{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f1\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Arial;}{\f2\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 02070309020205020404}Courier New;}{\f3\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05050102010706020507}Symbol;} {\f4\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Helvetica;}{\f5\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 02070409020205020404}Courier{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f6\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603040505020304}Tms Rmn;} {\f7\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202030204}Helv;}{\f8\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040503060506020304}New York;}{\f9\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}System;} {\f10\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Wingdings;}{\f11\fmodern\fcharset128\fprq1{\*\panose 02020609040205080304}MS Mincho{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};} {\f12\froman\fcharset129\fprq2{\*\panose 02030600000101010101}Batang{\*\falt \'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcEcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};} {\f13\fnil\fcharset134\fprq2{\*\panose 02010600030101010101}SimSun{\*\falt ?????????????\'a1\'ec???????};}{\f14\fnil\fcharset136\fprq2{\*\panose 02010601000101010101}PMingLiU{\*\falt !Ps2OcuAe};} {\f15\fmodern\fcharset128\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0609070205080204}MS Gothic{\*\falt MS Mincho};} {\f16\fmodern\fcharset129\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0600000101010101}Dotum{\*\falt \'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};} {\f17\fmodern\fcharset134\fprq1{\*\panose 02010600030101010101}SimHei{\*\falt o????????????????????\'a1\'a7?????????};}{\f18\fmodern\fcharset136\fprq1{\*\panose 02010609000101010101}MingLiU{\*\falt 2OcuAe};} {\f19\froman\fcharset128\fprq1{\*\panose 02020609040305080305}Mincho{\*\falt ??\'81\'66c};} {\f20\froman\fcharset129\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0600000101010101}Gulim{\*\falt \'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcEcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};} {\f21\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040604050505020304}Century;}{\f22\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Angsana New;}{\f23\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0304020202020204}Cordia New;} {\f24\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Mangal;}{\f25\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Latha;}{\f26\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 010a0502050306030303}Sylfaen;} {\f27\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 01010600010101010101}Vrinda;}{\f28\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Raavi;}{\f29\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Shruti;} {\f30\froman\fcharset1\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Sendnya;}{\f31\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Gautami;}{\f32\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Tunga;} {\f33\froman\fcharset1\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Estrangella Edessa;}{\f34\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Arial Unicode MS;}{\f35\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}Tahoma;} {\f36\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DejaVu Sans;}{\f37\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f38\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Marlett;} {\f39\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Lucida Console;}{\f40\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana;}{\f41\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial Black;} {\f42\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Comic Sans MS;}{\f43\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Impact;}{\f44\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Georgia;} {\f45\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Medium;}{\f46\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Palatino Linotype;}{\f47\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Trebuchet MS;} {\f48\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Webdings;}{\f49\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2 Estrangelo Edessa;}{\f50\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2 MV Boli;}{\f51\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Microsoft Sans Serif;} {\f52\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Alba;}{\f53\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Alba Matter;}{\f54\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Alba Super;} {\f55\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Baby Kruffy;}{\f56\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Chick;}{\f57\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Croobie;} {\f58\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Fat;}{\f59\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Freshbot;}{\f60\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Frosty;} {\f61\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}GlooGun;}{\f62\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Jenkins v2.0;}{\f63\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Jokewood;} {\f64\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Poornut;}{\f65\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Porky's;}{\f66\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Pussycat;} {\f67\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Weltron Urban;}{\f68\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Mistral;}{\f69\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Lucida Sans Unicode;} {\f70\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Blackadder ITC;}{\f71\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Bradley Hand ITC;}{\f72\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Copperplate Gothic Bold;} {\f73\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Copperplate Gothic Light;}{\f74\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Curlz MT;}{\f75\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Edwardian Script ITC;} {\f76\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Engravers MT;}{\f77\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eras Demi ITC;}{\f78\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eras Light ITC;} {\f79\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostile;}{\f80\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Felix Titling;}{\f81\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Book;} {\f82\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Demi;}{\f83\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Medium Cond;}{\f84\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}French Script MT;} {\f85\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Century Gothic;}{\f86\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Kristen ITC;}{\f87\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Lucida Sans;} {\f88\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Maiandra GD;}{\f89\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Matisse ITC;}{\f90\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Papyrus;} {\f91\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Perpetua;}{\f92\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Rockwell Extra Bold;}{\f93\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Tempus Sans