a Civil Parish in 1858; see Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Local Administrative Units}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 367. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086, like the places in the surrounding entries. For its depopulation, see }{\insrsid6823374 Barley, 'Cistercian Land Clearances of Nottinghamshire'. }{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab ULF [***] [* FENMAN *]. See 17,1 Ulf note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 17,5\tab ALSO A JURISDICTION THERE. That is, Bilsthorpe was a Jurisdiction of Rufford (17,4).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BILSTHORPE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 17,6\tab INKERSALL. This was included in Rufford Civil Parish at its creation in 1858 and, like Rufford (17,4), had presumably lain in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 and previously had been extra-parochial; see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 303. The Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Wirchenefeld}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and the place was long known as 'Winkerfield'. The alternative name Inkersall appears in 1747 ('Winkerfield otherwise Inkersall'); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 95. The grid reference is to Inkersall Manor (SK625606). The re is an Inkersall Farm at SK629606 and an Inkersall Grange Farm at SK615598, but any nucleated settlement has disappeared. For Inkersall's depopulation, see }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Barley, 'Cistercian Land Clearances of Nottinghamshire'.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AN OUTLIER. That is, presumably, of Rufford (17,4).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 17,7\tab EAKRING. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,24. 12,5. 17,8.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Both this and the other manor of Eakr ing (17,8) were assessed at 6 bovates, had the same plough estimate and values and the same extent of meadow and woodland. This suggests the equal division of an estate between co-heirs, though there is no evidence of kinship between Egbrand and Ingulf an d there are no other instances in Domesday of men with these names holding near each other. The main scribe of Great Domesday could presumably have written the two estates into a single entry, designating it a double manor and combining all the manorial ap purtenances and value, except for the fact that different 1086 subtenants were involved.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab INGULF. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ingulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ingolf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ingulf}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 298. The Al ecto edition has Ingulf. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WILLIAM, GILBERT'S MAN. On this name, see B9 William note; see also 17,3 William note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 17,8\tab THERE ALSO ^[EAKRING]^. See 17,7 Eakring note. \par \tab \tab In the manuscript the }{\i\f720\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 IBID\'c7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is lined through in red (albeit faintly), as expected, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. However, there is no red-lining in the Alecto facsimile; on other omissions of this sort there, see 2,2 there note and, on other problems of reproduc tion in that facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab EGBRAND. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Egbrand}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Echebrand}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Eghebrand}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aechebrand}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Egbrand}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 245. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Egbrand and (here, in error) Erchenbrand; these have now been standardized as Egbrand. The Alecto edition has Egbrand. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 17,9\tab KNEESALL. This was an Ancient Parish. L ater in the Middle Ages Kneesall as a parish was divided between 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake and the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe. The townships of Kneesall and Kersall were in Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake, while the township of Ompton and the c hapelry of Boughton were in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake; see Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 362. Kneesall itself is listed in 'Lythe' Wapentake in }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106, and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. In the present context, however, Kneesall is listed after the two manors of Eakring (17,7-8) and before that of 'Crastell' (17,12). The former were probably in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086, as was the latter if it is a correct identification of Domesday }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Creilege}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 17,12 'Crastell' note. However, 'Lythe' Wapentake is next in the standard sequence of wapentakes, and if the identification of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Creilege}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 with 'Crastell' is not accepted, a 'Lythe' wapentake heading could be inserted in the translation above Kneesall. The Phil limore printed edition places Kneesall in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake. Of its Jurisdictions, Ompton (17,10) probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086, while Maplebeck (17,11) was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab KERSALL. This was a township in Kneesall Ancient Parish. Like the township of Kneesall, but unlike some parts of the Ancient Parish, it lay in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. It is uncertain in which wapentake it lay in 108 6. As a dependency of Kneesall, it could, however, have been in 'Lythe' Wapentake, even if Kneesall itself were in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake. It is mapped in 'Lythe' Wapentake in the Alecto edition. See 17,9 Kneesall note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab ULF [***] [* FENMAN *]. See 17,1 Ulf note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 17,10\tab ALSO JURISDICTION THERE. That is, Ompton was a Jurisdiction of Kneesall (17,5).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OMPTON. This was a township of Kneesall Ancient Parish. It is not certain in which wapentake Kneesall itself lay in 1086 (see 17,9 Kneesall note), but Ompton coul d have been in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake then, as it was later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other parts of Ompton, see 1,24. 12,6. 15,2.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 17,11\tab MAPLEBECK. . This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other references to Maplebeck, see 1,24;29. \par \tab \tab The marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 oca}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] indicates that this was a Jurisdiction, presumably of Kneesall (17,9).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 30 ACRES. }{\insrsid6823374 The case of the Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\insrsid6823374 is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note and 1,1 fishery note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 17,12\tab 'CRASTELL'. This was a settlement, now lost, that lay in the Ancient Parish of Wellow. Wellow itself no doubt lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab JRM citing }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 280 (which in turn cited Thoroton, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Antiquities of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iii. p. 200), and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 65, said that '}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Creilege }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 or }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Cratela }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 appears to be the old name of Wellow'. There are two difficulties with this. Firstly, there is an apparent lack of continuity between the Domesday name-form (}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Creilege}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ) and later forms such as }{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Cratela}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Cratele}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 which show a medial -}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 t}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 -. If the Domesday form is, nonetheless, accepted as a somewhat distorted precursor of 'Crastell', then it is not certain that it was the old name of Wellow. Although the earliest form cited for Wellow (}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Welhag}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ') dates from 1207, the name, since it is Old English }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 wielle}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('spring') and }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 haga}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('enclosure'), is likely to have arisen much earlier. It is more probable that 'Crastell' and Wellow were adjacent, but distinct places, and that Wellow came to replace 'Crastell' and to name the parish while 'Crastell' itself disappeared. It is Wellow t hat is named in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107, and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228, in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake. On the destruction of 'Crastell' by the monks of Rufford, see }{\insrsid6823374 Crook, 'Community of Mansfield', p. 19}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 .}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The name-form adopted here, 'Crastell', is the latest cited in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (1428), but is not the best representative of the earlier forms.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab ULF [***] [* FENMAN *]. See 17,1 Ulf note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 26 ACRES. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The Latin }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ac}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ra}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 s}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 17,13\tab [THURGARTON WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Kirklington (17,13).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab KIRKLINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab ULF [***] [* FENMAN *]. See 17,1 Ulf note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE JURISDICTION BELONGS TO SOUTHWELL. That is, to the collegiate church of Southwell, held under the Archbishop of York (5,1), of which Kirklington had probably once been an integral part. The juri sdictional tie probably indicates that this land had once 'belonged' to Southwell church; see 5,1 outliers note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab 4 VILLAGERS [WHO HAVE] 2 PLOUGHS. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 h'nt'}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (with abbreviations lines over the first }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 n }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .i. car'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , but then erased the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 'nt'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and inserted a second minim on top of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 punctus}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .i.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , added a new }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 after it and interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 as}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (the last two letters of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 duas}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , '2'), but failed later to return to deal with the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 h}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . If he had intended to alter the verb from the present participle }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 h}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 abe}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ntes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('having', regularly translated by JRM as 'who have') to the main verb }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 h}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 abe}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 nt}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('[they] have'), there was no need for him to erase }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 n't}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , but merely the second abbreviation sign; he obviously intended t o add something because he squeezed in the second minim after rather than before the original one. If the meaning was 'have', as the Phillimore edition translated it (though the note by JRM suggested the alternative 'having'), then Gilbert did not have th e villagers (because there would then be two main verbs in the sentence), but if it was 'having', as in the Alecto edition, then Gilbert had the villagers who had 2 ploughs. In the next entry the scribe wrote }{ \i\f720\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 c\'fb}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 before the villagers' ploughs, which solved the problem. His source may have been unclear.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 17,14\tab NORMANTON. This is one of several places called Normanton in Nottinghamshire and is sometimes known as Normanton-by-Southwell. It was a hamlet in Southwell Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wa pentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For another part, see 30,11.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab ULF [* FENMAN *]. See 17,1 Ulf note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION OF SOUTHWELL. That is, of the archiepiscopal manor (5,1), of which this portion of Normanton had probably once been an integral part; see 5,1 outliers note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 17,15\tab [RUSHCLIFFE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Ruddington (17,15).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab RUDDINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 1109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 2,6. 9,83. 25,2.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab ULF [* FENMAN *]. See 17,1 Ulf note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 33 ACRES. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 xxx}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , but interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .iii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , extending the middle minim downwards to act as an insertion mark; Farley did not show this extension.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 17,16\tab WHATTON[-IN-THE-VALE]. Whatton was an Ancient Parish; the principal settlement has recently become known as Whatton- in-the-Vale. Domesday places the latter in Bingham Wapentake and it also lay there later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab ULF [***] [* FENMAN *]. See 17,1 Ulf note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab ROBERT, GILBERT'S MAN. On the name Robert, see 2,3 Robert note. According to }{\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 374, a Robert of Armenti\'e8 res was Gilbert of Ghent's tenant in Lincolnshire, Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire. However, she does not give a folio reference for the Robert here (nor for LIN 24,92) and includes four references on folio 354c for the two occurrences there (LIN 24,10;12), possibly because four places appear in those two entries, though see 2,3 Robert note on her referencing policy and compare 11,3 Mauger note and 15,10 Warner note. There seems to be no mention of Robert of Armenti\'e8res or of Gilbert of Ghent in the Abingdon Chronicle (ed. Stevenson) at the reference she gives (ii. pp. 12-13); however, in Hudson (ed.), }{\i\insrsid6823374 History of the Church of Abingdon}{ \insrsid6823374 , ii. pp. 18-21 (which had not been published when }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 appeared), there is a record of Gilbert of Ghent giving to the abbey a house in London. Among the witnesses was Robert }{ \i\insrsid6823374 de Armenteres}{\insrsid6823374 . Hudson's note 45 identifies him as the Robert of Armenti\'e8res who held a house in Wallingford (BR K B9), and as possibly the Robert who held from Gilbert of Ghent, but suggests that there could have been more than one Robert.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 MILL ... MEADOW, 80 ACRES. The cases of the Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 i. molin'}{\insrsid6823374 and of }{\i\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\insrsid6823374 are unclear; they might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab A MILLSTONE QUARRY WHERE MILLSTONES ARE DUG. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 una molaria ubi molae fodiuntur}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 and the relative clause is not as redundant as the translation suggests: }{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 molaria}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 is a noun derived from the adjective }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 molaris}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 which itself comes from }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 mola}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('a mill-stone'). Thus }{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 molaris}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 means 'relating to a mill-stone' and }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 molaria}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 is 'something relating to a millstone'. Like many Latin adjectives and their substantival derivatives (for example }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 piscaria }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('fishery') and }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 plumbaria}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ('lead-works') in Domesday, the exact meaning is given by the context. Since }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 molaria}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 itself can mean 'a mill', the relative clause is necesssary.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Geologically, the land around Whatton-in-the-Vale consists mainly of Keuper marl with thin layers of sandstone; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Domesday Geography of Northern England}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 273.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 17,17\tab JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. That is, Hawksworth and Aslockton (17,17-18) are Jurisdictions of Whatton-in-the-Vale (17,16).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab HAWKSWORTH. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday had originally written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Holesuuorde}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , but later, using a yellowy ink, he underlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Holes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and interlined }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hvches}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above it to produce }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hvchesuuorde}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; in the only other occurrence of this place-name here (11,23) the spelling is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hochesuorde}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . This correction was made during a campaign of addition and correction that took place after the county had been rubricated; see 9,93 entry note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In the Alecto facsimile the interlineation appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hoches}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , but the main scribe definitely wrote a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 v}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , with a pointed base and not c losed at the top; this is fairly clear in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. On other problems of reproduction in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note. Farley read it as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hoches}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , but if the scribe had wanted to correct the place-name to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hochesuuorde}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 he w ould only have had to underline the original }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 l}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and interline }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ch}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above it. The scribe of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Abbreviatio}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (folio 206r) read it as }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hochesworde}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , but the scribe of the Breviate (folio 148r) wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Bochesworde}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . For other of Farley's rare mistakes, see 9,31 Drayton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Hawksworth was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 17,16) as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 103; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For another part, see 11,23.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 17,18\tab ASLOCKTON. This was a township of Whatton Ancient Parish. Like the settlement of Whatton-in-the-Vale itself (17,16), it probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 1,57. 11,22. 20,6. 30,37.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left over half a column blank, perhaps in case he found further holdings of Gilbert of Ghent, though probably for aesthetic reasons.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 18\tab NEXT TO THIS CHAPTER HEAD, in the central margin, are written the letters }{\i\insrsid6823374 fr}{\insrsid6823374 . There is also an }{\i\insrsid6823374 f }{\insrsid6823374 written beside the heads for chapters 24-29 and beside 19,1. Compare DBY 12 chapter note. The purpose of these letters is obscure, but they were not written by the main scribe of Great Domesday or scribe B or any of the other scribes of Great Domesday. For a discussion of these letters, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 129-30 and Fig. 16 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\insrsid6823374 The Story of Domesday Book}{\insrsid6823374 , pp. 195-97 and Fig. 15.16).}{\insrsid801729 \par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid801729 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND OF GILBERT TISON. }{ \insrsid6823374 The byname Tison (}{\i\insrsid6823374 Tison}{\insrsid6823374 ) is Old French meaning 'firebrand' (Tengvik, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Old English Bynames}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 382), but the exact significance is unclear; it could refer to a man who ignited conflict, or to an individual quick to anger, or to someone hot-headed or, in a good sense, to qualities of leadership. Compare Ranulf }{\i\insrsid6823374 Flambard}{ \insrsid6823374 . Gilbert died }{\i\insrsid6823374 c}{\insrsid6823374 . 1129 and was succeeded by his son Adam. Gilbert's small Nottinghamshire fief apparently became th e honour of Averham from his holding in that county, while his Yorkshire lands were swallowed by the honour of Mowbray, becoming a mesne tenancy. See }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 232; the Thurgarton Cartulary (Foulds, pp. 92-93); Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 214. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On the name Gilbert, see 9,52 Gilbert note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid801729 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab The core of this short chapter (18,3-6) is entered in the standard order of wapentakes found in this county (\{Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes\}), but these entries which include two estates i n 'Lythe' Wapentake, are prefaced by ones for the same wapentake (18,1-2). It is possible that the main scribe of Great Domesday initially missed the entry for Finningley in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake (18,3) which should have begun this chapter (Gilbert holdin g nothing in Newark Wapentake) or that he started the fief with Gilbert's largest manor. The final entry (18,7) is not post-scriptal. All the wapentake headings need to be supplied: \par \tab \tab 18,1-2 ['Lythe' Wapentake] \par \tab __________________________________ \par \tab \tab 18,3 ['Bassetlaw' Wapentake] \par \tab \tab 18,4-5 ['Lythe' Wapentake] \par \tab \tab 18,6 [wapentake unknown] \par \tab \tab 18,7 [Thurgarton? Wapentake].}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab It is possible that Finningley (18,3) was a detached part of 'Lythe' Wapentake; if so there would be no disjunction in the wapentake order at the beginning of this chapter; see 18,3 Finningley note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 18,1\tab ['LYTHE' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Averham and Cromwell (18,1-2).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AVERHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab SWEIN. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On this name, see S5 Swein note. A Swein was also Gilbert Tison's predecessor in 18,3;5;7, possibly the same person, though no doc umentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a very common name.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab 22 SMALLHOLDERS ... 12 PLOUGHS. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of smallholders from }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 xvi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 xxii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 by turning the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 v}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 into a second }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 x}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and interlining }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ti }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (the last two letters of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 viginti}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , '20') in clarification, and interlining another minim above the first one. At the same time he added a minim to the number of ploughs.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab 6 [***]. There is a black ink blot in the manuscript between }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 .vi.}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 m' }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 with smud ges in the next two lines and an offset on folio 290d. It is not clear whether the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday had written a word here, as the blot does not obscure where the ascenders of either }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 lib'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (= \'a36) or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 sol'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (= 6s) would be and these are the most likely words. Both the Phillimore printed edition and the Alecto edition have '[\'a3 ]6', but the scribe may have left a space here, as he did in the entry for Woodborough on folio 292c (30,9), because his source was unclear or he doubted its reading; the corr ections to the number of smallholders and the ploughs lend support to this suggestion.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab ARE APPURTENANT. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 appendunt}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , meaning that these Freemen are 'hanging from' , 'attached to', 'appendages of'. The Phillimore printed translation has 'are attached' as it does for the Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 adiacent}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (6,1. 9,118. 10,21;41. 24,1), but in this revision it has been thought better to translate the two verbs differently. