{\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};}
{\f3\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05050102010706020507}Symbol;}{\f4\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Helvetica;}{\f37\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603060405020304}Times{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f703\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f704\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f706\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f707\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f708\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f709\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f710\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f711\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f743\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Helvetica CE;}
{\f744\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Helvetica Cyr;}{\f746\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Helvetica Greek;}{\f747\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Helvetica Tur;}{\f748\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Helvetica (Hebrew);}{\f749\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Helvetica (Arabic);}
{\f750\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Helvetica Baltic;}{\f751\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Helvetica (Vietnamese);}{\f1073\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f1074\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f1076\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f1077\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f1078\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f1079\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f1080\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f1081\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}}{\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\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\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\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\f4\fs28\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 Heading;}{\s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\cf1\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 Body Text;}{
\s17\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\cf1\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon16 \snext17 List;}{\s18\ql \li0\ri0\sb120\sa120\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\i\f37\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext18 \ssemihidden caption;}{\s19\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext19 
Index;}{\s20\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext20 Plain Text;}{\s21\ql \fi-1134\li1134\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx1134\tx1418\tx9781\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin1134\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext21 dday;}{\*\cs22 \additive \f3 RTF_Num 2 1;}{\*\cs23 \additive RTF_Num 2 2;}{\*\cs24 \additive RTF_Num 2 3;}{\*\cs25 
\additive RTF_Num 2 4;}{\*\cs26 \additive RTF_Num 2 5;}{\*\cs27 \additive RTF_Num 2 6;}{\*\cs28 \additive RTF_Num 2 7;}{\*\cs29 \additive RTF_Num 2 8;}{\*\cs30 \additive RTF_Num 2 9;}}{\*\revtbl {Unknown;}}{\*\pgptbl {\pgp\ipgp0\itap0\li0\ri0\sb0\sa0}}
{\*\rsidtbl \rsid6037987\rsid6894405\rsid6902632}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6612;}{\info{\author matt}{\operator John Palmer}{\creatim\yr2007\mo7\dy21\hr20\min55}{\revtim\yr2007\mo7\dy30\hr19\min51}{\printim\yr2113\mo1\dy1}{\version3}{\edmins3}
{\nofpages65}{\nofwords28304}{\nofchars161338}{\*\company  University of Hull}{\nofcharsws189264}{\vern16389}}\deftab1080\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\makebackup\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120
\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot6894405 \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 \s21\qc \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid6894405 NOTES
\par }{\insrsid6894405 (version 1a)}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard \s21\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 {\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE. }{\cf1\insrsid6894405 
The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the running title }{\i\insrsid6894405 NORTHANT'SCIRE }{\cf1\insrsid6894405 in vermilion capitals across the top of}{\insrsid6894405  folios 219ab to 229ab,}{\cf1\insrsid6894405 
 centred above both columns. This is also the form used in the heading to the Landholders' List on folio 219b}{\insrsid6894405 . }{\i\insrsid6894405 NORTHANTONESCIRE}{\insrsid6894405  is written in full in B36. }{\cf1\insrsid6894405 
There is no running title on folio 229cd, which}{\insrsid6894405  was originally blank, but now contains part of an Edward I Inquisition in a later hand.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 {\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 B1\tab PERSONS in this section on the borough of Northampton who are major landholders are discussed below at the head of their own chapter.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab 60 BURGESS
ES ... AS MANY MESSUAGES. The detail amounts to 61. The clear implication is that the 47 (or 46) messuages left are still inhabited by burgesses. There is often a link between the number of burgesses and the number of messuages: in DBY B1-2 there is a cor
respondence between the 243 burgesses there in 1066 and the 140 burgesses and 103 unoccupied messuages there in 1086.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\cf1\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
IN THE NEW BOROUGH. Possibly a new quarter to replace buildings devastated by Earl Morcar's army in 1065. Nottingham similarly consisted of an old and new borough in 1086 (NTT B3); see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday Geography of Midland England}{
\insrsid6894405 , p. 415.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 B2\tab 
29s 4d. Old English currency lasted for a thousand years until 1971. The pound contained 20 shillings, each of 12 pence, abbreviated }{\i\insrsid6894405 \'a3}{\insrsid6894405 (}{\i\insrsid6894405 ibrae}{\insrsid6894405 ) }{\i\insrsid6894405 s}{
\insrsid6894405 (}{\i\insrsid6894405 olidi}{\insrsid6894405 ) and }{\i\insrsid6894405 d}{\insrsid6894405 (}{\i\insrsid6894405 enarii}{\insrsid6894405 
). Domesday often expresses sums above a shilling in pence (for example, 32d instead of 2s 8d) and above a pound in shillings, as here.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 B8\tab ABBOT OF SELBY. Benedict of Auxerre, founder of the abbey; see 41,3 Stanford note. He resigned and retired to Rochester in 1096/1097.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 B17\tab WILLIAM THE ARTIFICER. }{\i\insrsid6894405 Inganie }{\insrsid6894405 from Old French suggests both 'engineer' and 'ingenious', 'crafty', 'tricky'; see Tengvik, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Old English Bynames}{\insrsid6894405 
, pp. 347-48. See NTH 60; also HUN 26 William note and OXF 58 Richard note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 B20\tab 
WINEMAR [* OF FLANDERS *]. The name Winemar occurs on 35 holdings and probably represents five individuals. The Winemar who held 30 holdings in Northamptonshire and one in Buckinghamshire was probably the same individual, named Winemar of Flanders in Buck
i
nghamshire (BUK 46). The descent of his manors also identifies him as the Winemar with a fief in Northamptonshire (NTH 40). Winemar's Buckinghamshire manor was at Hanslope (46,1), which identifies him as the Winemar of 'Hanslip', tenant of Countess Judith
 
(56,51;65), almost certainly the same Winemar who held from her in neighbouring vills (B34. 56,54-57h). Winemar 'of Hanslip' was also associated with the Bishop of Coutances in one holding (56,65) and so was probably the Winemar who was his tenant at Hack
l
eton and Preston Deanery, particularly as Winemar of Flanders held in chief in the latter vill. Of the remaining Northamptonshire properties, one was in Northampton itself, where Winemar held alongside Countess Judith (B20); another was in Wootton, where 
he held as tenant-in-chief; and a third was at Rothersthorpe (44,2) where his son held demesne land (Farrer, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Honors and Knights' Fees}{\insrsid6894405 
, i. pp. 95-99). It is improbable, given the peculiar distribution of the name, that the one remaining Northamptonshire hold
ing, at Knuston, was held by a different individual. It has been suggested that the same man also held at Stoke in Devon (DEV 20,12), Colchester in Essex (ESS B3a), and Tuddenham in Norfolk (NFK 66,68); but given the modest scale of all three properties, 
the distances involved, and the absence of the Flemish connection evident on Winemar's Northamptonshire properties, this seems unlikely, despite the rarity of the name; see Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday People}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 408 (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 B29\tab STOKE [BRUERNE]. Swein's holding is detailed in 50,1.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 B30\tab ANSFRID OF VAUBADON. Near Bayeux, in the French d\'e9
partement of Calvados; see Tengvik, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Old English Bynames}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 116.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 B31\tab 1 HOUSE AT 4d. The manuscript has }{\i\insrsid6894405 ii.}{\insrsid6894405  }{\i\insrsid6894405 den' }{\insrsid6894405 ,}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 with superscript }{\i\insrsid6894405 ii}{\insrsid6894405 
 correcting the figure to }{\i\insrsid6894405 iiii}{\insrsid6894405 .}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 B36\tab THREE NIGHTS' REVENUE. Originally the amount of food needed to support the king and his household for three nights, though by the eleventh century these food rents were generally commuted; see Poole, }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Exchequer in the 12th Century}{\insrsid6894405 , p.}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 29. As \'a3100 was the average 1086 payment for one night's revenue, the \'a330 here may be a mistake for \'a3300, }{\i\insrsid6894405 xxx}{\insrsid6894405  and }{
\i\insrsid6894405 ccc}{\insrsid6894405  being often similar in eleventh-century hands.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab WHITE POUNDS. Or 'blanched' or 'dealbated', }{\i\insrsid6894405 albas}{\insrsid6894405 ,}{\i\insrsid6894405  candidas}{\insrsid6894405 ,}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 or }{\i\insrsid6894405 blancas }{\insrsid6894405 
in Domesday. A sample of coin was melted as a test for the presence of alloy or baser metal. Money could also be said to be blanched when, without a test by fire, a standard deduction was made to allow for clipping or alloying. See Johnson, }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Dialogus de Scaccario}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 125; and B36 "ora" note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab AT 20 [PENCE] TO THE "ORA". An "ora"}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 
was literally an ounce, a unit of currency still in use in Scandinavia. It was reckoned at either 16d or 20d. The rate of 16d was normal, the 20d payment being regarded as the equivalent of 16d in blanched or assayed coi
n. See Harvey, 'Royal Revenue and Domesday Terminology'.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab QUEEN EDITH'S MANORS. Queen Edith was wife of King Edward (the Confessor), and daughter of Earl Godwin; she died in 1076. Her manor was Finedon (1,32).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 B37\tab THE SHERIFF. William of Keynes whose holdings in the county are listed in NTH 34.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 L10\tab THORNEY ABBEY. }{\i\insrsid6894405 Torniyg}{\insrsid6894405  in the manuscript is reproduced as }{\i\insrsid6894405 Tornyg}{\insrsid6894405  by Farley.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 L15\tab THE CHURCH OF SAINT-REMY, RHEIMS. The order of this and the following entry 
in the Landholders' List (L16: Ansger the chaplain) does not correspond to the text, where the chapters are reversed. The List here is more correct, placing church holdings before those of individuals as in other counties. However, the numbering in this e
dition follows the order of the text.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 L16\tab ANSGER THE CHAPLAIN. See L15 Saint-R\'e9my note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,1\tab 
KETTON. It lay in Witchley Wapentake (or Hundred) in 1086. Later Ketton was in 'East' Hundred, and Tixover, its member, in 'Wrangditch' Hundred following Witchley Wapentake's division into two hundreds, both of which were fully transferred to Rutland by t
he thirteenth century; see \{Introduction: The County Boundary\}. A marginal }{\i\insrsid6894405 Rotel'}{\insrsid6894405  in a later hand indicates the change of county.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab The manor remained crown land until granted in 1156 by Henry II (with Stamford, in Lincolnshire) to Richard }{\i\insrsid6894405 de Humez}{\insrsid6894405 , consta
ble of Normandy and sheriff of Rutland. It was forfeited in 1204, and thereafter remained crown land for a considerable period, being granted out for life from time to time; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Book of Fees}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 1151; }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 208; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 255. Kilthorpe (SK9803) was a member of Ketton; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 259; }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Place-Names of Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 151.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab 7 HIDES. The hide was a unit of land measurement, either of productivity, extent, or tax liability. It contained four virgates. Attempts were made to stand
ardize the hide at 120 acres, but incomplete revision and special local reductions left hides of widely different extent in different areas. See SUS \{Appendix\}.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab 12 FREEMEN. }{\i\insrsid6894405 Sochemans}{\insrsid6894405  here (singular, }{\i\insrsid6894405 socheman}{\insrsid6894405 ), also Latinized as }{\i\insrsid6894405 socmannus}{\insrsid6894405  (plural }{\i\insrsid6894405 socmanni}{
\insrsid6894405 ). These were 'soke men', exercising or subject to jurisdiction, and free from many villagers' burdens. Before 1066 they often had more land and status than villagers; see BDF \{Introduction: Freemen\} and MDX \{Appendix\}
. They are bracketed in the Commissioners' brief with the }{\i\insrsid6894405 liber homo}{\insrsid6894405  ('free man'); see Maitland, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday Book and Beyond}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 66-79.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab 24 VILLAGERS. In the manuscript }{\i\insrsid6894405 vill'i}{\insrsid6894405  is incorrectly reproduced by Farley as }{\i\insrsid6894405 uill'}{\insrsid6894405 . The manuscript is rubbed here.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab TIXOVER. It descended with Ketton until granted 1104 x 1106 to Robert, Bishop of Lincoln, who gave it to the Abbey of Cluny together with half of Manton in Rutland (a member of Hambleton (RUT 1,19) in 1086); see }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Book of Fees}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 1151; }{\i\insrsid6894405 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 54; }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 209; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 228.}{\insrsid6902632 

\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,2a\tab BARROWDEN. It was in Witchley Wapentake (or Hundred) in 1086. Later, together with all its members, it was in 'Wrangditch' Hundred, following Witchley Wapentake's division into 'East' Hundred and 'Wrangditch' Hundred, both 
of which were fully transferred to Rutland by the thirteenth century; see \{Introduction: The County Boundary\}.
\par \tab \tab Barrowden with members remained Crown land until Henry I granted it to his queen, Matilda. She gave part or all to Michael }{\i\insrsid6894405 de Hanslope}{\insrsid6894405  and it f
ormed part of the barony of Hanslope until given to his daughter Maud who married William Mauduit, son of the Domesday tenant of that name. Much of the land descended in the Mauduit family and formed part of the barony of Warwick after another William Mau
duit became Earl of Warwick in 1263; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 66 no. 818a; }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. pp. 205, 209; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 
, ii. pp. 170, 211.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab 4 HIDES LESS 1 VIRGATE. The missing virgate may be that attached to Seaton (26,3).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab MEMBERS. Barro
wden, like Higham Ferrers (35,1) was an important multiple estate. Its members are not specified as outliers or jurisdictions. In addition to those named, Pilton (SK9102) was a member and followed the same descent as the capital manor; see }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 209; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 
, ii. p. 211. Though still functioning as a multiple estate, Barrowden had perhaps once been larger, and included [North] Luffenham and 'Sculthorp' (1,3). It had also perhaps once been part of a major royal complex that included Ketton 
(1,1), Oakham, Hambleton and Ridlington (RUT 1,17-20) and possibly Casterton (1,4); see RUT \{Introduction: Manorial Organization\}.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,2b\tab SEATON. This estate was given by Henry I's queen to Michael }{\i\insrsid6894405 de Hanslope}{\insrsid6894405 , but part at least was later part of a serjeantry held by Henry's crossbowman (}{\i\insrsid6894405 balistarius}{
\insrsid6894405 ) Erneis and his descendants, the }{\i\insrsid6894405 de Seaton}{\insrsid6894405  family; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 66 no. 818a; }{\i\insrsid6894405 Book of Fees}{\insrsid6894405 
, p. 10; }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 209; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 216.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\cf1\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 1 \'bd
 HIDES AND 1 BOVATE. The Danish carucates and bovates (of which there were eight to a carucate) make an occasional appearance in Domesday Northamptonshire; they are the norm in the adjacent }{\i\insrsid6894405 Roteland}{\insrsid6894405 
, Leicestershire and Lincolnshire. Sometimes, as here, the two systems of assessment are intermixed. On the mixing of hidation and carucation, see \{Introduction: Hidation\}
. The other part of Seaton (26,3) at 1 hide and 1 bovate has a similar mixed measure.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 4 ACRES. In the manuscript }{\i\insrsid6894405 ii. ac'}{
\insrsid6894405  with superscript }{\i\insrsid6894405 ii}{\insrsid6894405  to correct to }{\i\insrsid6894405 iiii}{\insrsid6894405 .}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,2c\tab THORPE[-BY-WATER]. It was given, like Seaton (1,2b), by Henry I's queen to Michael }{\i\insrsid6894405 de Hanslope}{\insrsid6894405 , but part at least was later part of a serjeantry held by Henry's crossbowman (}{
\i\insrsid6894405 balistarius}{\insrsid6894405 ) Erneis and his descendants, the }{\i\insrsid6894405 de Seaton}{\insrsid6894405  family; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 66 no. 818a; }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 209; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. pp. 216-17. Detached parts of this parish were added to Lyddington (Rutland) and Gretton (Northamptonshire) in 1885.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,2d\tab MORCOTT. Part of this member of Barrowden descended with the main manor, part was granted with other portions of Barrowden by Henry I and his queen to Erneis his }{\i\insrsid6894405 balistarius}{\insrsid6894405 
 (crossbowman), and became a manor in its own right, being held by his descendants who took the name }{\i\insrsid6894405 de Seaton}{\insrsid6894405 ; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 209; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{
\insrsid6894405 , ii. pp. 207, 216.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,2e\tab BISBROOKE. It was granted with other portions of Barrowden by Henry I and his queen to Erneis his }{\i\insrsid6894405 balistarius}{\insrsid6894405  (crossbowman); see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 
, iv. p. 209; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 216.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab GLASTON. It is named in the spurious foundation grant of 664 purporting to be by King Wulfhere to the Abbey of }{\i\insrsid6894405 Medeshamstede}{\insrsid6894405  (Peterborough): }{\i\insrsid6894405 Early Charters of Eastern England
}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 107 ( = Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid6894405 , no. 68). After 1086, part of Glaston descended with Barrowden to the Earls of Warwick, part became a serjeantry held by Henry I's crossbowman, Erneis; see }
{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. pp. 205, 209; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. pp. 182, 216.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,2f\tab [SOUTH] LUFFENHAM. It followed the descent of Barrowden; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 66 no. 818a; }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 209; }{
\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 204. For North Luffenham, which is so identified because of its association with 'Sculthorp', see 1,3.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,2g\tab SEATON \'85 WOO
DLAND. The same amount of woodland is included in the other entry for Seaton (26,3). It seems probable that it is actually the same piece of woodland, of which Robert of Tosny (the fief-holder) is said to hold 'only the third part'; see 26,3 woodland note
).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab 1 FURLONG. A furlong is 220 yards or an eighth of a mile.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab SPINNEY. }{\i\f710\insrsid6894405 Spinet\'fb vi q' }{\insrsid6894405 ...}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 in the manuscript. Farley added }{\i\insrsid6894405 7}{\insrsid6894405  in error after }{\i\f710\insrsid6894405 Spinet
\'fb}{\insrsid6894405 .}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,3\tab 
[NORTH] LUFFENHAM AND 'SCULTHORP'. Both were in Witchley Wapentake (or Hundred) in 1086; later in 'Wrangditch' Hundred, following Witchley Wapentake's division into 'East' Hundred and 'Wrangditch' Hundred, both of which were fully transferred to Rutland b
y the thirteenth century; see \{Introduction: The County Boundary\}. It is possible that these lands had once been members of Barrowden (1,2) which continued in 1086 to contain another part of 'Luffenham', South Luffenham (1,2f).
\par \tab \tab North Luffenham (including 'Sculthorp') remained Crown land until granted by Henry II to his brother William }{\i\insrsid6894405 Longespee}{\insrsid6894405  who subinfeudated it to Solomon his }{\i\insrsid6894405 dispensator}{\insrsid6894405 
 ('bursar') or }{\i\insrsid6894405 ostiarius }{\insrsid6894405 ('usher'). It was later granted to the Mauduit family (like Barrowden 1,2) and passed to the earldom of Warwick. John Bassett held }{\i\insrsid6894405 North Luffinham}{\insrsid6894405 
 in 1305 (}{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 205) from the Earl of Warwick; his holding became a manor called 'Bassetts'; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 196.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab 'Sculthorp' lay to the south-\-west of North Luffenham and is included with the latter in }{\i\insrsid6894405 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid6894405 
, p. 247. It is now only represented by Sculthorp Spinney (SK930027). There are signs of a deserted medieval village at SK923038 and SK927028; see Beresford, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Lost Villages of England}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 384; Beresford and Hurst, }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Deserted Medieval Villages}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 202; Brown, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Rutland Archaeological Sites}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 20; }{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 257.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab QUEEN EDITH HELD THESE LANDS. This could refer only to North Luffenham and 'Sculthorp', though they might be regarded as a single unit. No }{\i\insrsid6894405 T.R.E.}{\insrsid6894405 
 holder is given for Ketton and Barrowden (1,1-2) and it is possible that all three were the queen's. This would have given her an important group of royal manors of which Oakham, Hambleton and Ridlington (RUT 1,17-20) were her dower-lands; see RUT \{
Introduction: Manorial Organization\}. The fact that the scribe began a new line for this sentence, beginning it slightly into the central margin and rubricating the }{\i\insrsid6894405 H}{\insrsid6894405  of }{\i\insrsid6894405 Has}{\insrsid6894405 
, strongly suggests that it was not part of 1,3, but referred to all the previous entries in the fief.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab HUGH OF PORT. He was a Norman from Port-en-Bessin, in the French d\'e9partement of Calvados (arrondissement Bayeux, canton Ryes). He was sheriff of Hampshire with a fief in that county whose }{\i\insrsid6894405 caput}{
\insrsid6894405  was at [Old] Basing. He was also apparently farming the royal manors of Ketton, Barrowden, North Luffenham and 'Sculthorp' in Northamptonshire (1,1-3), which Queen Edith had held (see 1,3 queen note) and possibly also her }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Roteland}{\insrsid6894405  manors as well; see RUT \{Introduction: History\}. It is unlikely that he was sheriff of the joint sheriffdom of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire; this notion may have arisen from his r\'f4le in }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Roteland}{\insrsid6894405  which was attached to Nottinghamshire in 1086; see Green, }{\i\insrsid6894405 English Sheriffs}{\insrsid6894405 
, p. 67. Hugh became a monk at St Peter's, Gloucester, in 1096 just before his death. His son Henry succeeded him. A daughter, Emma, married William I de Percy. See Loyd, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 79; Tengvik, }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Old English Bynames}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 108; Sanders, }{\i\insrsid6894405 English Baronies}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 9; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday People}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 266.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,4\tab [GREAT] CASTERTON. In Witchley Wapentake (or Hundred) in 1086; later in 'East' Hundred, following Witchley's division into 'East' and 'Wrangditch' Hundreds, both of which were fully transfe
rred to Rutland by the thirteenth century; see \{Introduction: The County Boundary\}. A marginal }{\i\insrsid6894405 Rotel'}{\insrsid6894405  in a later hand indicates the change of county.
\par \tab \tab The estate continued to be Crown land until Henry III granted it to his son Edmund Crouchback in 1267; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. pp. 205, 208; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 
, ii. p. 232. For Little Casterton, see 58,1.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab EARL MORCAR. He was the son of Algar and his wife Aelfeva, grandson of Earl Leofric and brother of Earl Edwin. Algar was Earl of 
East Anglia 1051-1052, later of Mercia from about 1057. Morcar was chosen as earl by the Northumbrians when they had deposed Earl Tosti (King Harold's brother) in 1065. He marched south and occupied and devastated Northamptonshire, while through Earl Haro
ld he negotiated his creation as Earl of Northumberland.\- He submitted to King William, but rebelled twice and was in custody in Normandy at the time of the Domesday Survey.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab HUGH SON OF BALDRIC. Under William the Conqueror he was sheriff not only of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire (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's successor. His sons-in-law were Guy of Craon and Walter of Rivers, both Domesday tenants.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,5\tab "PORTLAND"...}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 BOROUGH [* OF STAMFORD *]. The name of the borough is not given. Both Peterborough and Stamford (Lincolnshire) have ch
urches dedicated to Saint Peter and to All Saints. However, the use of carucates suggests a location in an ex-Danelaw shire, and the position of the entry after Casterton suggests a place in Witchley Wapentake to which Stamford is adjacent.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab "Portland"}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 is}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 
not found as a name in Stamford, but may not be a place-name at all, being 'land of the market town' or 'land at', or of, 'a market'; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 English Place-Name Elements}{\insrsid6894405 , i. under}{\i\insrsid6894405  port}{
\insrsid6894405 ; }{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , p. xlix.}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 The bounds of Stamford field lying west
 of the town and north of the River Welland were probably different in 1086. It seems that a detached part of }{\i\insrsid6894405 Roteland}{\insrsid6894405 
, formerly held by Queen Edith, lay in some of the town's lands, and that it probably depended on a manor or manors in 'Martinsley' Wapentake, in }{\i\insrsid6894405 Roteland}{\insrsid6894405 
) for Queen Edith had 70 residences in Stamford (LIN S9) 'which lay in Rutland', with 2 \'bd carucates attached. In the Middle Ages the hamlet of Bredcroft [in Tinwell] and the west field of Stamford still belonged to 'Queen Edith's fee'; see }{
\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , i. p. 141 note 17; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , i. pp. 277-78; Phythian-Adams, 'Rutland Reconsidered', pp. 70-71; Mahany and Roffe, 'Stamford', pp. 201-203; }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , p. xlix. The king held }{\i\insrsid6894405 Bradecroft}{\insrsid6894405  in 1316 (}{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 208); see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Rutland}{
\insrsid6894405 , p. 168.
\par \tab \tab Another part of "Portland" was part of Witchley Wapentake in Northamptonshire to judge from the present entry. On the significance of these relationships, see RUT \{Introduction: History\}; RUT \{Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\}.