ITC;} {\f94\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Vivaldi;}{\f95\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Wingdings 2;}{\f96\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Wingdings 3;} {\f97\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@Arial Unicode MS;}{\f98\froman\fcharset129\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@Batang;}{\f99\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Book Antiqua;} {\f100\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Bookman Old Style;}{\f101\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Garamond;}{\f102\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Haettenschweiler;} {\f103\fmodern\fcharset128\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Mincho;}{\f104\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Outlook;}{\f105\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Monotype Corsiva;} {\f106\fnil\fcharset134\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@SimSun;}{\f107\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New Roman Special G2;}{\f108\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial Narrow;} {\f109\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial Special G2;}{\f110\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial Special G1;}{\f111\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial Narrow Special G1;} {\f112\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial Narrow Special G2;}{\f113\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New Roman Special G1;}{\f114\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Kartika;} {\f115\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Albertus Medium;}{\f116\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Albertus;}{\f117\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Albertus Extra Bold;} {\f118\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}ITC Avant Garde Gothic;}{\f119\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}ITC Avant Garde Gothic Demi;}{\f120\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}ITC Bookman Light;} {\f121\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}ITC Bookman Demi;}{\f122\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CG Omega;}{\f123\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CG Times;} {\f124\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}ITC Zapf Chancery;}{\f125\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Clarendon;}{\f126\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Clarendon Condensed;} {\f127\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Clarendon Extended;}{\f128\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Coronet;}{\f129\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CourierPS;} {\f130\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}ITC Zapf Dingbats;}{\f131\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Helvetica Narrow;}{\f132\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Letter Gothic;} {\f133\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Marigold;}{\f134\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}New Century Schoolbook;}{\f135\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antique Olive;} {\f136\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antique Olive Compact;}{\f137\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Palatino{\*\falt Book Antiqua};}{\f138\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}SymbolPS;} {\f139\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Univers;}{\f140\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Univers Condensed;}{\f141\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MT Extra;} {\f142\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}???????????????????????????????;}{\f143\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1){\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f144\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Microsoft Sans Serif (Vietnames;}{\f145\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Gre;} {\f146\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Bal;}{\f147\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}ITC Avant Garde Gothic Demi Bal;} {\f148\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}MS Reference Sans Serif;}{\f149\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000500000000000000}MS Reference Specialty;}{\f150\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05010101010101010101}Bookshelf Symbol 7;} {\f151\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0504020104020203}Andale Mono IPA;}{\f152\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040502050405020303}MS Reference Serif;}{\f153\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}Verdana Ref;} {\f154\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040502050405020303}Georgia Ref;}{\f155\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}MS Reference 1;}{\f156\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference 2;} {\f157\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 02000500000000000000}RefSpecialty;}{\f158\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0506030101010103}Abadi MT Condensed;}{\f159\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0a06030101010103}Abadi MT Condensed Extra Bold;} {\f160\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0306030101010103}Abadi MT Condensed Light;}{\f161\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0503020202020204}Agency FB;}{\f162\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020705040a02060702}Algerian;} {\f163\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03080602030302030203}Andy;}{\f164\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020f0704030504030204}Arial Rounded MT Bold;}{\f165\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020602080505020303}Baskerville Old Face;} {\f166\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04030905020b02020c02}Bauhaus 93;}{\f167\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040a05050d02020502}Beesknees ITC;}{\f168\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02050806060905020404}Bernard MT Condensed;} {\f169\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030202020406070a0903}Bickley Script;}{\f170\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04030b070d0b02020403}Braggadocio;}{\f171\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0903060703020204}Britannic Bold;} {\f172\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040905080b02020502}Broadway;}{\f173\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060802040406070304}Brush Script MT;}{\f174\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040603050505030304}Calisto MT;} {\f175\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020a0402060406010301}Castellar;}{\f176\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020404031007020602}Chiller;}{\f177\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 0208090404030b020404}Cooper Black;} {\f178\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020505060803040902}Edda;}{\f179\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020904090505020303}Elephant;}{\f180\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04030405020f02020502}Enviro;} {\f181\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060602040506080206}Fine Hand;}{\f182\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030804020302050b0404}Freestyle Script;}{\f183\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040504061007020d02}Gigi;} {\f184\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0502020104020203}Gill