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Alecto edition has 'belong' for }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 appendunt}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . Freemen in Upton and Collingham are said to belong to the manor of Rolleston; see 7,5 Freemen note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 5 FREEMEN IN OTHER HUNDREDS. Averham was evidently in or named a 'small hundred'. In Nottinghamshire where these hundreds ma y have contained 12 carucates, the three carucates of Averham would account for a quarter of the hundred. There is no other mention of Averham in the text nor an indication of where the 'other hundreds' are. These hundreds were probably a universal subdiv i sion of the wapentake, but are only mentioned in passing in Great Domesday. In this case it is possible that in the source of Domesday Nottinghamshire or in an earlier recension the names of the hundreds in which the places lay were included as well as th eir wapentakes, but that these were largely abbreviated out while leaving a few traces, as, for example, at 18,6 and DBY 2,1; see \{Introduction: Small Hundreds\}.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 18,2\tab CROMWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For another part, see 30,4.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 oca}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] indicates that Cromwell was a Jurisdiction, probably of Averham (18,1).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 18,3\tab ['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Finningley (18,3).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FINNINGLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in a detached part of 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. However, this entry falls between two places (18,2;4) that were in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 and interrupts the wapentake sequence. Finningley was adjacent to Misson (1,65-66. 9,21. 30,43-44) which probably formed a detached part of 'Basse tlaw' Wapentake in 1086. It is possible that Finningley was, in fact, a detached part of 'Lythe' Wapentake. If so, it would have given that wapentake or a major manor within it access to the resources of fenland.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In the fourteenth century, part of Auckley in Yorkshire was taxed with Finningley. This may have been the situation in 1086; }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 see }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Rotuli Hundredorum}{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 301, and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227.}{\insrsid6823374 Certainly, the township of Auckley, though in Yorkshire, was regarded as part of Finningley Ancient Parish until the creation of separate Civil Parishes in 1866; see Youngs, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 360.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SWEIN. On this name, see S5 Swein note; see also 18,1 Swein note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 18,4\tab ['LYTHE' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Kelham and Winkburn (18,4-5).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab KELHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 (part of Kelham is below a 'Lythe' wapentake head at 9,59) and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 9,59. 11,19. 15,3. 30,45.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AELFRIC. On this name, see 5,6 Aelfric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 14 VIRGATES WIDE. The virgate is here used, as in other parts of Kelham, as a linear measure; see 1,34 virgates note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 18,5\tab WINKBURN. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. \par \tab \tab Roffe ('Domesday Book and Northern Society', p. 323, note 3) gives this entry among others that 'are significantly postscriptal' and contain distinctive formulae from circuits I and V. In Black and Roffe, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Domesday Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 32, it is stated that the detail on the 2 bovates held by 5 thanes was 'a later addition to 2 blank lines'.}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 However, there is no sign in the manuscript that this entry, or the last two lines of it, was postscriptal, and the present editors can find nothing unusual or o ut of place in its formulae, as was the case in several other added entries (see 10,64 entry note).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid801729 {\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab SWEIN. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On this name, see S5 Swein note; see also 18,1 Swein note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab THE SENIOR OF THE OTHERS. It is not certain in how wide a sense Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 senior}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ('older', 'more important') should be taken. Stubbs, cited in }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 232, inclined to see in this man a senior thane such as played an important role in court proceedings. However, the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 aliorum}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 seems to limit the sense to this man's relationship wi th the others. A parallel instance in BUK 5,15 is: 'Eight thanes held this manor; one of them, Alli, King Edward's man, was senior to the others'. A case from Lincolnshire may also illustrate the meaning: in Biscathorpe (LIN 3,41) Godric and his two broth ers held 3 taxable carucates and 'Two [of the brothers] served the third' (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 duo seruiebant tercio}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ). In the present context the information may have been included to explain that one man, not five, answered for these two bovates. In another Lincolnshire insta nce (LIN CS38) four brothers held jointly, but one of them was the king's man and was the first of them to go on the 'king's expedition', if necessary. This also represents a form of seniority.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab IT DID NOT BELONG TO SWEIN. Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 q}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 u}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 e}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ,} {\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 with singular verb, evidently referring to }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 terra}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 perhaps intending only the land of the 'senior' thane (JRM). The construction is loose and }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 cuius terra}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ('whose land'), as suggested by }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 232,}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 would have made the meaning clearer, if that is what the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 intended. However, it looks as if there are two statements being made here: firstly that Swein had added these two bovates illegally to ten that he rightly held (with the added implication, presumably, that this piece of land sh ould not have passed to Gilbert Tison); secondly that the occupants of these two bovates were five thanes of whom one (probably) received the services of the rest. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Alecto edition has 'This [land] did not belong to Swein'.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab See also }{\insrsid6823374 Fleming, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 218 no. 1251.}{\insrsid801729 \par }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid801729 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 18,6\tab THE PHILLIMORE printed edition supplied a Thurgarton wapentake head here, presumably because it was felt that the Blidworth hundred head at the end of 18,6 ("Alwoldestorp") referred to it and because Blidworth itself (5,9) was in Thurgarton Wapentake. This is not so; see 18,7 Blidworth note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab "ALWOLDESTORP". Identified with Caythorpe (SK6845; first mentioned }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 c}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 . 1170: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 159) by Thoroton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Antiquities of Nottinghamshire}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , cited }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , i. p. }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 281, followed by }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Domesday Gazetteer}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ; not noted in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire} {\cf1\insrsid6823374 . It is possibly the deserted medieval village immediately north of Caythorpe (SK6946) (JRM). Although apparently accepting the identification with Caythorpe, JRM put }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Alwoldestorp}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 in this entry and indexed it as such, though the index also contains a mention of Caythorpe with a cross-reference to }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Alwoldestorp}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 .}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab If the identification of "Alwoldestorp" with Caythorpe was based partly or wholly on the fa ct that it appears to be in Blidworth Hundred, this support has now been removed, because the heading 'In Blidworth Hundred' can be shown to belong with Staythorpe (18,7) and not with "Alwoldestorp". Caythorpe is not far from Lowdham which was a member of Blidworth manor (5,9), but "Alwoldestorp" can neither be assigned to a hundred nor to a wapentake.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab AETHELSTAN. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On this name, see 9,120 Aethelstan note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 18,7\tab [* THURGARTON? WAPENTAKE *]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Staythorpe (18,7).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BLIDWORTH HUNDRED. The main scribe of Great Domesday added this in a space at the end of the previous entry (18,6), interlining }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 h'd}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 because of lack of space. It is not rubricated, so it is likely that it was entered at a late stage in the checking p rocess. However, the pen and ink used for it are not the same as those of the large campaign of post-rubrication addition (see 12,22 entry note), but are similar to those of the entries on this folio, so it is just possible that he only briefly omitted it and then failed to rubricate it (see 1,10 manor note).}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Phillimore printed translation places this hundred head at the end of 18,6, but the scribe obviously intended it for the present entry or he would have added it in the larger space at the end of 18,5: in this county wapentake and hundred heads were written either on lines by themselves (as above 1,1;23;51. 5,1;3. 6,13. 9,1;6;59;72;77;90. 15,4. 16,3;6. 17,16. 30,1;14) or on the same line as the chapter head (as for 15,1. 16,1) or in a space at the end of the previous entry (relating to the entries at 16,4 and 30,49). In the Alecto edition this hundred head is placed above Staythorpe, as in the present edition. The insertion of hundred heads is rare in Domesday Nottinghamshire; see \{ Introduction: Small Hundreds\}. However, this type of insertion is common in several Lincolnshire fiefs.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab As JRM observed, Staythorpe is 'remote from Blidworth and separated from it by Southwell hundred'. He also reconstructed a 12-carucate hundred which included "Alwoldes torp" (18,6; on his view of its being Caythorpe, see 18,6 "Alwoldestorp" note), but excluded Staythorpe: '}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Blidworth (5,9) held the mill at Lowdham, which bordered on Caythorpe, and with the villages between, Salterford, Oxton, which 'lay in Blidworth' (5,1 1), Calverton, Woodborough and Epperstone, the area was assessed at exactly 12 carucates, the extent of a small hundred'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . However, as explained in \{Introduction: Small Hundreds\} , the reconstruction of a single hundred in the middle of a shire is bound to b e insecure, unless the surrounding hundreds are reconstructed as well, ideally up to the county border. It is, anyway, not clear what size the Nottinghamshire hundreds were and whether any had detached portions. Blidworth (5,9), held by the Archbishop of York, was situated on a hill and had one remote resource, the mill at Lowdham (5,9); it is possible that the estate at Staythorpe provided meadow and fish for the archiepiscopal manor, and was included in its hundred. Nonetheless, there is a puzzle here.} {\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab STAYTHORPE. This was a township of Averham Ancient Parish. Averham itself (18,1) probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. However, Staythorpe adjacent to the shared boundary of Thurgarton Wapentake and 'Lythe' Wapentake and apparently in Blidworth Hundred, was probably in Thurgarton Wapentake, unless Blidworth Hundred was split between two wapentakes. The Phillimore printed edition i ncludes it in Thurgarton Wapentake.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SWEIN. On this name, see S5 Swein note; see also 18,1 Swein note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab MILL ... MEADOW, 60 ACRES. The cases of the Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 i. molin'}{\insrsid6823374 and of }{\i\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\insrsid6823374 are unclear; they might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note and 1,1 fishery note.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 19\tab LAND OF GEOFFREY OF LA GUERCHE. }{\insrsid6823374 He came from La Guerche-de-Bretagne in the French d\'e9 partement of Ille-et-Vilaine, arrondissement Rennes. His father, Sylvester, was Bishop of Rennes, and his elder brother, William, was lord of La Guerche. Geoffrey's esta tes appear to have been given to Nigel de Albini in unknown circumstances. Nigel first married Maud, the widow of Robert of Mowbray, Earl of Northumberland. By his second wife he had a son, Roger who took the name de Mowbray. Nigel was brother of the Will iam de Albini Brito who was the ancestor of the earls of Arundel and Sussex. See }{\i\insrsid6823374 Complete Peerage}{\insrsid6823374 , ix. pp. 367-69; the }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 88-90); }{\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{ \i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 226; Cain, 'Introduction', }{\i\insrsid6823374 Leicestershire Domesday}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 20. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On the name Geoffrey, see B13 Geoffrey note.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab Geoffrey's fief in Nottinghamshire consisted of a single manor in Newark Wapentake.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 19,1\tab IN THE CENTRAL MARGIN, next to the first line of this entry, is written an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 f}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see NTT 18 chapter note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Langford (19,1).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LANGFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. The modern settlement is at SK822582. The site of a deserted medieval village is marked at SK822587, adjacent to the Old Hall (SK820588).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LEOFRIC [* SON OF LEOFWIN *]. Geoffrey of La Guerche acquired several of his estates in Domesday Book from a Leofric (as here and in NTH 47,1c) and he was called Leofric son of Leofwin in LEC 29,3;18 and Young (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 cilt}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) Leofric in LIN 63,1; his whole fief in Warwickshire (WAR 31) had been held by Leofwin in 1066, as had LEC 29,14 and LIN 63,2;5. On the connection between Geoffrey and Leofwin and Leofric, see LEC 29 Geoffrey note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab RANULF, GEOFFREY OF LA GUERCHE'S MAN. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ranulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rannulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ran}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : Forssner, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 211-12. The Alecto edition has Ranulph.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire and Geoffrey of La Guerche had no other tenant called Ranulf. See }{\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People }{\insrsid6823374 , p. 351.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 PLOUGHS AND \'bd PLOUGH. The main scribe of Great Domesday added }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 dimid' car'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above the Freemen, but obviously intending Ranulf to have 2 \'bd ploughs, though the repetition of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 car'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is unnecessary and odd. The Phillimore printed edition has '2 \'bd ploughs', but it has been thought better to retain the wording of the manuscript in the present edition, as in the Alecto edition.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 FISHERY. Langford parish had a short frontage on the River Trent near SK810615, but its boundary with Holme (part of North Muskham) largely separated it from that river b y a few fields. However, this boundary was formed by Slough Dyke and The Fleet, in both of which a fishery could have been sited.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the remaining five lines of the column, possibly in case he fou nd further holdings of Geoffrey de la Guerche, though probably for aesthetic reasons.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 20\tab LAND OF ILBERT OF LACY. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 He was brother of Walter of Lacy, lord of Weobley (Herefordshire), and like him came from Lassy in the French d\'e9 partement of Calvados (arrondissement Vire, canton Cond\'e9-sur-Noireau). His own fief was centred on Pontefract in Yorkshire. He and his wife Hadruda were benefactors of the Abbey of La Sainte-Trinit\'e9 of Caen where a son was buried. Ilbert died }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 c}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . 1093. His heir was a son, Robert of Lacy. His estates became the barony of Pontefract. See }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Surrey}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 280; Loyd, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 53; Wightman, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Lacy Family}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ; Sanders, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 English Baronies}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 138; Keats-Rohan, }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 277}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday form of his first name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ilbertus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , represents Old French }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ilbert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : Reaney, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . According to Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 161-62, it probably derived from Old German }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hildiberht}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , and the form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ildeb}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) appears in SOM 6,10;14. 44,1;3 (rendered here as Hildebert). The Alecto edition has Ilbert for the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ilbertus}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 forms.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab The estates in this fief lay in two wapentakes which are entered in standard county order. The final entry (20,8) is added but this does not disrupt the orde r. Both wapentake headings need to be supplied: \par \tab \tab 20,1-5 [Newark Wapentake] \par \tab \tab 20,6-8 [Bingham Wapentake].}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 20,1\tab [NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the manors of Sibthorpe, East Stoke and Elston (20,1;3-5).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SIBTHORPE. This was an Ancient Parish, originally the land of a collegiate church mentioned here and at 2,1; see Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Local Administrative Units}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 367. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 2,1-2. 10,2.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab PILWIN . He appears to have preceded Arngrim at Elston (6,5) as he did here at Sibthorpe. On this name, see 6,5 Pilwin note. See also 20,4 claims note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ARNGRIM . Arngrim is presumably the same man who holds Elston (20,5) from Ilbert of Lacy. On the present estate his predecessor was Pilwin, who also probably preceded him at Elston (6,5); see 6,5 Arngrim note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE THIRD PART OF 1 MILL. The Latin }{\i\f720\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ci\'e2 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 indicates that this is accusative, as is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac's }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of the meadow acres; see 1,2 meadow note. \par \tab \tab The remainder of the mill is not found in Domesday.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE FOURTH PART OF THIS LAND BELONGS TO THE CHURCH. The possession by the church of five-eighths of a bovate probably makes it a non-manor ial church, and probably a 'superior' establishment, possibly a minster. The statement is repeated under another holding at Sibthorpe (2,1) and presumably refers to the same quarter.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 20,2\tab JURISDICTION. This repeats the marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 oca} {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]. Both indications probably mean that the four estates detailed in this entry were Jurisdictions of Sibthorpe (20,1).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SHELTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 9,2. 14,8.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALVERTON. This was a hamlet of Kilvington Ancient Parish. Like Kilvington itself (6,3. 20,2. 22,1) it probably lay in NewarkWapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 11,3. 22,1.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab KILVINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3. 22,1.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THOROTON. This was a chapelry of Orston Ancient Parish, which was sometimes known as Orston with Thoroton. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For another part, see 1,54.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 20,3\tab [EAST] STOKE. This was an Ancient Parish, known ecclesiastically as East Stoke with Syerston. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3. 11,6. 21,1. It is represented by East Stoke (SK7549) and Stoke Hall (SK7450). 'East' is probably relative to Stoke Bardolph (SK6441).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORKIL . On this name, see 9,15 Thorkil note. He might be the same person as one of Ilbert's predecessors in Hickling (20,8), though that is about 14 miles from East Stoke.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 5 BOVATES OF LAND TAXABLE. The space between }{\i\f713\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 t'r\'ea}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ad}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the manuscript is caused by the bottom part of a hole in the parchment, now patched on the verso of folio 291. The main scribe of Great Domesday also wrote round this hole in the entry for Syerston (21,2) on the verso.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MANFRED HOLDS. He is almost certainly the same person as Ralph of Lim\'e9sy's tenant at the adjacent estate at Thorpe (14,7); on this name, see 14,7 Manfred note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 OXEN PLOUGHING. On }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 arantes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , see 11,27 ploughing note. It seems probable that the whole plough-team of eight oxen is made up of the present two, the half-plough (= 4 oxen) that Manfred has here and another two oxen in East Stoke (21,1).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 64 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 20,4\tab ELSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. Elston itself was a chapelry that named the parish, but was ecclesiastically in }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 the Ancient Parish of }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 East Stoke at an early date: Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 359. It lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 (another part is below a Newark wapentake head at 9,1) as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3;5. 9,1. 20,5.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 3 MESSUAGES. In towns, the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 mansurae}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , apparently interchangeable with }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 mansiones}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , tends to be used of messuages, that is house-sites, with or without houses on them. Here, the actual dwellings may be meant. Whereas houses, huts or cottages are normally implied in the case of rural e states, they are presumably mentioned here explicitly because, in the absence of any land (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 terram non habent}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), they are the only 'resource' . }{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ILBERT CLAIMS THE PRIEST'S LAND. Elston (6,5) was held }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 by Leofwin and Pilwin and in 1086 by Ravensward and Arngrim from Bishop Remigius of Lincoln. Pilwin's land at Sibthorpe (20,1) went to Ilbert, so he is presumably claiming from Bishop Remigius that part of Elston that was held by Pilwin, assuming that Pilwin was 'the priest'. He is thus asserting that Pil win was his }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 antecessor}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 See also }{\insrsid6823374 Fleming, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 218 no. 1252.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab BISHOP REMIGIUS. He was Bishop of Dorchester-on-Thames from 1067 to 1072 when he was authorized to move his seat to Lincoln. He died in 1092. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 See NTT 6 bishop note. On the name Remigius, see 6,1 Remigius note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IN [EAST] STOKE HE CLAIMS THE FOURTH PART OF THE VILLAGE. Ilbert is presumably claiming the 1\'bd bovates of East Stoke held by Bishop Remigius as a Jurisdiction of his manor of Newark (6,3).}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 20,5\tab ELSTON. See 20,4 Elston note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid801729 {\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab GODWIN. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On this name, see 6,9 Godwin note. He might be the same person as one of Ilbert's predecessors in Hickling (20,8), though that is 12 \'bd miles from Elston and no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect the two men and Godwin was a very common name.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab 6 BOVATES OF LAND. In the manuscript a space of about two or three letters is left between }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 bo\'fb }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 t're}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (JRM). There is a hole in the parchment here, now patched on the recto of folio 291.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid801729 {\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ARNGRIM . He is presumably the same man who held another part of Elston (6,5) and part of Sibthorpe (20,1); see 6,5 Arngrim note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 20,6\tab [BINGHAM WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Aslockton, Cropwell Butler and Hickling (20,6-8).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ASLOCKTON. This was a township of Whatton Ancient Parish. Like the settlement of Whatton-in-the-Vale itself (17,16), it probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 1,57. 11,22. 