\par \tab \tab In 1086 five wards of Stamford were situated in Lincolnshire, though enclosed on three sides by Witchley Wapentake, Northamptonshire, which separated it from }{\i\insrsid6894405 Roteland}{\insrsid6894405 
. A sixth ward lay south of the River Welland in Northamptonshire (LIN S1).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab 2 CARUCATES. The carucate is a measure of land used in former Danish districts and presenting the same problems of definition as the hide; see Ellis, }{\i\insrsid6894405 General Introductuion to Domesday Book}{\insrsid6894405 
, i. p. 149; Round, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal England}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 36-68.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab ST PETER'S CHURCH. St Peter's was the mother church of the borough of Stamford. According to LIN S13, Albert [the cleric, also known as Albert of Lorraine] had the church of St Peter's with two residences and \'bd
 carucate of land 'which lies in (}{\i\insrsid6894405 iacet in}{\insrsid6894405 ) }{\i\insrsid6894405 Roteland}{\insrsid6894405 , in Hambleton'. The Latin }{\i\insrsid6894405 quae}{\insrsid6894405  refers to the }{\i\insrsid6894405 terra}{\insrsid6894405 
 ('land'). Albert held land in Hambleton, but the residences were clearly in Stamford, and it is probable that the \'bd carucate was as well. 'Lies in' is therefore probably equivalent to 'belongs to' as often in
 Domesday and does not give a location. The connection between Stamford and Hambleton which may be part of a larger relationship between the borough and 'Martinsley' Wapentake, or "Roteland" may well have been ancient.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab ALL SAINTS' CHURCH. This was probably the oldest church of Stamford after St Peter's with whose parish it was amalgamated in 1547; see Youngs, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid6894405 
, ii. pp. 280-81; Mahany and Roffe, 'Stamford', pp. 202-203.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,6\tab BLAKESLEY. Woodend (SP6149) was formerly Little Blakesley and represents the Peverel holding (see 35,24 Blakesley note). The other Domesday holdings (here, 18,95 and 22,7) were probably at Blakesley itself.}{\insrsid6902632 

\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab LAND [FOR *** PLOUGHS]. The number of ploughs is omitted.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab 4 LEAGUES. Generally reckoned as a mile and a half though the measurement may actually have been less than a mile or the term may well have been used loosely in Domesday; see Round in }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Northamptonshire}{
\insrsid6894405 , i. p. 280.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab WHEN STOCKED. Probably with game; see 56,7 'when it is stocked and the king is hunting there'.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,8\tab WHITFIELD. An outlier, in 'Alboldstow' Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 369a).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\i\insrsid6894405 \tab INLAND}{\insrsid6894405 .}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 The lord's land, usually exempt from tax, comparable with }{\i\insrsid6894405 dominium }{\insrsid6894405 ('lordship').}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,10\tab IN COLLINGTREE HUNDRED. The Domesday form here is }{\i\insrsid6894405 Coltrewestan}{\insrsid6894405 ,}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 probably an alternative form of }{\i\insrsid6894405 Colentreu }{\insrsid6894405 and }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Colestreu}{\insrsid6894405 .}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,13a\tab 
BRIGSTOCK. Two of the members, Geddington and Stanion, were in Corby Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 387a,b); the third, Islip, if correctly identified, must have been a remote outlier in 'Huxloe' Hundred. The 1 hide 3 virgates here, add
ed to the 1 hide 1 virgate at 4,27 corres\-pond to the three hides at Islip in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 365a) and support the identification.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,14\tab GRETTON, ABOVE. See 1,11.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,15a\tab 
MEMBERS. The first five (Loddington to Desborough), were later in Rothwell Hundred; Kelmarsh, Oxendon and Clipston are in 'Stotfold' Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, pp. 383b-384a), and Cransley and Broughton were later in Orlingbury Hundred
. All are on the borders of Rothwell Hundred and may have been regarded as part of it in 1086. The rest of Kelmarsh was probably in Rothwell Hundred (35,13 Kelmarsh note); the other parts of Oxendon and Clipston were certainly in 'Stotfold' Hundred.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,16\tab THE KING'S FOREST. Possibly Rockingham Forest which in the Middle Ages extended as far south as the River Nene; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday Geography of Midland England}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 418.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab HOLCOT. It was later in 'Hamfordshoe' Hundred, but perhaps in Mawsley Hundred in 1086; see 56,43 Holcot note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,17\tab IN LORDSHIP. Gall has been applied to the manuscript over the word }{\i\insrsid6894405 dn'io}{\insrsid6894405 , but it is just legible.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab WALGRAVE AND OLD. The superscript }{\i\insrsid6894405 b}{\insrsid6894405  and }{\i\insrsid6894405 a }{\insrsid6894405 
may be intended to correct the order, suggesting perhaps that Old came first in the original return and is the more important, possibly a manor with Waldegrave as its outlier. In the manuscript the }{\i\insrsid6894405 a is }{\insrsid6894405 
written slightly further to the left than it is printed in Farley's edition. See LEC 10,17 held note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,18\tab THE KING HOLDS. }{\i\insrsid6894405 ten' }{\insrsid6894405 in the manuscript and Farley; the Ordnance Survey facsimile does not reproduce the rather faint abbreviation sign.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab KINGSTHORPE. A hundred head, 'Spelhoe', may have be
en omitted. Geographically Kingsthorpe, like Moulton (1,18. 30,14. 56,29;33;44) and Weston Favell (1,18. 14,6. 18,4;82. 48,13), fell in 'Spelhoe' Hundred, but the same amount of land is included at Kingsthorpe in Mawsley Hundred in the Northamptonshire Su
rvey (Round, p. 381a). Moulton and Weston have parts in both hundreds in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 381a).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,21\tab B
ARFORD. Both this place and Rushton (1,22) were later in Rothwell Hundred. Places in Rothwell Hundred that were held by the king have already been entered in NTH 1 and it is possible that Barford and Rushton intruding here between places in Willybrook Hun
dred are really outliers of Nassington (1,20), like Apethorpe (1,23).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,22\tab RUSHTON. On its hundred, see 1,21 Barford note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,23\tab APETHORPE. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Patorp}{\insrsid6894405 ; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 198; Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 388a).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,25\tab BARNWELL. Clearly in 'Huxloe' Hundred in 9,5; but the text here implies an outlier of Tansor which is in Willybrook Hundred. There are later two villages, Barnwell All Saints and Barnwel
l St Andrew, though still apparently regarded as one in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 365b) and in }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 13; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 
, pp. 178, 210. The royal holding was Barnwell All Saints.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,26\tab EARL ALGAR. He wa
s son of Earl Leofric and Countess (Lady) Godiva and father of Earl Edwin of Mercia and of Earl Morcar of Northumbria. Earl Algar was Earl of Mercia in succession to his father, but died before 1066. Although Edwin succeeded to the earldom of Mercia, he i
s seldom recorded as the }{\i\insrsid6894405 T.R.E.}{\insrsid6894405  holder.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 1,27\tab 
BOVI <OF ARLESCOTE>. The name Bovi occurs on eight holdings, six of them in central England. Those in Leicestershire and Warwickshire, which devolved upon the Count of Meulan, are grouped around the two Nor
thamptonshire 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 Meulan are from each other, so this too may have belonged to the same individual (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab A CASTLE. It is still to be seen south of the village.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 1,30\tab AT FACE VALUE. }{\i\insrsid6894405 Numer' }{
\insrsid6894405 in the manuscript and Farley; the Ordnance Survey facsimile does not reproduce the faint abbreviation sign over the }{\i\insrsid6894405 r}{\insrsid6894405 .}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 1,32\tab FINEDON. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Tingdene}{\insrsid6894405 ,}{\i\insrsid6894405  Thingdene}{\insrsid6894405 .}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 See the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 389a); }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Place-Names of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 181.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab QUEEN EDITH. See B36 queen note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
27 HIDES. There is a gap of two letters in the manuscript between the }{\i\insrsid6894405 xx}{\insrsid6894405  and the }{\i\insrsid6894405 vii}{\insrsid6894405 . In the left-hand margin is }{\i\insrsid6894405 rq' hid' num' }{\insrsid6894405 
('ask the number of hides'). In fact the figure seems to be nearly correct, the detail amounting to 26 hides, 3 virgates and 3 parts of a hide.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
IN GRETTON HUNDRED. Lying between 'Huxloe' Hundred and Rothwell Hundred, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Geritone is }{\insrsid6894405 
probably an alternative name for Corby, the lands of Finedon being listed anti-clockwise. Gretton, from which the name appears to be derived, lies in Corby Hundred; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 166.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 2\tab THE BISHOP OF BAYEUX. Odo, half-brother
 of King William. He was Earl of Kent and regent during some of William's absences.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 2,1\tab WITH FULL JURISDICTION. The Latin }{\i\insrsid6894405 
cum saca et soca}{\insrsid6894405  is from Old English }{\i\insrsid6894405 sacu}{\insrsid6894405  ('cause', affair', 'matter in dispute') and }{\i\insrsid6894405 socn}{\insrsid6894405  (a 'seeking'). The two terms only
 make full sense if taken together, and the presence of }{\i\insrsid6894405 saca}{\insrsid6894405  in the phrase implies one particular meaning of }{\i\insrsid6894405 soca}{\insrsid6894405 
. Essentially these two words refer to the lord's right to have a court, to compel suit (attendance) at it and his right to investigate and hea
r cases. It is often translated as 'with sake and soke'. By the eleventh century, the lord's powers seem to have extended from jurisdiction and justice and the right to receive fines to the right to have other dues and services, or money in their place. M
en with full jurisdiction seem to have been able to grant portions of their estates to tenants. See Maitland, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday Book and Beyond}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 80-107.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 2,2\tab FROM THE HOLDING OF THE BISHOP. }{\i\insrsid6894405 
De}{\insrsid6894405 (}{\i\insrsid6894405  ipso}{\insrsid6894405 ) }{\i\insrsid6894405 episcopo }{\insrsid6894405 ('from the bishop (himself)') would be expected. T
he unusual phrase is probably used because the bishop was in prison and had forfeited his lands following his arrest in 1082. The treatment of his fief varies from county to county in Domesday.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab WILLIAM [* PEVEREL *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab HOUGHTON.
 Probably the Houghton where Simon holds 1 hide and 1 virgate in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 375b), which is the same as the Houghton held of the fee of Peverel, which in }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 
, iv. p. 6, is Great Houghton. See 35,21 Houghton note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab COUNTESS JUDITH CLAIMS. In 56,63-64 Judith holds land in Houghton which had formerly been Ulf's.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 2,3\tab WILLIAM [* PEVEREL *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
NIGEL CLAIMS IT. At 56,20h the same amount of land is held in Brafield-on-the-Green by Countess Judith, though with different detail.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 2,4\tab WILLIAM [* PEVEREL *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
GREATWORTH. The same land is held in Warden Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 370a). Greatworth and Sulgrave are later detachments of Warden 
Hundred and it is possible that in 1086 Greatworth was in 'Alboldstow' Hundred, though Sulgrave was certainly in Warden Hundred (43,11).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 2,5\tab WILLIAM [* PEVEREL *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 2,6\tab WILLIAM [* PEVEREL *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
ALNOTH OF CANTERBURY. Perhaps the same as Alnoth the Kentishman (}{\i\insrsid6894405 chenticus}{\insrsid6894405 ),}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 a thane of King Edward in Buckinghamshire (BUK 4,36).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 2,7\tab WILLIAM [* PEVEREL *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab HARTWELL.
 The holding reappears exactly in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 374b), in Cleyley Hundred. Although the Cleyley hundred head is beside the next entry (2,8), it may be intended to refer to Hartwell. Such postponements are found elsewhere in Domesd
ay; see 4,17 Barton note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 2,8\tab WILLIAM [* PEVEREL *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 2,9\tab 
THIS ENTRY is written outside the right-hand marginal ruling of folio 220b, beside the entry for Puxley (2,8). There are no signs to indicate its correct position in the text. Gall has been applied to the whole entry which is now only just legible.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab STEPHEN [* SON OF ERHARD *]. See Keats-Rohan, }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday People}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 423, under Stefan Stirman. Stephen the steersman is identified as Stephen son Erhard by Ordericus Vitalis (vi, p. 296) and so-named in Domesday Berkshire (BRK 64) (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 2,10\tab WILLIAM [* PEVEREL *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab 
BEORN <OF EVERDON>. The name Beorn occurs three times in Domesday Book, on widely separated holdings of modest size which devolved upon different tenants-in-chief, making it probable that each was held by a different individual. (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 

\par }{\insrsid6894405 2,11\tab ADAM [* SON OF HUBERT *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 2,12\tab WILLIAM [* PEVEREL *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
HEYFORD. Great or Nether Heyford; see the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 377b); }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 8.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab AELGEAT <OF HEYFORD>. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 3\tab 
THE BISHOP OF DURHAM. William of Saint-Calais, bishop 1081-1096. The chapter is written in smaller script at the bottom of folio 220b.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 3,1\tab HORN. In Witchley Wapentake (or Hundred) in 1086; later in 'East' Hundred, following Witchley's division into 'East' and 'Wrangditch' Hundreds, both of which were fully transferred to Rutland by the thirteenth century; see \{
Introduction: The County Boundary\}. A marginal }{\i\insrsid6894405 Rotel' }{\insrsid6894405 in a later hand is missing.
\par \tab \tab Of the two Domesday estates in Horn (see 56,27), this became known as Seyton's manor. It continued for a time with the bishops of Durham, but the lordship lapsed; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Book of Fees}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 506 (an unnamed \u8531
\'3f knight's fee); }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. pp. 205, 208; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 139.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab WOODLAND. By an agreement of 852, between Ceolred, Abbot of Peterborough, and Wulfred, the latter was leased Sempringham (in Lincolnshire) for two lives. In exchange, timber from his wood at Horn was to be given to the monastery: }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Early Charters of Eastern England}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 107 no. 149 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid6894405 , no. 1440).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab PERCH. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 pertica }{\insrsid6894405 or }{\i\insrsid6894405 perca, }{\insrsid6894405 a measure of length, generally reckoned as 5 \'bd
 yards, though a 20-foot perch was in use for measuring woodland until the nineteenth century. See Ellis, }{\i\insrsid6894405 General Introduction to Domesday Book}{\insrsid6894405 , i. p. 158.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab LANGFER <OF HORN>. For the name Langfer, see von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 308. As he had held from King Edward, it is possible that Horn had been granted o
ut from an estate that the king had held, for example Empingham (46,5); see 46,5 jurisdiction note).
\par \tab \tab Langfer is a rare name, occurring on only four holdings in Domesday Book, and once more outside East Anglia. There is nothing to connect this Langer with
 his namesake in Huntingdonshire (HUN 19,13), though the rarity of the name makes a connection feasible (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 4\tab THE BISHOP OF COUTANCES. Geoffrey of Mowbray, a principal minister of King William. Many of his lands were later held by the Earls of Gloucester.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 4,1\tab LAND [FOR *** PLOUGHS]. The number of ploughs is omitted.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab W[ILLIAM PEVEREL] CLAIMS. That is, William Peverel, the disputed land being mentioned at 35,1j.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab BURGRED <OF OLNEY>. Although the nam
e Burgred occurs almost 60 times in Domesday Book, it was probably borne by fewer than half-a dozen individuals, of whom the royal thane, Burgred, was the most important. He and his sons were predecessors of Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances in Bedfordshire, B
u
ckinghamshire and Northamptonshire, his estates clustering around the junction of the three counties. Of the five Burgred holdings in those counties unconnected with Bishop Geoffrey, two lay in vills where Burgred of Olney had another holding (BDF 2,4. BU
K
 12,34), and two others were in vills adjacent to holdings of his (BDF 25,6. 54,4). All five belonged to men of Burgred; and since no other Burgred is named in those counties, it is probable that all five were men of Burgred <of Olney>. Outside these thre
e counties the only other unidentified Burgred's were a tenant Robert of Stafford on two very modest, distant holdings in Staffordshire, and a number of holdings in the furthest south-west. See Round, }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Bedfordshire}{\insrsid6894405 
, pp. 195-96, and Clarke, }{\i\insrsid6894405 English Nobility}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 267-71, who omits some of these holdings. Abels has interesting remarks on the attraction of Burgred's compact estate to men in search of a lord: 'Introduction', }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Bedfordshire Domesday}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 37-38 (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 4,2\tab DENFORD. Later in 'Huxloe' Hundred, but
 possibly in Higham Hundred in 1086, as in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 377a). See Hart, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Hidation of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 62.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab LAND [FOR *** PLOUGHS]. The number of ploughs is omitted.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab BURGRED <OF OLNEY>. See 4,1 Burgred note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 4,3\tab AUBREY [
* DE VERE *]. Aubrey de Vere, ancestor of the earls of Oxford and a major landholder in Huntingdonshire (HUN 22).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab WADENHOE. Held by Aubrey de Vere, son of the Domesday holder, in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 366a). He also holds 'Wold' (}{\i\insrsid6894405 Walde}{\insrsid6894405 ),
 now known as Old, in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 380b) to which Scaldwell is adjacent. It is possible that there is some confusion here; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , i. p. 362.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab SCALDWELL. In Mawsley Hundred, remote from Wadenhoe, the 3 virgates recurring as 3 great virgates in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 380b).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 4,4\tab AUBREY [* DE VERE *]. See 4,3 Aubrey note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab WADENHOE. See 4,3 Wadenhoe note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab BURGRED <OF OLNEY>. See 4,1 Burgred note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 4,5\tab 
HARROWDEN. The bishop's holding seems to have included both Great Harrowden and Little Harrowden; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 1. }{\i\insrsid6894405 Alia }{\insrsid6894405 
('another') does not necessarily imply a separate village or settlement, merely another estate in the same vill; see Thorn, 'Manorial Affixes'.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab EDWIN [* SON OF BURGRED *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 4,6\tab HARROWDEN. See 4,5 Harrowden note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab EDWIN [* SON OF BURGRED *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 4,8\tab ISHAM. See 41,5.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab BURGRED <OF OLNEY>. See 4,1 Burgred note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 4,9\tab 
BURTON [LATIMER]. Unless a hundred head has been omitted, this portion of the land was in Orlingbury Hundred in 1086, the rest (4,12 and 41,1) being in 'Navisland' Hundred.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab BURGRED <OF OLNEY>. See 4,1 Burgred note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 4,10\tab BURGRED <OF OLNEY>. See 4,1 Burgred note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 4,11\tab EDGCOTE. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Hocecote}{
\insrsid6894405 .}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 It is }{\i\insrsid6894405 Hochecote }{\insrsid6894405 in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 370a); see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 34.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab IN LORDSHIP ... 3 PLOUGHS. Grammatically the Latin sentence has two verbs, }{\i\insrsid6894405 sunt }{\insrsid6894405 and }{\i\insrsid6894405 h}{\insrsid6894405 [}{\i\insrsid6894405 abe}{\insrsid6894405 ]}{\i\insrsid6894405 nt}{
\insrsid6894405 ;}{\i\insrsid6894405  uill}{\insrsid6894405 [}{\i\insrsid6894405 an}{\insrsid6894405 ]}{\i\insrsid6894405 is }{\insrsid6894405 is}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 perhaps a mistake for }{\i\insrsid6894405 uill}{\insrsid6894405 [}{
\i\insrsid6894405 an}{\insrsid6894405 ]}{\i\insrsid6894405 i}{\insrsid6894405 ,}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 or }{\i\insrsid6894405 h}{\insrsid6894405 [}{\i\insrsid6894405 abe}{\insrsid6894405 ]}{\i\insrsid6894405 nt }{\insrsid6894405 for }{
\i\insrsid6894405 h}{\insrsid6894405 [}{\i\insrsid6894405 abe}{\insrsid6894405 ]}{\i\insrsid6894405 ntibus }{\insrsid6894405 after }{\i\insrsid6894405 cum}{\insrsid6894405 . In 41,1. 46,5. 49,1 etc.,}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 
and in other counties, the singular is used after }{\i\insrsid6894405 xxi}{\insrsid6894405 , }{\i\insrsid6894405 xxxi }{\insrsid6894405 etc.,}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 so}{\i\insrsid6894405  uill'i}{\insrsid6894405 s may be a mistake for }{
\i\insrsid6894405 uill's}{\insrsid6894405  (}{\i\insrsid6894405 uillanus}{\insrsid6894405 ); but see 6,17. 11,5.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab LIKE THE ABOVE [MANORS]. }{\i\insrsid6894405 Superiores is }{\insrsid6894405 plural and thus probably refers to those sections where Burgred held }{\i\insrsid6894405 cum saca et soca}{\insrsid6894405  (4,1;8-9). There is no }{
\i\insrsid6894405 T.R.E.}{\insrsid6894405  holder in 4,10.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab BURGRED <OF OLNEY>. See 4,1 Burgred note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 4,12\tab BURGRED <OF OLNEY>. See 4,1 Burgred note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 4,13\tab BURGRED <OF OLNEY>. See 4,1 Burgred note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 4,14\tab "HANTONE".}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 
If this is Northampton, a hundred head has been omitted in an otherwise well rubr
icated chapter. It is more likely to be an unidentified village on the River Nene, bordering Higham Hundred, another part of "Hantone" being in Higham Hundred in 40,3. The place-name }{\i\insrsid6894405 Hantone }{\insrsid6894405 represents Old English (}{
\i\insrsid6894405 aet thoem}{\insrsid6894405 )}{\i\insrsid6894405  hean-tune }{\insrsid6894405 '(at the) high farm or estate', rather than Old English}{\i\insrsid6894405  ham-tun }{\insrsid6894405 ('manor farm') which would be represented as }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Hamtone}{\insrsid6894405 .}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab ALWIN COBBOLD. On the name }{\i\insrsid6894405 cubold}{\insrsid6894405 , see Tengvik, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Old English Bynames}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 216.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 4,15\tab 
WINEMAR [* OF FLANDERS *]. Also known as Winemar of Hanslope; see 56,65 Winemar note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab BURGRED <OF OLNEY>. See 4,1 Burgred note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 4,16\tab WINEMAR [* OF FLANDERS *]. Also known as Winemar of Hanslope; see 56,65 Winemar note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab PRESTON [DEANERY]. Held in 
the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 375b) as 1 hide and 1 virgate.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 4,17\tab BARTON [SEAGRAVE]. Held in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 389b) from the fee of Gloucester. The omitted hundred head (for 'Navisland' Hundred) is probably deferred to the end of the entry; see 2,7 Hartwell note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab BURGRED <OF OLNEY>. See 4,1 Burgred note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 4,19\tab NORIGOT. From Old German }{\i\insrsid6894405 Nor}{
\insrsid6894405 (}{\i\insrsid6894405 i}{\insrsid6894405 )}{\i\insrsid6894405 gaud}{\insrsid6894405 ; see}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 Forssner, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Continental-Germanic Personal Names}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 193.}{\insrsid6902632 

\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab EDWIN [* SON OF BURGRED *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 4,20\tab 
NEWTON [BROMSWOLD]. This Newton corresponds to that in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 376b) in Higham Hundred. The bishop also held part of the village in Bedfordshire (BDF 3,9).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 4,21\tab ADDINGTON. The bishop's holding probably included both the later Little Addington and Great Addington; see the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, pp. 388b, 389a); and 11,4 Addington note and 6a,29 Addington note. }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Parva Adington }{\insrsid6894405 was held from the Earl of Gloucester in }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 12, and }{\i\insrsid6894405 Magna Adington }{\insrsid6894405 in }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{
\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 49.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 4,22\tab ANOTHER ADDINGTON. On Addington, see 4,21 Addington note. For }{\i\insrsid6894405 alia}{\insrsid6894405 ,}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 see 4,5 Harrowden note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 4,23\tab WOODFORD. Accounted for in 'Navisland' Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 388b).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab BURGRED <OF OLNEY>. See 4,1 Burgred note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 4,24\tab THRAPSTON. Held by Robert son of }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Edelin' }{\insrsid6894405 in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 365b) in Navisford Hundred.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab BURGRED <OF OLNEY>. See 4,1 Burgred note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 4,25\tab EDWIN [* SON OF BURGRED *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 4,26\tab EDWIN [* SON OF BURGRED *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 4,27\tab 
ISLIP. On the identity, see 1,13 Brigstock note. The value clause is omitted.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 4,28\tab HORTON. In Wymersley Hundred according to the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 375b).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 4,29\tab [* EDWIN *] BURGRED'S SON. Note to be supplied (JP).
}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 4,30\tab 
[OXFORDSHIRE]. This and the remaining places in this fief (4,31-36) are now in Oxfordshire. Although some are close to the border with Northamptonshire, others are remote, and it seems likely that a part of the return for the bishop's fief was included in
 
the wrong county. There is no schedule for the bishop's lands in the Oxfordshire folios and it seems probable that the main scribe of Great Domesday misallocated them. If the circuit volume containing Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, Staffor
dshire and Warwickshire was arranged like the }{\i\insrsid6894405 Liber Exoniensis}{\insrsid6894405 
 (Exon, the circuit volume for the five south-western counties), that is, by fief, and within it by county (rather than as in Great Domesday by county and within it by fief), the scribe could eas
ily have missed an 'In Oxfordshire' heading, or it may have been omitted from the schedule.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab FINMERE. Held from the Earl of Gloucester in }{\i\insrsid6894405 Book of Fees}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 836; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 157. For another part, see OXF 7,16.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 4,31\tab ROGER [* OF IVRY *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab HETHE. Domesday }{\i\f710\insrsid6894405 Hedh\'e2}{
\insrsid6894405 , that is, 'heath ham'; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Oxfordshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 217. Held from the Earl of Gloucester in }{\i\insrsid6894405 Book of Fees}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 836; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{
\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 157.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 4,32\tab HERLEWIN <OF ASHCOMBE>. The name Herlewin occ
urs nine times in Great Domesday Book and once more in Exon. It is improbable that a tenant-in-chief would have two tenants of the same uncommon name so all the properties held from the Bishop of Coutances in Somerset and Northamptonshire are likely to ha
ve been held by the same individual who probably also held Winscombe from the Abbey of Glastonbury (SOM 8,2), this being adjacent to the Herlewin holding of Winterhead (SOM 5,12) (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab SHELSWELL. See }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Place-Names of Oxfordshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 231; }{\i\insrsid6894405 Book of Fees}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 836; }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 157.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 4,34\tab WOOTTON. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Oitone}{\insrsid6894405 ; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Oxfordshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 245. For another part, see OXF 1,4.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 4,35\tab WORTON?. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Hortone}{\insrsid6894405 ; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Oxfordshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 295. For other parts, see OXF 7,52. 58,37.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 4,36\tab HEYFORD. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Egford }{
\insrsid6894405 and }{\i\insrsid6894405 Hegford}{\insrsid6894405 , see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Oxfordshire}{\insrsid6894405 
, p. 218. For other parts, see OXF 28,12. 35,19. The three Domesday holdings together total 20 hides and will have involved both Upper Heyford and Lower Heyford.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 5\tab THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN. Remigius, a monk of F\'e9
camp Abbey, was promised the bishopric of Dorchester-on-Thames (in Oxfordshire) in 1066 in return for ships furnished to William. He succeeded Bishop Wulfwy of Dorchest
er-on-Thames who died in 1067, and translated the see to Lincoln after 1072 (when the transfer was authorized) and before 1086; see Ellis, }{\i\insrsid6894405 General Introduction to Domesday Book}{\insrsid6894405 , i. p. 474; Keats-Rohan, }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday People}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 357, 527.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 5,1\tab BARTHI <OF SLEAFORD>. }{\cf1\insrsid6894405 > The Domesday form }{\i\cf1\insrsid6894405 Bardi}{\cf1\insrsid6894405  represents Old Danish }{\i\cf1\insrsid6894405 Barthi}{\cf1\insrsid6894405 , Old Swedish }{\i\cf1\insrsid6894405 
Bardhe}{\cf1\insrsid6894405 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6894405 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\cf1\insrsid6894405 , p. 192. The Phillimore printed edition has Bardi for the occurrences of this name in Leicestershire and here, 
but Barthi for those in Lincolnshire; these have now been standardized as Barthi. The Alecto edition has Barthi.}{\insrsid6894405 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab Apart from having held}{\cf1\insrsid6894405 
 all the lands of the Bishop of Lincoln in Northamptonshire, Barthi had held one of his in Leicestershire (LEC 3,11), a
s well as four of his in Lincolnshire (LIN 7,38-39;43;48). He also appeared in the account of the borough of Torksey (LIN T5) in the list of those who had had full jurisdiction and market rights in Lincolnshire.}{\insrsid6894405 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6894405 All estates held by a Barthi in Domesday Book devolved upon the Bishop of Lincoln, plausibly identifying all Barthis as one individual. Sleaford (7,43) was his largest estate }{\cf1\insrsid6894405 (JP).}{
\cf1\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 5,2\tab 
[IN WITCHLEY WAPENTAKE]. The heading is supplied from later evidence. If }{\i\insrsid6894405 Stoche}{\insrsid6894405 
 (6,10c), one of Oundle's appurtenances, is correctly identified as Stoke Dry, it is under a Witchley hundred head there, but there is a possible confusion involved (see 6,10c Stoke note). Even so, it is unlikely that Lyddington was ever in Gu
ilsborough Hundred, a heading for which at 5,1 is taken to cover this entry by }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 191).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab LYDDINGTON. After 1086 Witchley Wapentake was divided into 'East' Hundred and 'Wrangditch' Hundred and Lyddington was placed in the latter. The co
ntents of both hundreds were fully transferred to Rutland by the thirteenth century; see \{Introduction: The County Boundary\}. A marginal }{\i\insrsid6894405 Rotel'}{\insrsid6894405  in a later hand indicates the change of county.}{\insrsid6902632 