Sans MT;}{\f185\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0506020104020203}Gill Sans MT Condensed;}{\f186\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0a02020104020203}Gill Sans Ultra Bold;} {\f187\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020502050305020303}Goudy Old Style;}{\f188\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 0202090407030b020401}Goudy Stout;}{\f189\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04030604020f02020d02}Harlow Solid Italic;} {\f190\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040505050a02020702}Harrington;}{\f191\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020605060303030202}Imprint MT Shadow;}{\f192\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030604020304060b0204}Informal Roman;} {\f193\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04090605060d06020702}Jokerman;}{\f194\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040403040a02020202}Juice ITC;}{\f195\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 040307050d0c02020703}Kino MT;} {\f196\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030304020206070d0d06}Kunstler Script;}{\f197\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020a0a07050505020404}Wide Latin;}{\f198\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03010101010101010101}Lucida Calligraphy;} {\f199\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03010101010101010101}Lucida Handwriting;}{\f200\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03020802060602070202}Matura MT Script Capitals;}{\f201\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02070704070505020303}Modern No. 20;} {\f202\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0609020202020204}OCRB;}{\f203\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03040902040508030806}Old English Text MT;}{\f204\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04050602080702020203}Onyx;} {\f205\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030303020206070c0b05}Palace Script MT;}{\f206\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03080702040402020b04}Parade;}{\f207\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03040602040708040804}Parchment;} {\f208\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060402040502070804}Pepita MT;}{\f209\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020502060505020804}Perpetua Titling MT;}{\f210\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0606030402050204}Placard Condensed;} {\f211\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 040506030a0602020202}Playbill;}{\f212\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02080502050505020702}Poor Richard;}{\f213\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060402040406080204}Pristina;} {\f214\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03070502040507070304}Rage Italic;}{\f215\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02060603020205020403}Rockwell;}{\f216\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020a0606050403050204}Runic MT Condensed;} {\f217\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03040602040607080904}Script MT Bold;}{\f218\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040a07060a02020202}Snap ITC;}{\f219\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03070502030502020203}Viner Hand ITC;} {\f220\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03050402040407070305}Vladimir Script;}{\f221\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}normal verdana;}{\f222\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}IAGB5 Symbol;} {\f223\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0706030402020204}Franklin Gothic Demi Cond;}{\f224\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0903020102020204}Franklin Gothic Heavy;}{\f225\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02010509020102010303}OCR A Extended;} {\f226\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03020802040602020201}American Uncial;}{\f227\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04060505051002080904}Augsburger Initials;}{\f228\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020505020e03040504}Desdemona;} {\f229\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060902040502070203}Forte;}{\f230\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03080302020302020206}Gradl;}{\f231\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 01010101010101010101}Mercurius Script MT Bold;} {\f232\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 01010601010101010101}Monotype Sorts;}{\f233\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05020102010208020808}Monotype Sorts 2;}{\f234\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 040c0101020201010102}Ransom;} {\f235\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 040409050d0802020404}Stencil;}{\f236\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04030805020b02020404}Stop;}{\f237\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020503060305020303}Bell MT;} {\f238\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 0207040306080b030204}Californian FB;}{\f239\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 0204060206030a020304}Footlight MT Light;}{\f240\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040502050506030303}High Tower Text;} {\f241\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040805050809020602}Ravie;}{\f242\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020904020102020604}Showcard Gothic;}{\f243\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0604020202020204}Bookshelf Symbol 1;} {\f244\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05050102010706020507}Bookshelf Symbol 3;}{\f245\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0604020202020204}Bookshelf Symbol 4;}{\f246\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05010101010101010101}Bookshelf Symbol 5;} {\f247\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Demi Cond CE;}{\f248\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Demi Cond Cyr;} {\f249\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Demi Cond Greek;}{\f250\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Demi Cond Tur;} {\f251\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Demi Cond Balti;}{\f252\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Heavy CE;} {\f253\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Heavy Cyr;}{\f254\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Heavy Greek;} {\f255\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Heavy Tur;}{\f256\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Heavy Baltic;} {\f257\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Sans Serif (Vietna;}{\f258\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BR-01T;}{\f259\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BR-05B;} {\f260\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Brougham;}{\f261\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BR-11U;}{\f262\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Albertville;} {\f263\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Albertville Extrabold;}{\f264\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antique Oakland;}{\f265\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BR Symbol;} {\f266\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}PC Brussels Demi;}{\f267\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}PC Brussels