17,18. 30,37.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LEOFING. On this name, see 9,57 Leofing note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WITH FULL JURISDICTION. }{\insrsid6823374 On the meaning of the interlineation, }{\i\insrsid6823374 cu}{\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\insrsid6823374 m}{\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\insrsid6823374 saca 7 soca}{ \insrsid6823374 , see B14 jurisdiction note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFRIC . On this name, see S5 Wulfric note. He is probably the same person as the Wulfric the thane holding another part of Aslockton where he also has 2 oxen in a plough (30,37). }{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HE HAS 2 OXEN PLOUGHING. A Wulfric, probably the same man, has a further 2 oxen in a plough in another part of Aslockton (30,37). There are also three half-ploughs at Aslockton (11,22. 20,6. 30,37) two of which would have amounted to a plough and one of which would have combined with these four oxen to make another plough. In an other part of Aslockton (1,57), a Jurisdiction of Orston, there is 1 bovate and '1 villager ploughs there', but it is not said with what portion of a plough, nor whether the plough or part-plough is there or borrowed from elsewhere. \par \tab \tab On the significance of 'ploughing', see 11,27 ploughing note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 8 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 20,7\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab CROPWELL [BUTLER]. This was a township of Tithby Ancient Parish. It lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 (wapentake head above another part at 16,6) as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 11,32. 16,6.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFGEAT. On this name, see 6,8 Wulfgeat note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AND GODRIC HAD 4 BOVATES. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 Godric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and at the same time a further }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above an original }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .ii.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , inserting above them }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (the last two letters of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 quattuor}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , '4') in clarification. It would seem that each of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holders had 2 bovates, totalling 4 bovates. Compare DBY 6,3 Uhtred note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On the name Godric, see 2,10 Godric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ILBERT OF LACY WAS IN POSSESSION. It appears that Ilbert of Lacy was enfeoffed before Roger of Poitou. Thus, Ilbert was put in poss ession of Cropwell Butler some time after the Conquest, but when, at a later stage, Roger of Poitou received his fief, he gained, among other lands, another part of Cropwell Butler (16,6), a manor rated at 2 carucates and 6 bovates whose possession is not in dispute. Roger must have seized Ilbert's part of Cropwell Butler and attempted to add it to his own.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab TOOK THIS MANOR FROM ILBERT. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 saisire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 used in the active voice can mean 'to put in possession' if the direct object is a person or 'to seize' if the direct object is land. Here the latter sense is appropriate. In the passive voice, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 saisire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is used in the first sense only ('to be put in possession of', 'to be seised of'). In the present case Ilbert was put in possession of four bovates in Cropwel l Butler, but Roger of Poitou took them from him when he received his own fief. However, }{\insrsid6823374 Fleming (}{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 218 no. 1253) translates 'Ilbert of Lacy was seised of this land. When Roger the Poitevin, however, took land, he was seised of this manor against Ilbert'. This mistranslates }{\i\insrsid6823374 accepit}{\insrsid6823374 (normally 'received' and certainly not 'took' in an aggressive sense), and fails to mark the important distinction between the active and passive senses of }{\i\insrsid6823374 saisire}{\insrsid6823374 . The }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Phillimore printed translation has 'took possession of this manor, against Ilbert', and the Alecto edition has 'took possession of this manor to Ilbert's wrong'. The Latin }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 super}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in this sense has the notion of 'winning' that it has in the verb }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 supero}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('I overpower/overcome/defeat').}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab THE WAPENTAKE BEARS WITNESS. The wapentake jurors merely say that Ilbert had held this part of Cropwell Butler. They do not pronounce on the legality of his tenure by mentioning, as juries sometimes do, that they had seen the land delivered to him or heard t he king's writ; compare 30,22 through note. Neither of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holders, Wulfgeat and Godric, preceded Ilbert in his other Nottinghamshire manors, but a Godric was Roger of Poitou's predecessor at Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (16,5).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab NOW ... AND "TAINUM"}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 WHICH IS THE HEAD OF THE MANOR [AND] WHICH ILBERT HOLDS. The grammar is confused. The emendations suggested by }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 tainum }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 to }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 tainagium }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (i. p. 233) or to }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 tainlanda }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (i. p. 282) are not parallelled, and neither word could be masculine. Perhaps a manuscript error for }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 tainum qui habet }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (JRM).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Latin is: }{\i\insrsid6823374 modo est in manu regis praeter terciam partem et Tainum qui est caput manerii quem tenet Ilbertus}{\insrsid6823374 . The overall meaning of the sentence is clear: that part of the manor is still in Ilbert's hands and that the portion he holds is the core of the manor. The detail is more problematic. The Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 qui }{\insrsid6823374 and }{ \i\insrsid6823374 quem}{\insrsid6823374 must grammatically both refer to the same masculine antecedent, that is to }{\i\insrsid6823374 Tainum}{\insrsid6823374 , which, as it stands, can only be a thane; the }{\i\insrsid6823374 quem}{\insrsid6823374 does not refer to }{\i\insrsid6823374 manerii}{\insrsid6823374 ('manor') nor to }{\i\insrsid6823374 caput}{\insrsid6823374 ('head') both of which are neuter nouns and would require }{\i\insrsid6823374 quod}{\insrsid6823374 . One possibility is that a place-name is really required here; that is to say that while Ilbert has lost most of Cropwell Butler, he ret ains a third of it and the 'head of the manor', that is an estate lying elsewhere. There are cases in Domesday where land is related to 'the head of the manor', which is somewhere else and the subject of a separate entry. For example, in NTH 18,8 it is sa i d that 'In the other Heyford, the Count holds the third part of 1 virgate which is assessed with the head manor'. The head manor here is presumably the Brampton of NTH 18,7 or the Heyford of NTH 18,83. In SHR 4,3,15 of Longnor it is said: ' Roger Hunter h olds from Earl Roger the head of this manor', which appears to be at Pulverbatch (SHR 4,26,4). In WOR 2,41 Church Icomb is 'assessed with the head of the manor', which was Blockley (WOR 2,38) The capital }{\i\insrsid6823374 T}{\insrsid6823374 of }{ \i\insrsid6823374 Tainum}{\insrsid6823374 could imply that it was intended to be a place-name, but there is no name in or near Cropwell Butler which can be recognised in }{\i\insrsid6823374 Tainum}{\insrsid6823374 and place-names are not usually treated as masculine. Moreover, the fact that Cropwell Butler is marked as a double manor suggests that the }{\i\insrsid6823374 caput manerii}{\insrsid6823374 lay within it and not elsewhere.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab If it were not for the gender (feminine) Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 terram}{\insrsid6823374 ('land') for }{\i\insrsid6823374 tainum}{\insrsid6823374 would supply an acceptable sense: 'apart from the third part and the land which is the head of the manor that Ilbert holds'. This, however, requires a triple emendation: of }{\i\insrsid6823374 tainum}{\insrsid6823374 to }{\i\insrsid6823374 terram}{ \insrsid6823374 of }{\i\insrsid6823374 qui}{\insrsid6823374 to }{\i\insrsid6823374 quae}{\insrsid6823374 and of }{\i\insrsid6823374 quem}{\insrsid6823374 to }{\i\insrsid6823374 quam}{\insrsid6823374 .}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab There are a number of instances in Domesday where }{\i\insrsid6823374 caput manerii}{\insrsid6823374 means the 'chief place' in the manor that is being surveyed. Thus in GLS 1,24, of the multiple estate of Tewkesbury Dom esday says (in the Phillimore printed translation): 'In the head of the manor, there were in lordship 12 ploughs; 50 slaves male and female'. The translation might be better as 'At the chief place in the manor (that is, the settlement of Tewkesbury itself ) there were in lordship ... '. Here the scribe appears to be saying that the ploughs and slaves formed part of the lordship of the }{\i\insrsid6823374 caput}{\insrsid6823374 (Tewkesbury) rather than of the dependencies, which are detailed next. In SSX 9,4, of Ninfield it is said that 'the sai d Robert the cook holds the head of the manor. He holds only 2 virgates'. In other words the Count of Eu's subtenant has the centre of the manor, Ninfield, and perhaps the hall, but an unusually small portion of the land. He does not, however seem to have any lordship since earlier in the entry it is said that the count himself holds 5 virgates in lordship, Osbern 3 virgates, Waring 2 virgates and Reinbert 2 virgates. In SSX 12,6, of Ditchling it is said that '6 woods belonged to the head of the manor', th at is, presumably, to Ditchling itself rather than to any dependencies. In some cases }{\i\insrsid6823374 caput manerii}{\insrsid6823374 may be synonymous with the lordship part of the estate. Thus in GLS 19,1, the large estate of Deerhurst is assessed at 59 hides, and 'before 1066 [there were ] 5 hides in the head of the manor'. In view of all this, the present entry could mean 'It is in the king's hands except for the third part which is the chief part of the manor (that is, Cropwell Butler itself and, possibly the lordship) which Ilbert hold s'. This, however, requires emendation of }{\i\insrsid6823374 qui}{\insrsid6823374 to }{\i\insrsid6823374 quae}{\insrsid6823374 (to agree with }{\i\insrsid6823374 terciam partem}{\insrsid6823374 and of }{\i\insrsid6823374 quem}{\insrsid6823374 to }{ \i\insrsid6823374 quam}{\insrsid6823374 for the same reason. It also requires that the scribe has been clumsy in his Latinity in that the relative pronoun }{\i\insrsid6823374 qui}{\insrsid6823374 (which needs to be emended to}{\i\insrsid6823374 quae}{ \insrsid6823374 ) does not refer to its immediate antecedent, }{\i\insrsid6823374 tainum}{\insrsid6823374 , but to }{\i\insrsid6823374 partem}{\insrsid6823374 . This is easier to accept, for such a slip is understandable in an unrevised long sentence and it might also explain why he erroneously wrote }{\i\insrsid6823374 qui}{\insrsid6823374 rather than }{\i\insrsid6823374 quae}{\insrsid6823374 (and by extension }{\i\insrsid6823374 quem}{\insrsid6823374 rather than }{\i\insrsid6823374 quam}{\insrsid6823374 ) as it was next to }{\i\insrsid6823374 tainum}{\insrsid6823374 and unconsciously attacted by its gender. The sense would then be: 'Now it is in the king's hands except for the third part and a thane. This (third part) is the chief place in the manor and Ilbert [still] holds it'.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The smallest emendation would be to insert }{\i\insrsid6823374 ad}{\insrsid6823374 between }{\i\insrsid6823374 est}{\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\insrsid6823374 caput}{\insrsid6823374 . This would then give the sense 'now it is in the king's hand apart from a third part and a thane [that is, 'an Englishman'] who is at [that is, 'lives at'] the head of the manor and Ilbert holds him'. The sense is, however, unusual and unsatisfactory.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab There remains the simple possibility that the text is seriously corrupted. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Phillimore printed translation has 'and a thane; which is the head of the manor which Ilbert holds'. and the Alecto edition has 'and the thegn[land] which is the head of the manor, which Ilbert holds'. }{\insrsid6823374 Fleming, (}{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 218 no. 1253) fails to comment on the difficulty of the text and translates: 'It is now in the hand of the King, except for a third of the manor and a thegn, which are in the head of the manor, which Ilbert now holds'. This translation renders }{\i\insrsid6823374 est }{\insrsid6823374 (singular) in }{\i\insrsid6823374 qui est caput manerii}{\insrsid6823374 as 'are' (plural) and supplies an 'in' where there is no preposition in the Latin.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 20,8\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in part of the 11-line space left by him at the end of the entry for Ilbert of Lacy on folio 291b. It was probably written during a large campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 e ntry note. However, the presence in it of two formulae, for its status and for the value statement, which are only found in added entries in circuit VI, but are found in circuits written later than it, may suggest that this entry was added after he had fi nished work on the whole circuit; see 10,64 entry note. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HICKLING. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 5,3. 11,30, and for a bequest here to Ramsey Abbey, see 5,3 Hickling note. This portion remained in the Lacy family: in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 93, two parts of the vill were held respectively by the prior of Thurgarton and Richard de Gray as a Lacy fee from the Earl of Lincoln.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORKIL . On this name, see 9,15 Thorkil note; see also 20,3 Thorkil note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODWIN. On this name, see 6,9 Godwin note; see also 20,5 Godwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AS 2 MANORS. This phrase takes the place of the marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 IIM'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , denoting that the manor had been held by two people in 1066. It is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries (as also here in 10,64 and 30,55). On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FORMERLY \'a36; VALUE NOW \'a3 4. This is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries; see 5,6 formerly note and compare 2,3 value note and 10,64 value note. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 21\tab LAND OF BERENGAR OF TOSNY. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 He was the son of Robert of Tosny, who was the lord of Belvoir in Lincolnshire, and was named after his uncle Berengar Spina. Their place of origin was Tosny in the French d\'e9partement of Eure (arrondissement Les Andelys, canton Gaillon -Campagne). Berengar's wife was called Albreda. His fief passed after his death to a sister (also called Albreda) who was married to Robert de Insula. Robert was holding this fief at the time of the Lindsey Survey. From Albreda, the lands passed to Hugh B igod, son of Adelisa, another sister of Berengar. See Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 164. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his first name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Berenger}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Berengarius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Berengerius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old German }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Beringer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Berengar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old French }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Beringier}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Berenger}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Berengar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 44-45. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Berengar and, in Norfolk, Berenger; these have now been standardized as Berengar. The Alecto edition has Berengar.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab The lands in this small fief seem to have lain in a single wapentake, Newark Wapentake.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 21,1\tab [NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the three estates (21,1-3).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [EAST] STOKE. This was an Ancient Parish, known ecclesiastically as East Stoke with Syerston. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3. 11,6. 20,3. It is represented by East Stoke (SK7549) and Stoke Hall (SK7450).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ESBIORN CROC. The Domesday forms of his first name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sbern}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sberne}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Esbern}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Esber}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Norse }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Asbiorn}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Esbiorn}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 165. The form Esbern appears in the Phillimore printed translation for some count ies; it has now been standardized as Esbiorn. The Alecto edition has Esbiorn for the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holders, but Esbern for the only 1086 holder (WIL 67,93). His byname, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 croc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , apparently comes from the Old Danish }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Krok}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 'originally a nickname from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 krokr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('a hook')': Tengvik, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Old English Bynames}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 179; see also Reaney, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Dictionary of British Surnames}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , under Crook etc., the modern derivative. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Croc for the 1086 tenants in Wiltshire and Hampshire (Domesday forms }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Croc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Croch}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), but Crook here; these have now been standardized as Croc. The Alecto edition has Croch and, for this byname, Croc. \par \tab \tab Esbiorn Croc was also Berengar's subtenant in 21,2, but appears nowhere else in Domesday with his byname.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab RALPH, HIS MAN. On this name, see B10 Ralph note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WHO PLOUGH WITH 2 OXEN. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 arantes .ii. bob'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , with the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .ii. bob}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] being an instrumental ablative. This pure Classical use is rare, normally being replaced by a prepositional phrase }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 cum .ii. bobus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab It seems probable that the whole plough-team of eight oxen is made up of the present two, the half-plough (= 4 oxen) that Manfred has in East Stoke (20,3) and a further two oxen at East Stoke (20,3).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 40 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ov er an erasure, perhaps immediately as it is blurred, the ink spreading because he did not wait until the surface of the parchment had been re-prepared.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 21,2\tab SYERSTON. This was a chapelry of }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 the Ancient Parish of }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 East Stoke. It lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 (another part of Syerston is below a Newark wapentake head at 30,40) as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 2,3. 6,3. 30,40.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ESBIORN CROC. On these names, see 21,1 Esbiorn note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODWIN HOLDS. On this name, see 6,9 Godwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \'bd PLOUGH. This appears to complement the 1\'bd ploughs at another part of Syerston (2,3).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab VALUE BEFORE 1066. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote round a hole in the parchment, as he did in the entry for East Stoke (20 ,3) on the recto of this folio. This hole is now patched on this side of the folio.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space, perhaps to draw attention to the fact that the next entry (21,3) was held in 1086 by two people. On other one-line spaces left within fiefs, see 1,44 after note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 21,3\tab BROADHOLME. This was a hamlet of Thorney Ancient Parish. Like Thorney (6,4) it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086. For another part, see 9,5.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORGOT [* LAG *]. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turgot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turgod}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Turgotus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thorgot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Thorgautr}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , 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. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire, but a Thorgot was Berengar's predecessor in OXF 34,1-2, while in LIN 18 Thorgot Lag (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lag}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 not always given his byname, which means 'low', 'short': Tengvik, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Old English Bynames}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 320) was the predecessor of Berengar's father Robert of Tosny, who was also a tenant-in-chief in 1086. Thorgot was Robert's predecessor in his two estates in Yorkshire, both of which Berengar held from his father (YKS 7E1-2). \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 See Clarke, }{\i\insrsid6823374 English Nobility}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 344, whose list omits dependencies and also NTT 21,3, perhaps because it was without value (JP).}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab HEALFDENE. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On this name, see 4,1 Healfdene note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab He was perhaps the same man as the king's thane of that name, who held land in Cromwell (30,4), and was an ancestor of the medieval lords Cromwell; }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 234, though Stenton did not refer to this Healfdene; see 30,2 Healfdene note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WILLIAM OF PERCY. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 From Percy-en-Auge, in the French d\'e9partement of Eure (arrondissement Lisieux, canton M\'e9zidon-Canon), not from Percy in the French d\'e9 partement of Manche (arrondissement Saint-L\'f4). He was a tenant-in-chief and a subtenant of Earl Hugh of Chester and of his father-in-law, Hugh of Port. He fought in the campaign in Scotland in 1072, built a castle at Topcliffe (Yorkshire) and re-founded Whitby Abbey, where his brother Serlo became prior before 1087 and his nephew William became abbot (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 c}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . 1109 x 1114 to before 1125). William of Percy joined the first crusade and died near Jerusalem in 1098. His lands became the barony of Topcliffe. See }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Complete Peerage}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , x. pp. 435-44; Sanders, }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 English Baronies}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 148; }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Medieval Religious Houses}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , pp. 58, 80; }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Knowles, Brooke and London, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Heads of Religious Houses}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , pp. 77-78; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 478.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On the name William, see B9 William note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THIS LAND IS AN ADJUNCT OF NEWARK[-ON-TRENT]. For the manor of Newark-on-Trent, see 6,1. For this use of Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iacet ad}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , see 1,66 adjunct note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE VILLAGERS' WORK. That is, their customary due of labour-service.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SAXILBY IN LINCOLNSHIRE. Saxilby does not appear by name in the Lincolnshire Domesday folios. It lay at SK8975 and was presumably part of the manor of Ingleby (LIN 22,30) held in chief by William of Percy.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left six lines blank, possibly in case he found further holdings of Berengar of Tosny, though probably for aesthetic reasons.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 22\tab LAND OF HUGH SON OF BALDRIC. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Under William the Conqueror he was sheriff not only of Derbyshire and N ottinghamshire (apparently a joint shrievalty for many generations), but also of Yorkshire. He was a benefactor of the Abbey of Pr\'e9 aux and of St Mary's of York. After 1086 he appears to have forfeited his lands probably for supporting Robert Curthose as the Conqueror\rquote s successor. His sons-in-law were Guy of Craon and Walter of Rivers, both Domesday tenants. See Green, }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 English Sheriffs}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , pp. 67, 89; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , pp. 267-68. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On the name Hugh, see B3 Hugh note; on his father's name, see B3 Baldric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab The two lands in this fief lay in two wapentakes which are entered in the standard county order, though both heads need to be supplied: \par \tab \tab 22,1 [Newark Wapentake] \par \tab \tab 22,2 ['Bassetlaw' Wapentake].}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 22,1\tab [NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Kilvington and Alverton (22,1).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab KILVINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3. 20,2. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Farley printed }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 CHELVINGTVNE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 for this place-name, but it is clearly }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 CHELVINCTVNE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the manuscript; the other two occurrences are spelt }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Cheluintone}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (6,3) and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Cheluintun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (20,2). For other errors of his in this county, see 9,31 Drayton note. The scribes of both the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Abbreviatio}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (folio 206r) and the Breviate (folio 148v) omitted the letter }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 C }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 altogether and wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 CHELVINTONE}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALVERTON. This was a hamlet of Kilvington Ancient Parish. Like Kilvington itself (6,3. 