\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab Lyddington was given to the new see of Lincoln (authorized in 1072) probably by Barthi its }{\i\insrsid6894405 T.R.E.}{\insrsid6894405  tenant, or by Walter. The see continued in uninterrupted possession; see }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 54; }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 209; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 
, ii. p. 191. Within the parish lay a Prestley Hill, named from the woodland of a priest or priests; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 274.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab STOKE [DRY]. It descended with the capital manor; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. pp. 205, 209; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 222. For a possible second estate here, see 6,10c.}
{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab `SNELSTON'. This dependency followed the descent of the parent manor; }{\i\insrsid6894405 Snelleston}{\insrsid6894405  is}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 found coupled with Caldecott in }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 247. This estate, now abandoned, survived until the seventeenth century and is marked 1 \'bd miles south-east of Stoke Dry, on Speed's map of 1610. There
 are earthworks at SP865951 in a field called Long Snelston in Caldecott parish; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 209; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , i. p. 141, ii. p. 180; Beresford, }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Lost Villages of England}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 384; Beresford and Hurst, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Deserted Medieval Villages}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 202; Brown, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Rutland Archaeological Sites}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 5-6; }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Place-Names of Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 244.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab CALDECOTT. It descended with Lyddington, the parent manor; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 209; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 180.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab BARTHI <OF SLEAFORD>. See 5,1 Barthi note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 5,3\tab ESSENDINE. It i
s ssumed to be in Witchley Wapentake (or Hundred) in 1086, governed by the hundred head supplied at 5,2; later, together with its members, it was in 'East' Hundred, following Witchley's division into 'East' Hundred and 'Wrangditch' Hundred, both of which 
were fully transferred to Rutland by the thirteenth century; see \{Introduction: The County Boundary\}.
\par \tab \tab Like Lyddington (5,2), this estate was given to the new see of Lincoln (authorized in 1072), probably by Barthi, or by Walter. The overlordship lapsed in the fourteenth century; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 
, iv. pp. 205, 208; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 251.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab BARTHI <OF SLEAFORD>. See 5,1 Barthi note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 5,4\tab BARTHI <OF SLEAFORD>. See 5,1 Barthi note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 6\tab 
LAND OF PETERBOROUGH [ABBEY]. An early monastery founded at \'93Medeshamstede\'94 }{\i\insrsid6894405 c}{\insrsid6894405 . 655, allegedly by a monk Saxulf, was destroyed by the Danes in 870, but rebuilt and re-founded as a Benedictine abbey }{
\i\insrsid6894405 c}{\insrsid6894405 . 966, dedicated to St Peter, by Aethelwold Bishop of Winchester (963-984) supported by King Edgar (959-973); see Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid6894405 
, pp. 53, 73; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday People}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 507.
\par \tab \tab The early monastery must have been endowed with lands, but the charter of Wulfhere (}{\i\insrsid6894405 Early Charters of Eastern England}{\insrsid6894405 , no. 1 = Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid6894405 , no. 
68) listing extensive lands in the counties of Huntingdonshire, Kent, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Rutland, Shropshire and Yorkshire, is a post-conquest forgery and represents the lands held or claimed by the abbey in t
he twelfth and thirteenth centuries. In Northamptonshire, these lands amount to virtually the whole of the double Hundred of Upton (Nassaborough) together with many lands elsewhere in the county.
\par \tab \tab Nothing can be deduced about the early endowment, though th
e charter of Wulfhere is useful for the detailed specification of individual estates that the abbey held at a much later period. Some of these appear not to have belonged to the original abbey of }{\i\insrsid6894405 Medeshamestede}{\insrsid6894405 
, but to a monastic cell established in 714 by St Pega following the death of her brother, St Guthlac of Crowland; see Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid6894405 
, p. 479. The Benedictine abbey appears to have acquired its lands in several stages. Its initial group of estates came from Aethelwold, 
Bishop of Winchester (963-984) who also founded and endowed the abbeys of Abingdon, Ely, Thorney and Crowland. These lands were mostly obtained by purchase and often in small parcels. They were confirmed and increased by King Edgar, and by 992, the abbey 
h
ad a number of estates lying near it which can be identified from a list of those who acquired them for the abbey together with the names of those from whom they were acquired and of the sureties they gave. There were early exchanges and agreements with T
horney Abbey.
\par \tab \tab Another group of estates, some further afield, were acquired in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries from a variety of sources; for most of these there are individual charters. More came to the abbey under Edward the Confessor, from E
arl Ralph of Hereford, Godgifu (the lady Godiva) the wife of Earl Leofric of Mercia, Cynesige the Archbishop of York and from the family of Brand, the last Saxon abbot. These are the subject of individual charters, or are described in the narrative of the
 Chronicle by Hugh Candidus', who also records several estates that were restored to the abbey having 'come into the hands of Queen Edith'.
\par \tab \tab For some estates, Domesday is the first evidence, but Domesday is also difficult to interpret because it groups tog
ether under sometimes large hidages, without naming them, smaller estates whose separate existence is sometimes evidenced earlier. It is not always possible to allocate these to individual Domesday estates.
\par \tab \tab The abbey continued to acquire land after 1086, though in smaller quantities; these lands can be found in a group of the abbey's own surveys, from regal and pontifical confirmations and from the documents of the Dissolution.
\par \tab \tab Considerable documentation survives for the abbey. There is a chronicle and several cartularies and registers; see Davis, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Medieval Cartularies}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 86-88; Martin, }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Cartularies and Registers of Peterborough Abbey}{\insrsid6894405 . See also King, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Peterborough Abbey}{\insrsid6894405 ; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday People}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 507.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab Three abbots spanned the period from 1066 to 1086:}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab Abbot Leofric (1052-1066). He was nephew of Earl Leofric of Mercia and had previously been a monk of the abbey.
\par \tab \tab Abbot Brand (1066-1069). He had previously been prior of the abbey. He acknowledged
\par \tab \tab Edgar Aetheling as king in 1066, but was later reconciled to William I.
\par \tab \tab Abbot Thorald (1070-1098). He was a monk of F\'e9camp Abbey in Normandy, then Abbot of Malmesbury from }{\i\insrsid6894405 c}{\insrsid6894405 . 1066 until 1070. He is sometimes referred to as a }{\i\insrsid6894405 nepos}{\insrsid6894405 
 ('nephew') of William the Conqueror.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab On these men, see Knowles, Brooke and London, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Heads of Religious Houses}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 60; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday People}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 30.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab In Domesday, the schedule of the abbey's lands in Northamptonshire falls into two parts: the 'Land of Peterborough [Abbey]' and the 'Lan
d of this Church's Men'. The latter part has no separate chapter number, nor does it appear in the Landholders' List on folio 219b, but is numbered as chapter 6a here for convenience. The schedules parallel each other: entries in chapters 6 and 6a are fre
q
uently parts of a single village; thus Castor (6,4 and 6a,1), Ailsworth (6,5 and 6a,3), Werrington (6,8 and 6a,8), Warmington (6,11 and 6a,12), Irthlingborough (6,5 and 6a,31). With the exception of Ashton (6a,34), probably omitted earlier, places that oc
c
ur in both chapters are entered in the same order. From this it appears that the hundreds are entered, with trifling exceptions, in the order: (Upton Hundred), Stoke Hundred, Upton Hundred, Willybrook Hundred, Polebrook Hundred, (Witchley Hundred), Navisf
ord Hundred, Orlingbury Hundred, 'Huxloe' Hundred, Nobottle Hundred. This parallelism helps to restore hundred heads and to identify places. Two of the headings in the text are probably errors; see 6,1 Stoke note; 6,10c Witchley note.
\par \tab \tab Many of the tenants or their sons are found in a list of the abbey's knights in the }{\i\insrsid6894405 Liber Niger }{\insrsid6894405 
of Peterborough (London, Society of Antiquaries, 60, folios 19r-23r) transcribed and discussed in King, 'Peterborough 'Descriptio Militum''; it is also transcribed in Stapleton, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Chronicon Petroburgense}{\insrsid6894405 
, Appendix, pp. 168-175. It is discussed by Round in }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal England}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 157-68, and in }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , i. pp. 390-92.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 6,1\tab IN STOKE HUNDRED. This head is probably inserted in error and belongs rightly with the next entry. It 
seems probable that, as in other counties, the scribe was working from a standard list of hundreds and automatically wrote the hundred that came first, failing to note that Peterborough itself (like the }{\i\insrsid6894405 capita}{\insrsid6894405 
 of other fiefs in Great Domesday) had been promoted to first place. Peterborough lay in Upton (= Nassaborough) Hundred and properly belongs in the group 6,3-8.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab VILLAGE. Latin }{\i\insrsid6894405 uilla}{\insrsid6894405  was translated as 'town' in the Phillimore printed edition, but there is no sign of urban development in the Domesday entry; the first mention of burgesses is in 1125: }{
\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 424.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\cf1\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 11 PLOUGHS. The manuscript has }{\i\insrsid6894405 
.xi. car'}{\insrsid6894405 . Farley printed }{\i\insrsid6894405 .ii. car'}{\insrsid6894405  in error.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab WOODLAND. Possibly a source of supply for the Huntingdonshire manors of Chesterton and Water Newton; see 6,4 woodland note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 6,3\tab 
[IN UPTON HUNDRED]. The hundred head is supplied from later evidence; see 6,1 Stoke note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\cf1\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
WOODLAND. Possibly a source of supply for the Huntingdonshire manors of Chesterton and Water Newton (6,4 woodland note).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 6,4\tab 
WOODLAND. In Domesday Huntingdonshire there are three references to the Abbot of Peterborough's woodland, two relating to Che
sterton (HUN 9,2. 19,8) and one to Water Newton (HUN 7,5). If the woodland was north of the River Nene, in Northamptonshire, the most direct access from Water Newton and Chesterton would be along Ermine Street, crossing the River Nene at TF116976. This wo
u
ld lead most directly to the woodland here at Castor and at Ailsworth (6,5), but the abbey also had woodland at Thorpe (6,3), Milton (6a,2) and at Peterborough itself (6,1). There was an exceptionally large stretch of woodland (2 leagues by 1 league) at W
ittering (6a,4).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 6,9\tab ELTON. Now wholly in Huntingdonshire, but parts of the parish were in Northamptonshire until the nine\-
teenth century. The whole village was in Huntingdonshire by 1851. See 9,3. See also HUN 6,13; and the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 387b).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 6,10a\tab VALUE WHEN STOCKED. See 1,6 stocked note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab THE VALUE WAS 5s; NOW \'a311. This value clause like those in 6,10b-10c;11-13, records a great increase, possibly the result of recovery from devastation by Morcar's army; see \{Introduction: History\}.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 6,10b\tab THURNING. Part of the village lay in Huntingdonshire in 1086 (HUN 5,2. 19,18). This portion was transferred to Northamptonshire in 1895.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 6,10c\tab IN WITCHLEY HUNDRED. The heading may be erroneous; see 6,10c Stoke note}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab STOKE [DRY?].The hundred heading indicates that this }{\i\insrsid6894405 Stoche}{\insrsid6894405 
 lay in Witchley Hundred (or Wapentake) in 1086; Stoke [Dry] was later in 'Wrangditch' Hundred, following Witchley Wapentake's division into 'East' and 'Wrangditch' Hundreds, both of which were fully transferred to Rutland by the thirteenth century; see 
\{Introduction: The County Boundary\}.
\par \tab \tab Even though the hundred heading in the text is clear, Stoke Dry is very remote to be an outlier of Oundle, though there could be a transhumant explanation. However, there are no traces of a Pet
erborough holding here later. The men of Peterborough Abbey hold Stoke Doyle (6a,19), and the land here is probably part of the same village, the hundred head being an error. A Witchley hundred head appears correctly on the same folio (albeit on the verso
)
 and in the same place on the line above Tinwell (6,13) and it is possible that the first was wrongly entered and not subsequently deleted. The identity of Stoke Dry in 5,2 (from which a hundredal rubric is missing) seems established. There are place-name
s in Caldecott parish suggesting the presence of another }{\i\insrsid6894405 Stoc}{\insrsid6894405  here (}{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 246), but again there is no known Peterborough connection.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 6,11\tab WARMINGTON. }{\i\insrsid6894405 Werminne }{\insrsid6894405 has been corrected in the manuscript to }{\i\insrsid6894405 Wermintone}{\insrsid6894405 .}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 In the left-hand marg
in is a red cross not reproduced by Farley. The position of this entry suggests that Warmington is here regarded as part of Polebrook Hundred. The part of the village detailed in 6a,12 is in Willybrook Hundred. The village is similarly divided between hun
dreds in }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. pp. 23, 28.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 6,13\tab TINWELL. This lay in Witchley Wapentake (or Hundred) in 1086; later in 'East' Hundred, following Witchley Wapentake's division into 'East' and 'Wrangditch' Hundreds, both of which were fully transferred to
 Rutland by the thirteenth century; see \{Introduction: The County Boundary\}. A marginal }{\i\insrsid6894405 Rotel'}{\insrsid6894405  in a later hand indicates the change of county.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab 
Tinwell and Ingthorpe (in Tinwell, SK9908) are named with other places in the spurious foundation grant of 664 purporting to be by King Wulfhere to the Abbey of }{\i\insrsid6894405 Medeshamstede}{\insrsid6894405  (Peterborough): }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Early Charters of Eastern England}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 107 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid6894405 , no. 68). It is more probable that, as is reported by Hugh Candidus in his Chronicle (Mellows, p. 70 = }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Early Charters of Eastern England}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 246 no. 355) Tinwell was given to Peterborough Abbey by a monk Cynesige, later Archbishop of York 1051-1060, from his own patrimony. Peterborough continued to hold Tinwell and Ingthor
p until the Dissolution. See Stapleton, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Chronicon Petroburgense}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 158; Hugh Candidus' Chronicle (Mellows, p. 110, the Bull of Pope Eugenius); }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 
, iv. pp. 205, 206, 208; }{\i\insrsid6894405 Valor Ecclesiasticus}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 281-82; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , i. p. 134, ii. p. 282.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab VALUE. The manuscript has }{\i\insrsid6894405 valb'}{
\insrsid6894405  (}{\i\insrsid6894405 valebat}{\insrsid6894405 ); Farley printed }{\i\insrsid6894405 valuit}{\insrsid6894405 .}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 6,16\tab 
STANWICK. Lying across the River Nene, opposite Irthlingborough, it was probably surveyed with it, thus being listed between two places in 'Navisland' Hundred. Part of the village is held by the abbey in Bedfordshire (BDF 7,1). This Bedfordshire portion w
as an early transfer to Northamptonshire.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 6a\tab LAND OF THIS CHURCH'S MEN. On this second schedule in chapter 6 (here numbered 6a), see NTH 6 Peterborough note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\cf1\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 6a,2\tab 
WOODLAND. Possibly a source of supply for the Huntingdonshire manors of Chesterton and Water Newton (6,4 woodland note).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 6a,4\tab 
ANSKETIL [* OF SAINT-MEDARD *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab WOODLAND. A large wood, possibly a source of supply for the Huntingdonshire manors of Chesterton and Water Newton (6,4 woodland note). There is an Abbot's Wood still in the parish of Thornhaugh (centred on TF063011); see }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Place-names of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 243).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 6a,9\tab WOTHORPE ALWIN HOLDS 3 VIRGATES OF LAND FROM THE ABBOT. The main scribe of Great Domesday had written something different on the first half of the first line of this entry and then erased between }{\i\insrsid6894405 In}{
\insrsid6894405  }{\i\insrsid6894405 WIT }{\insrsid6894405 and the }{\i\insrsid6894405 .iii.}{\insrsid6894405  }{\i\f703\insrsid6894405 v' t'r\'ea}{\insrsid6894405 . Later, after he had rubricated the original place-name, he altered the }{
\i\insrsid6894405 IT}{\insrsid6894405  of it to }{\i\insrsid6894405 RI}{\insrsid6894405  and inserted }{\i\insrsid6894405 TORP ten' Aluuin' de abbate}{\insrsid6894405 , but as this occupied less space than his original there is a gap after }{
\i\insrsid6894405 abbate}{\insrsid6894405  (unusually written in full to use up some of the excess space); he did not rubricate the }{\i\insrsid6894405 TORP}{\insrsid6894405 . It is probable that he had originally written }{\i\f710\insrsid6894405 
WITERINGH\'c2}{\insrsid6894405  (Wittering) as the place-name, misreading his exemplar. For further problems, see 6a,9 has note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab HE HAS 3 FREEMEN WITH 1 \'bd P
LOUGHS AND ... . In the manuscript }{\i\insrsid6894405 h'nt }{\insrsid6894405 (}{\i\insrsid6894405 habent}{\insrsid6894405 ,}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 'they have') is probably an error for }{\i\insrsid6894405 h't}{\insrsid6894405  (}{
\i\insrsid6894405 habet}{\insrsid6894405 , 'he has'), with Alwin as its subject; the meadow would be a second object. However, it is possible that the 3 Freemen are the subject and that }{\i\insrsid6894405 h'nt}{\insrsid6894405  is correct, but that }{
\i\f710\insrsid6894405 c\'fb .i}{\i\up6\insrsid6894405 a}{\i\insrsid6894405 . car'}{\insrsid6894405  is an error for }{\i\insrsid6894405 .i}{\insrsid6894405  }{\i\f710\up6\insrsid6894405 \'e2}{\i\insrsid6894405 . car'}{\insrsid6894405  (= }{
\i\insrsid6894405 unam carucam}{\insrsid6894405 ); the Freemen would then 'have' the meadow too; compare 42,2 '5 Freemen have 3 ploughs, and meadow ...'. Whichever is correct, it probably shows that either the source used by the main scr
ibe of Great Domesday was faulty or confused or his reading of it was to blame. He seems to have had problems with the first part of this entry too; see 6a,9 Wothorpe note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 6a,11\tab LUTTON. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Lidintone}{\insrsid6894405 ; see}{\i\insrsid6894405  Place-Names of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 204. The Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 387b) has the same 2 \'bd hides at }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Lodington' }{\insrsid6894405 in Willybrook Hundred. See 6a,16 Luddington note; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , i. p. 271.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab In 1086, a portion of Lutton lay in Huntingdonshire (HUN 6,14). This Huntingdonshire portion was transferred to Northamptonshire in 1895.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 6a,12\tab WARMINGTON. See 6,11 Warmington note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 6a,13\tab EUSTACE [* OF HUNTINGDON *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 1 VIRGATE OF LAND [***]. As there is no dot after the }{
\i\f703\insrsid6894405 t'r\'ea }{\insrsid6894405 in the manuscript, the scribe may have intended to add the value of the virgate later.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 6a,16\tab LUDDINGTON[-IN-THE-BROOK]. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Lullingtone}{\insrsid6894405 ; see}{\i\insrsid6894405  Place-Names of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 213; and 6a,11 Lutton note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab In 1086 Luddington-in-the-Brook had a portion in Huntingdonshire (HUN 19,19). This Huntingdonshire portion was transferred to Northamptonshire in 1895.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 6a,17\tab WINWICK. In 1086, part of the village was in Northamptonshire (6a,17. 55,4), part in Huntingdonshire (HUN 19,16-17), the Northamptonshire part being transferred to Huntingdonshire in 1895.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab EUSTACE [* OF HUNTINGDON *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab 2 FREEMEN WITH 2 VILLAGERS. Villagers normally precede Freemen in the schedule.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 6a,18\tab THEY BELONG. That is, the hides belong.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 6a,19\tab STOKE [DOYLE]. It is }{\i\insrsid6894405 Stokes iuxta Undele}{\insrsid6894405  ('Stoke near Oundle') in Stapleton, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Chronicon Petroburgense}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 120; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{
\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 48. It is later in 'Huxloe' Hundred, but may have been in Polebrook Hundred in 1086. For a possible other part, see 6,10c Stoke note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 6a,22\tab 
ASCELIN [* OF VATIERVILLE *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 6a,23\tab ASCELIN [* OF VATIERVILLE *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 6a,24\tab EUSTACE [* OF HUNTINGDON *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 6a,25\tab PYTCHLEY. This 
falls naturally in a group of places in Navisford Hundred in the text, but it is clearly in Orlingbury Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 383a).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab HOUSEHOLD BUILDING. That is, a building belonging to the 'lord' (in this case the monks of Peterborough), presumably the same as a 'hall' (}{\i\insrsid6894405 aula}{\insrsid6894405 ) or 'court' (}{\i\insrsid6894405 curia}{
\insrsid6894405 ) found elsewhere in Domesday, that is, the focal point of the manor where revenue was collected.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 6a,26\tab CATWORTH. Now in Huntingdonshire, but this part was included in Navisford 
Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 366b) and scattered fields were a detached part of Northamptonshire the nineteenth century. In 1086, most of the village was in Huntingdonshire (HUN 13,4. 19,12;32. 29,3. D17).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab EUSTACE [* OF HUNTINGDON *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 6a,27\tab 
ALDWINCLE. There are now two villages, Aldwincle St Peter and Aldwincle All Saints, but they are not distinguished in Domesday nor in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 365b) nor in }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 13.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab FERRON. 'Blacksmith', 'ironmonger' from Old French }{\i\insrsid6894405 fer }{\insrsid6894405 ('iron'); see Dauzat, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Dictionnaire des Noms de Famille et Pr\'e9noms}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 253.}{\insrsid6902632 

\par }{\insrsid6894405 6a,28\tab THE WHOLE MANOR. Unless this refers only to the 3 virgates held by Roger, Hugh and Siward, then the 20s former value of the main holding is the value at a time after its acquisition. See 11,5 for three values given for a manor.
}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 6a,29\tab ADDINGTON. It probably accounted for both the later Great Addington and Little Addington. 3 \'bd
 hides are held of Peterborough Abbey in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 388b) at one Addington (clearly Little Addington from }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 12), but a further Peterbor
ough hide is at another Addington in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 389a). See 4,21 Addington note and 11,4 Addington note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 6a,32\tab FROM THE KING. [***]. It is possible that }{\i\insrsid6894405 de rege}{\insrsid6894405  is an error for }{\i\insrsid6894405 de}{\insrsid6894405  }{\i\insrsid6894405 abb'e }{\insrsid6894405 
('from the abbot'). The gap in the manuscript of about thirteen letters immediately after this may be for the insertion of a subtenant or tax, or for the hidage which has unusually been entered first.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 6a,34\tab ASHTON. It lay in Polebrook Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 367a).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 8\tab ST EDMUND'S. The abbey is at Bury [St Edmunds] in Suffolk.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 8,1\tab BOUGHTON. It was later counted in Corby Hundred, part of the village being there in 1086 according to 48,1. See the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 387a).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 8,2\tab THE ABBEY HOLDS. The abbreviation }{\i\insrsid6894405 abb' }{\insrsid6894405 can stand for }{\i\insrsid6894405 abbas }{\insrsid6894405 ('abbot') and }{\i\insrsid6894405 abbatia }{\insrsid6894405 ('abbey'), also for }{
\i\insrsid6894405 abbatissa }{\insrsid6894405 ('abbess').}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 8,4\tab SCALDWELL. Like [Hanging] Houghton (8,5) and Lamport (8,6), Scaldwell lies close to the border of Rothwell Hundred, but is included in Mawsley Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 380a,b).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab QUEEN MATILDA. Wife of King William; she died in November 1083.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 8,5\tab [HANGING] HOUGHTON. See 8,4 Scaldwell note. St Edmund's claims the jurisdiction of 2 virgates of land in Hanging Houghton in 18,31.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 8,6\tab LAMPORT. See 8,4 Scaldwell note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 8,9\tab HOTHORPE. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Udetorp}{\insrsid6894405 ; see}{\i\insrsid6894405  Place-Names of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 115.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 8,11\tab "CALME".}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 Falling in a group of places in 'Stotfold' Hundred, it is perhaps part of Kelmarsh where St Edmund's holds \'bd hide in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 383b).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab LAND FOR \'bd PLOUGH. The }{\i\insrsid6894405 I}{\insrsid6894405  after }{\i\insrsid6894405 dim' car' }{\insrsid6894405 in the text is the beginning of }{\i\insrsid6894405 Ibi }{\insrsid6894405 begun afresh on the next line.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 8,13\tab [* COUNTESS *] AELFEVA, [* EARL *] MORCAR'S MOTHER, HELD IT. In the manuscript }{\i\insrsid6894405 tenuit }{\insrsid6894405 is interlined above }{\i\insrsid6894405 Morcari}{\insrsid6894405 ,}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{
\insrsid6894405 but an attempt was made to erase it, although it appears clearly in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. Farley does not reproduce it.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 9,2\tab LUTTON. In 1086, Ramsey Abbey held another portion of Lutton in Huntingdonshire (HUN 6,14). This Huntingdonshire portion was transferred to Northamptonshire in 1895.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 9,3\tab ELTON. In 1086 the abbey held a portion in Huntingdonshire (HUN 6,13). See 6,9 Elton note. The village is now wholly in Huntingdonshire, but parts of the parish were in Northamptonshire until the nine\-
teenth century; the transfer of the Northamptonshire portion was complete by 1851.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 9,5\tab BARNWELL. Barnwell St Andrew, earlier Barnwell }{\i\insrsid6894405 Le Moyne}{\insrsid6894405 ,}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 held from the abbey by Reginald }{\i\insrsid6894405 Le Moyne}{\insrsid6894405  in the}{
\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 365b). For Barnwell All Saints, see 1,25 Barnwell note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab IN LORDSHIP 2 PLOUGHS. The Ordnance Survey facsimile omits the abbreviation sign above }{\i\insrsid6894405 car}{\insrsid6894405 .}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 9,6\tab DENTON. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Dodintone}{\insrsid6894405 ,}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 later }{\i\insrsid6894405 Dodintone}{\insrsid6894405  }{\i\insrsid6894405 Parva }{\insrsid6894405 to distingu
ish it from Great Doddington (56,16), which has the same origin. The name has been compressed to Denton. It is held as }{\i\insrsid6894405 Dodington }{\insrsid6894405 by the abbey in Wymersley Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 376a); see }
{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , i. p. 272.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab WOODLAND, NOT PASTURABLE. The entry is unusual, since }{\i\insrsid6894405 silua }{\insrsid6894405 
('woodland') alone (implying that it is not a combination of wood and pasture) is the norm, special mention being made only when it is pasturable (}{\i\insrsid6894405 silva pastilis}{\insrsid6894405 )}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 
as in the adjacent Rutland and in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire; see NTT 1,1 woodland note and NTT 14,8 woodland note. The Phillimore printed edition has 'woodland without pasture', but }{\i\insrsid6894405 pastilis}{\insrsid6894405 
 is an adjective.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab COUNTESS JUDITH. She holds other portions of Brafield-on-the-Green at 56,20h;56.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 10,3\tab SAWBRIDGE. In Warwickshire now and probably in 1086. As the last entry in the fief, it was probably included in Northamptonshire in error, when mate
rial was allocated to individual counties from a schedule organized by fief and within it by county as in the }{\i\insrsid6894405 Liber Exoniensis}{\insrsid6894405 
. There is no chapter for Thorney Abbey in Domesday Warwickshire, so the scribe probably missed an 'In Warwickshire' heading or it was missing in his exemplar; see \{Introduction: Places entered in the wrong Domesday County\}
. The place is, however, close to the border of the two counties. JRM, in his note to EN1 (= NTH 10,3) in the Phillimore printed edition, wrote: 'The last of three
 holdings of the distant Cambridgeshire abbey entered after Charwelton in Northamptonshire six miles to the south, of which it may have been an outlier; or the abbey, which held no other Warwickshire land, may have left the county heading out of its retur
n'.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 11,4\tab ADDINGTON. The Crowland holding seems to have included both Great Addington and Little Addington. The abbey holds Addington }{\i\insrsid6894405 Major }{\insrsid6894405 in }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 
, iv. p. 12, and 2 hides there in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 389a); also in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 388b) \'bd virgate of its fee is held in the other Addington.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 11,5\tab WELLINGBOROUGH. This holding is in 'Hamfordshoe' Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 382a), but may have been part of 'Navisland' Hundred in 1086 since the 'Navisland' hundred head at 11,4 may govern it..}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 12,1\tab WINWICK. Most of Winwick lay in Huntingdonshire (HUN 19,16-17) but some fields were in Northamptonshire until the nineteenth century.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 12,2\tab [COLD] ASHBY. This is }{\i\insrsid6894405 Esseby }{\insrsid6894405 in Guilsborough Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 380a).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab THE ABBEY HOLDS. Or perhaps 'the abbot'. See 8,2 abbey note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 12,3\tab THE ABBEY HOLDS. Or perhaps 'the abbot'. See 8,2 abbey note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 12,4\tab [WEST] HADDON. It is associated with Winwick in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 379a). East Haddon was in Nobottle Hundred.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab THE ABBEY HOLDS. Or perhaps 'the abbot'. See 8,2 abbey note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 13,1\tab LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. Although Leofnoth is a common name, there is a pronounced pattern to its distribution in the south Midlands. All the estates of Walter of Flanders 
in Northamptonshire (39,1-18) were acquired from Leofnoth, stated in the text to be the same individual. Walter also inherited the bulk of his estates in Bedfordshire (BDF 32,1;3-9) from Leofnoth, described as a royal thane in most entries and evidently t
h
e same individual as his Northamptonshire predecessor. The royal thane Leofnoth also held one manor in Buckinghamshire (BUK 43,1). The only other Leofnoth in the county (BUK 12,38) was also a lord of men and possibly the same individual. This Leofnoth was
 
named son of Osmund, the only appearance of this name in Domesday Book. His holding at Wavendon lay between the holdings of Walter's predecessor in Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire. Wavendon was also adjacent to the only other two estates in Bedfordshire
 