Light;}{\f268\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Cleveland Condensed;} {\f269\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Conneticut;}{\f270\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Guatemala Antique;}{\f271\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Helsinki;} {\f272\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Maryland;}{\f273\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Oklahoma;}{\f274\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}PC Tennessee Roman;} {\f275\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Tennessee Roman;}{\f276\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Utah;}{\f277\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Utah Condensed;} {\f278\fdecor\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}W Dingbats;}{\f279\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Courier (W1);}{\f280\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000702030000020004}Twentieth Century Poster1;} {\f281\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04010502060101010303}Creepy;}{\f282\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020c0804040000000001}EraserDust;}{\f283\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 01010101010101010101}Figaro MT;} {\f284\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 01010101010101010101}KidTYPEPaint;}{\f285\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03010101010101010101}Mistral AV;}{\f286\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0904020202020204}Plump MT;} {\f287\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000509000000000005}Space Toaster;}{\f288\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000800000000000004}Team MT;}{\f289\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0504020203020204}News Gothic MT;} {\f290\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040506030f02020702}Westminster;}{\f291\fmodern\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0809000000000003}Arial Alternative;}{\f292\fmodern\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0809000000000003}Arial Alternative Symbol;} {\f293\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0606020104020203}Tw Cen MT Condensed;}{\f294\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0803020000000004}Tw Cen MT Condensed Extra Bold;}{\f295\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0509000000000004}Andale Mono;} {\f296\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Uncial ATT;}{\f297\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Tw Cen MT Condensed Extra Bold ;}{\f298\fnil\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Uncial ATT CE;} {\f299\fnil\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Uncial ATT Tur;}{\f300\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1){\*\falt Arial};}{\f301\fnil\fcharset255\fprq3{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Roman;} {\f302\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) CE;}{\f303\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) Cyr;}{\f304\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) Greek;} {\f305\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) Tur;}{\f306\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) (Hebrew);}{\f307\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) (Arabic);} {\f308\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) Baltic;}{\f309\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) (Vietnamese);} {\f310\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f311\froman\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f312\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f313\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f314\froman\fcharset177\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f315\froman\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f316\froman\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f317\froman\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f318\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0402020202020204}AvantGarde Bk BT;}{\f319\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04030205020b02020502}BernhardFashion BT;}{\f320\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Boink LET;} {\f321\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02050604050505020204}BookmanITC Lt BT;}{\f322\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060802040406070304}BrushScript BT;}{\f323\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0904040702060204}Compacta Blk BT;} {\f324\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0508030702060204}Compacta Lt BT;}{\f325\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 0208060305030b020404}Cooper Md BT;}{\f326\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0605020203020404}CopprplGoth BT;} {\f327\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 0204050203030b020204}Dauphin;}{\f328\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060902030202020203}DomBold BT;}{\f329\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060902030302020204}DomCasual BT;} {\f330\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030306020406070f0b05}English111 Presto BT;}{\f331\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03030702030607090b03}English111 Vivace BT;}{\f332\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040805071002020d02}FlamencoD;} {\f333\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0806020204020204}Futura XBlkCn BT;}{\f334\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0602020204020303}Futura Md BT;}{\f335\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0506020204030204}Humanst521 Cn BT;} {\f336\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03050502040202020203}Kids;}{\f337\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020602070506020304}NewBskvll BT;}{\f338\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03030602040405080b03}Nuptial BT;} {\f339\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Scruff LET;}{\f340\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03050502040202020b03}Technical;}{\f341\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020f0702020204020204}VAGRounded BT;} {\f342\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03010101010101010101}VivaldiD;}{\f343\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Animals 1;}{\f344\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Animals 2;} {\f345\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Arrows2;}{\f346\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Balloons;}{\f347\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Buildings;} {\f348\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}CommonBullets;}{\f349\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Computers;}{\f350\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}DF Calligraphic Ornaments LET;} {\f351\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}DF Diversions LET;}{\f352\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}DF Diversities LET;}{\f353\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Festive;} {\f354\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Food;}{\f355\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Household;}{\f356\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Hygiene;} {\f357\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Kidnap;}{\f358\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Music;}{\f359\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Plants;} {\f360\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}SportsFigures;}{\f361\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Transportation;}{\f362\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Weather;} {\f363\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040603050705020303}CentSchbook