20,2. 22,1) it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 11,3. 20,2.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab KOLGRIM. The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Colegrim}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Colgrim}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Colgrin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Golegrim - }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 represent Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Kolgrimr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, } {\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 306-307. JRM preferred to omit the final r in Old Norse names such as this as it does not appear in any of the Domesday forms. The form Kolgrimr, however, appears in the Phillimore printed translations for Yorkshire and Li ncolnshire; it has now been standardized as Kolgrim. The Alecto edition has Kolgrimr. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ANSGER HOLDS. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ansger}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ansgerus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ansgerius }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ansger}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 167, at the end of his account of Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Asgeirr}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Esger}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 for }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 holders. See also }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 31-32. The Alecto edition has Ansgar and Ansger. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 20 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 22,2\tab ['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Cuckney (22,2).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab CUCKNEY. This was a township of }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 the Ancient Parish of }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Norton Cuckney. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For another part, see 9,36.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On the history of this estate at the time of Domesday, see 9,36 Cuckney note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SWEIN. On this name, see S5 Swein note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab RICHARD HOLDS. On this name, see B16 Richard note. This is the only occurrence of a Richard as a tenant of Hugh son of Baldric. See }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 367, who calls him }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 miles}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left four lines blank, possibly in case he found further holdings of Hugh son of Baldric, though probably for aesthetic reasons.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 23\tab LAND OF HUGH OF GRANDMESNIL. }{\insrsid6823374 He came from Grandmesnil in the French d\'e9 partement of Calvados, arrondissement Lisieux, canton Sainte-Pierre-sur-Dives. Hugh was the eldest of three sons of Robert de Grandmesnil and Hawise, daughter of Giroie. Robert's fief was divided between Hugh and one of his brothers. Between them they re-founded the monastery of Saint-Evroult, Robert becoming a monk there and later abbot. Robert and Hugh were accused of complicity in a reb e llion of Robert son of Giroie, a brother of Hawise, and went into exile in 1061. Robert became an abbot in Sicily, but Hugh was recalled in 1064 and fought at Hastings. He was initially a trusted supporter of King William and was castellan of Winchester c a stle in the vital early period (1066-1069) when William was establishing his rule. By 1086 he was castellan of Leicester castle and probably sheriff of Leicestershire. He was married to Adeliza, the daughter of Ivo, Count of Beaumont-sur-Oise. The English lands she held are separately recorded in Domesday Book. Hugh supported Robert Curthose as successor to William the Conqueror against William II in 1087-1088, but was allowed to retain his offices. He died in England in 1098 and was buried at Saint-Evroul t, where he had become a monk. His English estates went to his son Ivo, but were lost by him in 1102 after he had joined Robert of Bell\'ea me, Earl of Shrewsbury, in revolt. Ivo attempted to redeem himself by joining the first crusade. His lands were left in the custody of Robert, Count of Meulan, who joined them to his own lands after Ivo\rquote s death on crusade. They became part of Robert\rquote s earldom of Leicester. See }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 291; Crouch, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 The Beaumont Twins}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ; }{\insrsid6823374 Cain, \lquote Introduction\rquote , }{\i\insrsid6823374 Leicestershire Domesday}{\insrsid6823374 , pp. 17-18; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 262}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . On the name Hugh, see B3 Hugh note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Both of Hugh of Grandmesnil's estates were attached to manors in other counties (Leicestershire and Derbyshire respectively), so he had no real presence in Nottin ghamshire. Compare 1,65-66, two entries added after rubrication, which were also for dependencies of manors in another county (Lincolnshire).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab Both Hugh's holdings here appear to have lain in Rushcliffe Wapentake.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 23,1\tab [RUSHCLIFFE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Edwalton and Thrumpton (23,1-2).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab EDWALTON. This was a chapelry of Ruddington Ancient Parish. Ruddington itself (2,6. 9,83. 17,15. 25,2) appears to have lain in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as later. Edwalton is s pecifically placed in Rushcliffe Wapentake by Domesday (there is a Rushcliffe wapentake head at 16,4 above another part) and was in that wapentake later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Domesday gives no marginal indication of t he status of this land, although it appears from the text to be an adjunct of Stockerston in Leicestershire (LEC 13,15). However, it has full manorial details, including a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E. }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holder and value, so would appear to be, or to have been, a manor.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab GODA [* COUNTESS GYTHA *]. See 10,5 Gytha note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 20 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IT IS AN ADJUNCT OF STOCKERSTON. The statement }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ad Stoctun iacet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in a space at the end of the entry at the same time as he added the next entry (23,2 entry note). He may have found this information during a check of the putative circuit volume or documents preceding it, f or Leicestershire. Compare 23,2 entry note and 1,65 entry note. Stockerston (LEC 13,15) was likewise held by Hugh of Grandmesnil and had been held }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 by Earl Ralph, Countess Gytha's husband. Stockerston and Edwalton are not adjacent on the ground, but it may be that this sentence is a way of saying that its tax and service are rendered at or through Stockerston.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 23,2\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in a two-line space left at the end of the fief of Hugh of Grandmesn il on folio 291c, extending into the outer margin. He wrote an exceptionally tall }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 I}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , extending it upwards and with a hook on it, probably to link it to Hugh's only other holding (23,1); see 9,47 entry note, 11,13 entry note and compare WOR 8,25 entr y note. It was probably written during a large campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 entry note. At the same time, he added the statement }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ad Stoctun iacet}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('It is an adjunct of Stockerston') to the previous entry (23,1), which like this one was for land attached to a manor in a different county, though, unlike it, was provided with full manorial details. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This account of land in Thrumpton which was a dependency of S andiacre in Derbyshire (DBY 17,15-17) may have been found by him during a check of that county. Compare 23,1 Stockerston note and 1,65 entry note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THRUMPTON. This was a chapelry of }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 the Ancient Parish of }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ratcliffe-on-Soar. Like Ratcliffe-on-Soar itself (30 ,20) it probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,79. 10,4.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday gave no }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holder nor a marginal indication of the status of this land, although it appears from the text to be an adjunct of Sandiacre in Derbyshire (DBY 17,15-17).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IT LIES IN [THE LANDS OF] SANDIACRE [DERBYSHIRE]. Hugh of Grandmesnil held three manors there (DBY 17,15-17). Thrumpton is 4 miles from Sandiacre and divided from it by the River Trent.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 24\tab IN THE CENTRAL MARGIN, next to the chapter head, is written an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 f}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see NTT 18 chapter note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND OF HENRY OF FERRERS. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 He came from Ferri\'e8res-Saint-Hilaire, in the French d\'e9partement of Eure (arrondissement Bernay, canton Broglie). In No rmandy he was lord of Longueville. His father, Walkelin de Ferri\'e8 res, 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 }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 c}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 .1101. His third son Robert inherited his English estates 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 I I. See }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 292; }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Loyd, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 42; Keats-Rohan, }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 247.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On the name Henry, see S5 Henry note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab There are only three estates in this fief and they appear to have lain in two wapentakes; both heads need to be supplied. The land at Willoughby (24,3), which is not a manor, was entered out of sequence by the main scribe of Great Domesday; see 24,3 'Lythe' note. As a result the usual order of wapentakes is reversed:}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 24,1-2 [Rushcliffe Wapentake]}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 24,3 ['Lythe' Wapentake].}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 24,1\tab [RUSHCLIFFE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Leake (24,1).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LEAKE. East Leake and West Leake were adjacent Ancient Parishes. They probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as they did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 4,4. 9,89. 28,2.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Earls of Ferrers appear to have held both at East Leake and at West Leake, although the identity of the Domesday holdings (4,4. 9,89. 24,1. 28,2) is diffi cult to disentangle since the lands of both Roger of Bully (chapter 9) and Henry of Ferrers were part of the honour of Lancaster in the fourteenth century. East Leake is held (as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Esterleke}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sutton }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (Sutton Bonington, 24,2) in Rushcliffe Wapentake in }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 103, while }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Westleke}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is a Ferrers fee in}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 28; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Westerlek}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ' is held by the Earl of Derby in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 995 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Westerleke}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 from the honour of Tutbury in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 103. It is not clear whether the separ ation into East Leake and West Leake had occurred by 1086 and if it had which was the manor and which the outlier in the present entry. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 283, perhaps arbitrarily, has East Leake for the manor and West Leake for the outlier here.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab SIWARD [* BARN *]. See S5 Siward note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab AN OUTLIER, LEAKE. Domesday does not otherwise distinguish between East and West Leake (JRM). It is not possible to identify either of the modern places with an individual Domesday holding, which were of identical si zes; see 24,1 Leake note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Phillimore printed translation had: 'To this manor is attached the outlier of Leake'. This might suggest that the outlier itself is unnamed. However, in the Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Ad hoc man}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 erium}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 adiacet BEREW}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 ICA}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Lecche}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , the }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Lecche}{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 is in apposition to }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 berewica}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , not a genitive dependent on it. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 The Alecto edition has ''the BEREWICK of [East and West] Leake'.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab PLUMTREE HUNDRED. This detail is probably a stray survivor of more systematic hundredal information contained in the putative circuit volume or earlier recension of the Domesday material, but eliminated from them; see 18,7 Blidworth note. Because of the absence of such information from the text of Great Domesday, it is unclear whether only this outlier lay in Plumtree Hundred or whethe r both parts of Leake (24,1) and probably the rest of the vill, were there, although the most obvious sense of the text is that the main part of Leake did not lie in Plumtree Hundred, but that 'this [outlier]' - }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 haec}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 berewica}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ] - did.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Of this entry, David Roffe says (}{\insrsid6823374 Roffe, \lquote Introduction', }{\i\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 9): 'Henry de Ferrers' estate of Leake was enrolled in two entries because it was situated in two hundreds'. However, it is not 'enrolled in two entries' in the normal sense of entry, since the outlier in Leake}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 is entered as an appendage. Further, Roffe uses this and other examples of information relating to the same place's being entered twice to argue that all such 'separate' entries are proof that the parcels of land con cerned lay in different hundreds; for a discussion, see \{Introduction: Small Hundreds\}.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 24,2\tab [SUTTON] BONINGTON. There were two Ancient Parishes, Sutton Bonington St Anne and Sutton Bonington St Michael. Sutton Bonington itself arose from the merger of two settlements, Sutton and Bonington, listed as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sutton' cum Bonyngton'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in Rushcliffe Wapentake in }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 256. For other parts, see 3,1;3. 4,2. 30,15;17-18.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday gave no indication of the status of this piece of land, but the presence of a }{\i\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\insrsid6823374 holder, full manorial details and value suggest that it was a manor, as does his use of the 'square' form of }{\i\insrsid6823374 I}{\insrsid6823374 for }{\i\insrsid6823374 In}{\insrsid6823374 . \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For the possible grant of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday, see 3,2 Normanton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab SIWARD [* BARN *]. See S5 Siward note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 24,3\tab [* 'LYTHE' WAPENTAKE *]. This head is supplied from the uncertain evidence for the location of Willoughby (24,3) whose identification in turn depends o n its relationship to Bathley; see 24,3 Bathley note. As Willoughby is a Jurisdiction, the main scribe of Great Domesday would not necessarily have included a wapentake head in the text. Places in 'Lythe' Wapentake are usually entered before those in Rush cliffe Wapentake, but the scribe may initially have missed this piece of land just as he seems to have left out Bathley entirely.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WILLOUGHBY. This place was identified by both the Phillimore printed edition and the Alecto edition as Willoughby-on-the-Wolds . However, in view of its dependency on Bathley (see 24,3 Bathley note), it is more likely to be the Willoughby that was a settlement in Norwell Ancient Parish and like Norwell (5,13) was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab BATHLEY. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of North Muskham. North Muskham (5,2. 8,2. 12,11-13. 30,7) probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and Bathley was probably in the same wapentake; it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106. The identification of the Domesday }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Badeleie}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 seems certain (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 182), although its etymology is unclear. If the place is correctly identified as Bathley in Nottinghamshire, there must have been a manor here in 1086, for i t to have Willoughby as a dependency. It is therefore, probably, a Domesday omission or, as in the case of Colston Basset (27,2), Bathley is really in the text of Domesday as a manor, but has been misnamed by scribal error; see }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 233; and 27,2 Colston note. Bathley turns up later associated with South Muskham (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 980, 988) but the relation to any Domesday estate is unclear.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 6 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the accusative }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in error, perh aps influenced by its (correct) use in the previous entry (24,2); see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left six lines blank, possibly in case he found further holdings of Henry of Ferrers, though probably for aesthetic reasons.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 25\tab [LAND] OF ROBERT MALET. }{\insrsid6823374 He was the son of William Malet of Graville-Sainte-Honorine (in the French d\'e9partement of Seine-Maritime, commune of Le Havre) and Esilia Crispin of Tilli \'e8res. William was also prominent in England in the early years of the Conqueror's reign. Robert's large English fief, which he inherited from his father, was centred on Eye in Suffolk (briefly held by Roger of Poitou after 1087) where he began the foundation of a cell of the Abbey of Bernay. He was recorded as sheriff o f Suffolk in 1071 possibly in succession to his father. He went on to be chamberlain to Henry I. He died after 1107. He was probably father of William II Malet (who forfeited Eye in 1109) and Robert Malet, ancestor of the Mallets of Curry Mallet (Somerset) .}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The origin of the byname Malet is unclear. Tengvik, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Old English Bynames}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , pp. 350-51, suggests Old French }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 malet}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , a diminutive of }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 mal}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (from Latin }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 malus}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ), meaning 'bad', 'wicked' or 'evil'. The force of the diminutive is unclear, whether 'quite evil', 'rat her wicked' or 'a little naughty'. A related possibility, due to Ekwall (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , 1936 edition) is that Malet is from Old French }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 maleit }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , past participle of the verb }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 maleir}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , meaning 'cursed'. Reaney, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , under Mallett suggests two further possibilities. The first is that the name is a patronymic, a diminutive of French }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Malo}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , derived from the sixth-century Breton Saint Maclovius, represented in the place-name Saint-Malo. His second suggestion is based on the fact that Orderic Vitalis calls William Malet }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Gulielmus agnomine Mal}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 l}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 eto}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ('William with the surname }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Malletum}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ) suggesting that he connected the name with Old French }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 maillet}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 mallet}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , a diminutive of Old French }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 mail}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 mal}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 from Latin }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 malleus}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ('hammer'). }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Maillet}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 in Medieval French is a mace. Support for this comes from the fact that when William Malet was banished in 1109, his son Hugh took the name }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Fichet}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Fichet}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is a diminutive of Old French }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 fiche }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ('iron point') probably used of a lance or javelin. Thus Hugh Malet in becoming Hugh Fichet may have wished to retain the warrior connections of his name in changing it. See Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 377. }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On his first name, see 2,3 Robert note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday did not include }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 TERRA }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 before }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ROBERTI MALET}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . He also omitted it before the names of the tenants-in-chief in NTT 26, NTT 28 and NTT 29. The reason for this is unclear, but occurs occasionally elsewhere in Great Domesday, though generally because of lack of space, which is not so here.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab This fief consisted of a single manor with one Jurisdiction. Both seem to have lain in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 25,1\tab IN THE CENTRAL MARGIN, next to the first line of this entry, is written an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 f}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see NTT 18 chapter note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [RUSHCLIFFE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Bradmore (25,1).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BRADMORE. This was a chapelry of Bunny Ancient Parish. Like Bunny (13,6) it probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AZUR. On this name, see S5 Azur note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 25,2\tab RUDDINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 1109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 2,6. 9,83. 17,15.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left five lines blank, possibly in case he found further holdings of Robert Malet, though probably for aesthetic reasons.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 26\tab [LAND] OF DURAND MALET. }{\insrsid6823374 He was probably connected with William Malet and Robert Malet, most likely a son of William (who died in 1071) and therefore a brother of Robert. Ralph Malet and Walter Malet held after him in the early twelfth century and were probably his sons. See Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{ \insrsid6823374 , p. 182.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On his first name, see 9,69 Durand note, and on Malet, see NTT 25 [land] note.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On the omission of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 TERRA}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 before }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 DVRANDI MALET }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , see NTT 25 [land] note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab This fief consisted of a single manor, apparently in Bingham Wapentake.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 26,1\tab IN THE CENTRAL MARGIN, next to the first line of this entry, is written an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 f}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see NTT 18 chapter note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [BINGHAM WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Owthorpe (26,1).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab OWTHORPE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 9,111. 12,21.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ROLF . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rolf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Roulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rolft}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rolfus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rov}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Danish }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rolf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hrolfr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 294. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Rolf and, in Lincolnshire, Rothulfr; these have now been standardized as Rolf. The Alecto edition usually has Rolf, but has Ralp h for NFK 65,1, for LIN T5 (the son of Skialdvor) and for WOR 8,7 ("Turstin"'s father, though elsewhere it has Rolf for him) and has Hrolf in SFK 74,8 and NFK 4,44. \par \tab \tab Durand Malet's predecessor in LIN 44,5;7-11;16 was called Rolf, probably the same person.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 SIC}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] LAND FOR 3 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T'ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 at the end of the first line of this entry and then repeated it in error at the beginning of the second line. The Phillimore printed translation has just 'Land for 3 ploughs'.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the remaining eight lines of the column, possibly in case he found further holdings of Durand Malet, though probably for aesthetic reasons. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 27\tab IN THE TOP MARGIN, above the chapter head, is written an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 f}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see NTT 18 chapter note.