(BDF 33,1-2) held by a royal thane named Leofnoth. They were acquired by another Flemish tenant-in-chief, Walter brother of Sihere, probably the nephew of Walter of Flanders, one of whose holdings (32,15) strongly implies that the two Walters had acquired
 their estates from the same Leofnoth, further strengthening his identification with the son of Osmund (JP).
\par \tab \tab One other estate in Bedf
ordshire was held by a Leofnoth who was a lord of men, at Carlton (BDF 24,20, surrounded by the holdings of the son of Osmund and so probably his, too. Finally, there were half-a-dozen other estates held by a Leofnoth in Northamptonshire which may have be
e
n his. These, unfortunately, do not give the lordship detail which would aid identification; but the holding at Grimsbury (48,1) had been held 'with full jurisdiction' and had devolved upon another of the Flemish tenants-in-chief, Gunfrid of Chocques; and
 
those at Litchborough and Croughton (13,1. 18,64) were held freely and adjacent to other holdings of the son of Osmund. One of these devolved upon the Count of Mortain, who had acquired another holding from Leofnoth (18,40). That holding, though, was some
what apart from the others and modestly endowed. Peter Clarke (}{\i\insrsid6894405 English Nobility}{\insrsid6894405 
, pp. 319-20), adds Berkswell (19,2) to this list but, curiously, not the other holdings of Leofnoth acquired by the Count of Meulan (19,1;3. WAR 16,24;27;31) which have several 
features which link them. Although the links are not as convincing as those discussed above, this Leofnoth might well be the son of Osmund: he held freely; some of the properties were modestly substantial; two of them were reasonably close to those of the
 
son of Osmund; and no other Leofnoths held in Warwickshire or nearby. Like many others of his condition, Leofnoth son of Osmund may have been allowed to survive on a fragment of his former estate (39,13), as a tenant of Walter of Flanders at Plumpton (JP)
.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 14\tab GRESTAIN CHURCH. The abbey probably received its lands in Northamptonshire, as elsewhere, by gift from the Count of Mortain.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 14,6\tab WESTON [FAVELL]. See Hart, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Hidation of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 64.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 15\tab THE ORDER of this and the following chapter (NTH 16) is the reverse of that given in the Landholders' List on folio 219b. Indices follow the numbering of the text.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 16,1\tab LAPLEY. This estate lay deep in Staffordshire, and was included in Northamptonshire in error, no doubt at a time when the Domesday material was in feudal form but the county was subordinate to the fief as in the }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Liber Exoniensis}{\insrsid6894405 ; see \{Introduction: Places in the wrong Domesday County\}.
\par \tab \tab This was an Ancient Parish. Like Marston (16,2), which was later counted as a member of Lapley, Lapley was given to the church of St Remigius (Saint-R\'e9my) of Rheims by Burchard, son of Earl Algar of Mercia as he lay dying i
n Rheims on his way back from Rome. The gift was subsequently confirmed by his father; see STS 5 Saint-R\'e9my note.
\par \tab \tab In 1086 Lapley was merely the possession of a foreign church, but monks from Saint-R\'e9my were probably settled here in a priory by early in t
he twelfth century; its existence is only first attested between 1162 and 1181. It is possible, however, that there was already a cell at Marston in 1086, which was subsequently relocated and expanded at Lapley; see 16,2 men note. The house was seized as 
an alien priory in 1204 by King John and was in and out of royal hands during the hundred years' war. It was suppressed in 1414 as an alien priory; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 114; }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{
\insrsid6894405 , v. p. 16; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Staffordshire}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 146.
\par \tab \tab It seems probable that the church at Lapley formed part of the gift to Saint-R\'e9my. In a judgement of about 1114, the claim of Godric, a monk of Saint-R\'e9
my that his church had title to the church of Lapley, its tithes and its mortuary fees was upheld against Robert of Rouen, the king's chaplain: }{\i\insrsid6894405 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 116 no. 1054; see also }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid6894405 , vi. (I) p. 1043; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Staffordshire}{\insrsid6894405 , iii. p. 340, iv. p. 149. The church of Lapley had originally been a daughter church of Penkridge (STS 7,17) and
 it is likely that the estate of Lapley itself originated as a grant out of the royal manor of Penkridge (STS 1,7), possibly to Earl Algar or a predecessor as Earl of Mercia.
\par \tab \tab Lapley included Wheaton Aston (SJ8512); see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , v. p. 17; Eyton, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 41.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 16,2\tab MARSTON. Deep in Staffordshire, and, like Lapley (16,1) it was apparently included in Northamptonshire in error; see \{Introduction: Places in the wrong Domesday County\}.
\par \tab \tab This was a member of the Ancient Parish of Church Eaton. It was given to the church of Saint-R\'e9my of Rheims at the same time and in the same circumstances as Lapley (16,1; see 16,1 Lapley note) and was later held by Saint-R\'e9
my as a member of its manor of Lapley; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 114; }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , v. p. 17; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Staffordshire}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 94.
\par \tab \tab This 1-hide estate formed part of a five-hide unit which also contained 2 hides at High Onn (STS 8,8), \'bd hide at Little Onn (STS 17,16), \'bd hide at Shushions (
STS 17,20) and 1 hide at Longnor (STS 11,6); see Bridgeman and Mander, 'Staffordshire Hidation', p. 160.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab 2 OF SAINT-REMY'S MEN HOLD. This may indicate that monks were already established here, possibly in a monastic cell, in 1086; see}{\i\insrsid6894405  VCH Staffordshire}{\insrsid6894405 ,
 iii. p. 340. If so, the cell will have subsequently moved to Lapley and become a priory.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 17\tab LAND OF THE KING'S ALMSMEN. In the Landholders' List on folio 219b this chapter is entitled '[Land of] Leofwin the priest and other clergy'.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 17,1\tab ADSTONE. See 18,73 Adstone note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 17,3\tab [KINGS] SUTTON. The 3 virgates and the fifth of a virgate seem to correspond to the 8 small virgates at Sutton in Sutton Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 367b).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18\tab LAND OF THE COUNT OF MORTAIN. Robert of Mortain was son of Herluin de Conteville and Herl\'e8
ve, mother of William the Conqueror. He was thus half-brother of the Conqueror, also full brother of Bishop Odo of Bayeux who granted him the comt\'e9 of Mortain }{\i\insrsid6894405 c}{\insrsid6894405 . 1048
. Robert fought at Hastings. 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\insrsid6894405 de facto}{\insrsid6894405 
 earl. Altogether he held estates in 20 counties. He was twice married, firstly to Matilda daughter of Roger of Montgomery (Earl of Shrewsbury) and Mabel of Bell\'ea
me, and secondly to Almoldis. 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 Mo
rtain fees and the tenants of others became tenants-in-chief and their lands became separate honours or baronies. The count's lands reappear in the Northamptonshire Survey as held either by the Earl of Leicester, or of the fee of Berkhamsted. A 4-hide hol
ding of the count at Hellidon in 'Gravesend' Hundred seems to have been omitted from Domesday; it appears in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 370b).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,2\tab BILLING. This part of the village might have been in 'Hamfordshoe' Hundred (hundred head at 18,1), though the rest of the village was in 'Spelhoe' Hundred (48,3. 57,1).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab MEADOW, 10 ACRES. In the manuscript there is }{\i\insrsid6894405 x}{\insrsid6894405  with the partly-erased remains of another figure, possibly another }{\i\insrsid6894405 x}{\insrsid6894405 
, with a smudge above and to the right. Farley printed }{\i\insrsid6894405 xx}{\insrsid6894405 .}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,3\tab [VALUE ***]. The clause is omitted.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,4\tab IN BILLING. The }{\i\insrsid6894405 In }{\insrsid6894405 is}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 probably repeated from the entry above, the natural expression being }{\i\insrsid6894405 Bellica est soca huius manerii}{
\insrsid6894405  ('Billing is a Jurisdiction of this manor').}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,5\tab [EAST] HADDON. It reappears in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 378b). West Haddon (12,4. 35,19d. 48,7) is in Guilsborough Hundred.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab EDMER [* ATOR *]. See 18,6 Edmer note.}{\insrsid6902632 

\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,6\tab 
EDMER [* ATOR *]. Edmer Ator was among the wealthiest two dozen magnates in Anglo-Saxon England. He was the predecessor of Count Robert of Mortain in eight counties, 
named as such in DEV 15,31. So far as is known, only three estates in Somerset (37,5;12. 47,10) and one in Hertfordshire (HRT 19,1) in which Edmer had had an interest were in the hands of other tenants-in-chief in 1086, though the disproportionate number 
o
f Edmer's in Devon probably means that there are unidentified Edmer Ators in that county. Elsewhere, however, Edmer's status as predecessor to the count aids identification where his byname is omitted, further strengthened by the fact that in five of the 
eight counties there were no Edmers other than the count's predecessor. See also Clarke, }{\i\insrsid6894405 English Nobility}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 281-82, whose list omits the Cornish holdings and SOM 37,5;12 and 47,10 (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab BOTH LANDS. That is, [East] Haddon and Ravensthorpe.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,8\tab HEYFORD. The Mortain lands included both Upper (Little) and Nether Heyford; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 
, iv. pp. 8-9; the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 377b). The 'chief manor' is probably the Heyford of 18,83, or the Brampton of 18,7. Similar phrases occur elsewhere, usually of a dependency of a manor just men\-
tioned, for example in WOR 2,41 which however clarifies by beginning }{\i\insrsid6894405 ad supradictum manerium iacet }{\insrsid6894405 ... .}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,9\tab EDMER [* ATOR *]. See 18,6 Edmer note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,11\tab "CELVERDESCOTE".}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 
It is derived like }{\i\insrsid6894405 Celvertone }{\insrsid6894405 (Charwelton) from the River Cherwell. It lay in 'Gravesend' Hundred in Domesday, but in the Northamptonshire Survey \'bd
 hide is in 'Alboldstow' Hundred, 2 hides in 'Gravesend' Hundred, and 1 hide and 2 small virgates in 'Alwardsley' Hundred (Round, pp. 369b, 370a, 372a, respectively). The \'bd hide in 'Alboldstow' Hundred is probably an outlier or an error, and }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Celverdescote }{\insrsid6894405 probably lay on the River Cherwell at the boundary that in the twelfth century divided 'Gravesend' Hundred from 'Alwardsley' Hundred,}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 
between Catesby, Badby and Charwelton; see \{Introduction: Hundreds\}.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab ALLI <OF "CELVERDESCOTE">. }{\cf1\insrsid6894405 
The name Alli occurs nine times, probably representing two or three individuals.}{\insrsid6894405  The modestly substantial Northamptonshire property
 is close enough to those of Alli <of Lavendon> to have belonged to him though there are no links to add plausibility to an identification (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,12\tab HE [THE COUNT] HOLDS. }{\i\insrsid6894405 Comes }{
\insrsid6894405 or }{\i\insrsid6894405 idem }{\insrsid6894405 is}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 probably omitted in the manuscript.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,13\tab HUMPHREY <OF WIGGINGTON>. }{\cf1\insrsid6894405 
The distribution of unidentified tenants named Humphrey is skewed in the extreme. In Great Domesday only five tenants-in-chief subinfeudated more than a single holding to a tenant of that name who cannot plausibly be identified fr
om documentary sources: the Bishop of Coutances (2), Odo of Bayeux (2), the Bishop of London (2), William son of Stur (3), and the Count of Mortain (23). The Count of Mortain evidently did not have 23 tenants named Humphrey and may have had only one. The 
d
istribution of the Mortain tenants makes this a possibility. In three counties - Buckingham, Cornwall, and Northamptonshire - all Humphreys were Mortain tenants; and in the remaining four counties with Mortain tenants named Humphrey, their distribution wa
s distinct from that of other tenants of the same name. }{\insrsid6894405 See also Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday People}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 276 (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
[EAST] CARLTON. 'East' to distinguish it from Carlton Curlieu to the west in Leicester\-shire; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 162.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,14\tab HUMPHREY <OF WIGGINGTON>. See 18,13 Humphrey note.}
{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,15\tab HUMPHREY <OF WIGGINGTON>. See 18,13 Humphrey note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,16\tab HUMPHREY <OF WIGGINGTON>. See 18,13 Humphrey note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,17\tab HUMPHREY <OF WIGGINGTON>. See 18,13 Humphrey note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,18\tab HUMPHREY <OF WIGGINGTON>. See 18,13 Humphrey note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
[EAST] FARNDON. See the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 384a). West Farndon is in Warden Hundred.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab 3 VILLAGERS HAVE ANOTHER. The land is for 2 ploughs and 2 are mentioned, one in lordship, one held by the villagers. The Latin, however, reads }{\i\insrsid6894405 aliam }{\insrsid6894405 ('another') rather than }{\i\insrsid6894405 
alteram }{\insrsid6894405 ('the other'), and this distinction has been maintained in translation, since ploughs and ploughlands are not always directly related. In other entries (for example, 6
a,32) the land is for 3 ploughs with one in lordship and one held by the villagers. Here }{\i\insrsid6894405 aliam }{\insrsid6894405 is}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 clearly right, no third plough being mentioned.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab FREDEGIS. The Domesday form }{\i\insrsid6894405 Fregis }{\insrsid6894405 also occurs in 18,20;26;90, and was kept as such in the Phillimore printed edition. It is from Old German }{\i\insrsid6894405 Fredegis}{\insrsid6894405 
 (von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 254) and another form of the same name in Northamptonshire is }{\i\insrsid6894405 Fredgis }{\insrsid6894405 (18,31. 35,9). Compare 43,1 Fredegaest note
}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,19\tab HUMPHREY <OF WIGGINGTON>. See 18,13 Humphrey note.}
{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab [LITTLE] BOWDEN. See }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Place-Names of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 110. Since 1889 it has been in Leicestershire, where Great Bowden has always been.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,20\tab HUMPHREY <OF WIGGINGTON>. See 18,13 Humphrey note.}
{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab OXENDON. Little Oxendon, held as }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Oxendon' Parva }{\insrsid6894405 of the fee of Berkhamsted in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 384a). See }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 10.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab FREDEGIS. See 18,18 Fredegis note.}{\insrsid6902632 

\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,21\tab HUMPHREY <OF WIGGINGTON>. See 18,13 Humphrey note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab HASELBECH. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Esbece}{
\insrsid6894405 . It is held in 'Stotfold' Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 383b).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,22\tab HUMPHREY <OF WIGGINGTON>. See 18,13 Humphrey note.}
{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,23\tab HUMPHREY <OF WIGGINGTON>. See 18,13 Humphrey note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab TOSTI <OF ALTHORP>. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,24\tab HUMPHREY <OF WIGGINGTON>. See 18,13 Humphrey note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
UNDERWOOD, 2 FURLONGS. The furlong is used here as a square, not a linear, measure.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,25\tab HUMPHREY <OF WIGGINGTON>. See 18,13 Humphrey note.}
{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,26\tab ALAN [* OF DUCEY *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab FREDEGIS. See 18,18 Fredegis note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,27\tab ALAN [* OF DUCEY *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab BOVI <OF ARLESCOTE>. See 1,27 Bovi note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,28\tab ALAN [* OF DUCEY *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
[COLD] HIGHAM. The estate is located at Grimscot, a hamlet of Cold Higham in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 373b).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,29\tab ALAN [* OF DUCEY *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
WEEDON [BEC]. In the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 370b) 4 hides are held at }{\i\insrsid6894405 Wedon' }{\insrsid6894405 
in 'Gravesend' Hundred of the fee of Leicester. These must have included the count's holding and that of Hugh of Grandmesnil (23,3).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab "ESTAN" <OF TYRINGHAM>. Apart fr
om the Bishop of Hereford, the name }{\i\insrsid6894405 Estan}{\insrsid6894405 
 occurs on 15 holdings in Domesday Book, probably representing seven or eight individuals. Despite devolving upon three tenants-in-chief in two counties, these three holdings probably belonged to the same individual
. The two Buckinghamshire holdings were each half-a-dozen miles or so from Woughton, where a Leofwin son of }{\i\insrsid6894405 Estan}{\insrsid6894405 
 is recorded (BUK 12,31). This holding in Woughton devolved upon the Count of Mortain, as did the Northamptonshire holding of }{\i\insrsid6894405 Estan}{\insrsid6894405  at Weedon. Apart from the }{\i\insrsid6894405 Estan}{\insrsid6894405 
 at Loxley in Warwickshire (who is possibly the same individual), no other }{\i\insrsid6894405 Estan}{\insrsid6894405  occurs in the Midlands, making it probable that all these references are to the same person (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,30\tab ALAN [* OF DUCEY *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,31\tab 
[HANGING] HOUGHTON. 1 hide and 3 virgates are held of the fee of Berkhamsted in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 380a) in Mawsley Hundred.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab FREDEGIS. See 18,18 Fredegis note.}{\insrsid6902632 

\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
THE ABBOT OF ST EDMUND'S CLAIMS. His holding at [Hanging] Houghton is 8,5. See 8,2 abbey note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,32\tab ARCHBISHOP STIGAND. Of Canterbury 1052-1070.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,33\tab LEOFING. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Leuing}{\insrsid6894405 ,}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 to be distinguished from }{\i\insrsid6894405 Leuuin }{\insrsid6894405 (18,45 etc.) which is Leofwin. See von Feilitzen, }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 312, 317.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,38\tab CHARLTON. It is held of the fee of Berkhamsted in Sutton Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 368a).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab WASTE. Exceptionally this has a value, as has the next entry.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,40\tab 
LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. See 13,1 Leofnoth note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,41\tab HEYFORD. See 18,8 Heyford note.}{\insrsid6902632 

\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,42\tab WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES
 *]. He is William of Cahagnes. Several of the holdings of a plain William in Domesday are held by a member of the de Cahagnes family in the Northamptonshire Survey (18,50 Ashby note; 18,53 Creaton note). His fief is NTH 34.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,43\tab WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES *]. See 18,42 William note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,44\tab WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES *]. See 18,42 William note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
BRINGTON. Probably Great Brington, not separately named in the Northamptonshire Survey or in }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 . But in the latter (}{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 8) }{\i\insrsid6894405 Brunton }{
\insrsid6894405 has two separate entries, one held from the Earl of Leicester, the other held with Nobottle by William }{\i\insrsid6894405 Ferrers }{\insrsid6894405 
(35,3c). The latter is no doubt Little Brington, adjacent to Nobottle, the former Great Brington.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab [EAST] HADDON. See 18,5 Haddon note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,45\tab WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES *]. See 18,42 William note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,46\tab WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES *]. See 18,42 William note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,47\tab WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES *]. See 18,42 William note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,48\tab WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES *]. See 18,42 William note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,49\tab WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES *]. See 18,42 William note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,50\tab WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES *]. See 18,42 William note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab [COLD] ASHBY. }{\i\insrsid6894405 Esseby }{\insrsid6894405 
is held by Hugh }{\i\insrsid6894405 de Kaynes }{\insrsid6894405 in Guilsborough Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 380a). Hugh is probably the son of the 1086 holder William (de Cahagnes).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,51\tab WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES *]. See 18,42 William note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,52\tab WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES *]. See 18,42 William note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
SILVERSTONE. In 1086 it must have been an isolated part of Foxley Hundred, cut off by Wappenham (43,4) which was in Towcester Hundred. See 43,3. 45,7.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,53\tab THIS ENTRY is written in paler ink, some six letters into the left-hand margin of folio 223c below the marginal ruling; no sign indicates its correct position in the text.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES *]. See 18,42 William note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
CREATON. This is Little Creaton. Two Creatons are distinguished in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 379a), \'bd hide at the smaller being held of the fee of Ralph }{\i\insrsid6894405 de Gaynes}{\insrsid6894405 ,}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{
\insrsid6894405 a successor of William.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab HUMPHREY <OF WIGGINGTON>. See 18,13 Humphrey note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,54\tab WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES *]. See 18,42 William note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab THE FIFTH PART OF 1 HIDE. In the manuscript }{
\i\f710\insrsid6894405 v. part\'e7 }{\i\f703\insrsid6894405 uni' hid\'ea}{\insrsid6894405 .}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 Possibly '5 parts of 1 hide', because the scribe did indicate that he intended }{\i\insrsid6894405 quintam}{\insrsid6894405 
 ('fifth'). Although a horizontal line usually abbreviates }{\i\insrsid6894405 partem }{\insrsid6894405 and a vertical, 'lightning' sign }{\i\insrsid6894405 partes}{\insrsid6894405 ,}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 the usage is not consistent.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,55\tab WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES *]. See 18,42 William note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab OSWULF [* SON OF FRANI *]. See 26,1 Oswulf note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,56\tab WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES *]. See 18,42 William note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,57\tab WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES *]. See 18,42 William note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,58\tab WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES *]. See 18,42 William note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,59\tab WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES *]. See 18,42 William note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,60\tab WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES *]. See 18,42 William note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,61\tab WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES *]. See 18,42 William note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
PURSTON. Buston Farm at SP5038, (which appears as Burston on the Ordnance Survey first series one-inch map) is similarly derived from Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Prestetone}{\insrsid6894405 ; see}{\i\insrsid6894405  Place-Names of Northamptonshire}{
\insrsid6894405 , p. 58.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,62\tab WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES *]. See 18,42 William note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,63\tab WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES *]. See 18,42 William note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,64\tab WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES *]. See 18,42 William note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. See 13,1 Leofnoth note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,65\tab WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES *]. See 18,42 William note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,66\tab WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES *]. See 18,42 William note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,67\tab ALFRED [* THE BUTLER *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab THRUPP [GROUNDS]?. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Torp}{
\insrsid6894405 . The position in the schedule suits a place in 'Gravesend' Hundred. It is possibly the holding of the fee of Berkhamsted mentioned under Welton in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 371b).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,68\tab ALFRED [* THE BUTLER *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}
{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
`CHILCOTES'. It is Chilcotes Cover on the Ordnance Survey first series one-inch map; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 65. It is probably the same as }{\i\insrsid6894405 Cotes }{\insrsid6894405 
held in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 379b) by William son of Alfred.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,69\tab ALFRED [* THE BUTLER *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}
{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,70\tab ALFRED [* THE BUTLER *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,71\tab ALFRED [* THE BUTLER *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,72\tab ALFRED [* THE BUTLER *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,73\tab ALFRED [* THE BUTLER *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab THE FIFTH PART OF 1 VIRGATE. See 18,54 part note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab ADSTONE. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Etenestone }{\insrsid6894405 here and in 17,1, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Atenestone }{\insrsid6894405 in 1,6; to be distinguished from }{\i\insrsid6894405 Estanestone}{\insrsid6894405 , which is}{
\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 Easton Neston (18,59). Adstone is held as }{\i\insrsid6894405 Atteneston}{\insrsid6894405  in Norton (Foxley) Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 373a) by Geoffrey }{\i\insrsid6894405 de Turvill' }{
\insrsid6894405 who elsewhere holds from the Earl of Leicester.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab MEADOW, 3 ACRES. This interlineation should follow }{\i\f710\insrsid6894405 qu\'e6 ibi \'e7}{\insrsid6894405 ,}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 although it precedes in the text, perhaps because there is more space between the l
ines of writing at this point.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,74\tab ALFRED [* THE BUTLER *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}
{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
PRESTON [CAPES]. The several Mortain holdings (also 18,85;90) encompassed both Preston Capes (}{\i\insrsid6894405 alias }{\insrsid6894405 Preston Magna) and Little (or Wood) Preston; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Book of Fees}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 495, 498.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,75\tab ALFRED [* THE BUTLER *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}
{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,76\tab THORPE [MALSOR]. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Alidetorp
}{\insrsid6894405 ; see}{\i\insrsid6894405  Place-Names of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 122. It is held in Rothwell Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 385b) by }{\i\insrsid6894405 Fucher' Malesoures }{\insrsid6894405 
as descendent of the 1086 holder. The holding like 18,77-78 could have been in Orlingbury hundred in 1086.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,77\tab EDWIN HELD IT FREELY AND THIS [NEXT LAND]. The Latin }{\i\insrsid6894405 7 hanc }{\insrsid6894405 
almost certainly refers to the next entry (18,78) which lacks a 1066 holder. This phrasing occurs also in 56,26. It is possible that the main scribe of Great Domesday accidentally omitted this information in that entry and, while working on subsequent ent
ries, he realized this, but found there was no space at the end of 18,78 to make the insertion, so added }{\i\insrsid6894405 7 hanc}{\insrsid6894405  to the present entry. }{\i\insrsid6894405 Hanc}{\insrsid6894405 
 is feminine accusative singular presumably implies the noun }{\i\insrsid6894405 terram}{\insrsid6894405 . If there had been enough space at the end of this line, he would probably have used a clause such as occurs in 18,47: }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Leuric libere tenuit 7 hanc quae sequitur}{\insrsid6894405  ('Leofric held it freely and this which follows'). This interpretation was suggested in the note to this entry in the Phillimore printed edition, 
but the translation was kept as 'Edwin held this freely also'. However, had the scribe wished to refer to the present entry he would almost certainly have written }{\i\insrsid6894405 Eduinus hanc libere tenuit}{\insrsid6894405  or }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Hanc Eduinus libere tenuit}{\insrsid6894405 .}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,79\tab WALGRAVE. Another part (56,40) lay in Mawsley Hundred, but Walgrave is close to the border with Orlingbury Hundred.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,82\tab LOKKI, SCOTEL, STENKIL. On these names, see von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 321, 356, 373.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab 
STENKIL <OF WESTON>. The name Stenkil occurs seven times in Domesday Book, probably representing five individuals. There are no apparent connections between the modest Northamptonshire holding and the remainder, none of which were cl
ose-by, so this was probably the sole holding of this Stenkil (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,83\tab HEYFORD. See 18,8 Heyford note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,85\tab PRESTON [CAPES]. See 18,74 Preston note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab "SAWATA". Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Sauuata }{\insrsid6894405 may represent an otherwise unrecorded feminine personal name, Old Norse }{\i\insrsid6894405 S\'e6hvati}{\insrsid6894405 ,}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 
or is perhaps an error for }{\i\insrsid6894405 Sauuara}{\insrsid6894405  representing Old English }{\i\insrsid6894405 S\'e6waru}{\insrsid6894405 ; see von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid6894405 
, p. 351. In view of the lack of certainty it has been decided for the present edition to keep to the Domesday form; the Phillimore printed edition has Saewata and the Alecto edition has Sawata.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,86\tab HOLDENBY. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Aldenesbi}{\insrsid6894405 ; see}{\i\insrsid6894405  Place-Names of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 85; also see 18,92 Holdenby? note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,88\tab SPRATTON. On the border of Nobottle Hundred and 'Spelhoe' Hundred. It seems to be in 'Spelhoe' Hundred in 30,16, but it could end a group of places in Nobottle Hundred here.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,90\tab PRESTON [CAPES]. See 18,74 Preston note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab FREDEGIS. See 18,18 Fredegis note.}{\insrsid6902632 