BT;}{\f364\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03080402030202060204}Van Dijk;}{\f365\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 040b0500000000000000}Lithograph;} {\f366\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 01010101010101010101}Adolescence;}{\f367\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0803020204040204}AntigoniBd;}{\f368\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0406020204020204}Antigoni Light;} {\f369\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0703020204030204}Antigoni Med;}{\f370\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603020204030204}Antigoni;}{\f371\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0806020206070204}MGI Archon;} {\f372\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020d0802060808030204}AucoinExtBol;}{\f373\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020d0602050304030204}AucoinLight;}{\f374\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0804040403020303}Banjoman Open Bold;} {\f375\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0803080505070304}Bedini;}{\f376\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000503000000000004}Bermuda Solid;}{\f377\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0900020202060204}Eurostar Black Extended;} {\f378\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0504020202050204}Eurostar;}{\f379\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0507020202060204}Eurostar Regular Extended;}{\f380\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000507000000000004}Falstaff Festival MT;} {\f381\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0602060706020304}Gourmand;}{\f382\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0704030103070804}Metro Nouveau;}{\f383\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000504000000000003}Orbus Multiserif;} {\f384\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000306050000000002}Palace Script MT Semi Bold;}{\f385\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02090502050106070304}Palladius;}{\f386\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0702050806020304}Peinaud;} {\f387\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0302020206020904}Schindler;}{\f388\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0402020206020904}Schindler Small Caps;}{\f389\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03010101010101010101}Wendy Medium;} {\f390\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03020602050506090804}Vianta;}{\f391\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040604020b02020304}LcdD;}{\f392\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020502060200020303}GiovanniITCTT;} {\f393\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00050102010706020507}Map Symbols;}{\f394\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Regular Extended Balti;}{\f395\fdecor\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Creepy CE;} {\f396\fdecor\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Creepy Tur;}{\f397\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}EraserDust CE;}{\f398\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}EraserDust Tur;} {\f399\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Tw Cen MT Condensed CE;}{\f400\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Andale Mono CE;}{\f401\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Andale Mono Cyr;} {\f402\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Andale Mono Greek;}{\f403\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Andale Mono Tur;}{\f404\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Andale Mono Baltic;} {\f405\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AvantGarde Bk BT CE;}{\f406\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AvantGarde Bk BT Greek;} {\f407\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AvantGarde Bk BT Tur;}{\f408\fdecor\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BernhardFashion BT CE;} {\f409\fdecor\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BernhardFashion BT Greek;}{\f410\fdecor\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BernhardFashion BT Tur;}{\f411\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Boink LET Greek;} {\f412\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BookmanITC Lt BT CE;}{\f413\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BookmanITC Lt BT Greek;} {\f414\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BookmanITC Lt BT Tur;}{\f415\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BrushScript BT CE;}{\f416\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BrushScript BT Greek;} {\f417\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BrushScript BT Tur;}{\f418\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Compacta Blk BT CE;}{\f419\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Compacta Blk BT Greek;} {\f420\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Compacta Blk BT Tur;}{\f421\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Compacta Lt BT CE;}{\f422\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Compacta Lt BT Greek;} {\f423\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Compacta Lt BT Tur;}{\f424\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Cooper Md BT CE;}{\f425\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Cooper Md BT Greek;} {\f426\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Cooper Md BT Tur;}{\f427\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CopprplGoth BT CE;}{\f428\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CopprplGoth BT Greek;} {\f429\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CopprplGoth BT Tur;}{\f430\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DomBold BT CE;}{\f431\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DomBold BT Greek;} {\f432\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DomBold BT Tur;}{\f433\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DomCasual BT CE;}{\f434\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DomCasual BT Greek;} {\f435\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DomCasual BT Tur;}{\f436\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}English111 Presto BT CE;} {\f437\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}English111 Presto BT Greek;}{\f438\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}English111 Presto BT Tur;} {\f439\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}English111 Vivace BT CE;}{\f440\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}English111 Vivace BT Greek;} {\f441\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}English111 Vivace BT Tur;}{\f442\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Futura XBlkCn BT CE;} {\f443\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Futura XBlkCn BT Greek;}{\f444\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Futura XBlkCn BT Tur;}{\f445\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Futura Md BT CE;} {\f446\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Futura Md BT Greek;}{\f447\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Futura Md BT Tur;}{\f448\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Humanst521 Cn BT