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAND OF OSBERN SON OF RICHARD. }{\insrsid6823374 He was the 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. See }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 An tiquities of Shropshire}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 301; Sanders, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 English Baronies}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 , p. 75;}{\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 316. On the name Osbern, see 2,2 Osbern note, and, on Richard, see B16 Richard note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab This fief consists of a single manor Granby (27,1), and two depend encies (27,2-3) of another manor (Colston Bassett) that seems to have been omitted. Both manors seem to have lain in the same wapentake (Bingham Wapentake).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 27,1\tab [BINGHAM WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Granby (27,1).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GRANBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. It seems likely that this estate is named in error and that it was really Colston Bassett; see 27,2 Colston note. If Granby and Colston Bassett were next to each other in a territorially-arranged schedule, densely written with no blank lines to separate vills, it would have been easy to miss the name of a vill and attribute an estate to the vill entered before it. The main scribe of Great Domesday and scribe B sometimes corrected the names of estates, probably, in some cases, for this reason, bu t the error may have crept at an earlier stage in the Domesday process.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab EARL ALGAR. See 1,59 Algar note. He was also the predecessor of Osbern son of Richard in Warwickshire (WAR 37,1;6).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid801729 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ROBERT D'OILLY HOLDS. }{ \insrsid6823374 He came from Ouilly-le-Basset, in the commune of Pont-d'Ouilly in the French d\'e9 partement of Calvados (arrondissement Caen, canton Failaise-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 }{\i\insrsid6823374 c}{ \insrsid6823374 . 1091-1092 and was buried at Abingdon Abbey. His daughter Matilda married the Domesday tenant-in-chief Miles Crispin. His wife\rquote 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, \lquote The Honour of Wallingford\rquote ; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 378. Robert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 was also a subtenant of Osbern son of Richard in Worcestershire (WOR 19,3). On the name Robert, see 2,3 Robert note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid801729 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 27,2\tab WIVERTON. Wiverton Hall was an extra-parochial place, created a Civil Parish in 1858; see Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 370. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 10,58;60. 11,29;32. The grid reference is to Wiverton Hall (SK713363).}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the margin beside this entry is reproduced very faintly in the Alecto facsimile; in the manuscript it is also rather faint, but clear, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. On other problems of reproduction in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION OF COLSTON [BASSETT]. Colston Bassett was an Ancient Parish. It }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The Domesday form of this place-name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Coletone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , is in origin, despite the different spelling, the same as that of Car Colston ('Kolr's }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 tun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ') which also lay in this wapentake (1,56. 9,107. 11,24). If the present }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Coletone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is correctly identified as Colston Bassett, there is no other occurrence of this place in Domesday. In view of the fact that the next entry (for Salterford, 27,3) is said to be an outlier of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Coletone}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , it seems possible that a manor of Colston Bassett, belonging to Osbern son of Richard, has been omitted after the entry for Granby (27,1) and that both Wiverton and Salterford were its dependencies. An alternative explanation is that the name Granby was written by the main scri b e of Great Domesday in error for the estate at 27,1. It is quite probable that, in view of its later history and importance, Walter of Aincourt's estate there (11,26) accounted for the whole vill; see 11,26 Granby note. Certainly there is nothing in the l a ter descent of Granby to connect it via the tenant-in-chief of chapter 27 (Osbern son of Richard) with the honour of Richard's Castle or via its subtenant (Robert d'Oilly) with the honour of Wallingford. On the other hand, Colston Bassett was held of the honour of Wallingford (the Red Book of the Exchequer: Hall, p. 331); see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 233; and }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ii. p. 317, where }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Colston }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is held by Ralph Basset from Richard Basset of Weldon [Northamptonshire].}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 27,3\tab SALTERFORD. This was a settlement in Calverton Ancient Parish. Like Calverton itself (5,10. 16,3. 30,13), it probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086. The name means 'ford of the salters' (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 158), though there is no mention of salt-working i n Domesday. It is not on the River Trent, but may have originated as the holding of men who worked on the salt-pans of the tidal part of that river, when Salterford was part of a much larger estate that touched the river. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The grid reference is to Salterford Farm (SK605523). \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 B'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the margin beside this entry is reproduced very faintly in the Alecto facsimile; in the manuscript it is also rather faint, but clear, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. On other problems of reproduction in the Alec to facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a third of a line blank after the tax assessment, possibly for the later insertion of the plough estimate.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AN OUTLIER OF COLSTON [BASSETT]. For the idiomatic use of Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , see 9,7 jurisdiction note. For Colston Bassett, see 27,2 Colston note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AND. The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 linking the measurements of length and width of the pasturable woodland is not reproduced in the Alecto facsimile; it is faint in the manuscript, but clear, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. On other problems of reproduction in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left four lines blank, possibly in case he found further holdings of Osbern son of Richard, though probably for aesthetic reasons.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 28\tab IN THE CENTRAL MARGIN, next to the chapter head, is written an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 f}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see NTT 18 chapter note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [LAND] OF ROBERT SON OF WILLIAM. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 In Leicestershire a small fief is held by Robert the usher (LEC 20). The entries are repeated in a postscriptal addition at LEC 43,9-11 where the holder is said to be Robert son of William the usher. Barring a scribal transfer of 'the usher' from one man to the other, it appears likely that there existed a Robert the usher son of William the usher. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 A Robert occurs in Cambridgeshire (CAM 39,3) and is identified in the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Inquisitio Eliensis}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (p. 115) as Robert the usher, but he is not necessarily the same man. H owever, it is possible that the Robert son of William who holds in Derbyshire (DBY 15) and also holds the the adjacent fief to William the usher in the Nottinghamshire folios (NTT 28-29) is the same as this Leicestershire Robert. A William the usher also occurs in Devon (DEV 5,9. 51,2-12).}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 See }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 387}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . On the name Robert, see 2,3 Robert note, and on the name William, see B9 William note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On the omission of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 TERRA}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 before }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ROBERTI FILII WILL'I}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , see NTT 25 [Land] note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab The estates in this small fief lay in two wapentakes which are entered in standard county order, though the heads need to be supplied: \par \tab \tab 28,1-2 [Rushcliffe Wapentake] \par \tab \tab 28,3 [Broxtowe Wapentake].}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 28,1\tab [RUSHCLIFFE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Stanford-on-Soar.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab STANFORD[-ON-SOAR]. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 (another estate here is below a Rushcliffe wapentake head at 9,77) as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALFHEAH . On this name, see 10,34 Alfheah note. \par \tab \tab Note on the identification to be supplied (JP).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 28,2\tab ALSO JURISDICTION THERE. That is, Leake was a Jurisdiction of Stanford-on-Soar (28,1).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab IN }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \{\{}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 STANTON[-ON-THE-WOLDS]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \}\}}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 LEAKE. The }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday had originally written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In Stan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [...], then erased the second part of the place-name and wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 tone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to produce }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Stantone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . It is unlikely that he had written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Stanford }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 initially (that is, Stanford-on-Soar), although quite a few 'multiple estates' had Jurisdictions in the same vill as themselves, as not all of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 e}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Stantone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is over the erasure and there is no sign of the ascender of a }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 d}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 here. He then}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 underlined }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Stantone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 for deletion when he interlined its replacement }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 LECHE}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above it. He wrote a wavy line to avoid the firmly-scored horizontal line here, as he also did under [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 O}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 XETVNE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 on folio 288c (11,11), but in the Alecto facsimile it looks as if he underlined the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 before it here as well. This second layer of correction was done during a campaign of additio n and correction that took place after the county had been rubricated and which included the insertion on Stanford-on-Soar later in this entry; see 28,2 Stanford note and 9,93 entry note. The underlining is missing in }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 the Ordnance Survey facsimile, which misled Stenton in }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 284, note 2. The scribe of the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Abbreviatio}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (folio 206v) wrote }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Lesche}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , but then, using a different pen, added }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Stantone}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 above and slightly to the left of it with an insertion mark before the }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 In Lesche}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 . The scribe of the Breviate seems to have been similarly confused as to what was intended by the Great Domesday scribe, as he wrote }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 In Lesche Stantona}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 (folio 148v). \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab It is not completely clear why the scribe had written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Stantone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 here. Stanton-on-the-Wolds and Leak e are close to each other on the ground and it could be that both had formerly been part of the same estate (called 'Stanton') and that Leake was interlined as a more exact designation, as elsewhere in Domesday. It is also possible that Stanton followed L eake in a geographically-arranged document (as at 4,4-5) and that at some stage in the Domesday process a scribe wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Stantone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 instead of the next place-name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leche}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; a check would then have revealed the error. \par \tab \tab East Leake and West Leake were adjacent Ancient Parishes. They probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as they did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 4,4. 9,89. 24,1. \par \tab \tab This holding appears to have been at East Leake which occurs (as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Esterlek}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 103) as it is in the hands of Elie }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 de Staunton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , presumably named from Stanton-on-the-Wolds (28,2).} {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IT BELONGS TO STANFORD[-ON-SOAR]. This sentence was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday at the same time as two unrubricated e ntries (9,93. 11,13) and some other corrections of place-names, including the one in the present entry, which were not rubricated; see 9,93 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 28,3\tab [BROXTOWE WAPENTAKE]. This heading is derived from the fact that Broxtowe (28,3) named the wapentake.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BROXTOWE. This was a chapelry of Bilborough Ancient Parish. It named the wapentake in which it lay in 1086 and was still there later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 1,49. 10,41.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODRIC. On this name, see 2,10 Godric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 29\tab [LAND] OF WILLIAM THE USHER. This man was possibly father of Robert son of William, the tenant-in-chief of NTT 28; see NTT 28 Robert note. On the name William, see B9 William note. }{\insrsid6823374 See Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 492. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On the omission of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 TERRA}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 before }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 WI LLELMI HOSTIARII}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , see NTT 25 [Land] note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab The two manors in this small fief lay in a single wapentake, Broxtowe Wapentake, but the head has to be supplied.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 29,1\tab IN THE CENTRAL MARGIN, next to the first line of this entry, is written an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 f}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see NTT 18 chapter note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 4M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [BROWTOWE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Bramcote and Trowell (29,1-2).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BRAMCOTE. This was a chapelry of Attenborough Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other parts, see 1,46. 10,37.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ULFKIL. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODRIC. On this name, see 2,10 Godric note. The Godric who was the predecessor of William the usher in Devon (DEV 51,2) is unlikely to have been the same as this man: Godric was a very common name.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AELFRIC. On this name, see 5,6 Aelfric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LEOFRIC. On this name, see 7,1 Leofric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 12 BOVATES. See 1,46 bovates note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 3\'bd PLOUGHS. The odd half plough may be that present at 'Eastern' Chilwell (30,52), which was probably less than 2 miles away.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 29,2\tab TROWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 30,30;50-51.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab UHTBRAND . The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Uctebrand}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ostebrand}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent the hypothetical Anglo-Scandinavian }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Uhtbrand}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 398. The Alecto edition has Uhtbrand.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire. There are only four other occurrences of it in Domesday, two in Derbyshire (DBY 1,38. 6,93), who are likely to have been the same individual (see DBY 1,38 Uhtbrand note) and one each in Lincolnshire and Cheshire (LIN 59,1. CHS 19,3).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 It is possible that the Uhtbrand in NTT 29,2 is the same man as the Uht brand here, as Trowell is only eleven miles from Aston, but there are no tenurial or other links to confirm this (JP).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HALF A CHURCH. There is no sign of the other half in Domesday.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the remain ing ten lines of the column and all of the adjacent column (folio 292b). It is unlikely that he left all of this space for further holdings of William the usher, but if he had been picking out from a large section on the lands of various tenants the holdi n gs of some of the better-known individuals (such as perhaps Robert and Durand Malet, Osbern son of Richard, Robert son of William and William the usher), he could have decided after the last of these to begin a chapter on the remaining tenants, but, in ca se he decided to remove any more from the section in his source, he kept his options open by leaving this large space and not starting this chapter until folio 292c. In the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Liber Exoniensis}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 there are just such large sections on the lands of the thanes, Fren ch men-at-arms, king's servants etc. from which the main scribe of Great Domesday removed the holdings of several well-known people and created a number of separate chapters for them; see DEV 22 William note. He might have been abstracting holdings from m ore than one large section in his source, which would explain why at this point he was still unsure how many more separate chapters he might decide to create.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30\tab LAND OF [KING'S] THANES. }{\insrsid6823374 This chapter, like similar final chapters in many Domesday counties, g roups together lands held by Englishmen. This group is probably more miscellaneous than at first appears. Some held these lands }{\i\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\insrsid6823374 , others may be relatives of the }{\i\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\insrsid6823374 holder, yet others may have received these lands in exchange for estates larger in number or size that they held in 1066; a further group may have been rewarded by the king after 1066. The names of some 1086 holders have been omitted and it would be rash to assume that in every case they are the same as the }{\i\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{ \insrsid6823374 holders.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab Like other s uch chapters, there is no simple sequence of wapentakes. The main scribe of Great Domesday probably had to comb through a large composite section (or sections) containing not only the land of Englishmen but also of minor Frenchmen. He may even have had to re-read all the material for the county to see if these holdings were still attached to other parts of the same vills in his source, or he may have had to extract them from the details of royal multiple estates from which most of these holdings originated . At the same time he was perhaps attempting to maintain a regular sequence of wapentakes, although the fact that 30,2-6 are all lands held by Healfdene in two wapentakes might suggest that he briefly contemplated another type of order, that is, by tenant. However, probably as a result of several scans through his source material, the standard order appears four times (30,1-6;7-11;12-39;40-52) and there are other minor dislocations. The last four entries (30,53-56) are added: \par \tab \tab 30,1 ['Bassetlaw' Wapentake] \par \tab \tab 30,2-4 ['Lythe' Wapentake] \par \tab \tab 30,5-6 [Thurgarton Wapentake] \par \tab \tab ____________________________________ \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 30,7 }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ['Lythe' Wapentake] \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 30,8-11 [Thurgarton Wapentake] \par \tab \tab ____________________________________ \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 30,12 }{\insrsid6823374 ['Bassetlaw' Wapentake] \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 30,13 }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 [Thurgarton Wapentake] \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 30,14-26 Rushcliffe Wapentake \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 30,27-35 [Broxtowe Wapentake]}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 30,36-38 Bingham Wapentake}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 30,39 [Oswaldbeck Wapentake]}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab ____________________________________}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 30,40 Newark Wapentake}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 30,41-44 }{\insrsid6823374 ['Bassetlaw' Wapentake] \par \tab \tab 30,45-46 ['Lythe' Wapentake] \par \tab \tab 30,47-48 [Rushcliffe Wapentake] \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab (30,49 is a Jurisdiction in }{\insrsid6823374 Thurgarton Wapentake) \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab 30,50-52 [Broxtowe Wapentake] \par \tab \tab ____________________________________}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab (30,53-56 are added entries out of sequence, respectively in the wapentakes of 'Bassetlaw', Oswaldbeck, Broxtowe and 'Bassetlaw').}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab Most of the heads for these wapentakes need to be supplied.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,1\tab FARLEY printed }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 with an abbreviation line over it in the margin here, which is how the main scribe of Great Domesday usually abbreviated the word }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 manerium}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and its plural }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 maneria}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . However, in this instance the scribe had written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 with a faint hook after it to indicate the missing letters.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab OSBERTON. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday had originally written and rubricated }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ORMESTVNE}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , but then underlined it for deletion and wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 OSBERNESTVNE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above it in correction. No place called }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ormestune}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 has been identified.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Osberton was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Worksop St Mary and St Cuthbert; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 107. Worksop itself (9,43) probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086. Osberton undoubtedly did so, as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. The grid reference is to Osberton Hall.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALWIN. On this name, see S5 Alwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFGEAT . On this name, see 6,8 Wulfgeat note. He is probably the same person as the 1086 holder and possibly as the Wulfgeat who was William Peverel's predecessor and also subtenant in Radcliffe-on-Trent; see 10,55 Wulfgeat note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SWEIN. On this name, see S5 Swein note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 5 FREEMEN. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected their number by writing a large }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .v.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 over erasure. He wrote similar large }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 v}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s, when correcting the number of villagers in Sibthorpe (10,2) and the number of smallholders in Basford (10,22), b ut in this case it is impossible to tell whether he had originally written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ii }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 or another number.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A CHURCH; MEADOW, 20 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\f713\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \'eaccl}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 es}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iam }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 are accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,2\tab ['LYTHE' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the next three entries (30,2-4).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab CARLTON[-ON-TRENT]. This was a chapelry of Norwell Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other references to this place, see 1,21;24. 2,5. 9,61. 12,10;23.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ULFKIL . On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note. It is likely that Ulfkil the thane who had held land here in 1066 and in 30,5-6;9;22;30-3 1;33;36;45, and who continued to hold it in 30,9 and in 30,25, was the same man; certainly seven of his estates probably passed to the same person, Healfdene (here and in 30,5-6;30;33;36;45). If that is so, then he would seem to be the Ulfkil brother of A elfgar }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Cida}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 who can be identified from the later history of his holding at Kingston-on-Soar (30,22); see 3,2 Normanton note. On other }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holders called Ulfkil who might be the same as this individual, see also 10,6 Ulfkil note and 15,7 Ulfkil note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HEALFDENE HAS IT. It is likely that all the references to Healfdene in this chapter (30,2-6;30;33;36;45;47-48) are to the same individual (he succeeded an Ulfkil on seven estates: 30,2 Ulfkil note) and that he is the same as the thane called Healfdene in DBY 17,19 and in LIN 68,32;34. According to }{\i\insrsid6823374 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid6823374 , i. p. 234, he was an ancestor of the medieval lords Cromwell and was probably the same man as the Healfdene of 4,1. He held land in Cromwell (30,4). Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday People}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 134, only mentions the thane called Healfdene in Nottinghamshire as being an ancestor of the Cromwell family.