\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 18,92\tab HOLDENBY?. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Aldenestone}{
\insrsid6894405 .}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 Possibly a variant of }{\i\insrsid6894405 Aldenesbi}{\insrsid6894405  (Holdenby) in 18,86, with Old English }{\i\insrsid6894405 tun}{\insrsid6894405  replacing Scandinavian }{\i\insrsid6894405 by}{
\insrsid6894405 , with the same meaning.}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 The two holdings form a 4-hide unit, had the same }{\i\insrsid6894405 T.R.E.}{\insrsid6894405 
 holder and are both entered before [East] Haddon. See Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 378a); }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , i. p. 328 note 1.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 18,95\tab BLAKESLEY. See 1,6 Blakesley note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 19\tab THE COUNT OF MEULAN. Robert of Beaumont, who inherited Meulan through his mother. Styled Earl of Leicester by 1107.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 19,1\tab 
LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. See 13,1 Leofnoth note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 19,2\tab 
THIS ENTRY and the next one (19,3) are written across the bottom of folio 224 ab in two lines. Transposition signs indicate their correct position.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab BERKSWELL. This is a Warwickshire estate wrongly entered in Northamptonshire; see \{Introduction: Places in the wrong Domesday County\}. Another hide held by the}{\dn6\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 
count at Berkswell is listed in Warwickshire (WAR 16,27).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab WOODLAND 1 LEAGUE LONG. Possibly '2 leagues'; in the manuscript there is a blot or spot of gall, with a rim of very dark brown ink, after }{\i\insrsid6894405 silua }{\insrsid6894405 and as far as the i, which may conceal another }{
\i\insrsid6894405 i}{\insrsid6894405  or just a dot.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. See 13,1 Leofnoth note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 19,3\tab 
THIS ENTRY and the previous one (19,2) are written across the bottom of folio 224 ab in two lines. Transposition signs indicate their correct position.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab [OVER] WHITACRE. Like the preceding Berkswell (19,2) this is a Warwickshire estate wrongly entered in Northamptonshire; see \{Introduction: Places in the wrong Domesday County\}. Other parts of the vill are listed in Warwicks
hire (WAR 17,14. 18;16. 24,2.).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. See 13,1 Leofnoth note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 20\tab COUNT ALAN. Of Brittany.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 21\tab 
EARL AUBREY. Aubrey of Coucy; created Earl of Northumbria in 1080, but as he was 'of little use in difficult circumstances' he went home to Normandy. His lands were in the king's hands in 1086, and had not yet been granted afresh. The position is made cle
ar by}{\i\insrsid6894405  tenuit}{\insrsid6894405  ('he held') in 21,1, and at the end of 21,6 Domesday has 'These lands were Earl Aubrey's; now they are in the king's hands'.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 21,1\tab 
AZUR [* SON OF THORTH *]. An Azur son of Thorth was a royal thane, named in BUK 1,7 and identifiable
 elsewhere as a predecessor of Earl Aubrey of Coucy. It is possible that he is the same individual as Azur <of Slindon> since their holdings in Wiltshire were intermingled with each other and both had very substantial manors in the county. There are, howe
ver, no tenurial or other associations to confirm a link. See also Clarke, }{\i\insrsid6894405 English Nobility}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 253, who does not include SOM 6,2, a substantial manor held by Azur }{\i\insrsid6894405 filius Torodi}{\insrsid6894405 
 (Exon), probably the same individual despite the different form of the surname (JP).
\par \tab \tab However, Tengvik, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Old English Bynames}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 202, accepts the Exon form }{\i\insrsid6894405 filius Torodi}{\insrsid6894405  under Old Danish/Old Swedish }{\i\insrsid6894405 Thorald}{\insrsid6894405 .}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 22\tab 
EARL HUGH. Hugh of Avranches; Earl of Chester and nephew of King William.
\par \tab \tab 
In the Landholders' List on folio 219b Earl Hugh is entered at '22' and Hugh of Grandmesnil at '23', but the main scribe of Great Domesday reversed the order of these two fiefs on folio 224cd. When he came to rubricate this county he numbered the present 
fief (on folio 224d) correctly as }{\i\insrsid6894405 XXII}{\insrsid6894405  and indicated that it should precede Hugh's fief (on folio 224c) by the use of large vermilion transposition signs. He did not, however, correct the number }{\i\insrsid6894405 
XXXIII }{\insrsid6894405 that he had written beside Hugh's fief; see NTH 23 chapter note and \{Introduction: The Manuscript\}.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 22,1\tab ROBERT [* OF RHUDDLAN *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}
{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 22,2\tab ROBERT [* OF RHUDDLAN *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 22,3\tab ROBERT [* OF RHUDDLAN *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 1 VIRGATE OF LAND [***] . In the manuscript }{
\i\insrsid6894405 IN }{\insrsid6894405 follows this statement and the rest of the line is left blank, evidently for the later insertion of a hundred head. But Trafford was in Warden Hundred (heading at 22,1), so no rubrication was needed. An attemp
t was made to erase it.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 22,4\tab ROBERT [* OF RHUDDLAN *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}
{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
MARSTON [ST LAWRENCE]. 4 hides are held here in 'Alboldstow' Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 369a).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 22,5\tab ROBERT [* OF RHUDDLAN *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}
{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 22,6\tab ROBERT [* OF RHUDDLAN *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 22,7\tab ROBERT [* OF RHUDDLAN *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab BLAKESLEY. See 1,6 Blakesley note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 22,8\tab ROBERT [* OF RHUDDLAN *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}
{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 22,9\tab JOCELYN [* THE BRETON *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab ESKIL HELD THESE LANDS ... HOLD THEM. This statement at the end of Earl Hugh's fief, written on a separate line and beginning slightl
y into the central margin, can only refer 22,3-6;9, as far as Eskil is concerned. Two holdings, in Blakesley and Yelvertoft (22,7-8) were held by different men in 1066, though their 1086 holder was Robert, presumably one of Earl Hugh's men. The main scrib
e of Great Domesday probably realized that after the first two entries he had omitted the }{\i\insrsid6894405 T.R.E.}{\insrsid6894405 
 holder and perhaps thought that Eskil had been Earl Hugh's predecessor throughout the fief, so decided to leave the statement to the end, but then forgot that two holdings had not been held by Eskil.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 23\tab THE CHAPTER is misnumbered }{\i\insrsid6894405 XXXIII}{
\insrsid6894405  in the text and entered before chapter 22, the order being restored by transposition signs; see NTH 22 Hugh note and \{Introduction: The Manuscript\}.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab HUGH OF GRANDMESNIL. Sheriff of Leicestershire. His lands passed to his son Ivo and were 'acquired' from him by the Count of Meulan; see LEC 9 Count note and LEC 13 Hugh note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 23,1\tab [WEST] FARNDON. Held by the Earl of Leicester in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 369b) in Warden Hundred.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 23,2\tab HUGH [* OF GOUVILLE *]. He is Hugh of Gouville, see 23,3 Watford note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
OSLAC <OF LUBENHAM>. The name Oslac occurs on 22 holdings in Domesday Book, probably representing between 13 and 15 individuals.
 The distribution is curious, falling into four distinct groups, in Devon, Shropshire, the Midlands, and East Anglia and Essex. It is possible that the Midland group had all belonged to one individual, named Oslac White (1,21) since all of the properties 
l
ay within a radius of some 15 miles from the centre of the group and no other Oslacs occur with a hundred miles. Two of this group held land in 1086, a possible link between Oslac of Flecknoe and the Oslac of the holdings clustered around Lubenham (60,1).
 
There are, however, no tenurial relationships between Oslac White and the Oslac of Flecknoe, Swinford and Lubenham which would help to confirm a linkage. The Oslacs of Lubenham, Thorpe Lubenham, Marston Trussell and East Farndon, however, are probably the
 same individual since these holdings are tightly clustered on the Leicestershire/Northamptonshire border. The }{\i\insrsid6894405 T.R.E}{\insrsid6894405 
. holder of East Farndon is not named and may well have been the Oslac holding in 1086, strengthening the probability that this was the Oslac holding in the neighbouring vills before the Conquest (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 23,3\tab HUGH [* OF GOUVILLE *]. See 23,3 Watford note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
WEEDON [BEC]. Held by the Earl of Leicester in 'Gravesend' Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 370b).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab WATFORD. Held by Gilbert the cook (57,2). Also acquired in the exchange were 5 houses held by Hugh of Gouville from Hugh of Grandmesnil in Leicester (LEC C12).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 23,4\tab HUGH [* OF GOUVILLE *]. See 23,3 Watford note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab ASHBY [ST LEDGERS]. 
This Ashby was held by the Earl of Leicester in 'Alwardsley' Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 371b).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 23,5\tab 
OSBERN [* OF NEUF-MARCHE *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
BALDWIN [* SON OF HERLEWIN *]. Baldwin's father, Herlewin, came to Eng
land even before the reign of Edward the Confessor. Baldwin himself had a substantial holding before the Conquest and survived to hold under the Conqueror. The bulk of his holdings can be established from his distinctive pre-Conquest name and the links wh
i
ch this establishes. His holdings in 1086 were significantly different from those in 1066, only two being in his hands at both dates (BUK 17,15;24). Broadly speaking, his pre-Conquest lands were re-distributed to Hugh of Grandmesnil and William son of Ans
culf, with Miles Crispin obtaining three holdings and several other tenants-in-chief a manor apiece. William son of Ansculf then re-endowed him with the bulk of his post-Conquest fee. See Lewis, 'The French in England before the Norman Conquest'; Clarke, 
}{\i\insrsid6894405 English Nobility}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 257-58; both lists include only Baldwin's pre-Conquest holdings (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 23,6\tab 
OSBERN [* OF NEUF-MARCHE *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab BALDWIN [* SON OF HERLEWIN *]. See 23,5 Baldwin note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 23,7\tab OSBERN [* OF NEUF-MARCHE *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab THRUPP [GROUNDS]. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Torp}{
\insrsid6894405 . It ends a group of places in 'Gravesend' Hundred. See the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 371a), a holding of the Earl of Leicester.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab BALDWIN [* SON OF HERLEWIN *]. See 23,5 Baldwin note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 23,9\tab IVO [* OF GRANDMESNIL *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab BALDWIN [* SON OF HERLEWIN *]. See 23,5 Baldwin note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 23,10\tab 
MIDDLETON [CHENEY]. In Sutton Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 368b).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 23,12\tab IVO [* OF GRANDMESNIL *]. Note to be supplied (JP).
}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 23,13\tab 
WOODFORD [HALSE]. It is held from the Earl of Leicester in Warden Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 370a).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab BALDWIN [* SON OF HERLEWIN *]. See 23,5 Baldwin note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 23,16\tab THIS ENTRY and the three following (23,17-19) are
 interrupted by chapter 24, written at the foot of folio 224c; see NTH 24 chapter note. These lands were and are all in Oxfordshire. The later descent of the holdings proves that they are part of the fief of Hugh of Grandmesnil, rather than additional ent
r
ies for chapter 24. There is no schedule for Hugh in Domesday Oxfordshire and it is likely that these four holdings forming his entire fief there was attached to Northamptonshire in error, probably as a result of the misdivision of material in the circuit
 volume; see \{Introduction: Places in the wrong Domesday County\}.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 23,17\tab CHARLTON[-ON-OTMOOR]. It is held from the Earl of Leicester in }{\i\insrsid6894405 Book of Fees}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 831.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab BALDWIN [* SON OF HERLEWIN *]. See 23,5 Baldwin note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 4 HIDES ARE IN LORDSHIP. Apparen
tly an afterthought. Lordship hides are not given generally in Domesday Northamptonshire though the practice is common in some other counties of Great Domesday.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 23,18\tab SHIPTON[-ON-CHERWELL]. It is held in }{\i\insrsid6894405 Book of Fees}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 834, from the Earl of Winchester who inherited from Hugh. For another part, see OXF 7,26.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 23,19\tab SIBFORD. See }{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Oxfordshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 404. It is held from the Earl of Winchester in }{\i\insrsid6894405 Book of Fees}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 834, and is Sibford Gower in }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Book of Fees}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 823. For other parts of Sibford, see OXF 24,3. STS 12,30. The latter is also entered in the wrong Domesday county, probably for the same reason; see STS 12,30 entry note}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab BALDWIN [* SON OF HERLEWIN *]. See 23,5 Baldwin note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 24\tab THIS CHAPTER is wr
itten some six letters into the left-hand margin at the foot of folio 224c, the last line being below the marginal ruling. It is in thinner ink and smaller script.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 25\tab HENRY OF FERRERS. His heirs were the earls of Derby and Nottingham.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 25,1\tab POTTERSPURY. This }{\i\insrsid6894405 Perie }{\insrsid6894405 is distinguished from Paulerspury (35,22; see 35,22 Paulerspury note) by the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 374a), where it is held by Robert }{\i\insrsid6894405 
de Ferrar}{\insrsid6894405 .}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 See }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 4; and 56,66 Potterspury note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab VALUE. This is written }{\i\insrsid6894405 ual'i }{\insrsid6894405 in the manuscript and is presumably a mistake for }{\i\insrsid6894405 ual' }{\insrsid6894405 (}{\i\insrsid6894405 ualet}{\insrsid6894405 ).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab EARL TOSTI. Brother of King Harold and Earl of Northumbria; killed 1066.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 25,2\tab TITCHMARSH. The place-name is added in the left-hand margin.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab SASWALO <OF HOON>. The name Sasw
alo was a fairly uncommon name (this is its only occurrence in Domesday Northamptonshire), so this individual is probably the same as three of Henry of Ferrers' subtenants in Derbyshire (6,47 (Hoon). 6,49;98) and one each in Warwickshire (WAR 19,4) and Li
ncolnshire (LIN 21,1, where he is described as Henry of Ferrers' man). He appears to be the same man as }{\i\insrsid6894405 Sewal}{\insrsid6894405  in the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, p. 65 no. 52), as the giver of two-thirds of }{\i\insrsid6894405 Hoga}{
\insrsid6894405  and of 4 acres near }{\i\insrsid6894405 Merstone}{\insrsid6894405  (Marston-on-Dove); see DBY 6}{\cf1\insrsid6894405 ,47 Hoon note. According to }{\i\cf1\insrsid6894405 VCH Warwickshire}{\cf1\insrsid6894405 
, i. pp. 281-82, he was ancestor of the Shirley family; }{\insrsid6894405 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday People}{\insrsid6894405 
, p. 417, adds that he was an ancestor of the Ireton family, though there is no mention of a Saswalo in DBY 1,13 (Kirk Ireton) or DBY 6,92 (Ireton).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab BONDI [* THE CONSTABLE *]. See 36,2 Bondi note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 25,3\tab BONDI [* THE CONSTABLE *]. See 36,2 Bondi note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 26,1\tab ROBERT OF TOSNY [HOLDS]. }{\i\insrsid6894405 Tenet }{
\insrsid6894405 is omitted in the manuscript.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab STOKE [ALBANY]. It is in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 386a) in Stoke Hundred.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab OSWULF [* SON OF FRANI *]. }{\cf1\insrsid6894405 An Oswulf was the predecessor of Robert of Tosny in three manors here (26,1;6;8). An Oswulf, a thane, was also Robert's predecessor in LEC
 15,7 (where he said to have been able to 'go where he would' with his land, equivalent to holding 'freely' as in the present entry and in 26,6); Oswulf, a thane of King Edward, also held a manor in Buckinghamshire (BUK 18,3) which passed to Robert of Tos
n
y, and an Oswulf son of Frani (also a thane of King Edward) was his predecessor in another (BUK 18,2). Oswulf son of Frani was Robert's predecessor in all his estates in Bedfordshire (BDF 26) and also in Hertfordshire (HRT 21), in one of which he 'could s
e
ll to whom he would' (equivalent to holding 'freely'). It is thus likely that all Robert of Tosny's predecessors called Oswulf were the son of Frani, as perhaps was another Oswulf in Northamptonshire (18,55) who had held 'freely'. This Frani might be the 
same person as Frani of Rockingham (Northamptonshire); see LEC 5,1 Langton note.}{\insrsid6894405 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab See also Clarke, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6894405 English Nobility}{\cf1\insrsid6894405 , pp. 331-32, who omits the LEC holdings (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\cf1\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 26,3\tab 
1 HIDE AND 1 BOVATE. The Danish carucates and bovates make an occasional appearance in Northamptonshire; they are the norm in }{\i\insrsid6894405 Roteland}{\insrsid6894405 
, Leicestershire and Lincolnshire. Sometimes, as here, the two systems of assessment are intermixed. On the mixing of hidation and carucation, see \{Introduction: Hidation\}. The other part of Seaton (1,2) at 1 \'bd
 hides and 1 bovate has a similar mixed measure.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
SEATON. In Witchley Wapentake (or Hundred) in 1086; later in 'Wrangditch' Hundred, following Witchley Wapentake's division into 'East' Hundred and 'Wrangditch' Hundred, both of which were fully transferred to Rutland by the thirteenth century; see \{
Introduction: The County Boundary\}. A marginal }{\i\insrsid6894405 Rotel'}{\insrsid6894405  in a later hand indicates the change of county.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab Robert's estate in Seaton became more exactly known (from the fourteenth century) as the manor of Uphall, also known as 'Belfage' or 'Beaufois' from the de Bello Fago family, who held it probably from the time of Henry I; see }
{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. pp. 205, 209; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 213.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab A PRIEST. For the implied church, see }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 221.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab ONLY T
HE THIRD PART OF THE WOODLAND. The woodland on the king's holding at Seaton (1,2g), at 1 furlong by 1 furlong, is identical in size. It is also probably the same piece of woodland, mentioned twice. The implication seems to be that of this wood Robert of T
osny holds a third (that is, a third of a square furlong) and the king two-thirds. However, the holdings themselves in Seaton (1,2. 26,3) are not duplicates of one another.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab THE SAME WITH THE ARABLE LAND. The arable land (presumably meaning what is hidated) of Robert's holding here at Seaton is 1 hide and 1 bovate, that of the king at Seaton (1,2b) is 1 \'bd
 hides and 1 bovate. The resources also differ, so these are different estates. It seems however that Robert of Tosny only actually holds a third of the 1
 hide and a third of a bovate. It is possible that this portion of Seaton was a comparatively recent grant from the royal manor of Barrowden (1,2) - no }{\i\insrsid6894405 T.R.E.}{\insrsid6894405 
 holder is given - and there was some confusion about the exact division. For a similar case, see NTT 2,10 Alan note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab 1 VIRGATE. This virgate seems to have been detached from the royal holding in Barrowden (1,2) which was rated at 4 hides less 1 virgate in 1086.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 26,5\tab WELDON. It lay in Corby Hundred.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
EDWIN HELD IT. This is written at the end of the first line of the next entry (26,6), but separated from it by the scribe's use of a 'gallows' sign; compare 30,8 Northmann note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 26,6\tab OSWULF [* SON OF FRANI *]. See 26,1 Oswulf note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 26,8\tab HILDWIN <OF BRAMPTON>. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Ildvin}{\insrsid6894405 [}{\i\insrsid6894405 us}{\insrsid6894405 ] here and in 26,9,}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 from Old English }{\i\insrsid6894405 Hildwine}{\insrsid6894405 .}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 
A man called Hildwin also held from Robert of Tosny in Leicestershire (LEC 15,15), probably the same man as here and in 26,9; the only other occurrence of this nam
e is as a tenant of William of Poilley in Devon (DEV 21,11). By the time of the twelfth-century Northamptonshire Survey, Hildwin here had been succeeded by his son Ralph: Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday People}{\insrsid6894405 
, p. 279, under Ilduin, with an incorrect folio reference for 26,9.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab BRAMPTON [ASH]. It lay in Stoke Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 386a).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab OSWULF [* SON OF FRANI *]. See 26,1 Oswulf note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 26,9\tab HILDWIN <OF BRAMPTON>. See 26,8 Hildwin note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 27\tab 
ROBERT OF STAFFORD. He was the younger son of Roger of Tosny.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 27,1\tab STONETON. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Stantone}{\insrsid6894405 ; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Warwickshire}{\insrsid6894405 
, p. 278. In Northamptonshire in 1086, it was transferred to Warwickshire in 1896. It is held in }{\i\insrsid6894405 Book of Fees}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 936, from the Earl of Stafford.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 28\tab ROBERT D'OILLY. Possibly the sheriff of one or more of Warwickshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire, though the evidence is uncertain; see Tengvik, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Old English Bynames}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 103, and Green, }{
\i\insrsid6894405 English Sheriffs}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 26, 69, 83.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 28,1\tab ROGER [* OF QUESNAY *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
AZUR [* SON OF TOTI *]. The lands of the royal thane, Azur son of Toti, and his men were distributed among no fewer than nine tenants-in-chief; but he is named at least once in relation to seven of t
hem which allows his other holdings from them to be identified (BUK B5-6;9. 4,25. 14,29. 19,6-7. 41,1;4;6. 47,1. 49,1). Only the Middlesex holdings lack an obvious link; but his status there as royal guard and lord of men makes it probable that this is th
e same individual. The two men of his whose holdings devolved upon the Count of Mortain had no other lord named Azur in the county, or indeed the circuit, to choose from. See also Clarke, }{\i\insrsid6894405 English Nobility}{\insrsid6894405 
, pp. 253-54 (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 28,2\tab ROGER [* OF QUESNAY *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 28,3\tab ROBERT ALSO HOLDS. Farley's }{\i\insrsid6894405 en'}{
\insrsid6894405  is an error for }{\i\insrsid6894405 ten'}{\insrsid6894405  in the manuscript.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 29,1\tab AELRIC [* SON OF MERGEAT *]. }{\cf1\insrsid6894405 Aelric son of Mergeat was the predecessor of Robert of Vessey in Leicestershire (LEC 16) and in Warwickshire (WAR 24,1 and, as Aelric, in 24,2; in 24,1 the Domesday form is }{
\i\cf1\insrsid6894405 Alric'}{\cf1\insrsid6894405 ). }{\insrsid6894405 He is probably the plain Aelric who preceded Robert of Vessey in Lincolnshire (LIN 37,1-2;6) and the present Aelric: }{\i\cf1\insrsid6894405 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid6894405 
, i. p. 293.}{\insrsid6894405 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6894405 The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\insrsid6894405 Ailric}{\insrsid6894405 , }{\i\insrsid6894405 Ailricus}{\insrsid6894405 , }{\i\insrsid6894405 Aeilric}{\insrsid6894405 , }{\i\insrsid6894405 Aelric}{
\insrsid6894405 [}{\i\insrsid6894405 us}{\insrsid6894405 ], }{\i\insrsid6894405 Eilric}{\insrsid6894405 , }{\i\insrsid6894405 Alricus}{\insrsid6894405 , }{\i\insrsid6894405 Aeilric}{\insrsid6894405 , }{\i\insrsid6894405 Eilricus}{\insrsid6894405 
 etc. - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid6894405 \'c6thelric}{\insrsid6894405 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 186-87. As these forms did not include the medial }{\i\insrsid6894405 
-d- }{\insrsid6894405 or }{\i\insrsid6894405 -g-}{\insrsid6894405 , 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 \'c6
thelric here.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 30,1\tab 6 FREEMEN HAVE IT THERE. That is, the plough.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 30,2\tab WESTON[-BY-WELLAND]. Like Sutton (30,3) this Weston falls in a group of places in Stoke Hundred, and is thus probably Weston-by-Welland, just as the Sutton is Sutton Bassett. They s
hare the same holder in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p., 386a). See 56,3-4.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 30,3\tab SUTTON [BASSETT]. For the identity, see 30,2 Weston note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 30,4\tab IN THE LEFT-HAND margin of the manuscript is an }{\i\insrsid6894405 r }{\insrsid6894405 for }{\i\insrsid6894405 require}{\insrsid6894405  ('enquire'), omitted by Farley
. It is not clear what additional information might be needed, unless it is meadow, pasture etc., but these are also missing from other entries in this chapter. There is no obvious later addition.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 30,6\tab WELDON. This and the next Weldon (30,7) are later held by the Bassett family with Sutton and Weston as Great Weldon; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 18.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 30,7\tab WELDON. See 30,6 Weldon note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab THE KING CLAIMS IT. The king holds Corby (1,12), which is adjacent and from which much land had been appropriated.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 30,8\tab 
NORTHMANN HELD IT. This sentence belongs with the present entry, though it is written at the end of the first line of the next entry (30,9) and was mistakenly placed there in the Phillimore printed translation. The scri
be's use of a 'gallows' sign round the sentence makes this perfectly clear, as also in 26,5.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 30,15\tab 4 SMALLHOLDERS HAVE 1 THERE. In the manuscript [}{
\i\insrsid6894405 ve}{\insrsid6894405 ]}{\i\insrsid6894405 l una est }{\insrsid6894405 ... }{\i\insrsid6894405 cu}{\insrsid6894405 [}{\i\insrsid6894405 m}{\insrsid6894405 ] is interlined above }{\i\f710\insrsid6894405 Vn\'e2 h'nt }{\insrsid6894405 
(these words are further to the left in Farley) with the meaning 'or "there is 1 (plough) with 4 smallholders"'. There is no underlining for deletion, possibly in error, but the }{\i\insrsid6894405 vel}{\insrsid6894405 
 indicates that the scribe was unsure of the ownership of the plough.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 30,19\tab CYNERIC HELD BRADDEN. This is an explanatory addition to 30,17; compare 41,1 Ralph note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 31\tab THIS CHAPTER and the following six (NTH 32-38) were misnumbered by the main scribe of Great Domesday as }{\i\insrsid6894405 XXX}{\insrsid6894405  - }{\i\insrsid6894405 XXXIII}{\insrsid6894405 , }{\i\insrsid6894405 XXX}{
\insrsid6894405 , }{\i\insrsid6894405 XXXV}{\insrsid6894405  - }{\i\insrsid6894405 XXXVII}{\insrsid6894405 , but the numbering of the Landholders' List on folio 219b is correct. See \{Introduction: The Manuscript\}.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 31,1\tab 
2 HIDES. This unnamed holding in Stoke Hundred is perhaps [East] Carlton; see the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 386a).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 32\tab RALPH OF LIMESY. On the misnumbering of this fief in the text, see NTH 31 chapter note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 32,1\tab HERLEWIN <OF LUDDINGTON>. If Baldwin son of Herlewin is disregarded, the name Herlewin occurs on thirteen holdings in Domesday Book and once more in the }{\i\insrsid6894405 Liber Exoniensis}{\insrsid6894405 
, probably representing five individuals. Given the rarity of the name, the Herlewin who held Luddington may have been the same individual as the tenant of Collyweston (HUN 19,19), across the border in Northamptonshire (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab EARL MORCAR. See 1,4 Morcar note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 33\tab ROBERT BLUNT. He is called }{\i\insrsid6894405 Albus}{
\insrsid6894405 , and}{\i\insrsid6894405  Blancardus}{\insrsid6894405 , ('white'), as well as }{\i\insrsid6894405 Flavus}{\insrsid6894405  ('yellow', 'fair') and }{\i\insrsid6894405 Blundus}{\insrsid6894405  ('blonde'), the origin of the modern surname.

\par \tab \tab On the misnumbering of this fief in the text, see NTH 31 chapter note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 34\tab 
WILLIAM OF KEYNES. From Cahagnes, probably the place in the French d\'e9partement of Calvados (arrondissement Vire, canton Aunay-sur-Odon); see Tengvik, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Old English Bynames}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 79; Loyd, }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 52; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday People}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 472.. The name becomes anglicised as Keynes.
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab 
On the misnumbering of this fief in the text, see NTH 31 chapter note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 35\tab 
WILLIAM PEVEREL. It is not certain (despite the note in the Phillimore printed edition) that he was ever sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. Certainly, in 1086, the sheriff of Nottinghamshire was Hugh son of Baldric (NTT B3 Hugh note). From a royal
 notification (1086 x 1100) addressed to the Archbishop of York, William Peverel and all of Nottinghamshire (}{\i\insrsid6894405 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid6894405 
, i. p. 108 no. 438), it might be concluded that he was sheriff at some time during that period. However, he might ha
ve been acting temporarily or was addressed because of his great importance in the shire, since he held the castle at Nottingham (as well as one at Castleton in Derbyshire); see Green, }{\i\insrsid6894405 English Sheriffs}{\insrsid6894405 
, p. 67; and NTT 10 William note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 35,1a\tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 35,1b\tab 
RUSHDEN. William also held another part of the village in Bedfordshire (BDF 22,2) in 1086. This Bedfordshire portion was transferred to Northamptonshire at an early date.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,1c\tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,1d\tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,1e\tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 35,1f\tab 
FARNDISH. Farndish was divided between Bedfordshire (BDF 42,1. 43,1) and Northamptonshire in 1086. The Northamptonshire portion was transferred to Bedfordshire in 1884.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 35,1g\tab PODINGTON. Podington was appa
rently divided between Bedfordshire (BDF 32,5. 34,1) and Northamptonshire in 1086. The Northamptonshire portion, as a member of the multiple estate of Higham Ferrers, might, nonetheless, have been in Bedfordshire in 1086. There is no record of its transfe
r to Bedfordshire, which must have taken place, if it did at all, at an early date.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,1h\tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,1i\tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 35,1j\tab 
[* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. Countess Gytha was William Peverel's predecessor in BUK 16,9-10 and, as 'Gytha, Earl Ralph's wife' in BUK 16,8; her man (Saemer the priest) was his predecessor in BDF 22,2, and the Countess Goda who was his predecessor in NTT 10
,5 is likely to have been Gytha (10,5 Gytha note). It is therefore likely that his predecessor in Northamptonshire was also the countess, wife of Earl Ralph of Hereford, nephew of Edward the Confessor; she should be distinguished from the better known Gyt
ha, wife of Earl Godwin, who also named her son Harold.
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab 
She may have been the daughter of Osgod "Clapa" and widow of Tovi the proud: Williams, 'The King's Nephew', pp. 327-43 (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab BURGRED <OF OLNEY>. See 4,1 Burgred note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
BISHOP GEOFFREY [* OF COUTANCES *]. Burgred's lands had passed to Geoffrey, Bishop of Coutances (NTH 4). Here he claims homage from men who had been Burgred's. Raunds was held by the bishop (4,1).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,2\tab CLIPSTON. The place-name is interlined.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab NASEBY. It lay just over the border in Guilsborough Hundred; see 35,5 and the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 380a).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 35,3a\tab 
NOBOTTLE. The next five entries (35,3b-3f) are clearly dependencies because the wording and layout are similar to other such entries (for example, 35,1), the value is given at the end (35,3g) and all places are adjacent to Nobottle.}{\insrsid6902632 

\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 35,3b\tab 3 FREEMEN HAVE IT THERE. That is, the plough.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,3c\tab BRINGTON. See 18,44 Brington note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,3d\tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,3e\tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,3f\tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,3g\tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,4\tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,5\tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,6\tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,7\tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,8\tab PAYNE <OF TETCHWICK>. }{\cf1\insrsid6894405 He is probably the same person as the Payne who holds under William Peverel in Leicestershire (LEC 25,3), Nottinghamshire (NTT
 10,51) and Buckinghamshire (BUK 16,3: Tetchwick). His co-tenant in NTT 10,51 is Saxfrith, probably the same individual who holds from William Peverel here in 35,9-11 and also in NTT 10,22 and LEC 25,5. In NTT 10,51 Payne and Saxfrith are called William's
 men and Saxfrith in NTT 10,22 is also so described. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Northamptonshire.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 35,9\tab WITCHLEY HUNDRED. }{\i\insrsid6894405 Wap'}{
\insrsid6894405  (for }{\i\insrsid6894405 Wapentac}{\insrsid6894405 ) lined through in red, which is the normal term for Witchley, is written in the left-hand margin of the manuscript. On the significance of these alternatives, see \{
Introduction: Hundreds\}.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab SAXFRITH <OF BASFORD>. William Peverel also had a tenant called 
Saxfrith in NTT 10,22;51 (Old Basford), the only occurrences of this name there, and in LEC 25,5 (again the only occurrence), who is likely to be the same as his tenant here and in 35,10-11 (no other men of this name appear in the county); there are only 
a dozen other people with this name in Domesday. See 35,8 Payne note. According to Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday People}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 417, Saxfrith was the father of Philip of Essebi.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab EMPINGHAM. In Witchley Wapentake (or Hundred) in 1086; later in 'East' Hundred, following
 Witchley Wapentake's division into 'East' Hundred and 'Wrangditch' Hundred, both of which were fully transferred to Rutland by the thirteenth century; see \{Introduction: The County Boundary\}. A marginal }{\i\insrsid6894405 Rotel'}{\insrsid6894405 
 in a later hand indicates the change of county.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab This estate descended within the Peverel barony of Nottingham; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 53; }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. pp. 205, 208; }{\i\insrsid6894405 
VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. pp. 245-47.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab [* YOUNG *] EDWARD. An Edward had also held Tickencote (56,26) adjacent.
\par \tab \tab Young Edward is
 named as holding land in three counties, as the predecessor of the Count of Mortain and Walter Giffard in Buckinghamshire and of Countess Judith in Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire. There are few unidentified Edwards in those three counties and is possi
b
le, even likely, that all were this man. The substantial manor of Broughton (BUK 15,1) acquired by William of Warenne was less than 10 miles from Young Edward's principal manor of Wing (BUK 12,7) and even closer to another of his holdings, at Crafton (BUK
 
12,8). This, the status of the holding, and the paucity of unidentified Edwards makes it likely that Warenne's predecessor was Young Edward here and at Caversfield (BUK 15,2), even though the Edward on that holding was described as a thane of Earl Tosti: 
W
arenne is unlikely to have had two predecessors named Edward. In Lincolnshire, the unidentified Edward at Bytham (LIN 30,31) was encircled by Judith's holdings; and the Edward who exchanged the substantial manor of Thoresby (4,42) with the Bishop of Bayeu
x
 can only have been someone of the status of Young Edward. If he were that man, then he had probably also held the nearby holding at Binbrook. Finally, in Northamptonshire, apart from the predecessor of Countess Judith, the one unidentified Edward held Em
pingham, just three miles from her manor of Tickencote. See also Clarke, }{\i\insrsid6894405 English Nobility}{\insrsid6894405 
, p. 306, who accidentally assigns the Buckinghamshire holdings to Hertfordshire and whose list omits BUK 15,1-2 and NTH 35,9; he includes Binbrook but not Thoresby, which was not explicitly stated to be in Edward's possession in 1066 (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab FREDEGIS. See 18,18 Fredegis note.}{\insrsid6902632 

\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,10\tab SAXFRITH <OF BASFORD>. See 35,9 Saxfrith note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,11\tab SAXFRITH <OF BASFORD>. See 35,9 Saxfrith note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
"ACESHILLE". The meaning is 'oak-tree hill', but the place has not been located. The identification with Ashton (40,4) is rejected by Round in }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , i. p. 338 note 3, but accepted by }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday Gazetteer}{\insrsid6894405 .}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,12\tab 
AMBROSE <OF TILSWORTH>. All the men called Ambrose in Domesday Book were tenants of William Peverel and so were almost certainly the same person: here and in 35,13;26, in Nottinghamshire (NTT 10,28;39: in the second he is described as
 William's man), in BDF 22,1 (Tilsworth) and BUK 16,8. According to Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday People}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 150, he was succeeded in the early twelfth century by two sisters, perhaps his daughters.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 35,13\tab AMBROSE <OF TILSWORTH>. See 35,12 Ambrose note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab KEL
MARSH. It is included in 'Stotfold' Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 383b) but it is a border place, and the hundred head at 35,12 and the mention of Arthingworth suggest that it was in Rothwell Hundred in 1086. See 1,15 members note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 35,14\tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,15\tab EUSTACE [* OF HUNTINGDON *]. See HUN B10 Eustace note (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
HARGRAVE. Three other parts of Hargrave lay in Huntingdonshire (HUN 3,1. 19,13-14). These were transferred to Northamptonshire at an early but unknown date.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 35,17\tab DROGO <OF STOKE>. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,18\tab DROGO <OF STOKE>. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,19a\tab DROGO <OF STOKE>. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab COTON. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Cota}{\insrsid6894405 
 can be Coton or Claycoton (}{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 66-67) but the latter is probably accounted for in Lilbourne (18,70. 21,3-4); see Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 379b).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 35,19b\tab DROGO <OF STOKE>. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,19c\tab WINWICK. See 12,1 Winwick note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab DROGO <OF STOKE>. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 35,19d\tab [WEST] HADDON. William Peverel holds 1 \'bd
 great virgates in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 379a) at West Haddon in Guilsborough Hundred.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab DROGO <OF STOKE>. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 35,19e\tab [COLD] ASHBY. See }{\i\insrsid6894405 Book of Fees}{
\insrsid6894405 , p. 944.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab DROGO <OF STOKE>. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,19f\tab DROGO <OF STOKE>. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,19g\tab DROGO <OF STOKE>. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,19h\tab DROGO <OF STOKE>. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,20\tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 35,21\tab HOUGHTON. 1 hide and \'bd
 great virgate are held of the fee of Peverel in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 375b) in }{\i\insrsid6894405 Houcton' }{\insrsid6894405 which from }{\i\insrsid6894405 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 8a, and }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 6, appears to be Great Houghton.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,22\tab PAULERSPURY. It appears as }{\i\insrsid6894405 West pyria }{\insrsid6894405 in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 374a); see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 
, iv. p. 5, and 25,1 Potterspury note and 56,66 Potterspury note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 35,23\tab ALFRED [* THE BUTLER *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}
{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab THEY ARE THERE. The Latin }{\i\insrsid6894405 Ibi est ipsa }
{\insrsid6894405 refers back to 'one plough and a half' (}{\i\insrsid6894405 .i. car' 7 dim'}{\insrsid6894405 ) and so is singular.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 35,24\tab BLAKESLEY. The Pe
verel holding was Little Blakesley (SP6149) which is now Woodend. See Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 372a); and 1,6 Blakesley note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 35,25\tab ANOTHER COURTEENHALL. This refers to the hold
ing in Courteenhall at 35,6. Two villages are not found in later times, and the meaning is probably 'another estate at' as is usual with this use of }{\i\insrsid6894405 alia}{\insrsid6894405 
; see Thorn, 'Manorial Affixes'. This holding may have been at Somershale, part of Roade, listed as 6 small virgates of the fee of Peverel in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 374b).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 35,26\tab AMBROSE <OF TILSWORTH>. See 35,12 Ambrose note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
MOLLINGTON. Parts of the village are entered in the Warwickshi
re folios (WAR 37,9) and in those for Oxfordshire (OXF 17,7). The vill was still divided between Oxfordshire and Warwickshire in the nineteenth century; the Warwickshire portion being transferred to Oxfordshire only in 1896. It is possible that the Northa
m
ptonshire boundary was the River Cherwell in 1086, with some of Mollington on its east bank and so in that county. On the other hand, the lack of later evidence for a part of Mollington lying in Northamptonshire and the fact that this is the last entry in
 William Peverel's fief might suggest that this is a further example of the main scribe of Great Domesday Book misallocating a place; see \{Introduction: Places in the wrong Domesday County\}
. Thus these 4 hides may have lain in Oxfordshire and combined with 
the 1 hide listed there (OXF 17,7) to make a five-hide unit, equal to the five hides in Warwickshire (WAR 37,9). Against this it should be pointed out that William Peverel also had a fief entered in the Oxfordshire folios (OXF 23) so there must have been 
some other error than simple misdivision if this part of Mollington really lay in Oxfordshire in 1086.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. See 35,1j Gytha note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 36\tab WILLIAM SON OF ANSCULF. He appears as William of }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Pinkeni }{\insrsid6894405 (Picquigny) in WIL 24,19. 68,22-23. Ansculf himself is Ansculf of }{\i\insrsid6894405 Pinchengi }{\insrsid6894405 
in BUK 17,2. William, his son, was lord of Dudley Castle and his lands formed the nucleus of the barony of Dudley. He was an important figure in the midland counties.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 36,1\tab TOLETHORPE. It lay in Witchley Wapentake (or Hun
dred) in 1086; later in 'East' Hundred, following Witchley Wapentake's division into 'East' Hundred and 'Wrangditch' Hundred, both of which were fully transferred to Rutland by the thirteenth century; see \{Introduction: The County Boundary\}. A marginal 
}{\i\insrsid6894405 Rotel'}{\insrsid6894405  in a later hand indicates the change of county.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab The overlordship of this manor formed part of the honour of Dudley, and passed to Fulk Payenel/ Pagnell by marriage to William son of Ansculf's daughter; from early in the fourteenth century it was hel
d of the manor of Newton Pagnell in Buckinghamshire. The descendants of Robert the subtenant seem to have take the name }{\i\insrsid6894405 de Tolethorpe}{\insrsid6894405 ; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. pp. 205, 208; }{
\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 238.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
IN LORDSHIP 1 [PLOUGH]. The meaning is made less clear by the intrusion of }{\i\insrsid6894405 Rex inde h't}{\insrsid6894405  }{\i\f710\insrsid6894405 soc\'e2}{\insrsid6894405 .}{\i\insrsid6894405 '}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 36,2\tab 
UPTON WAPENTAKE. It is called Upton Hundred elsewhere. It lies in a 'Danish' area, but the choice of term here may have been influenced by Witchley Wapentake above (36,1).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab BONDI [* THE CONSTABLE *]. Bondi is named as the constable on the fiefs of Wil
liam son of Ansculf (BUK 17,9), the Count of Mortain (BUK 12,29), and Henry of Ferrers (BUK 27,1), though named Boding the constable in Henry's case. This was certainly Bondi, however, since Henry succeeded him in four other counties and laid claim in a f
ifth as Bondi's successor (GLS 31,2). Apart from other the links through the Count of Mortain and William son of Ansculf, it is probable that the Bondi who held manors valued at over \'a3
10 was, in most, of not all cases, the constable; and his status as a lor
d of men identifies him at Colemore in Hampshire (HAM 57,2), and therefore probably on the adjacent holding at Empshott (HAM 62,1). Finally, the Bondi who preceded Countess Judith in several of her holdings in Northamptonshire may also have been the const
able. There can be little doubt that the Countess had only one predecessor named Bondi, five of his seven holdings being centred on Earls Barton, held with full jurisdiction, the whole complex worth \'a3
16. Its status certainly befitted someone of the constabl
e's status, and Earls Barton was just a couple of miles from his manor at Ecton, acquired by Henry of Ferrers. Some further, if slight support, for this identification is supplied by Orderic Vitalis, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Ecclesiastical History}{
\insrsid6894405 , according to whom Earl Waltheof 
granted the manor of Barnack to Crowland Abbey, a gift later defeated by 'the malice of the Normans' (Chibnall, ii. pp. 344-45). Barnack was held in Domesday Book by William son of Ansculf, as noted above the constable's predecessor elsewhere. He may, the
refore, have stepped into Waltheof's shoes in those cases, too, Waltheof being the first to succeed to those estates of the constable. See also Clarke, }{\i\insrsid6894405 English Nobility}{\insrsid6894405 
, pp. 266-67, whose list omits ESS 29,5. HAM 57,2. 62,1. IoW9,15. NTH 36,2. 56,15-18;37-38;53 (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 36,3\tab [WEST] BROMWICH. Probably West Bromwich, but conceivably Castle, Wood and Little Bromwich; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Warwickshire}{\insrsid6894405 
, pp. 32, 40. Mistakenly added at the end of William's Northamptonshire return, as with 19,2-3, but before the page was written (JRM note to EN5 (= NTH 36,3) in the 'Elsewhere' section at the end of the Phillimore printed edition of Warwickshire).
\par \tab \tab It seems probable that the present estate lay at West Bromwich. The other possibilities raised in JRM's note, Castle Bromwich (SP 1489), Little Bromwich (SP 1187) and apparently 'Wood Bromwich' (last recorded as }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Wody Bromwyche}{\insrsid6894405  in 1358) lay in the Ancient Parish of Aston-by- Birmingham in Warwickshire and were probably included silently in the Domesday Aston (WAR 27,1); see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Warwickshire}{\insrsid6894405 
, pp. 32-33, 40; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Warwickshire}{\insrsid6894405 
 iv. p. 44. West Bromwich lay in Staffordshire in 1086 and was included in Northamptonshire in error, no doubt as a result of misdivision of material contained in the circuit volume; see \{Introduction: Places in the wrong Domesday County\}
. In 1086 it no doubt lay in the Staffordshire hundred of Offlow as it did later; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 279. It is possible that West Bromwich was originally part of the Staffordshire Ancient Parish of 
Handsworth, but it was a separate Ancient Parish by the twelfth century; see Youngs, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 405.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab After 1086 it descended within the barony of Dudley. The subtenancy of Ralph was held }{\i\insrsid6894405 c}{\insrsid6894405 . 1190 by Guy de Offini. A separate estat
e within West Bromwich was at Sandwell where Guy de Offini founded a Benedictine priory }{\i\insrsid6894405 c}{\insrsid6894405 . 1190; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Staffordshire}{\insrsid6894405 
, xvii. pp. 14-15, 18, 50.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 36,4\tab CHURCHOVER. This place lay in Warwickshire in 1086 and was included in Northamptonshire in error, no doubt as a result of misdivision of material contained in the circuit volume; see \{
Introduction: Places in the wrong Domesday County\}.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab AS DID OTHERS. Implying that Wulfwin was not the only }{\i\insrsid6894405 T.R.E.}{\insrsid6894405  holder. Possibly it means 'as did the others' suggesting that other }{\i\insrsid6894405 T.R.E.}{\insrsid6894405 
 holders in the chapter also held freely.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 37\tab WILLIAM LOVET. The byname is from Old French }{\i\insrsid6894405 lovet }{\insrsid6894405 ('wolf-cub'), diminutive of }{\i\insrsid6894405 lou}{\insrsid6894405 , }{\i\insrsid6894405 leu }{\insrsid6894405 ('wolf') from Latin }{
\i\insrsid6894405 lupus}{\insrsid6894405 . See Tengvik, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Old English Bynames}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 363. He held lands in Berkshire, Bedfordshire and Leicestershire.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 39\tab WALTER OF FLANDERS. He was lord of the honour of Wahill, now Odell in Bedfordshire.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 39,1\tab 
LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. See 13,1 Leofnoth note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 39,2\tab A PRIEST. Interlined in the left-hand margin.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. See 13,1 Leofnoth note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 39,3\tab 
[HANGING] HOUGHTON. Like Lamport (39,4) it is close to the border of Mawsley Hundred and could have been in Guilsborough Hundred in 1086.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. See 13,1 Leofnoth note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 39,4\tab LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. See 13,1 Leofnoth note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 39,5\tab LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. See 13,1 Leofnoth note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 39,6\tab LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. See 13,1 Leofnoth note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 39,7\tab HORTON. 2 hides and 1 virgate are held in }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Horton }{\insrsid6894405 of the honour of Wahill in Wymersley Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 375b).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. See 13,1 Leofnoth note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 39,8\tab 
EVENLEY. Lying on the boundary of Sutton Hundred and 'Alboldstow' Hundred, it is listed in both
 in Domesday: it is in 'Alboldstow' Hundred at 18,65. 39,10 and in Sutton Hundred at 21,5. Part of the village was also a detachment of Towcester Hundred both here and in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 373b).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. See 13,1 Leofnoth note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 39,9\tab 
[CANONS] ASHBY. It is held in Norton (Foxley) Hundred from the lord of Wahill in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 372a).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. See 13,1 Leofnoth note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 39,10\tab LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. See 13,1 Leofnoth note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 39,11\tab 1 \'bd HIDES AND THE FIFTH PART OF \'bd
 HIDE. This unnamed land was at Astwick in Evenley; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , i. p. 341 note 1.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. See 13,1 Leofnoth note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 39,12\tab PATTISHALL CHURCH. The Latin }{\i\insrsid6894405 ad}{
\insrsid6894405  }{\i\insrsid6894405 ecclesiam}{\insrsid6894405  unsupported by a verb}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 
should mean that two hides in Cold Higham were adjacent to Pattishall church. But Pattishall church is at the far end of the village away from the Cold Higham boundary (Watling Street in 1086 
as now), and the land appears in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 373b) to have been at Grimscote (SP 6553). }{\i\insrsid6894405 Pertinentes }{\insrsid6894405 ('belonging') or }{\i\insrsid6894405 iacentes }{\insrsid6894405 
('adjuncts of') are perhaps to be understood with }{\i\insrsid6894405 ad}{\insrsid6894405 .}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. See 13,1 Leofnoth note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 39,13\tab LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. See 13,1 Leofnoth note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 1 HIDE [***]. A gap of about five letters follows }{
\i\insrsid6894405 hid'}{\insrsid6894405  in the manuscript due to an erasure. The erasure is more likely to be of }{\i\insrsid6894405 7}{\insrsid6894405  }{\i\insrsid6894405 dim' }{\insrsid6894405 as the same holding is 1 \'bd hides in the Northa
mptonshire Survey (Round, p. 372a), than of the place-name, despite its being interlined.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 39,14\tab 1 \'bd HIDES AND THE FIFTH PART OF \'bd HIDE. This unnamed estate may have lain at Preston [Capes] where 3 hides, less 2 small virgates, were held of the fee of Simon de Wahill in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 370b).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. See 13,1 Leofnoth note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 39,15\tab GELDER. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Gildre}{
\insrsid6894405 ,}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 presumably Old Danish }{\i\insrsid6894405 Gildaer}{\insrsid6894405 ,}{\i\insrsid6894405  Gelder }{\insrsid6894405 (Nielsen, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Olddanske Personnaune}{\insrsid6894405 
, p. 31),Old Icelandic }{\i\insrsid6894405 Gellir}{\insrsid6894405 ,}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 originally a byname from }{\i\insrsid6894405 gialla }{\insrsid6894405 ('to yell'); see Lind, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Norsk-Isl\'e4ndska Personbinamn}{
\insrsid6894405 , column 107.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab ASTCOTE. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Aviescote}{\insrsid6894405 ; see}{\i\insrsid6894405  Place-Names of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 92. It is held by John de Wahill in }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 
, iv. p. 44.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. See 13,1 Leofnoth note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 39,16\tab WINEMAR [* OF FLANDERS *]. See B20 Winemar note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. See 13,1 Leofnoth note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 39,17\tab LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. See 13,1 Leofnoth note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 39,18\tab 
PATTISHALL. 7 hides of this holding were in Towcester Hundred, another part in Foxley Hundred, in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, pp. 372b, 373a).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. See 13,1 Leofnoth note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 40\tab WINEMAR [* OF FLANDERS *]. Winemar of Flanders, lord of }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Anslepe }{\insrsid6894405 or}{\i\insrsid6894405  Hanslip}{\insrsid6894405 ,}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 now Hanslope in Buckinghamshire (SP8046), which adjoins Cosgrove (40,1); see BUK 46,1.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 40,2\tab 2 HIDES AND 3 VIRGATES OF LAND. The unnamed land lay at Easton [Maudit] and Strixton according to the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 376b).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab COUNTESS JUDITH CLAIMS. She holds Easton Maudit (56,52).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 40,3\tab "HANTONE".}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 See 4,14 "Hantone" note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 40,6\tab 2 \'bd VIRGATES OF LAND. This unnamed land lay at }{\i\insrsid6894405 Esteneston}{\insrsid6894405  [Easton Neston] according to the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 374b); see Baker, }{\i\insrsid6894405 
History of the County of Northampton}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 139.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 41\tab GUY OF RAIMBEAUCOURT. He apparently came from Raimbeaucourt in the French d\'e9partement of Nord (arrondissement Douai, canton Douai-Nord-Est), although Tengvik, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Old English Bynames}{\insrsid6894405 
, p. 109, doubted the identification on the basis of the early name-forms. Ribeaucourt (in the French d\'e9partement of Somme (arrondissement Amiens, canton Domart-en-Ponthieu) was proposed by Dupont, }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Recherches Historiques et Topographiques}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 108, but here the problem was regarded by Tengvik as being a lack of early forms. Dauzat and Rostaing, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Dictionnaire des Noms de Lieux en France}{\insrsid6894405 
, under Raimbeaucourt, regard the two place-names as having the same origin.
\par }{\insrsid6902632 \tab \tab }{\insrsid6894405 Guy's son Ingelrann held land in Domesday Book in his own right, but Guy's successor was another son, Richard; See Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday People}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 464-65.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 41,1\tab 21 VILLAGERS. In the manuscript and Farley }{\i\insrsid6894405 xxi. uill's}{\insrsid6894405  (for }{\i\insrsid6894405 uillanus}{\insrsid6894405 ); the Ordnance Survey facsimile does not reproduce the }{\i\insrsid6894405 s }{
\insrsid6894405 which, though faint, is not erased. For the singular, see 4,11 lordship note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab EA
RL RALPH HELD BURTON [LATIMER]. This is an explanatory addition to 41,1 added in a space at the end of 41,2, but separated from the rest of that entry by a 'gallows' sign; there are no transposition signs, however. Compare 30,19. Ralph, nephew of King Edw
ard, was Earl of Hereford from 1053 or earlier to 1057.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 41,2\tab [* EARL *] TOSTI. 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 <of Sawtry> (see LIN
 4,17 Tosti note) have been excluded, only five holdings 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 hi
s
 title is simplified. There can be little doubt, for instance, 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 manors at Polhampton (HAM 31,1), Buckworth (HUN 10,1), Bingham (NTT 9,97) and, less certainly, the anonymous holding from Guy of Raimbeaucourt in Northamptonshire (41,2). The Tosti who held Halmonds Fro
me from Queen Edith is also likely to have been the earl; 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\insrsid6894405 Thostin}{\insrsid6894405 
 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 link 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 father 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\insrsid6894405 
 English Nobility}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 191-94, who omits HAM S2 and NTH 41,2 from his list (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 41,3\tab STANFORD[-ON-AVON]. For the identification, see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 74; it is also known as Stanford Abbatis.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab ABBOT BENEDICT [* OF SELBY *] BOUGHT IT FROM HIM. A charter relating to this translation (}{\i\insrsid6894405 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid6894405 
, iii. p. 499), probably forged, suggests that the Abbot of Selby acquired Stanford-on-Avon by gift from Guy of Raimbeaucourt. Domesday, both her
e in LEC 23,4 describes it as a purchase. The abbot acquired the whole manor of Stanford-on-Avon which included members in Leicestershire, apparently 'Stormesworth', Misterton, Husbands Bosworth and Kilworth (LEC 23,2-6); see LEC 23,2 Stanford note and LE
C 23,4 bought note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab 17 VILLAGERS ... WHO HAVE. }{\i\insrsid6894405 Habentes }{\insrsid6894405 refers only to the villagers.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab LEOFRIC <OF STANFORD>. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 41,4\tab 
HARROWDEN. Probably Great Harrowden. The 1 hide held by Guy in 1086 is held by Nicolas }{\i\insrsid6894405 de Cugeho }{\insrsid6894405 in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 383a). A descendent, William }{\i\insrsid6894405 de Cokeho}{\insrsid6894405 ,}
{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 holds }{\i\insrsid6894405 Magna Haruedon }{\insrsid6894405 in }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 1. Cogenhoe itself is also held by Guy in Domesday (41,9).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 41,5\tab THE BISHOP OF COUTANCES CLAIMS. He holds another part of Isham (4,8).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 41,6\tab 
LANDRIC <OF SULGRAVE>. The name occurs 16 times in Domesday Book, probably representing three individuals. In Northamptonshire, the Landric who held three closely grouped hol
dings from Giles of Picquigny (43,6;8;11) is almost certainly one individual and the same man as the Landric who held a manor from Giles in Berkshire (BRK 34,2). Less certainly, he may be the man who held one other holding in Northamptonshire since no one
 else of that name held land south of the Wash (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab OGER [* THE BRETON *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab ALDWINCLE. See 6a,27 Aldwincle note.}{\insrsid6902632 