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On the name Healfdene, see 4,1 Healfdene note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 3 OXEN PLOUGHING. See 11,27 ploughing note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 10 ACRES. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The case of the Latin }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,3\tab KNAPTHORPE. This was a hamlet of Caunton Ancient Parish. Like Caunton itself (5,16. 12,8), it probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton a nd Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 11,9. 12,7;22.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab IN THE OUTER MARGIN, next to the last line of this entry, the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday wrote an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 r}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 for }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 require}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , 'enquire'). There is n othing obviously missing or inaccurate in this entry, but, as with the nine other instances of this (including the one at 9,2), his source may have been unclear and he guessed the reading, but decided to check it and it turned out to be correct. On these marginal requests for information, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 124-26 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The Story of Domesday Book}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , pp. 190-91). Farley did not print this }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 r}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , as on a number of other occasions, though generally when the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 r}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 was faint or p artially obscured by the binding, neither of which was the case here.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HEALFDENE. On his possible identity, }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 see 30,2 Healfdene note, and on his name, see 4,1 Healfdene note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 OX IN A PLOUGH. The plough is evidently shared, but there is no sign of the other seven oxen on neighbouring estates.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,4\tab CROMWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For another part, see 18,2.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab HEALFDENE. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On his possible identity, }{\insrsid6823374 see 30,2 Healfdene note, and on his name, see 4,1 Healfdene note.}{\cf1\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 FISHERY. Cromwell is adjacent to the River Trent.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,5\tab [THURGARTON WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the manors of Lambley and Woodborough (30,5-6).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAMBLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ULFKIL . On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 30,2 Ulfkil note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HEALFDENE. On his possible identity, }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 see 30,2 Healfdene note, and on his name, see 4,1 Healfdene note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 3 FREEMEN ... WITH 1 PLOUGH. See 9,95 Freemen note. The Phillimore printed translation has 'and' for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 cum}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('with'). This error also appears in the first version of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Domesday Explorer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,6\tab WOODBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,18-19. 9,73. 14,5. 30,9-10.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In the manuscript this place-name is clearly }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VDEBVRG}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile it appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 VDBBVRG}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 5,3 Hickling note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ULFKIL . On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 30,2 Ulfkil note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HEALFDENE. On his possible identity, }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 see 30,2 Healfdene note, and on his name, see 4,1 Healfdene note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,7\tab ['LYTHE' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of North Muskham (30,7). This entry for 'Lythe' Wapentake interrupts a group of places in Thurgarton Wapentake (30,5-6 ;8-11). However, the chapter is not arranged in strict order of wapentakes; see NTT 30 thanes note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NORTH MUSKHAM. Unusually (as at 5,2. 8,2. 12,11), Domesday distinguishes this Muskham as 'North'; see 1,13 Ordsall note. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,2. 8,2. 12,11-13.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The estates at North Muskham, South Muskham and Little Carlton (5,2;5. 8,2. 12,11-14. 30,7;46) formed a 12-carucate unit, and possibly a hundred; see \{Introduction: Small Hundreds\} and, on the identification of Carlton, see 5,5 Carlton note. \par \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 NORDMVSCHAM}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 clearly, but it appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 NOBDMVGHAM}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the Alecto facsimile; see 5,3 Hickling note. This place-name appears correctly in the Ordnance Survey facsimile.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SIWARD. On this name, see S5 Siward note. He may be the same as the Siward who was holding Sutton Bonington in 1086 (30,17), though he had not held it in 1066.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,8\tab [THURGARTON WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Colwick and Woodborough (30,8-10). On the disrupted order, see 30,7 'Lythe' note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab COLWICK. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 10,1. 12,17.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AELFRIC . On this name, see 5,6 Aelfr ic note. It is possible that the thane Aelfric who had held land in 1066 also in 30,10;13;27-29;34;50;55 was the same individual, though no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and Aelfric was a very common name. If so, he continued to hold his land here and in 30,10;13;27;34;50, had gained the manor of Nuthall (30,32) and his other estates were waste in 1086 and no holders are mentioned.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BUGGI. On his possible identity and his name, see 6,7 Buggi note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [HAD] 5 BOVATES OF LAND. The verb (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 habebant)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is omitted after the place-name and before Aelfric, as also in 30,13 and, perhaps, in 30,16 (30,16 verb note). This is its normal position and the tense must be past as is clear from the fact that they continue to hold 'their' manor.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 31 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of acres from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 xxx}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 by inserting a minim over the original }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and adding a new one.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab UNDERWOOD, 8 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , accusative, in error, as occasionally elsewhere in this county; see 1,1 fishery note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,9\tab WOODBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,18-19. 9,73. 14,5. 30,6;10.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ULFKIL . On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 30,2 Ulfkil note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab MILL ... MEADOW, 1 VIRGATE. The cases of the Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 i. molin'}{\insrsid6823374 and of }{\i\insrsid6823374 uirg'}{\insrsid6823374 are unclear; they might be accusative after 'He has'; see 5,15 meadow note. On the use of the square virgate, see 16,3 virgate note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 20 [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a space after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 xx.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , presumably because his source was unclear or defective. The Phillimore printed translation has '20[s]', but it is safer not to speculate, but to indicate the gap left, as in the Alecto edition.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,10\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the outer margin of fol io 292c next to a manor in Woodborough (30,9). It was probably written during a large campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 entry note. However, the formulae for the ploughs and the phrase on the holding's status, as well as the position of th e }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holder, are not found in circuit VI, except in added entries, which may suggest that it was added after he had finished work on the whole circuit; see 10,64 entry note. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. \par \tab \tab This entry is not included in the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation; for other entries in Nottinghamshire which are similarly missing from it, see 2,3 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WOODBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,18-19. 9,73. 14,5. 30,6;9. \par \tab \tab As commonly with added entries there is no indication of status at the beginning of the entry, although the fact that it was a manor was entered at the end.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AELFRIC HAS. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 h}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 abe}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is correctly translated as the present tense 'has' in the Phillimore printed edition, but it appears as 'had' in the first version of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Domesday Explorer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On the name Aelfric, see 5,6 Aelfric note, and on his possible identity, see 30,8 Aelfric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab PLOUGHS, WHICH ARE THERE, WITH. This is a formula not found anywhere else in circuit VI, except in added entries, but it occurs in circuits written up after it and is especially common in circuit II. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AS A MANOR. This phrase takes the place of the marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M' }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 for }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Manerium }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('manor') and is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, e xcept in added entries (see here also in 5,6. 10,66. 12,12 and 16,12), but it occurs in most of the circuits written up after it. Moreover, in Nottinghamshire the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holder is normally listed after the place-name and carucage and before the plough estimate (\{Introduction: Layout and Content of Entries\} ), not at the end of the entry as in some other circuits; see also here in 12,12. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,11\tab NORMANTON. This is one of several places called Normanton in Notti nghamshire and is sometimes known as Normanton-by-Southwell. It was a hamlet in Southwell Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For another part, see 17,14.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab When Southwell was given to the Archbishop of York in 956, every third acre at Normanton was given at the same time; see 5,1 Southwell note. It is possible that the present estate was never in the hands of the archbishops of Yo rk but represents some or all of the part that was not granted; see 5,1 outliers note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab ERNWY THE PRIEST.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On this name, see 16,5 Ernwy note. Although Ernwy and Ernwin were separate names, there was sometimes scribal confusion; on Ernwin, see 9,109 Ernwin n ote. An Ernwin the priest had held a dependency of Arnold (30,49) and was the 1086 holder of a manor in Elkesley (30,41), while in this chapter there were also thanes called simply Ernwy (30,56) and Ernwin (30,35;42-43;51-52;54) who were holding in 1086. It is unclear, however, how many individuals there were and how many of those unidentified were a priest, as both Ernwy and Ernwin were common names. See 30,42 Ernwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 The final letter of }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Arnui}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 was erased, possibly a curved }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 d}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 judging}{ \i\cf1\insrsid6823374 }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 by the shape of the scraped area; the form }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Ernuit}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 occurs in SHR 4,5,4 and was accepted by }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 243-44, under OE }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Earnwig}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 . The shape of the }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 i}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 is odd, as if it had once been part of another, tall, letter, though it could have been written like that to distinguish it from the preceding }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 u}{ \cf1\insrsid6823374 . There is no sign, however, that the name had once been written }{\i\cf1\insrsid6823374 Arnuuin'}{\cf1\insrsid6823374 .}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [*** HOLDS FROM THE KING]. The main scribe of Great Domesday omitted the 1086 holder of this entry, as also of 30,12;14;28-29;40. In the present entry and in 30,28-29 this might be connected to the land being waste, but is not so for 30,12;14;40, and plenty of entries in this county that were waste in 1086 had holders.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,12\tab [* 'BASSETLAW' WAPENT AKE *]. This heading is necessitated by the fact that the unidentified "Odestorp" (30,12) appears on balance to have lain in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake; see 1,12 "Odestorp" note and, on the disorder of this chapter, see NTT 30 thanes note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab "ODESTORP". On the form of this name and its probable location, see 1,12 "Odestorp" note. For other parts, see 1,12. 9,42;71.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFMER. On this name, see 2,9 Wulfmer note. A thane called Wulfmer had also held land in Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Clarborough (30,35;39), but it was a very common name, so they may not have been the same person.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \'bd MILL. A further quarter appears to have been at "Odestorp" and Retford (9,71), but the final quarter is missing from Domesday.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [*** HOLDS FROM THE KING]. See 30,11 holds note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,13\tab THI S UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the foot margin of folio 292c, extending into the outer margin. It was probably written during a large campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 entry note. However, the formul a for the value statement is not one found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries, which suggests that it may have been added after he had finished work on the whole circuit; see 10,64 entry note. For other entries added by him that were never ru bricated, see 1,19 entry note. \par \tab \tab A one-line entry immediately above the present entry and also extending into the outer margin and in the foot margin, and a three-line entry at the foot of folio 292d and extending into the centre margin, were probably also added after rubrication, but were later erased. Parts of the entry above the present one can still be deciphered in the manuscript and traces are visible in both the Ordnance Survey and the Alecto facsimiles. Although none of the place-name is visible, th e words }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 Aluric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 Br}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 u}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 n x}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ...}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 W' }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 can be made out. An Aelfric and Brun held 12 bovates in 'Sutton Passeys' (30,55), an entry which itself was added after rubrication, and it is possible that the scribe initially added this entry here (but probably without Wulfsi's holding and some of the other details). As for the entry originally in the foot margin of folio 292d, some of it can still be made out in the manuscript, though none appears in either facsimile. The entry seems to have begun }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In TRo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ..}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ell dim' car' }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 tr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 e }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ...}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 libe}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (?), then a patched hole and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 t'ra}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , followed on the second line by }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ibi i. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ui}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ll's}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ...}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ord'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ...}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iiii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ...}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ten' vi }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ...}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . The third line, only occupying three-quarters of the line, is too well erased for anything to be visible. The only place-name beginning }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Tro}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in Nottinghamshire is Trowell, spelt }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Trovvalle }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in 30,50, though the same place is spelt }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Torwalle }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in 29,2 and 30,30; the details of these holdings and that at 30,51 do not agree with what can be deciphered here.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [* THURGARTON WAPENTAKE *]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Calverton (30,13). In order to maintain a better order of wapentakes, this entry should have been inserted after that for Normanton (30,11). In its present position, it is separated by a single estate ("Odestorp") in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake from other places in Thurgarton Wapentake; see 1,12 "Odestorp" note. On the disorder of this chapter, see NTT 30 thanes note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab CALVERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 (heading above 16,3) and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 5,10. 16,3. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab As usual with added entries, especially unrubricated ones, the main scribe failed to provide a marginal letter denoting its status, but it would seem from its contents to have been a manor.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AELFRIC . On his name, see 5,6 Aelfric note, and on his possible identity, see 30,8 Aelfric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [HAD]. The verb (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 habebat}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) is omitted after the place-name and before Aelfric; see 30,8 had note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab FORMERLY 16s; VALUE NOW 10s. This is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries; see 5,6 formerly note and compare 2,3 value note an d 10,64 value note. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,14\tab NORMANTON[-ON-SOAR]. This is one of several places called Normanton in Nottinghamshire. Normanton-on-Soar was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 3,2. 4,1. 9,78. 30,16. No 1086 holder is given, as also, apparently, for the manor at 30,16. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For the possible grant of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday, see 3,2 Normanton note. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Confirmation of the identification of this estate comes from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 103, where }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sutton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Boninton}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Kyneston}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Normanton}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 are all held from the honour of Chester in Rushcliffe Wapentake. These are the estates of Sutton [Bonington] (30,17-18), [Sutton] Bonington (30,15), Kingston[-on-Soar] (30,19;21-22) and Normanton[-on-Soar] (30,14;16).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ASGOT . The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Osgot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ansgot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Osgotus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Asgot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Ansgot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Angot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Asgut}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Asgot}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Asgautr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 165-66. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Asgot, Ansgot, Osgot and Asgautr; these have now been standardized as Asgot. The Alecto edition has Asgot.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab He may be the same person as the }{\i\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\insrsid6823374 holder of Ratcliffe-on-Soar (30,20), which is about three miles from Normanton-on-Soar, though not adjacent, but}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and Asgot was a common name.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [*** HOLDS FROM THE KING]. See 30,11 holds note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,15\tab [SUTTON] BONINGTON. There were two Ancient Parishes, Sutton Bonington St Anne and Sutton Bonington St Michael. Sutton Bonington itself arose from the merger of two settlements, Sutton and Bonington, listed as }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sutton' cum Bonyngton'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in Rushcliffe Wapentake in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 256. For other parts, see 3,1;3. 4,2. 24,2. 30,17-18. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For the possible grant of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday, see 3,2 Normanton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IT BELONGS TO NORMANTON[-ON-SOAR]. That is, to Asgot's manor there (30,14).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,16\tab NORMANTON[-ON-SOAR]. This is one of several places called Norm anton in Nottinghamshire. Normanton-on-Soar was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 (one of the estates being below a Rushcliffe wapentake head at 30,14) as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For o ther parts, see 3,2. 4,1. 9,78. 30,14. No 1086 holder seems to have been given, as also for the manor at 30,14, though see 30,16 verb note. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For the possible grant of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday, see 3,2 Normanton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab RAVEN . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rauen}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rauene}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rauan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rauuen}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rauaius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 etc. - represent Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Hrafn}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rawn}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 292-93, though Fellows Jensen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 210-12, gives the Old Danish form as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Rafn}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . JRM preferred Raven as it is closer to the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Rawn. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire. \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab T he name Raven is uncommon, occurring only 18 times in Domesday Book. This impoverished Nottinghamshire is likely to have been the only holding of this Raven. The only other Raven within 40 miles held a tiny property in Leicestershire with which this had n o discernible connection (JP).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE VERB (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 habebat}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) was perhaps omitted after the place-name and before Raven, as in 30,8;13; see 30,8 had note. However, unlike in those entries, no 1086 holder is mentioned here, so it is just possible that Raven held in 108 6. The Phillimore printed translation does not inlude [had], nor does the Alecto edition. See also in 30,18.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,17\tab SUTTON [BONINGTON]. There were two Ancient Parishes, Sutton Bonington St Anne and Sutton Bonington St Michael. Sutton Bonington itself arose from the merger of two settlements, Sutton and Bonington, listed as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sutton' cum Bonyngton'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in Rushcliffe Wapentake in }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 256. For other parts, see 3,1;3. 4,2. 24,2. 30,15;18.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LEOFWARD. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leuuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leuuord}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Liuuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leofweard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 316, although he stated that the form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leuuord}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (30,17) might go back to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Leofweald}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 with Anglo-Norman dissimilation of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 l-l }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 >}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 l-r}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . JRM preferred the second element -ward for the Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -weard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , as it reflected more closely the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Leofweard. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SIWARD HOLDS. On this name, see S5 Siward note; see also 30,7 Siward note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,18\tab THERE ALSO ^[SUTTON [BONINGTON]]^. See 30,17 Sutton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab COLEMAN . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Coleman}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Colemanus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Col}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 )}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 man}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 218; he also mentioned derivation from Old Irish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Colman}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Coleman and Colman; these have now been standardized as Coleman. The Alecto edition has both Coleman and Colman. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab It is unclear whether he held in 1066 or 1086 or at both dates; see 30,16 verb note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,19\tab KINGSTON[-ON-SOAR]. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Ratcliffe-on-Soar. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 3,4. 30,21-22. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For the grant of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday, see 3,2 Normanton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALGAR [* "CIDA" *]. He is identified as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alfgar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Cida}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , brother of Ulfkil, in a grant to St Cuthbert's of Durham, made soon after Domesday; see 3,2 Normanton note. On the name Algar, see 1,59 Algar note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SAEWIN HOLDS. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sauuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sauuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Seuuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sauin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Saewine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 354-55. JRM preferred the second element -win for the Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 -wine}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , as it reflected more closely the Domesday spellings. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Saewin, Sewin and Sawin; these have now been standardized as Saewin. The Alecto edition has Saewine. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab It is likely that the Saewin who was also holding three other manors in 1086 in this chapter (30,20;23-24) was the same as this holder; he was preceded by Algar [* "Cida" *] in 30,23, as here.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab A MILL-SITE; MEADOW, 10 ACRES. The cases of the Latin }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 sed'}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 and of }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 are unclear; they might be accusative after 'He has'; see 5,15 meadow note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,20\tab RATCLIFFE[-ON-SOAR]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ASGOT . On this name, see 30,14 Asgot note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE FOURTH PART OF 1 BOVATE. The Latin}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iiii. part' i. bou'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 can be extended either to read 'the fourth part of 1 bovate' or '4 parts of 1 bovate' when in the accusative case, as here. The Alecto edition opts for the latter, but the Phillimore printed translation has the former with a question mark. The }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iiii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is more likely to be an ordinal ('4th'), as it clearly is in 30,23 where the phrasing is otherwise identical. On the problems caused by this ambiguity and its corr ection by both the main scribe of Great Domesday and scribe B, see 4,6 parts note and 4,7 part note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SAEWIN HOLDS. On his possible identity and his name, see 30,19 Saewin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,21\tab KINGSTON[-ON-SOAR]. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Ratcliffe-on-Soar. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 3,4. 30,19;22. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 oca}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] indicates that this was a Jurisdiction, presumably of Ratcliffe-on-Soar.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,22\tab THERE ALSO ^[KINGSTON[-ON-SOAR]]^. See 30,21 Kingston note. \par \tab \tab For the grant of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday, see 3,2 Normanton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ULFKIL [* BROTHER OF AELFGAR "CIDA" *]. On the name Ulfkil, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 30,2 Ulfkil note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab He is identified as Ulfkil, brother of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alfgari}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Cida}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in a grant to St Cuthbert's of Durham, made soon after Domesday; see 3,2 Normanton note. It would seem that Godric's possession of this holding, perhaps illegal judging by the statement here, was short-lived.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NOW GODRIC HOLDS. It is possible that this man was the same as the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 T.R.E. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holder of Gotham (30,24) who is identified as the son of Fredegis in a grant of land there to St Cuthbert's of Durham; see 3,2 Normanton note. However , the present land was not granted by him but by Ulfkil brother of Aelfgar "Cida"; see 30,22 Ulfkil note. On the name Godric, see 2,10 Godric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BUT THE MEN OF THE LOCALITY DO NOT KNOW. The Latin noun }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 patria}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is normally translated by 'country', 'native land', 'fatherland'. It is, however, in origin an adjective, the feminine of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 patrius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , derived from the noun }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 pater}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('father') and meaning 'relating to a father'. Used with }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 terra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 it means 'father's land' or 'paternal land' and in classical times came to be a noun in its own right (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 patria}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ). Here it has the restricted and local sense of the land where these men were born, land they inherited from their fathers. These men are presumably the representatives of the village, giving their evidence to the shire court.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab See also }{\insrsid6823374 Fleming, }{\i\insrsid6823374 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 218 no. 1254. She translates 'the men of the country'. The Alecto edition has 'men of the neighbourhood'.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THROUGH WHOM [OR] HOW. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 p}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 er}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 qu\'e7 quom}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 odo}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] ('through whom how'); the Phillimore printed translation omits the square brackets round 'or'.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The exact force of the three words here is unclear. They seem to amount to the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 quo waranto}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('on what grounds'), commonly used later. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Per quem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is not the same as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 de quo}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('from whom?') and so does not ask from whom he holds, but rather 'who put him in possession?'. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Quomodo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('in what way') probably overlaps in meaning, but implies the possible answer 'by inheritance from his father', or 'by royal grant' or 'for the lives of three men'.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,23\tab BARTON[-IN-FABIS]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,7. 13,1-2. \par \tab \tab For the grant of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday, see 3,2 Normanton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALGAR [* "CIDA" *]. He is identified as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alfgar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Cida}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , brother of Ulfkil in a grant to St Cuthbert's of Durham, made soon after Domesday; see 3,2 Normanton note. On the name Algar, see 1,59 Algar note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SAEWIN HAS. On his possible identity and his name, see 30,19 Saewin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 1 VILLAGER. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 uill}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 anu}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is nominative; it should be accusative (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 uillanum}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) after 'Saewin has'. See 1,1 villagers note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 3 OXEN PLOUGHING. See 11,27 ploughing note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,24\tab GOTHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For another part, see 4,3. \par \tab \tab For the grant of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday, see 3,2 Normanton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODRIC [* SON OF FREDEGIS *]. For the identity of Godric, derived from a grant to St Cuthbert's of Durham, made soon after Domesday; see 3,2 Normanton note. On the name Godric, see 2,10 Godric note, and on the name Fredegis, see 2,1 Fredegis note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SAEWIN HAS IT. On his possible identity and his name, see 30,19 Saewin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,25\tab CLIFTON. There are two places called 'Clifton' in Domesday Nottinghamshire, one in Newark Wapentake, the other in Rushcliffe Wapentake. The latter seems the more likely identification here as it follows a number of places (30,14-24) that lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake. If this was the Clifton intended, then it was part of the Ancient Parish of Clifton-with-Glapton. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 10, 5-6. 13,3. On the deletion of the entry at 10,6, which duplicated the present entry, see 10,6 entry note. \par \tab \tab The status of this holding is not clear as there is no marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M}{\fs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\fs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 anerium}{ \fs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ],}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 S}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 oca}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ] or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 B}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 erewica}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], but the main scribe of Great Domesday initially wrote the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 I}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 of }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 In }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in the square form that he used for manorial entries, but then later added a 'tail' to it to turn it into the rustic capital used for dependencies; he could not, however, alter the capitals in which }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 CLIFTVN}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 was written or its rubrication, both signs of a manor.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ULFKIL . On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 30,2 Ulfkil note and 10,6 Ulfkil note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 OXEN PLOUGHING. See 11,27 ploughing note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 1 ACRE. }{\insrsid6823374 The case of the Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\insrsid6823374 is uncertain and might be accusative after 'He has' (see 5,15 meadow note) or ablative after }{ \i\insrsid6823374 cum}{\insrsid6823374 ('with'); see 9,128 acre note and 10,6 acre note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,26\tab WILLOUGHBY[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. This was an Ancient Parish. This place is one of the five (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-th e-Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which, in 1086, formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\} . It was later in Rushcliffe Wapentake: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. Parts of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (9,92. 16,12) appear to be included in Broxtowe Wapentake by Domesday. Two other parts (10,10. 16,5) appear to have been in Rushcliffe Wapen take in 1086. Thus Willoughby-on-the-Wolds was divided unequally between the two wapentakes.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab It is also difficult to decide whether the present portion of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake or in Broxtowe Wapentake. It follows an entry f or Clifton (30,25) which seems to have been in Rushcliffe Wapentake like the preceding estates, but it is said to be a Jurisdiction of Thorpe-in-the-Glebe which was in Broxtowe Wapentake. Moreover, it is followed by a run of places (30,27-35) which were i n Broxtowe Wapentake, and include another part of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (30,35). On balance it has been included in Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,92 Willoughby note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [* EARL *] ALGAR. The other two Algars in this chapter (30,19;23) can be identified as Alg ar (Aelfgar) "Cida"; see 3,2 Normanton note. This third occurrence of the name might be the same man, but is more probably Earl Algar who had held Upper Broughton (1,59) of which Thorpe-in-the Glebe (1,60) was an outlier; see}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Roffe, \lquote Introduction', }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , p. 4; and 30,26 Thorpe note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On Earl Algar and this name-form, see 1,59 Algar note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 The Algar of NTT 30,26 is also shown to he the earl by its dependency on NTT 1,59-60 (JP).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION OF THORPE[-IN-THE-GLEBE]. That is, probably of the royal estate there (1,60) which was an outlier of Upper Broughton held by Earl Algar}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (see 30,26 Algar note). There was a Jurisdiction of Wysall in Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, described as 'the king's Thorpe' at 9,91.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in Torp}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 later above an original }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 SOCA}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , \par \tab which might otherwise have implied that Willoughby-on-the-Wolds was a Jurisdiction of the manor of Gotham (30,24).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,27\tab [BROWTOWE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the estates which follow (30,27-35); see 30,26 Willoughby note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab KIRKBY[-IN-ASHFIELD]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For another part, see 13,9.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AELFRIC . On his name, see 5,6 Aelfric note, and on his possible identity, see 30,8 Aelfric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,28\tab [OLD] BASFORD. Basford was an Ancient Parish.. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,22-23;51-52. 30,34. Old Basford probably acquired its affix on the creation of New Basford in 1847. \par \tab \tab Roffe (}{\insrsid6823374 \lquote Introduction', }{\i\insrsid6823374 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\insrsid6823374 , p. 9) attributes the separation of the two part s of Old Basford (30,28;34) in this chapter to the fact that they lay in different hundreds. For a discussion of this notion, see \{Introduction: Small Hundreds\}.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AELFRIC . On his name, see 5,6 Aelfric note, and on his possible identity, see 30,8 Aelfric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AND SKULI [HAD] 1 BOVATE - IT IS WASTE. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 Escul .i. bo\'fb. Wasta \'e7}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above Aelfric's holding of 1 bovate. He had already included this information in William Peverel's fief (10,23), but scribe B ha d then deleted it, probably at the same time as he added it at 10,52; see 10,23 entry note. On the name Skuli, see 10,23 Skuli note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [*** HOLDS FROM THE KING]. See 30,11 holds note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,29\tab PAPPLEWICK. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For another part, see 10,21. \par \tab \tab Domesday gives no indication of the status of this land.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AELFRIC . On his name, see 5,6 Aelfric note, and on his possible identity, see 30,8 Aelfric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALFHEAH . On this name and possible identification, see 10,34 Alfheah note. The Phillimore printed edition identifies the Domesday form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Alfa }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 in error as 'Alfsi'.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALRIC. On this name, see 9,36 Alric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [*** HOLDS FROM THE KING]. See 30,11 holds note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,30\tab TROWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 29,2. 30,50-51.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ULFKIL . On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 30,2 Ulfkil note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HEALFDENE. On his possible identity, }{\insrsid6823374 see 30,2 Healfdene note, and on his name, see 4,1 Healfdene note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NOW 5s 4d. The Phillimore printed translation has '6s 8d' in error, as did the first version of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Domesday Explorer}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 30,31\tab STRELLEY. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday had originally written and rubricated }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 STADELIE}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and then underlined it for deletion when he replaced it with an interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 SRAELIE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , using a finer pen and paler ink than for the original. He may have meant to write }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 STRAELIE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , as the form in the other occurrence of this place is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Straleia}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (10,27). The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 151, merely mentions the interlined form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sraelie}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .} {\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab In the Alecto facsimile the replacement name }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 SRAELIE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 appears as }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 SBCELIE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 5,3 Hickling note. It is also not very clear in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. The scribe of the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Abbreviatio }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (folio 207r) reproduced }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 SB}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (?)}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 CELIE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and the scribe of the Breviate (folio 149r) wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 SBECELIE}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Strelley was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 111; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,27-28.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ULFKIL . On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 30,2 Ulfkil note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFSI. On this name, see 9,36 Wulfsi note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GODWIN. On this name, see 6,9 Godwin note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IN THE FOOT MARGIN and centre margin of folio 292d, interrupting the account of Strelley, an entry was added and then erased; see 30,13 entry note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,32\tab NUTHALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For another part, see 10,40.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ESKIL . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aschil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Anschil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Anschill}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Osketel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Osketellus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Oschetel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aschillus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Aschi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Osketel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ], }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Oschil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Eskil}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Askell}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 167-68. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Askel l and Asketill; these have now been standardized as Eskil. The Alecto edition has Eskil.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab It is possible that the men called Eskil who had held Elkesley and 'North' Morton (30,41-42) were the same as the }{\i\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\insrsid6823374 holder here; }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 these are the only occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire and the lands in 30,41-42 probably passed to the same person (30,42 Ernwin note).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AELFRIC HOLDS. On his name, see 5,6 Aelfric note, and on his possible identity, see 30,8 Aelfric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,33\tab AWSWORTH. This was a chapelry of Nuthall Ancient Parish. Like Nuthall itself (10,40. 30,32) it probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For another part, see 10,48.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ULFKIL . On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 30,2 Ulfkil note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HEALFDENE. On his possible identity, }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 see 30,2 Healfdene note, and on his name, see 4,1 Healfdene note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,34\tab [OLD] BASFORD. Basford was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,22-23;51-52. 30,28. Old Basford probably acquired its affix on the creation of New Basford in 1847.}{\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab For the possible significance of the separation of the two parts of Old Basford in this fief, see 30,28 Basford note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AELFRIC . On his name, see 5,6 Aelfric note, and on his possible identity, see 30,8 Aelfric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 1 ACRE; 2 MILLS; UNDERWOOD, 1 ACRE. The cases of the Latin}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 molin'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 are unclear: they could be either accusative after 'He has' (see 5,15 meadow note) or ablative after }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 cum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('with'); see 9,128 acre note }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 and 10,6 acre note}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,35\tab 2M. See 3,4 2M note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WILLOUGHBY[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. This was an Ancient Parish. It appears to be included in Broxtowe Wapentake by Domesday (head at 9,90), and to have been one of the five places (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which, in 1086, formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\} . It was later in Rushcliffe Wapentake: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 109; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,92-93. 10,10. 16,5;12. 30,26. Of these, it is possible that three parts (10,10. 16,5. 30,26) were in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 and that Willoughby-on-the-Wolds was divided unequally between the two wapentakes. \par \tab \tab The present entry appears to be last in a run of places in Broxtowe Wapentake, and was probably in that wapentake in 1086 with most of the rest of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ESBIORN. On this name, see 21,1 Esbiorn note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AND WULFMER HAD 3 BOVATES OF LAND TAXABLE. LAND FOR 3 OXEN. The main scribe of Great Domesday later interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 Vlmer}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sbern}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , extending the tail of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 downwards before, rather than after, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sbern}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . At the same time he interlined }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .II. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above the marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 M' }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to show that it had been two manors in 1066 and he corrected the number both of bovates and of the oxen in the estimate from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 to }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . For other additions and corrections made to this entry, probably at the same time, see 30,35 Ernwin note, 30,35 s mallholders note and 30,35 now note. This level of correction suggests either a very poorly written source or, perhaps more likely in view of what the scribe did with the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Liber Exoniensis}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 when he edited it for the counties of circuit II, he amalgamated two holdings in Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and failed to enter all the details the first time.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab On the name Wulfmer, see 2,9 Wulfmer note; see also 30,12 Wulfmer note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ALWIN. On this name, see S5 Alwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AND ERNWIN. The main scribe of Great Domesday later interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 Ernuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Eluuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ; see 30,35 Wulfmer note. \par \tab \tab On this name, see 9,109 note; see also 30,11 Ernwy note. There is no evidence that he was Ernwin the priest.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IT IS WASTE ... 5 SMALLHOLDERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday later interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7 v. bord'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 above the 5 acres of meadow. As he normally wrote the resources after the population, he should have put the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 after the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 bord'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . See 30,35 Wulfmer note. \par \tab \tab For other examples of population being recorded in entries described as 'waste', see 1,12 waste note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NOW 4s. Although the main scribe of Great Domesday often doubled up the number }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iiii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , he may have corrected an original }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 here to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 iiii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 when he made the other additions and corrections to this entry; see 30,35 Wulfmer note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,36\tab BINGHAM WAPENTAKE. The main scribe of Great Domesday may have merely failed to rubricate this wapentake head (see 1,10 manor note) rather than added it later as he wrote it in the same colour ink and with the same pen as the rest of the entry.