\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 41,7\tab LEOFRIC <OF STANFORD>. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 41,8\tab 
CRANFORD. Richard Fitz Guy holds 1 hide in Cranford in 'North Navisland' Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 389a), though from Peterborough Abbey.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 41,10\tab 2 SMALLHOLDERS WHO PLOUGH. }{\i\insrsid6894405 Arantes }{\insrsid6894405 could govern the oxen: '4 smallholders have them ploughing', as in Wilts. 28,10 'land for 6 oxen, which are there, ploughing'. In 56,56. however, }{
\i\insrsid6894405 ibi sunt ii bordarii cum ii bobus arantes}{\insrsid6894405 ,}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 the }{\i\insrsid6894405 arantes}{\insrsid6894405  clearly describes 'small\-holders'.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 42\tab EUDO SON OF HUBERT. Elsewhere Eudo }{\i\insrsid6894405 dapifer }{\insrsid6894405 ('the steward'), son of Hubert de Ryes.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 42,2\tab EASTON[-ON-THE-HILL]. An Ancient Parish. In 1086 the vill was divided between Upton Hundred and Willybrook Hundred, as it was in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, pp. 367b, 388a). See also 46,6. Th
e division between hundreds was probably the consequence of the grant of part of Easton-on-the-Hill (42,2) to Peterborough Abbey, which then drew it into its own Hundred of Upton. In origin it appears to be the east }{\i\insrsid6894405 tun}{
\insrsid6894405  of Collyweston (}{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-names of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 201), itself in Willybrook Hundred.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab THIS LAND IS [PART] OF ST PETER'S [CHURCH]. The estate appears to have come to the abbey in the reign of Edward the Confessor. According to Hugh Candidus in his Chronicle (Mellows, p. 69) Easton was gi
ven to the abbey with other lands by Earl Ralph of Hereford; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Early Charters of Eastern England}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 246 no. 352; }{\i\insrsid6894405 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid6894405 
, p. 63 no. 20. The circumstances of the alienation are given in the Peterborough }{\i\insrsid6894405 Descriptio Militum}{\insrsid6894405  (Stapleton, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Chronicon Petroburgense}{\insrsid6894405 
, p. 168; see King, 'Peterborough "Descriptio Militum'' ', p. 97): 'King William the Elder gave Eudo the steward 1 \'bd hides in Easton; and from Normandy he sent his writs to the Bishop of Coutances and Robert d'Oilli in England
 ordering them to give the abbot in exchange an estate of equal value in whichever of the three neighbouring counties he chose. But the abbot refused'. The stalemate persisted in 1086, though the Bull of Pope Eugenius (included by Hugh Candidus in his Chr
onicle: Mellows, p. 114) confirms a knight's fee there in 1146, and 1\'bd hides are held by Simon [de Lindon] in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 367b). In Stapleton, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Chronicon Petroburgense}{\insrsid6894405 
, p. 159, the abbey holds three hides in Easton, that is, both parts of the vill.
\par \tab \tab From the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 367b) it appears that Eudo had also held 1 virgate in Wothorpe. The Northamptonshire Survey has it as additional to the 1 \'bd hides that Eudo held in Easton-on-the-Hill, making it an apparent om
ission from Domesday. It may be, however, that the 1 virgate was a part of the 1 \'bd hides, which actually lay at the adjacent Wothorpe and that the Northamptonshire Survey has counted it twice.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 42,3\tab EASTON[-ON-THE-HILL]. An Ancient Parish. In 1086 the
 vill was divided between Upton and Willybrook Hundreds in, as in the Northamptonshire Northamptonshire Survey (Round, pp. 367b, 388a). The division between hundreds was probably the consequence of the grant of part of Easton-on-the-Hill (42,2) to Peterbo
rough Abbey, which then drew it into its own Hundred of Upton. In origin Easton-on-the-Hill appears to be the east }{\i\insrsid6894405 tun}{\insrsid6894405  of Collyweston (}{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-names of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 
, p. 201), which was itself in Willybrook Hundred.
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab In the Northamptonshire Survey (Round,
 p. 388a) 2 hides are held here in Willybrook Hundred by Simon de Lindon. These two hides probably represent an amalgamation of the present 1 \'bd hides with the \'bd hide that Gilbert of Ghent had given to the Abbey of Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives (46,6).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab THROND. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Drond}{\insrsid6894405 
; see}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 397.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 43\tab GILES BROTHER OF ANSCULF. Elsewhere in Domesday he is called Giles }{\i\insrsid6894405 de Pinkeni}{\insrsid6894405 . He came from Picquigny in the French d\'e9
partement of Somme (arrondissement Amiens). He was the uncle of William son of Ansculf who was also a Domesday tenant-in-chief (see NTH 36 for this county). His own fief became the barony of Weedon Pinkeny (named from his holding in Northamptonshire, now 
Weedon Lois). The fief was held after him by his son Giles (II) and grandson Ralph son of Giles; see Loyd, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 78; Sanders, }{\i\insrsid6894405 English Baronies}{\insrsid6894405 
, p. 94; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday People}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 206.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 43,1\tab WEEDON [LOIS]. This was the }{\i\insrsid6894405 caput }{\insrsid6894405 of Giles' barony, earlier }{\i\insrsid6894405 Wedune Pynkeny}{\insrsid6894405 ; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 
, p. 45.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab FREDEGAEST. The Domesday form }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Fregist}{\insrsid6894405  represents Old Danish }{\i\insrsid6894405 Fredeg\'e6st}{\insrsid6894405 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 255. Forssner, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Continental-Germ
anic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 93, accepted this form in his account of Old German }{\i\insrsid6894405 Fredegis}{\insrsid6894405 , but von Feilitzen (}{\i\insrsid6894405 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid6894405 
, p. 254 note 5) disagreed. In the Phillimore printed edition the form Fredegis appears, as it d
oes in the Alecto edition. In the present edition von Feilitzen has been followed; Weedon [Lois] is not near any of the estates held by Fredegis in 1066 (18,18 Fredegis note).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 43,2\tab MORETON [PINKNEY]. See }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Place-Names of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 41.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 43,3\tab SILVERSTONE. See 18,52 Silverstone note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 43,5\tab IN SUTTON HUNDRED. Apparently written as if it were a normal hundred heading, but the
 scribe incorporated it in his sentence. The first four letters, though capitals, are smaller than in usual hundred heads, and there is no lining through in red.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 43,6\tab LANDRIC <OF SULGRAVE>. See 41,6 Landric note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
"BRIME". It probably lay in Culworth, the 2 hides and 4 parts of \'bd hide reappearing in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 369a) as 2 hides and 4 small virgates in Culworth itself.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 43,7\tab THORPE [MANDEVILLE]. This }{\i\insrsid6894405 Torp}{\insrsid6894405  falls in a group of places in 'Alboldstow' Hundred, and is found in that hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 369a).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 43,8\tab LANDRIC <OF SULGRAVE>. See 41,6 Landric note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab OSMUND [* THE DANE *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 43,11\tab SULGRAVE. See 2,4 Greatworth note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab LANDRIC <OF SULGRAVE>. See 41,6 Landric note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 44\tab GEOFFREY ALSELIN. See Tengvik, }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Old English Bynames}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 213.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 44,1a\tab TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *]. Toki was }{
\cf1\insrsid6894405 Geoffrey Alselin's only predecessor in Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire, and his chief predecessor in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire. He was apparently Toki son of Auti: von Feilitzen, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid6894405 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\cf1\insrsid6894405 , p. 385 note 5, with reference to }{\i\cf1\insrsid6894405 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid6894405 , i. p. 295; see also Foster and Longley, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6894405 
Lincolnshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid6894405 , p. xxx; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid6894405 , i. p. 305}{\cf1\insrsid6894405 . Only in LIN C4. T5 is there actually a mention of a Toki son of Auti (}{\i\cf1\insrsid6894405 Outi}{
\cf1\insrsid6894405 ), who held property in Lincoln and had full jurisdiction and market rights in Lincolnshire, though the Toki son of Otti (}{\i\cf1\insrsid6894405 Otta}{\cf1\insrsid6894405 
) in YKS C36 is almost certainly the same man as he had identical rights in York.}{\insrsid6894405  O}{\cf1\insrsid6894405 n the forms of the names Toki and Auti in Domesday Book, see DBY 6,27 Toki note.}{\insrsid6894405 
\par \tab \tab See Clarke, }{\i\insrsid6894405 English Nobility}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 347-48, who does not include DBY 6,48 and YKS 13W14 (JP)}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 44,1b\tab TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *]. See 44,1a Toki note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 44,1c\tab TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *]. See 44,1a Toki note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 44,2\tab WINEMAR [* OF FLANDERS *]. See B20 Winemar note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *]. See 44,1a Toki note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 45\tab 
GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE. Lord of Pleshey; ancestor of the earls of Essex. He received Esger the constable's extensive lands throughout England.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 45,1\tab OF THIS LAND. The manuscript has }{\i\f710\insrsid6894405 de hac t'r\'e2 }{\insrsid6894405 (that is,}{\i\insrsid6894405  terram}{\insrsid6894405 )}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 in error.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
ESGER [* THE CONSTABLE *]. The name Esger occurs on over 130 holdings but probably represents only six individuals. Of these, by far the most important was Esger the constable,
 predecessor of Geoffrey de Mandeville on the bulk of his holdings. So pronounced was the descent of Esger's holdings to Geoffrey that one way the Domesday scribe had of casting doubt on the legality of Geoffrey's tenure of any property was to state 'it w
a
s not of Esger's Holding' (ESS 30,2). Where not explicitly identified as the constable, therefore, Geoffrey's succession to the holdings of an Esger, or frequently of his men, plausibly identifies Esger as the constable. On two other holdings where Esger 
i
s not explicitly identified as the constable, his man is identified elsewhere as a man of the constable (HRT 17,10. 33,13;18-19) or another of his men held land in the vill concerned (CAM 22,8. 32,16), making the identification more likely than not, parti
cularly as no other Esger can be identified as a lord of other men (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 45,2\tab SWARTLING. On the name, see von Feilitzen, }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 379.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab ESGER [* THE CONSTABLE *]. See 45,1 Esger note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 45,3\tab ESGER [* THE CONSTABLE *]. See 45,1 Esger note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 45,4\tab WIHTBERT. The Domesday form is }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Vltbert}{\insrsid6894405 [}{\i\insrsid6894405 us}{\insrsid6894405 ]. Wihtbert was the interpretation of JRM, citing }{\i\insrsid6894405 Vltret }{\insrsid6894405 for Wihtred in Devon (Exon folios 402b3; 457b3). However, von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 398, 402, equates }{\i\insrsid6894405 Vltret }{\insrsid6894405 with }{\i\insrsid6894405 Uhtr\'e6d so Vltbert }{\insrsid6894405 could be a scribal error for hypothetical }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Uhtbert}{\insrsid6894405 , or for}{\i\insrsid6894405  Wihtbert }{\insrsid6894405 or perhaps for }{\i\insrsid6894405 Wulfbert}{\insrsid6894405 .}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab HINTON. These two hides recur in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 369b) in Warden Hundred held from Earl William (de Mandeville).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab ESGER [* THE CONSTABLE *]. See 45,1 Esger note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 45,5\tab 
ASTON[-LE-WALLS]. The land at this Aston is held in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 369b) with }{\i\insrsid6894405 Apeltreya }{\insrsid6894405 [Appletree] which is a hamlet of Aston; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Northamptonshire}{
\insrsid6894405 , p. 32.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab ESGER [* THE CONSTABLE *]. See 45,1 Esger note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 45,6\tab ESGER [* THE CONSTABLE *]. See 45,1 Esger note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 45,7\tab SILVERSTONE. See 18,52 Silverstone note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab ESGER [* THE CONSTABLE *]. See 45,1 Esger note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 45,8\tab 
HINTON[-IN-THE-HEDGES]. Geographically it could have lain in 'Alboldstow' Hundred, and it is possible to take the 'Alboldstow' hundred head in 45,9 as referring back to it. But, like its neighbour 
Evenley, it was a detachment of Towcester Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 373a), where 2 hides are held from William (de Mandeville). It was probably a part of Towcester Hundred or Foxley Hundred in 1086.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab ESGER [* THE CONSTABLE *]. See 45,1 Esger note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 45,9\tab ESGER [* THE CONSTABLE *]. See 45,1 Esger note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
ALL THESE LANDS. This is not quite accurate. The reference is certainly to 45,4-9 for which no }{\i\insrsid6894405 T.R.E.}{\insrsid6894405 
 holder is given. However, Esger is expressly said in the entries to have held 45,1;3. Only 45,2 was held by someone else (Swartling).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 46,1\tab GEOFFREY [* OF AALST *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab TONNI <OF LUSBY>. See 46,6 Tonni note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 46,2\tab HE
YFORD. The estate lay at Nether Heyford (formerly known as 'Great Heyford') held from Gilbert }{\i\insrsid6894405 de Gaunt }{\insrsid6894405 in }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 8.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab TONNI <OF LUSBY>. See 46,6 Tonni note.}{\insrsid6902632 

\par }{\insrsid6894405 46,3\tab TONNI <OF LUSBY>. See 46,6 Tonni note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 46,4\tab 
EMPINGHAM. It lay in Witchley Wapentake (or Hundred) in 1086; later in 'East' Hundred, following Witchley Wapentake's division into 'East' hundred and 'Wrangditch' Hundred, both of which were fully transferred to Rutland by the thirteenth century; see \{
Introduction: The County Boundary\}. A marginal }{\i\insrsid6894405 Rotel'}{\insrsid6894405  in a later hand indicates the change of county.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab By the time of King Henry II, the overlordship had passed to Roger Mowbray, perhaps by marriage to Alice (Adeliza) of Ghent, descendant of Gilbert, and it
 was passed down in the Mowbray family. At some time a family called de Normanville were enfeoffed as subtenants; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. pp. 205, 208; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. pp. 242-43.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab TONNI <OF LUSBY>. See 46,6 Tonni note.}{\insrsid6902632 

\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 46,5\tab IN THE SAME VILLAGE. That i
s, in Empingham. Gilbert appears to have merged the two estates, which had the same later descent.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab 7 \'bd HIDES AND 1 BOVATE OF LAND. It may be significant that the size of the adjacent Tickencote (56,26) is 3 hides less 1 bovate; they were perhaps once a single unit, itself split off earlier from something larger.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab THE KING'S JURISDICTION OF "ROTELAND". In 1086 only the northern two-thirds of the later county, consisting of Alstoe Wapentake and 'Martinsley' Wapentake, formed }{\i\insrsid6894405 Roteland}{\insrsid6894405 , a survey of which i
s appended to Domesday Nottinghamshire. The nearest royal holding to Empingham is Hambleton which lay in 'Martinsley' Wapentake and which King William was holding, in succession to Queen Edith (RUT 1,19). The whole of 'Martinsley' Wapentake consisted of r
oyal land of some antiquity; see RUT \{Introduction: History\}. There is no reason to think that King William was also holding the entirety of Alstoe Wapentake, the other wapentake of }{\i\insrsid6894405 Roteland}{\insrsid6894405 
, so 'Martinsley' Wapentake alone appears to be meant. 'Martinsley'
 Wapentake, containing the multiple estates of Oakham, Hambleton and Ridlington (RUT 1,17-20), appears to have become, probably late in the tenth century dower lands for successive queens of England. There is reason to think that it was carved out of a la
r
ger royal complex which had also contained the manors of Ketton (1,1), Barrowden (1,2a) and perhaps Casterton (1,4), of one of which Empingham had perhaps once been part. This division placed the royal lands of this putative complex in different wapentake
s
 and ultimately in different 'counties'. Alternatively, territorial divisions hereabouts may have been influenced by the presence of different Danish armies, one based on Stamford, the other on Northampton. However, it is likely that this link between par
t of Empingham and }{\i\insrsid6894405 Roteland}{\insrsid6894405  was of some antiquity and pre-dated the creation of the soke of 'Martinsley'. Such a link helps to illuminate the obscure early history of }{\i\insrsid6894405 Roteland}{\insrsid6894405 
; see RUT \{Introduction: History\} and RUT \{Introduction: Manorial Organization\}.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab TONNI <OF LUSBY>. See 46,6 Tonni note.}{\insrsid6902632 

\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 46,6\tab 
GAVE TO ^[THE ABBEY OF]^ SAINT-PIERRE-SUR-DIVES. That is, to the abbey there. Saint-Pierre-sur -Dives is in the French d\'e9partement of Calvados (arrondissement Lisieux), south-east of Caen.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab \'bd HIDE IN EASTON[-ON-THE-HILL]. This \'bd hide reappears in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 388a), among the 2 hides held by Simon de Lindon at }{\i\insrsid6894405 Eston}{\insrsid6894405 
 in Willybrook Hundred. These 2 hides probably represent a combination of the present estate and the 1 \'bd hides held from Eudo son of Hubert; see 42,3 Easton note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab TONNI <OF LUSBY>. The name Tonni occurs on 47 holdings, probably representing two or three individuals. In 43 of these holdings Tonni was the predecessor of either Gilbert of Ghent or William of 
Percy, almost certainly the same individual since Gilbert had claims on the properties in the hands of William of Percy (CS30-31). See also Clarke, }{\i\insrsid6894405 English Nobility}{\insrsid6894405 
, pp. 350-51, who also assigns the Yorkshire holding of Appleton to this Tonni (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab ALL THESE LANDS. That is, 46,1-6.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 46,7\tab WHICHFORD. In 1086 and later, this lay in Warwickshire. It is entered among Northamptonshire lands in error; see \{Introduction: Places in the wrong Domesday County\}. The church was given to Bridlington Priory, founde
d by Gilbert's son Walter; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , i. p. 346 note 5.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab ULF [* FENMAN *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 47,1a\tab ALFRED <OF ASHBY>. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 1 FEMALE. The manuscript has }{\i\insrsid6894405 ancila }{
\insrsid6894405 for the normal }{\i\insrsid6894405 ancilla}{\insrsid6894405 .}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab LEOFRIC [* SON OF LEOFWIN *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}
{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 47,1b\tab LEOFRIC [* SON OF LEOFWIN *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab ALFRED <OF ASHBY>. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 47,1c\tab LEOFRIC [* SON OF LEOFWIN *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab ALFRED <OF ASHBY>. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 47,2\tab 
THIS ENTRY The entry is written across the foot of folio 227c in a smaller hand, and occupies part of the left-hand margin.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
CRICK. In Guilsborough Hundred, governed by the hundred head at 47,1a; the 'Stotfold' hundred head refers only to Sulby (47,1c).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 48\tab 
LAND OF GUNFRID OF CHOCQUES. He came from Choques formerly in the comt\'e9 of Hainault in the Artois, now in the French d\'e9partement of Pas-de-Calais, arrondissement B\'e9thune, canton B\'e9thune-Nord. He 
may be the same man as Gunfrid de Houdain (a place also in the French d\'e9partement of Pas-de-Calais, arrondissement B\'e9
thune) and is possibly the Gunfrid who was castellan of Lens in 1097. He was presumably related to the Domesday tenant-in-chief, Sigar of Chocques, but the lines are unclear. In the 1190s William of B\'e9
thune was holding the fiefs of both Gunfrid of Chocques and Sigar of Chocques}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 . See Farrer, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Honours and Knights' Fees}{\insrsid6894405 , i. pp. 20-28; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Domesday People}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 239, 419. In England Gunfrid's lands are later known as the barony of 'Chokes'.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 48,1\tab AZUR [* FATHER OF SWEIN *]. See 48,2 Azur note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 48,2\tab 
AZUR [* FATHER OF SWEIN *] HELD THESE 2 LANDS. That is, Bo
ughton and Newton (48,1-2). Azur was the predecessor of Gunfrid of Chocques here and in LIN 52,1. His son Swein preceded Gunfrid in 48,3;5-10;17 and in BUK 50,1. Swein held a single estate in chief , Stoke Bruerne (50,1), to which belonged 21 houses in No
rthampton held by Swein son of Azur; see NTH 50 Swein note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 48,3\tab SWEIN [* SON OF AZUR *]. For Swein son of Azor, see 48,2 Azur note and NTH 50 Swein note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 48,5\tab 
SWEIN [* SON OF AZUR *]. For Swein son of Azor, see 48,2 Azur note and NTH 50 Swein note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 48,6\tab 2 HIDES, 1 VIRGATE OF LAND AND \'bd
 HIDE. This unnamed land was probably [Long] Buckby, 2 \'bd hides and 1 great virgate being held there from the fee of Chokes in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 379a).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
SWEIN [* SON OF AZUR *]. For Swein son of Azor, see 48,2 Azur note and NTH 50 Swein note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 48,7\tab 
[WEST] HADDON. See the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 379a).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
SWEIN [* SON OF AZUR *]. For Swein son of Azor, see 48,2 Azur note and NTH 50 Swein note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 48,8\tab 
CREATON. This was Great Creaton, the larger Creaton (1hide) being distinguished from the smaller (\'bd hide; see 18,53 Creaton note) in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 379a), where 1 hide is held by }{\i\insrsid6894405 Aunsel}{\insrsid6894405 
 [Anselm] }{\i\insrsid6894405 de Chokes}{\insrsid6894405 . Anselm is probably the son or the grandson of Gunfrid of Chocques; see Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday People}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 239.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
SWEIN [* SON OF AZUR *]. For Swein son of Azor, see 48,2 Azur note and NTH 50 Swein note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 48,9\tab ROTHERSTHORPE. }{\i\insrsid6894405 Trop' is }{
\insrsid6894405 held by Ascelin }{\i\insrsid6894405 de Chokes }{\insrsid6894405 in Wymersley Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 375a).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
SWEIN [* SON OF AZUR *]. For Swein son of Azor, see 48,2 Azur note and NTH 50 Swein note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 48,10\tab THRUPP [GROUNDS]. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Westorp is }{\insrsid6894405 identified by }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday Gazetteer}{\insrsid6894405  with Westhorp in Byfield, and is misplaced on the }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Domesday Gazetteer}{\insrsid6894405  map. Westhorp must have been in Warden Hundred in 1086, whereas }{\i\insrsid6894405 Westorp }{\insrsid6894405 is}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 
clearly in 'Gravesend' Hundred, being probably the western end of Thrupp Grounds, or the 'Thorpe' west of Norton; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 
, pp. 27-28. The holding appears in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 371a) as \'bd hide in }{\i\insrsid6894405 Thorp}{\insrsid6894405 (}{\i\insrsid6894405 e}{\insrsid6894405 ) held by Stephen }{\i\insrsid6894405 de Turs}{\insrsid6894405 
. This man was seneschal of Anjou under King Henry II}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 and was an under-tenant of Robert }{\i\insrsid6894405 de Choques }{\insrsid6894405 in 1166. This establishes the relation of the present holding to Thrupp Grounds.
}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab SWEIN [* SON OF AZUR *]. For Swein son of Azor, see 48,2 Azur note and NTH 50 Swein note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 48,11\tab GRIMSBURY. Transferred to Oxfordshire in 1894.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. See 13,1 Leofnoth note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab THIS LAND IS [PART] OF 3 LORDSHIPS. In the manuscript }{
\i\insrsid6894405 d'nior' }{\insrsid6894405 (for }{\i\insrsid6894405 dominiorum}{\insrsid6894405 , 'lordships') is faint and has probably been corrected to }{\i\insrsid6894405 d'nor' }{\insrsid6894405 for }{\i\insrsid6894405 dominorum}{\insrsid6894405 
 ('lords'). A similar phrase occurs in 48,16 'two lords hold it'.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 48,12\tab WINEMAR [* OF FLANDERS *]. See B20 Winemar note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab KNUSTON. See the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 377a).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab EUSTACE [* OF HUNTINGDON *] CLAIMS IT. His nearest holding is Hargrave 35,15 which like Knuston was regarded as an outlying part of Higham Ferrers.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 48,14\tab WULFBALD. On the name, see von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 418.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 48,16\tab EASTON NESTON. The Domesday form }{\i\insrsid6894405 Adestanestone }{\insrsid6894405 stands for }{\i\insrsid6894405 Ad Estanes-tone }{\insrsid6894405 in which the }{\i\insrsid6894405 ad }{\insrsid6894405 represents Old English 
}{\i\insrsid6894405 \'e6}{\insrsid6894405  ('at'). See 18,73 Adstone note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 48,17\tab 
SWEIN [* SON OF AZUR *]. For Swein son of Azor, see 48,2 Azur note and NTH 50 Swein note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 49,1\tab 4 HIDES AND 4 PARTS OF \'bd
 HIDE. This unnamed land appears in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 373a) as Gayton held by the advocate of B\'e9thune.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 50\tab SWEIN [* SON OF AZUR *]. He is described as Swein son of Azur in B29 (see 50,1 Stoke 
note); for Azur, see 48,2 Azur note. Apart from this land that Swein held in chief, he was predecessor of Gunfrid of Chocques in 48,3;5-10;17 and in BUK 50,1. According to Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday People}{\insrsid6894405 
, p. 423, his 'holdings' passed to Geoffrey de Mauquenchy, a monk of Abingdon by 1117; she has two references to folio 228a, but this is the only holding of his there.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 50,1\tab 
STOKE [BRUERNE]. See B29 for 21 houses in Northampton that belong to Stoke Bruerne.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 51\tab SIBOLD [* OF LOWICK *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 52\tab 
OGER [THE BRETON]. In the Landholders' List on folio 219b he is Oger the Breton; he also held lands in Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and }{\i\insrsid6894405 Roteland}{\insrsid6894405 , and in the first two of these he was also call
ed Oger the Breton. The caput of his fief was at Bourne in Lincolnshire.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 53,1\tab ULF [* SON OF AZUR *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
EARL WALTHEOF. He was Earl of Huntingdon and the Middle Angles 1065, of (Northern) Northumbria 1072-1075. Son of Earl Siward (of Northern Northumbria) who died 1055. Married Countess Judith. Executed 1076.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab COUNTESS JUDITH CLAIMS IT. She inherited some of Waltheof's lands. Chadstone had possibly been part of his large composite manor of Yardley [Hastings] which Judith held in 1086 (56,20).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 54\tab MAINOU [THE BRETON]. In the Landholders' List on folio 219b he is Mainou the Breton; he also held lands in chief in Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Leicestershire. The head of his barony was Woolverton in Buckinghamshire.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 54,3\tab BERNER <
OF THORNBOROUGH>. Berner occurs as a 1086 tenant on some 50 holdings in Domesday Book, probably representing six individuals, of whom the tenant of Mainou the Breton in Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire was probably one. A second holding in Buckinghams
hire (BUK 43,7), five miles from Thornborough, may have been held by the same man given its proximity and the comparative rarity of the name Berner. See also Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday People}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 167 (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab ASSESSED. The manuscript has }{\i\insrsid6894405 app'ciat'}{\insrsid6894405  (for }{\i\insrsid6894405 appreciatur)}{\insrsid6894405 ;}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 Farley printed }{\i\insrsid6894405 app'icat'}{
\insrsid6894405  in error.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 55\tab EUSTACE ^[OF HUNTINGDON]^. He was sheriff of Huntingdonshire.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 55,2\tab WOODNEWTON. This }{\i\insrsid6894405 Niwetone }{\insrsid6894405 occurs in Willybrook Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 388a).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab NORTHMANN HELD THESE 2 LANDS. That is, Isham and Woodnewton (55,1-2).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\cf1\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 55,3\tab 
ALFRED [* OF GRANDCOURT *]. Alfred is identified by King, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Peterborough Abbey}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 47ff. Apart from Polebrook, he and his descendants also held Clopton (55,6) and Thurning (HUN 
19,18) from Eustace and subsequently as a subtenancy from Roger of Lovetot, he holding from Peterborough Abbey. See also Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday People}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 141 (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 55,4\tab 
OIDELARD [* THE LARDERER *]. Although the Domesday form of this tenant is }{\i\insrsid6894405 Widelard}{\insrsid6894405 [}{\i\insrsid6894405 us}{\insrsid6894405 ], on which see Forssner, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{
\insrsid6894405 , pp. 253-54, it is very likely that he is the same person as Oidelard the larderer, a tenant of Eustace the sheriff in HUN 19,22. A plain Oidelard was also Eustace's tenant in W
inwick (19,16-17) and it is likely that Eustace also had the same predecessor there as here (HUN 19,16 Eskil note). See Round, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal England}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 167 note 21; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday People}{
\insrsid6894405 , p. 312.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of Oidelard are }{\i\insrsid6894405 Oidelard}{\insrsid6894405 [}{\i\insrsid6894405 us}{\insrsid6894405 ], }{\i\insrsid6894405 Oilard}{\insrsid6894405 [}{\i\insrsid6894405 us}{\insrsid6894405 
] (the latter only in Huntingdonshire), and are accepted by Forssner, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 195, as representing Old German }{\i\insrsid6894405 Odalhard}{\insrsid6894405 ,}{
\i\insrsid6894405  Odel}{\insrsid6894405 (}{\i\insrsid6894405 h}{\insrsid6894405 )}{\i\insrsid6894405 ard}{\insrsid6894405 ,}{\i\insrsid6894405  Odilard }{\insrsid6894405 etc. with loss of the dental in the Huntingdonshire form. However,
 an Old French form, not given by him, is more likely; the Domesday form suggest it was }{\i\insrsid6894405 Oidelard}{\insrsid6894405 
, with characteristic Old French differentiation of the initial long vowel. In the Phillimore printed edition the forms Odelard and Odilard appear and these hav
e now been standardized as Oidelard. The Alecto edition has Oilard for the Huntingdonshire tenants and Oidelard for the rest.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
WINWICK. In 1086 part of the village was in Northamptonshire (6a,17. 55,4), part in Huntingdonshire (HUN 19,16-17), the Northamptonshire part being transferred to Huntingdonshire in 1895.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab AKI. Eustace the sheriff's predecessor in his holding in Winwick in Huntingdonshire (HUN 19,16) was Eskil (Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Aschil}{\insrsid6894405 ). It is likely that he is the same person as Aki (Domesday }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Achi}{\insrsid6894405 ) here, and that there was some scribal confusion over the name-forms; see HUN 19,16 Eskil note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 55,6\tab ALFRED [* OF GRANDCOURT *]. See 55,3 Alfred note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab CLOPTON. In the manuscript }{\i\insrsid6894405 Dotone }{
\insrsid6894405 probably represents }{\i\insrsid6894405 d}{\insrsid6894405 -}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 in error for }{\i\insrsid6894405 cl}{\insrsid6894405 -, since the holding reappears as }{\i\insrsid6894405 Clopton }{\insrsid6894405 
in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 366a). Compare }{\i\insrsid6894405 Leoclai }{\insrsid6894405 for }{\i\insrsid6894405 Leofdai }{\insrsid6894405 in WIL 37,5.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56\tab COUNTESS JUDITH. Daughter of King William's half-sister Adelaide and of Lambert, Count of Lens; widow and heiress of 
Earl Waltheof. In the Northamptonshire Survey many of her lands are held by King David of Scotland (acceded 1124).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,1\tab RYHALL. This lay in Witchley Wapentake (or Hundred) in 1086; later in 'East' Hundred, following Witchley Wapentake's division into '
East' Hundred and 'Wrangditch' Hundred, both of which were fully transferred to Rutland by the thirteenth century; see \{Introduction: The County Boundary\}. A marginal }{\i\insrsid6894405 Rotel'}{\insrsid6894405 
 in a later hand indicates the change of county.
\par \tab \tab Ryhall, like Belmesthorpe, is named with other places in the spurious foundation grant of 664 purporting to be by King Wulfhere to the Abbey of }{\i\insrsid6894405 Medeshamstede}{\insrsid6894405  (Peterborough): }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Early Charters of Eastern England}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 107 no. 1 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid6894405 , no. 68). It is more likely, howev
er, that these two lands first came into Peterborough Abbey's possession by gift of Healfdene son of Brenting }{\i\insrsid6894405 c}{\insrsid6894405 . 1020, as stated by Hugh Candidus' in his Chronicle (Mellows, p. 68) = }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Early Charters of Eastern England}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 245 no. 350. The two estates were again granted to the abbey 1042 x 1055 by Godiva, a widow: }{\i\insrsid6894405 Early Charters of Eastern England}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 107 no. 160 (= Sawyer, }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid6894405 , no. 1481). It is not clear how they came into her hands, but they may have been leased to her for life by the abbey
 in gratitude for other gifts she had made. After giving or restoring Ryhall and Belmesthorpe, Godiva married Earl Siward. After her death, Siward arranged with the abbey that he should hold them for life. His son, Earl Waltheof, Countess Judith's first h
u
sband, agreed with Abbot Leofric in the presence of King Edward that he should hold Ryhall for life, but by King Edward's judgement, surrender Belmesthorpe. After the king's death, Waltheof seized Belmesthorpe again, but later repented and gave the abbey 
r
eversion of both estates after his death. He was executed in 1076, but his widow Judith was holding them in 1086 and Peterborough Abbey did not recover them. Like other of Judith's estates these two lands became part of the honour of Huntingdon, but had a
 complex subsequent history, passing, for example to the Count of Boulogne and Hugh }{\i\insrsid6894405 le Dispenser}{\insrsid6894405 ; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Book of Fees}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 1150; }{\i\insrsid6894405 Rotuli Hundredorum}{
\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 53; }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. pp. 205, 206, 208; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 269.
\par \tab \tab There appears to have been a church here in 1086 or soon after, since the rectory and advowson were granted to the priory of St Andrew, Nottingham, by Simon de St Liz (Senlis), husband of Judith's daughter Maud (Matilda); see }{
\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 274.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab LAND FOR 8 PLOUGHS, WITH DEPENDENCIES. Th
ough remote from Ryhall and Belmesthorpe and apparently in a different hundred, these dependencies seem to be enumerated below (56,2-6), lying at Ashley, Sutton Bassett, Weston-by-Welland, Dingley and Brampton Ash; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{
\insrsid6894405 , i. p. 350; Hart, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Hidation of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 77.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab The phrase is slightly awkward, but implies that the estimate of eight ploughs includes those that could be working on the dependencies. As a total of 17 \'bd ploughs are recorded, it is possible that an }{\i\insrsid6894405 x}{
\insrsid6894405  was accidentally omitted before the }{\i\insrsid6894405 .viii. car'}{\insrsid6894405 .}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab 4 SLAVES. So the manuscript and Farley; the Ordnance Survey facsimile has reproduced the dot after the }{\i\insrsid6894405 iiii}{\insrsid6894405  as a further }{\i\insrsid6894405 i}{\insrsid6894405 , as if there were 5 slaves.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
BELMESTHORPE. For the previous and later history of this estate, see 56,1 Ryhall note. Part of Uffington (in Lincolnshire), held by Peterborough Abbey, though occupied by Countess Judith, was cultivated by her with ploughs from Belmesthorpe; see LIN 56,4.
 CK2.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 56,3\tab SUTTON [BASSETT]. See 30,2 Weston note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 56,4\tab WESTON[-BY-WELLAND]. See 30,2 Weston note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 56,6\tab EARL WALTHEOF. See 53,1 Waltheof note.}{\insrsid6902632 

\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab THE WHOLE OF THIS LAND. That is, Ryhall with dependencies 56,1-6.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,7\tab VALUE WHEN STOCKED. See 1,6 stocked note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab THORKIL [* THE DANE *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,8\tab THORKIL [* THE DANE *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 56,11\tab DRAUGHTON. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Bracstone}{
\insrsid6894405 ,}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 probably an error. The holding recurs in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 385b).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,15\tab [EARLS] BARTON. The }{\i\insrsid6894405 BARTONE }{\insrsid6894405 of the text has been corrected to }{\i\insrsid6894405 BVRTONE}{\insrsid6894405 ,}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 but the }{\i\insrsid6894405 A }{
\insrsid6894405 has not been underlined for deletion. The same place occurs in 56,18 as }{\i\insrsid6894405 BVRTONE}{\insrsid6894405 .}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 
It is nonetheless Barton to which Great Doddington and Mears Ashby are adjacent. The four hides are of the fee of King David in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 382b). The scribe was perhaps misled by the }{\i\insrsid6894405 BVRTONE}{
\insrsid6894405  (Broughton) of 56,12. In some insular hands }{\i\insrsid6894405 A}{\insrsid6894405  and }{\i\insrsid6894405 V}{\insrsid6894405  are rather similar and the confusion may have arisen from an original draft.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab BONDI [* THE CONSTABLE *]. See 36,2 Bondi note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 56,16\tab [GREAT] DODDINGTON. Distinguished in later times from }
{\i\insrsid6894405 '}{\insrsid6894405 Doddington Parva}{\i\insrsid6894405 '}{\insrsid6894405 
 which became Denton. It can be identified by its proximity to Earls Barton and Mears Ashby. See the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 382a); and 9,6 Denton note; 56,20d Denton note; 56,55 Denton note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab BONDI [* THE CONSTABLE *]. See 36,2 Bondi note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,17\tab BONDI [* THE CONSTABLE *]. See 36,2 Bondi note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 56,18\tab 
[MEARS] ASHBY. The 4 hides in 'Hamfordshoe' Hundred reappear held of the fee of King David in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 382a).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab BONDI [* THE CONSTABLE *]. See 36,2 Bondi note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 56,20a\tab 
MEMBERS. All appear to have been in Wymersley Hundred except Wollaston, just in Higham Hundred, and Hardingstone which in 1,10 is in Collingtree Hundred, although on the border.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,20d\tab DENTON. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Dodintone}{\insrsid6894405  reappears in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 376a) as 1 hide at }{\i\insrsid6894405 Dodington}{\insrsid6894405 
 in Wymersley Hundred. See 56,16 Doddington note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,20e\tab HACKLETON. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Bachelintone}{\insrsid6894405 , an error for }{\i\insrsid6894405 Hachelintone}{\insrsid6894405 ; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 
, p. 146. The error is caused by the similarity of }{\i\insrsid6894405 b}{\insrsid6894405  and }{\i\insrsid6894405 h}{\insrsid6894405  in a minuscule script.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 56,24\tab "WALETONE".}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 
Its position in the schedule suggests a part of Wellingborough, rather than Walton Grounds, or Walton in Peterborough.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 56,25\tab 
[IN WITCHLEY WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading, which governs 56,25-27, is based on the fact that another part of Bisbrooke (1,2e) and of Horn (3,1) occur in the text directly beneath Witchley wapentake heads, as well as from later evidence.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab ROBERT [* OF BUCY *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
BISBROOKE. It undoubtedly lay in Witchley Wapentake (or Hundred) in 1086. It was
 later in 'Wrangditch' Hundred, following Witchley Wapentake's division into 'East' Hundred and 'Wrangditch' Hundred, both of which were fully transferred to Rutland by the thirteenth century; see \{Introduction: The County Boundary\}. A marginal }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Rotel'}{\insrsid6894405  in a later hand indicates the change of county.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab This estate had probably been granted }{\i\insrsid6894405 T.R.E.}{\insrsid6894405 
 out of Barrowden (1,2). It passed with other lands held by Judith in 1086 to the honour of Huntingdon, but was given, probably by Simon I de Senlis, the first husba
nd of Judith, and Waltheof's daughter Matilda (Maud) to another Robert, son of Vitalis and father of Simon of Foxton; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. pp. 205, 209; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 175.

\par \tab \tab There was probably a church here in 1086, or soon afterwards: the advowson was granted in 1110 to the priory of Daventry; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 178.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab [* YOUNG *] EDWARD. See 35,9 Edward note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 56,26\tab 
GRIMBALD <OF OWSTON>. His subtenancy was followed by that of his son Robert Grimbald and continued to be held by the family; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 285.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab 3 HIDES, LESS 1 BOVATE. The odd bovate appears to be at Empingham (46,5) rated at 7 \'bd hides and 1 bo
vate in 1086. This suggests that Tickencote was originally part of Empingham, itself probably part of a larger unit; see 46,5 jurisdiction note)}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab TICKENCOTE. It lay in Witchley Wapentake (or Hundred) in 1086; later it was in 'East' Hundred, following Witc
hley Wapentake's division into 'East' and 'Wrangditch' Hundreds, both of which were fully transferred to Rutland by the thirteenth century; see \{Introduction: The County Boundary\}.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab The estate descended within the honour of Huntingdon; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. pp. 205, 208; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 285.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab [* YOUNG *] EDWARD. An Edward held part of Empingham (35,9), adjacent.
\par \tab \tab On the identification by JP, see 35,9 Edward note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
THIS [NEXT LAND]. This refers to 56,27; see 18,77 held note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,27\tab GRIMBALD <OF OWSTON>. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
HORN. It lay in Witchley Wapentake (or Hundred) in 1086; it was later in 'East' Hundred, following Witchley Wapentake's division into 'East' Hundred and 'Wrangditch' Hundred, both of which were fully transferred to Rutland by the thirteenth century; see 
\{Introduction: The County Boundary\}.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab Countess Judith's holding followed the descent of most of her lands to the honour of Huntingdon. It passed down her line to Ada the fourth daughter of Judith's great-grandson (David, 
Earl of Huntingdon). She was married to Henry Hastings and Horn subsequently descended in that family. This estate was subsequently known as Grimbald's manor from the name of the Domesday subtenant or a successor. The subtenancy descended with Tickencote 
(56,26), also held by Grimbald in 1086, and these two estates along with one in Thistleton formed 2 knight's fees in 1241, held by Robert Grimbald; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 140. The estate in Thistleton (in }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Roteland}{\insrsid6894405  in 1086, subsequently in Rutland) was presumably the manor held from Countess Judith (LIN 56,12), although the subtenant is named as Hugh.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 56,28\tab GRIMBALD <OF OWSTON>. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab THORKIL [* THE DANE *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,29\tab GRIMBALD <OF OWSTON>. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,30\tab THORGER <OF NEWTON>. The name Thorger is uncommon, occurring nine times in Domesday Book and probably representing six or seven individuals. The tenant of this very modest holding, the only surv
ivor of his name, is unlikely to be connected with any other Thorgers, all of them a considerable distance away and without tenurial associations (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 56,32\tab 
OXENDON. Great Oxendon, 1 hide being held there of the fee of King David in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 384a) which distinguishes }{\i\insrsid6894405 Oxendon'}{\insrsid6894405  from }{\i\insrsid6894405 Oxendon' Parva}{\insrsid6894405 .}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,36\tab [IN WITCHLEY WAPENTAKE]. The heading is supplied from 1,2e.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab GLASTON. It certainly lay in Witchley Wapentake (or Hundred) in 1086 together with the other places mentioned in the entry; later they were all in 'Wrangditch' Hundred, following Witchley Wape
ntake's division into 'East' Hundred and 'Wrangditch' Hundred, both of which were fully transferred to Rutland by the thirteenth century; see \{Introduction: The County Boundary\}. A marginal }{\i\insrsid6894405 Rotel'}{\insrsid6894405 
 in a later hand indicates the change of county.
\par \tab \tab Glaston is named in the spurious foundation grant of 664 purporting to be by King Wulfhere to the Abbey of }{\i\insrsid6894405 Medeshamstede}{\insrsid6894405  (Peterborough): }{\i\insrsid6894405 Early Charters of Eastern England}{
\insrsid6894405 , p. 107 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid6894405 , no. 68). It is much more likely that, as Hugh Candidu
s relates in his Chronicle (Mellows, p. 69), it was given to Peterborough Abbey along with other lands in Northamptonshire by Earl Ralph, a kinsman of King Edward, probably 1041 x 1057; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Early Charters of Eastern England}{
\insrsid6894405 , p. 246, no 352. However, either the grant was not confirmed or it was acquired by Earl Waltheof, or given by William to his favourite niece, Countess Judith. It followed the descent of other lands within the honour of Huntingdon; see }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. pp. 205, 209; }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 182.
\par \tab \tab The link with Seaton and Thorpe-by-Water suggests that this part of Glaston, like the other part, was originally part of the royal manor of Barrowden (1,2).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab [* YOUNG *] EDWARD. See 35,9 Edward note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\cf1\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab [NORTH] LUFFENHAM \'85 SEATON\'85 THORPE[-BY-WATER]. S
eaton and Thorpe-by-Water (1,2b-2c) were parts of the royal manor of Barrowden (1,2), as was a part of 'Luffenham' (South Luffenham, 1,2f). However, the reference to 'Luffenham, a manor of the king's' suggests that the manor of [North] Luffenham and 'Scul
thorp' (1,3) is meant.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab Part of Seaton at least, followed the descent of other of Judith's lands to the honour of Huntingdon which held the manor of 'Downhall' in Seaton; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 215; }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Place-Names of Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 297. For 'Uphall', see 26,3 Seaton note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab WHOSE RESOURCES ARE NOTED ABOVE. In Domesday }{
\i\insrsid6894405 pecunia }{\insrsid6894405 normally}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 means 'livestock'; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 Dictionary of Medieval Latin}{\insrsid6894405 , under }{\i\insrsid6894405 pecunia}{\insrsid6894405 
 (Ib). Here however, it seems to replace a list of manorial resources and a value clause and to have that meaning, derived from the general Classical and Medieval sense of the word as 'property', 'possessions', 'wealth'; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Dictionary of Medieval Latin}{\insrsid6894405  under }{\i\insrsid6894405 pecunia}{\insrsid6894405  (I). No livestock is mentioned in 1,2 to which this entry refers. }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday Geography of Midland England}{\insrsid6894405 
, p. 361, prefers to see this as an example of incomplete revision, since the circuit volumes, where they survive, as in the case of Little Domesday and the }{\i\insrsid6894405 Liber Exoniensis}{\insrsid6894405 
 (Exon), contained livestock, which also occurs sporadically in Great Domesday, probably as a result of inattentive abbreviation.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 56,37\tab BONDI [* THE CONSTABLE *]. See 36,2 Bondi note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 56,38\tab 
OAKLEY. This is Great Oakley; see the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 387a).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab BONDI [* THE CONSTABLE *]. See 36,2 Bondi note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 56,42\tab 
[HANGING] HOUGHTON. The land recurs in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 380a) in Mawsley Hundred.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,43\tab HOLCOT. In 'Hamfordshoe' Hundred in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 382a), but it is a border land, perhaps in Mawsley Hundred here. See 1,16 Holcot note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,45\tab [CASTLE] ASHBY. See the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 376b).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 56,46\tab 
EUSTACE [* OF HUNTINGDON *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 56,47\tab 
ALAN [* THE STEWARD *]. Alan was also Countess Judith's tenant in two estates in Huntingdonshire (HUN 20,6;9), in the first of which he is called her steward (}{\i\insrsid6894405 dapifer}{\insrsid6894405 
). He was lord of Weald in Eynesbury (HUN 28,1) and also an early benefactor of St Neot's which was established in Eynesbury. His successors were a family called Le Noreis or Noreis: Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday People}{\insrsid6894405 
, p. 130.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 56,48\tab ALAN [* THE STEWARD *]. See 56,47 Alan note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,49\tab THORKIL [* THE DANE *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 56,50\tab 
1 VILLAGER WITH 8 SMALLHOLDERS HAVE. Grammatically, a singular }{\i\insrsid6894405 habet}{\insrsid6894405 , should follow, rather than }{\i\insrsid6894405 h'nt }{\insrsid6894405 (}{\i\insrsid6894405 habent}{\insrsid6894405 ).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,51\tab WINEMAR OF HANSLOPE CLAIMS IT. He holds the adjacent Bozeat from the countess in 56,54. For Winemar himself, see NTH 40.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,52\tab EASTON [MAUDIT]. See 40,2 claims note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,53\tab WELLINGBOROUGH. Possibly a portion in Higham Hundred since it falls among places that lay in that hundred.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab BONDI [* THE CONSTABLE *]. See 36,2 Bondi note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,54\tab WINEMAR [* OF FLANDERS *]. Alias Winemar of Hanslope; see 56,51 Winemar note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,55\tab HE ALSO. Winemar of Hanslope, alias Winemar of Flanders; see 56,51 Winemar note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab DENTON?. Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Dodintone}{
\insrsid6894405 . Countess Judith holds land at both Great Doddington and Denton (56,16;20) and those two holdings are accounted for in the Northamptonshire Surve
y (Round, pp. 382a, 376a). The order of entries here favours another part of Denton (so also Hart, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Hidation of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 60, but see }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 
, i. p. 272). The land is possibly that held at Denton by Walter Fitz Wynem(er) in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 376a).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 56,56\tab 
HE ALSO. Winemar of Hanslope, alias Winemar of Flanders; see 56,51 Winemar note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 1 VIRGATE. In the manuscript }{\i\insrsid6894405 una}{
\insrsid6894405  is an error for }{\i\f710\insrsid6894405 un\'e2}{\insrsid6894405 , accusative after }{\i\insrsid6894405 ten}{\insrsid6894405 [}{\i\insrsid6894405 et}{\insrsid6894405 ].}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 56,57a\tab 
HE ALSO. Winemar of Hanslope, alias Winemar of Flanders; see 56,51 Winemar note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,57b\tab HE ALSO. Winemar of Hanslope, alias Winemar of Flanders; see 56,51 Winemar note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
HOUGHTON. The holding (also 56,57g;63-64) encompassed both Great Houghton and Little Houghton; see the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 375b); }{\i\insrsid6894405 Book of Fees}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 494, 501.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 56,57c\tab 
HE ALSO. Winemar of Hanslope, alias Winemar of Flanders; see 56,51 Winemar note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,57d\tab HE ALSO. Winemar of Hanslope, alias Winemar of Flanders; see 56,51 Winemar note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,57e\tab HE ALSO. Winemar of Hanslope, alias Winemar of Flanders; see 56,51 Winemar note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,57f\tab HE ALSO. Winemar of Hanslope, alias Winemar of Flanders; see 56,51 Winemar note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,57g\tab HE ALSO. Winemar of Hanslope, alias Winemar of Flanders; see 56,51 Winemar note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,57h\tab HE ALSO. Winemar of Hanslope, alias Winemar of Flanders; see 56,51 Winemar note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,59\tab ROBERT [* OF BUCY *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
WOTHORPE?. Wothorpe was once an Ancient Parish, but also later a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of Stamford Baron. It was apparently split three ways in 1086 (6a,9. 11,1. 56,59), the major holding being that 
of Crowland Abbey (11,1). The present identification is not certain, but Domesday }{\i\insrsid6894405 Widetorp}{\insrsid6894405  is possibly an error for }{\i\insrsid6894405 Wridtorp }{\insrsid6894405 (as 11,1) which is Wothorpe (}{\i\insrsid6894405 
Place-Names of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 247), rather than an alternative form of 'Thorpe' (Dowthorpe) in Earls Barton (as }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , i. p. 354, see }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Place-Names of Northamptonshire}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 138). There is no holding in the Northamptonshire Survey that could represent either Wothorpe or
 Dowthorpe. It is possible that this part of Wothorpe was added to Crowland's portion after 1086; the latter's 1 \'bd hides have become 2 by the time of the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 367b); see }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Northamptonshire}{
\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 526.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 56,60\tab ROBERT [* OF BUCY *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 56,61\tab 
[*THE ABBEY OF *] SAINT-WANDRILLE. Wandrille, a count who served King Dagobert of Austrasia, first became a hermit in the diocese of Verdun, then a monk in the Jura and Lombardy before joining
 (Saint) Ouen at Rouen. In 649 he founded the monastery of Fontenelle in a wooded combe that debouched into the valley of the River Seine. Fontenelle became an important centre of learning, producing among others Einhard, the chronicler of Charlemagne. Th
e monastery was sacked by the Normans in the ninth century and only revived in the tenth. Re-founded as a Benedictine abbey, Fontenelle took the name of its founder, Wandrille. The commune where the abbey lies is now called Saint-Wandrille-Ran\'e7
on in the French d\'e9partement of Seine-Maritime (arrondissement Rouen, canton Caudebec-en-Caux).
\par \tab \tab The abbot during the reign of William the Conqueror was Girbert (1063-1089); see Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday People}{\insrsid6894405 , pp. 504, 524.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,63\tab HOUGHTON. For what are probably other parts, see 2,2. 35,21. 56,57b;57g;64. See also 2,2 Houghton note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 56,64\tab ULF [* SON OF AZUR *]. Note to be supplied (JP).}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,65\tab BURGRED <OF OLNEY>. See 4,1 Burgred note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab 
BISHOP GEOFFREY [* OF COUTANCES *] CLAIMS IT, AND WINEMAR OF HANSLOPE TOO. Winemar holds the neighbouring Hackleton and Preston [Deanery] under Geoffrey, Bishop of Coutances, 4,15-16. Bishop Geoffrey had been granted the lands of Burgred; see 35,1j Geoffr
ey note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 56,66\tab POTTERSPURY. It is }{\i\insrsid6894405 Pyria}{\insrsid6894405  in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 374b) held by King David and there distinguished from }{\i\insrsid6894405 West Pyria}{\insrsid6894405 
 [Paulerspury] held by William Peverel in chief. See 25,1 Potterspury note and 35,22 Paulerspury note.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 57,3\tab THIS ENTRY was originally omitted in error and then added in the right margin of folio 229b, beginning at the end of 57,2 and extending down beside 57,4. The letters, apart from th
ose in the place-name, are all of the same size, not as Farley printed them.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 58\tab DAVID [* OF ARGENTON *]. This untitled David is probably the same as the man who holds small fiefs in Cambridgeshire (CAM 39) and Bedfordshire (BDF 50): David of Argenton.
\par \tab \tab He is}{\cf1\insrsid6894405  probably named from [the communes of] Argenton-l'Eglise or Argenton-Ch\'e2teau (in the French d\'e9partement of Deux-S\'e8vres); see Tengvik, }{\i\cf1\insrsid6894405 Old English Bynames}{\cf1\insrsid6894405 
, p. 69 (ARR).}{\insrsid6894405  }{\cf1\insrsid6894405 Both communes are in the arrondissement of Bressuire; Argenton-Ch\'e2teau names a canton in which Argenton-l'Eglise lies. }{\insrsid6894405 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Domesday People}{
\insrsid6894405 , p. 177, suggests that he came from Argentan in the French d\'e9partement of Orne; the etymology of the two places is indecisive; see Dauzat and Rostaing, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Dictionnaire des Noms de Lieux en France}{\insrsid6894405 
, under Arganchy.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 58,1\tab [LITTLE] CASTERTON. Like Great Casterton (1,4), it would hav
e lain in Witchley Wapentake (or Hundred) in 1086; later it was in 'East' Hundred, following Witchley Wapentake's division into 'East' Hundred and 'Wrangditch' Hundred, both of which were fully transferred to Rutland by the thirteenth century; see \{
Introduction: The County Boundary\}. As next to 3,1, a marginal }{\i\insrsid6894405 Rotel' }{\insrsid6894405 in a later hand is missing.
\par \tab \tab This estate was subsequently held by the de Lindon family of their manor of Easton-on-the-Hill (42,3). Easton-on-the-Hill and Little Casterton followed the same descent, coming into the hands of the Crown in 1298; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 
VCH Rutland}{\insrsid6894405 , ii. p. 237.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 59\tab RICHARD ^[THE ARTIFICER]^. He is called the artificer in B21. 2 \'bd hides paying no tax are held by Richard }{\i\insrsid6894405 Engayne}{\insrsid6894405  in the Northamptonshire Geld Roll for Upton Hundred (= Robertson, }{
\i\insrsid6894405 Anglo-Saxon Charter}{\insrsid6894405 s, Appendix I no. iii. pp. 230-37, 481-84). They are probably his holding at Stibbington (59,1).}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 59,1\tab STIBBINGTON. It is now fully in Huntingdonshire, the River Nene forming a natural boundary between the counties
 at this point. According to Domesday Huntingdonshire, equal halves of Stibbington (HUN 7,7. 9,4) belonged to Sibson, and they certainly lay in Normancross Hundred in that county in 1086. However, Domesday here includes a further 2 hides of Stibbington in
 Upton Hundred, Northamptonshire. It is unlikely that this holding has been allocated to the wrong county, for it appears in Northamptonshire in later documents. William }{\i\insrsid6894405 de Lisors}{\insrsid6894405 
 holds 2 hides in Stibbington in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 367b). In }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 , iv. p. 443, in Northamptonshire, John }{\i\insrsid6894405 de Folkesworth}{\insrsid6894405 
 holds in Stibbington and Wansford from Humphrey of Bassingburn and the latter from the Abbot of Peterborough, who thus appears to have acquired, or possibly recovered, the land; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Huntingdonshire}{\insrsid6894405 
, iii. p. 219. Wansford was partly a chapelry of Thornhaugh parish, Northamptonshire, perhaps counted silently in Wittering, Northamptonshire (6a,4) in 1086, partly in Sibson cum Stibbington, Huntingdonshire; see }{\i\insrsid6894405 VCH Huntingdonshire}{
\insrsid6894405 , iii. p. 217.
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\cf1\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 \tab \tab 
It is not clear where the Northamptonshire Stibbington lay. It could be that the medieval county boundary took the shortest distance across the horseshoe formed by a bend in the River Nene, thus dividing Stibbington between counties. An unrecorded 
change would subsequently have put the boundary along the circuitous course of the river. However, since Wansford was also divided between the two counties and lay either side of the River Nene, around the ford that has now been superseded by a bridge, it
 is difficult to see how a portion of Wansford could have been in Huntingdonshire at an early date, if the boundary was not the river at this point.
\par \tab \tab It may be that Stibbington was the name of an area also lyi
ng on both sides of the river. Unfortunately, it is not clear how to interpret the name Stibbington; it is not certainly a tribal name that might designate an area, and even if it were, the }{\i\insrsid6894405 tun}{\insrsid6894405 
 element points to a single settlement. But if Stibbington does
 refer to an area, then the Northamptonshire Stibbington could have been north of the river, near or equivalent to the northern part of Wansford. It is possible also that because the Northamptonshire Stibbington comprehended a part of Wansford, Wansford a
n
d Stibbington might have been regarded as partly interchangeable. The Abbey of Peterborough had held in Wansford from the late tenth century. Because Wansford was a chapelry of Thornhaugh, itself an unnamed part of Wittering in 1086, it is natural to assu
me that Wansford was silently included in Wittering in Domesday. It is possible, however, that Wansford had been alienated by 1086, and alternatively called Stibbington; the information from }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid6894405 
 associates the two places. In support of this, it is notable that Wansford and Stibbington do not appear together in surveys of the abbey's lands. Wansford is missing from the Thornhaugh-Sibberton-Wittering group in Stapleton, }{\i\insrsid6894405 
Chronicon Petroburgense}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 169, but Stibbington is present in the Northamptonshire Survey (Round, p. 367b). The matter requires further investigation.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 59,4\tab IT IS IN LORDSHIP. }{\i\insrsid6894405 Ipsa}{
\insrsid6894405  perhaps mistakenly for }{\i\insrsid6894405 una}{\insrsid6894405 ,}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 meaning 'one}{\i\insrsid6894405  }{\insrsid6894405 (plough)'.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 60,1\tab WILLIAM ^[THE ARTIFICER]^. He is William the artificer in B17. See Round, }{\i\insrsid6894405 Feudal England}{\insrsid6894405 , p. 155.}{\insrsid6902632 
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid6902632 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6894405 60,5\tab OSLAC <OF LUBENHAM>. See 23,2 Oslac note.}{
\insrsid6902632 
\par }{\insrsid6894405 
\par }}