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LAMCOTE. This was a hamlet of }{\cf1\insrsid6823374 the Ancient Parish of }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Holme Pierrepont. Holme Pierrepont itself (9,80) may have lain in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086, but Lamcote was clearly in Bingham Wapentake: two parts (see also 15,7) lie directly below a Bingham wapentake head. It was in the same wapentake later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104. For another part (where there is another third of a bovate), see 9,96. It is represented by Lamcote Field, a settlement.}{ \insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ULFKIL . On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 30,2 Ulfkil note and 15,7 Ulfkil note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE. Another third part of a bovate in Lamcote is recorded in 9,96, but there is no sign of the final third of a bovate.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab NO PLOUGH ESTIMATE is recorded for either this manor at Lamcote or for the one there at 15,7 and no space was left for the later insertion of it, as in other entries (1,59 land note). Roger of Bully's manor there (9,96) has this information, however. For the few other omissions of the plough estimate in this county, see 9,120 plough note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HEALFDENE. On his possible identity, }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 see 30,2 Healfdene note, and on his name, see 4,1 Healfdene note..}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 6 ACRES. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , accusative; see 10,10 meadow note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,37\tab ASLOCKTON. This was a township of Whatton Ancient Parish. Like the settlement of Whatton-in-the-Vale itself (17,16), it probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For other parts, see 1,57. 11,22. 17,18. 20,6.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab LEOFRIC. On this name, see 7,1 Leofric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFRIC . On this name, see S5 Wulfric note, and on his identity, see 20,6 Wulfric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 OXEN IN A PLOUGH. See 20,6 oxen note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,38\tab KINOULTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 104; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 232. For another part, see 11,31, and for a bequest here to Ramsey Abbey, see 5,3 Hickling note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AZUR. On this name, see S5 Azur note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 3 OXEN PLOUGHING. See 11,27 ploughing note and 11,31 oxen note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 3 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,9 meadow note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,39\tab [OSWALDBECK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Clarborough (30,39).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab CLARBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227. For other parts, see 1,41. 5,8. 9,127-128. 30,54.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFMER. On this name, see 2,9 Wulfmer note; see also 30,12 Wulfmer note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WITH FULL JURISDICTION, WITHOUT A HALL. This rare phrase seems to imply that Clarborough was not a manor, but that Wulfmer possessed an authority that would normally go with holding a manor. Thus his authority was personal rather than based on possession of land.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 On the meaning of 'full jurisdiction', see B14 jurisdiction note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 3 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,9 meadow note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,40\tab SYERSTON. This was a chapelry of }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 the Ancient Parish of }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 East Stoke. It lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 233. For other parts, see 2,3. 6,3. 21,2.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab [WHICH] IS THE KING'S. The interlineation }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 regis est}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 , added by the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday in paler ink,}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 means simply: 'it is the king's'. JRM suggested that this was 'inserted to distinguish this land from other Syerston holdings'. If that were the case one would expect the information to be added to every estate i n a village that was shared. It is more probable that the inserted }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 regis est}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 means that this land (for which no 1086 holder is given) was not simply held from the king as a grant of land, but was actually still royal land and should rightly have been included in chapter 1, the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 Terra Regis}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ('Land of the King'). Another part of Syerston was a Jurisdiction of the manor of Newark (6,1), held by Countess Godiva in 1066 and later granted to the Bishop of Lincoln, possibly on Godiva's death or on the foundation of the see, whichever was the later. Newark will have been an escheat in royal hands, and it is possible that this small portion of that manor, lying at Syerston, remained in the king's hands.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THORFRIDH. On this name, see 9,54 Thorfridh note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [*** HOLDS FROM THE KING]. See 30,11 holds note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,41\tab ['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the manors of Elkesley and Misson (30,41;43).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ELKESLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other parts, see 1,10. 9,32.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ESKIL . On this name and his possible identity, see 30,32 Eskil note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ERNWIN THE PRIEST. On this name, see 9,109 Ernwin note; see also 30,11 Ernwy note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,42\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in a half-line space at the end of the entry for the manor of Elkesley (30,41); because of lack of space he had to interline the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and 1086 holders (who w ere the same as those of that manor). It was probably written during a large campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 entry note. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 'NORTH' MORTON. Morton was a settlement in Babworth Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For discussion of the four estates here, see 1,11 Morton note, 1,11 other note and 9,34 Morton note. \par \tab \tab As commonly with added entries, there is no indication of status.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ESKIL . On this name and his possible identity, see 30,32 Eskil note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ERNWIN [* THE PRIEST *] HOLDS. It is likely that he is the same individual as the Ernwin the priest who was also preceded by an Eskil in the previous entry, for Elkesley (30,41) and 'North' Morton were probably no more than three miles from each other. On this name, see 9,109 Ernwin note; see also 30,11 Ernwy note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,43\tab MISSON. This was an Ancient Parish d ivided between Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire until a boundary change in 1886 placed the parish entirely in Nottinghamshire. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. If so, it will, in 1086, have been detached from that wapentake by the presence of }{\insrsid6823374 Scaftworth (5,8), Everton (5,8. 9,117;124) and Harwell (9,117;124) which appear to have lain in Oswaldbeck Wapentake then, though they were later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake when Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged with it. }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 For other parts of Misson, see 1,65 (duplicated in 30,44). 1,66. 9,21.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab CNUT . The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Cnut}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Cnud}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Chnut}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Chenut}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Gnut}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Canut}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ) - represent Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Knutr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Knut}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 305-306. JRM preferred the form Canute, but that form is rarely used now. Both Canute and Knutr appear in the Phillimore printed translations; they have now been standardized as Cnut. The Alecto edition has Knut, but Cnut for the king (as does the } {\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Handbook of British Chronology}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ). This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6823374 This name is rare south of the Humber, occurring only seven times and possibly representing four individuals. The tiny holding at Mission is some distance from others without tenurial associations with any of them. Mission was probably the only property o f this man (JP).}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ERNWIN. On this name, see 9,109 Ernwin note; see also 30,11 Ernwy note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 FREEMEN WITH 1 PLOUGH. See 9,95 Freemen note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A FISHERY. The Latin case of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 piscar'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 is unclear: it might be accusative after 'Ernwin has' (see 5,15 meadow note) or it might be ablative after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 cum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ('with'); see 9,128 acre note }{ \insrsid6823374 and 10,6 acre note}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 .}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,44\tab THERE ALSO ^[MISSON]^. See 30,43 Misson note. This appears to duplicate the entry at 1,65; see 1,65 Misson note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION OF KIRTON[-IN-LINDSEY]. That is, the roy al manor which is surveyed in LIN 1,38. Another part of Misson, held by the king (1,66) was also a dependency of a Lincolnshire manor, Laughton (LIN 57,7).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,45\tab ['LYTHE' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the manors of Kelham and South Muskham (30,45-46).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab KELHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 (part of Kelham is below a 'Lythe' wapentake head at 9,59) and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 9,59. 11,19. 15,3. 18,4.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ULFKIL . On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 30,2 Ulfkil note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 PARTS OF 1 BOVATE. In 9,59. 11,19 and 15,3 there are third parts of 1 bovate recorded for Kelham.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HEALFDENE. On his possible identity, }{\insrsid6823374 see 30,2 Healfdene note, and on his name, see 4,1 Healfdene note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 6 ACRES. }{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 The Latin }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ac}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 [}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ra}{\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 s}{ \cgrid0\insrsid6823374 is accusative; see 1,9 meadow note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 8 FURLONGS LONG AND 8 VIRGATES WIDE. The virgate is here used, as in other parts of Kelham, as a linear measure; see 1,34 virgates note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,46\tab [SOUTH] MUSKHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 106; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For another part, see 5,5. \par \tab \tab The estates at North Muskham, South Muskham and Little Carlton (5,2;5. 8,2. 12,11-14. 30,7;46) formed a 12-carucate unit, and possibly a hundred; see \{Introduction: Small Hundreds\} and, on the identification of Carlton, see 5,5 Carlton note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SWARTBRAND. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Sortebrand}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Suertebrand}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 - represent the hypothetical Old Norse name }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Svartbrandr}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 378-79; see also Fellows Jensen, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , pp. 274-75, who states that it is composed of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Swart}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 brand}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 . The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Swa rtbrand and Svartbrandr; these have now been standardized as Swartbrand. The Alecto edition has Svartbrandr. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab SAERIC HOLDS. On this name, see 15,5 Saeric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 12 ACRES. }{\insrsid6823374 The case of the Latin }{\i\insrsid6823374 ac'}{\insrsid6823374 is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,47\tab [RUSHCLIFFE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Widmerpool (30,47).}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WIDMERPOOL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 13,14. 30,48.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WILLIAM. On this name, see B9 William note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HEALFDENE. On his possible identity, }{\insrsid6823374 see 30,2 Healfdene note, and on his name, see 4,1 Healfdene note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 2 SLAVES. See 10,1 slaves note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 20 ACRES. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , accusative; see 1,9 meadow note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,48\tab THERE ALSO ^[WIDMERPOOL]^. See 30,47 Widmerpool note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HEALFDENE. On his possible identity, }{\insrsid6823374 see 30,2 Healfdene note, and on his name, see 4,1 Healfdene note.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 3 OXEN IN A PLOUGH. The remaining 5 oxen needed to make a team were probably at the adjacent estate of Stanton-on-the-Wolds (9,86).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 6 ACRES. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , ac cusative; see 1,9 meadow note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,49\tab [* THURGARTON WAPENTAKE *]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Gonalston. As Gonalston is here a Jurisdiction of Arnold, the main scribe of Great Domesday might not have included a wapentake head wh ich he normally placed only above manors. However, the head manor, Arnold (1,45) which lay in Broxtowe Wapentake is not included here, so a heading has been inserted for clarity.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab GONALSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 105; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 231. For other parts, see 10,3. 14,6.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ERNWIN THE PRIEST. On this name, see 9,109 Ernwin note; see also 30,11 Ernwy note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION OF ARNOLD. That is, of the royal manor (1,45). Such an arrangement seems to be a step on the way to Gonalston's becoming a separate manor. It is no longer included in the land of the king as a Jurisdiction of Arnold (unless it is erroneously placed here), it had a separate named }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holder which is unusual for a Jurisdiction, yet a tie to Arnold remains and Gonalston is not yet stated to be a manor, like many of the holdings in this chapter which probably originated in grants out of royal manors.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 4 FREEMEN HAVE. They are almost certainly the 4 Freemen who with Ernwin the priest had held Gonalston in 1066.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,50\tab [BROWTOWE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Trowell (30,50).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab TROWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 230. For other parts, see 29,2. 30,30;51.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AELFRIC . On his name, see 5,6 Aelfric note, and on his possible identity, see 30,8 Aelfric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 2 ACRES. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , accusative; see 1,9 meadow note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,51\tab THERE ALSO ^ [TROWELL]^. See 30,50 Trowell note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFRIC. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ERNWIN. On this name, see 9,109 Ernwin note; see also 30,11 Ernwy note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 2 ACRES. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , accusative; see 1,9 meadow note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab A JURISDICTION. The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 SOCA}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 refers only to the waste bovate.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,52\tab 'EASTERN' CHILWELL. This place, only evidenced in Domesday Book, was probably adjacent to Chilwell (10,26. 13,1;4-5) which was a hamlet of Attenborough Ancient Parish. Chilwell itself probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 110; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For an attempt to locate it, heavy with theory but lacking historical or archaeological evidence, see Cossons, 'East Chilwell and Keighton'. For a further part of 'Eastern' Chilwell, see 13,4.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab DUNNING. On this name, see 9,62 Dunning note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ERNWIN. On this name, see 9,109 Ernwin note; see also 30,11 Ernwy note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \'bd PLOUGH. This possibly complements the 3\'bd ploughs at Bramcote (29,1) which was probably less than 2 miles away.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab MEADOW, 12 ACRES. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 [}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , accusative; see 1,9 meadow note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,53\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY and the next three (30,54-66) were added together by the main scribe of Great Domesday at the end of the lands of the king's thanes on folio 293b. He did not keep to the scored lines but put six lines of writing onto five ruled lines, a l though there was no need to economize on space as there were still 18 lines blank after them. They were probably written during a large campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 entry note. He failed to include the wapentake heads for any of them, as he did for virtually all unrubricated added entries. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. This entry is a duplicate of one already entered in the king's fief (1,25), though that entry also includes details of a smallholder and his oxen. For an unrubricated entry added in the king's lands that was a duplicate of one in this section on the lands of the king's thanes, see 1,65 entry note. For other added entries in Domesday Nottinghamshire that were duplicates, se e \{Introduction: Duplicate Entries\} and compare 30,55 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Warsop (30,53).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WARSOP. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For other references to Warsop, see 1,24-25. 9,40. Warsop is now divided into Market Warsop (SK6557) and Church Warsop (SK5668).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab HOLDS ... IN ALMS. This distinguishes the tenure from othe r cases in this chapter where someone 'holds from the king'. In some counties, the king's almslands form a separate chapter, and the uncertainty about how to treat this land is reflected in the fact that it is duplicated, with fuller detail at 1,25. This grant was made out of the royal manor of Mansfield (1,23) of which Warsop (1,24-25) was a dependency.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,54\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY, the previous one (30,53) and the next two (30,55-56) were added by the main scribe of Great Domesday at the end of the lands of the king's thanes on folio 293b. He did not keep to the scored lines but put six lines of writing onto five ruled lines, although there was no need to economize on space as there were still 18 lines blank after them. They were probably written during a large campaign of addition after the county had been rubricated; see 12,22 entry note. However, the formula for the value statement in the present entry is not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries, but occurs in circuits written up late r , which may suggest that it was added after he had finished work on the whole circuit; see 10,64 entry note. He failed to include the wapentake heads for any of them, as he did for virtually all unrubricated added entries. For other entries added by him t hat were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. \par \tab \tab There would seem to have been confusion over some of the holdings in Clarborough and Tiln because he had already added an entry for Tiln before rubrication (1,31 entry note), while scribe B added details of a Jurisdiction in Clarborough (5,8 Clarborough note), a note on a mill in Tiln (5,8 Laneham note) and interlined 'and Tiln' in an entry for Clarborough (1,41 Tiln note).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [OSWALDBECK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Clarborough (30,54).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab CLARBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 107; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 227. For other parts, see 1,41. 5,8. 9,127-128. 30,39. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab As with other added entries, there is no indication of the status of this piece of land, but the fact that it had a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holder and a value suggests it was a manor.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ARNKETIL. On this name, see 9,44 Arnketil note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ERNWIN. On this name, see 9,109 Ernwin note; see also 30,11 Ernwy note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE VALUE WAS 4s; NOW 2s. This is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries; compare 5,6 formerly note, 2,3 value note and 10,64 value note. On th e significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,55\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY, the two previous ones (30,53-54) and the next one (30,56) were added by the main scribe of Great Domesday at the end of the lands of the king's thanes on folio 293b. He did not ke ep to the scored lines but put six lines of writing onto five ruled lines, although there was no need to economize on space as there were still 18 lines blank after them. He failed to include the wapentake heads for any of them, as he did for virtually al l unrubricated added entries. They were probably written during a large campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 entry note. However, the formula for the status of this holding is one not found elsewhere in circuit VI, though it occurs in circuits written up after it, which suggests that this entry may have been written up after he had finished work on the whole circuit. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. \par \tab \tab Most of this added entry seems to be a duplicate of an entry already recorded in William Peverel's fief where 12 bovates in 'Sutton Passeys' (10,38) were said to be a Jurisdiction of Wollaton (10,35). The fact that the present entry also provides the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 holders of the 12 bovates and gives details of a further 1 \'bd carucates held by Wulfsi there, apparently also a Jurisdiction of Wollaton, was probably the reason why the duplicate was not noticed. For other added entries that were duplicates, see \{Introduction: Duplicate Entries\}. Another Jurisdiction of William Peverel's manor of Wollaton (10,37) may have been duplicated, though misplaced; see 1,46 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab [BROWTOWE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of 'Sutton Passeys' (30,55).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab 'SUTTON [PASSEYS]'. This lost place lay in Wollaton Ancient Parish. The information given in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , p. 154, should now be rejected in favour of Cameron, 'Deserted Medieval Village of Sutton Passeys'. Cameron gives a detailed history and topograp hy of the estate and suggests that its centre lay at SK544400. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab Like Wollaton itself (1,47. 10,35) it probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 111; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 229. For the apparent duplicate of most of this entry in 10,38, see 30,55 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AELFRIC . On his name, see 5,6 Aelfric note, and on his possible identity, see 30,8 Aelfric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab BRUN. On this name, see 10,28 Brun note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab AS 2 MANORS. This takes the place of a marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 IIM'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , denoting that the manor had been held by two people in 1066. It is a formula not found in circuit VI, except in added entries (see also here in 10,64 and 20,8), but it occurs in most of the circuits written after it. On the significance of this, see 10, 64 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab WULFSI. On this name, see 9,36 Wulfsi note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab THE JURISDICTION LIES IN WOLLATON. That is, presumably the jurisdiction of Wulfsi's 1\'bd carucates which are not described as a manor. However, the 12 bovates of 'Sutton Passeys' duplicated in Willi am Peverel's fief (10,38) are there described as a Jurisdiction (not as two manors), most probably of Wollaton (10,35); see 30,55 entry note. Thus, the manor in Wollaton that has the jurisdiction is presumably William Peverel's. The king holds in Wollaton , but only an outlier (1,47) of Arnold (1,45). Wollaton probably originated as a grant from Arnold. \par \tab \tab On the phrase 'jurisdiction lies in', see 10,50 jurisdiction note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab IT IS WASTE. This overrun was indicated by the main scribe of Great Domesday with a gal lows sign, but this is not visible in the Alecto facsimile though it is clear in the manuscript and in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. For other problems of reproduction in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 30,56\tab THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY and the t hree previous ones (30,53-55) were added by the main scribe of Great Domesday at the end of the lands of the king's thanes on folio 293b. He did not keep to the scored lines but put six lines of writing onto five ruled lines, although there was no need to economize on space as there were still 18 lines blank after them. They were probably written during a large campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 entry note. He failed to include the wapentake heads for any of them, as he did for virtually all unrubricated added entries. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. For the addition of another entry in Ordsall, see 9,23 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Ordsall.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab ORDSALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Feudal Aids}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 , iv. p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 ), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,5;12-13. 9,19;23. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \tab \tab This added entry probably originated as a grant out of the royal manor of Bothamsall (1,9) and may even duplicate the 1 bovate that is listed as a Jurisdiction of that manor at 1,12.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid801729 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid6823374 \tab ERNWY. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 On this name, see 16,5 Ernwy note; see also 30,11 Ernwy note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid801729 \par }{\insrsid6823374 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 main scribe of Great Domesday left the rest of the column blank, before writing the account of 'Roteland' on folio 293cd and 294a.}{\insrsid801729 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid6823374 \par }}