CE;} {\f449\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Humanst521 Cn BT Greek;}{\f450\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Humanst521 Cn BT Tur;}{\f451\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}NewBskvll BT CE;} {\f452\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}NewBskvll BT Greek;}{\f453\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}NewBskvll BT Tur;}{\f454\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Nuptial BT CE;} {\f455\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Nuptial BT Greek;}{\f456\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Nuptial BT Tur;}{\f457\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Scruff LET Greek;} {\f458\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}VAGRounded BT CE;}{\f459\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}VAGRounded BT Greek;}{\f460\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}VAGRounded BT Tur;} {\f461\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}VivaldiD CE;}{\f462\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}VivaldiD Tur;}{\f463\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CentSchbook BT CE;} {\f464\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CentSchbook BT Greek;}{\f465\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CentSchbook BT Tur;}{\f466\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AntigoniBd CE;} {\f467\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AntigoniBd Greek;}{\f468\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AntigoniBd Tur;}{\f469\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AntigoniBd Baltic;} {\f470\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Light CE;}{\f471\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Light Greek;}{\f472\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Light Tur;} {\f473\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Light Baltic;}{\f474\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Med CE;}{\f475\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Med Greek;} {\f476\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Med Tur;}{\f477\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Med Baltic;}{\f478\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni CE;} {\f479\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Greek;}{\f480\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Tur;}{\f481\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Baltic;} {\f482\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MGI Archon CE;}{\f483\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MGI Archon Greek;}{\f484\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MGI Archon Tur;} {\f485\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MGI Archon Baltic;}{\f486\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinExtBol CE;}{\f487\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinExtBol Greek;} {\f488\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinExtBol Tur;}{\f489\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinExtBol Baltic;}{\f490\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinLight CE;} {\f491\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinLight Greek;}{\f492\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinLight Tur;}{\f493\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinLight Baltic;} {\f494\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Bedini CE;}{\f495\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Bedini Greek;}{\f496\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Bedini Tur;} {\f497\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Bedini Baltic;}{\f498\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Black Extended CE;} {\f499\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Black Extended Greek;}{\f500\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Black Extended Tur;} {\f501\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Black Extended Baltic;}{\f502\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar CE;}{\f503\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Greek;} {\f504\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Tur;}{\f505\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Baltic;}{\f506\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Regular Extended CE;} {\f507\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Regular Extended Greek;}{\f508\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Regular Extended Tur;} {\f509\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gourmand CE;}{\f510\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gourmand Greek;}{\f511\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gourmand Tur;} {\f512\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gourmand Baltic;}{\f513\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Metro Nouveau CE;}{\f514\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Metro Nouveau Greek;} {\f515\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Metro Nouveau Tur;}{\f516\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Metro Nouveau Baltic;}{\f517\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Palladius CE;} {\f518\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Palladius Greek;}{\f519\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Palladius Tur;}{\f520\froman\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Palladius Baltic;} {\f521\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Peinaud CE;}{\f522\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Peinaud Greek;}{\f523\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Peinaud Tur;} {\f524\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Peinaud Baltic;}{\f525\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler CE;}{\f526\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Greek;} {\f527\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Tur;}{\f528\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Baltic;}{\f529\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Small Caps CE;} {\f530\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Small Caps Greek;}{\f531\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Small Caps Tur;} {\f532\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Small Caps Baltic;}{\f533\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Vianta Greek;}{\f534\fdecor\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}LcdD CE;} {\f535\fdecor\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}LcdD Tur;}{\f536\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}????????????????????????\'a8\'ac?????;} {\f537\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}??????????????????????\'a8\'ac???????;}{\f538\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}?????????????????????????\'a1\'ec????;} {\f539\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}??????????????????????????????\'a8;}{\f540\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR;}{\f541\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR;}{\f542\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial CYR;} {\f543\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial TUR;}{\f544\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 Courier New CYR;}{\f545\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 Courier New TUR;}{\f546\fnil\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 02010000000000000000}Traditional Arabic;} {\f547\fnil\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 02010000000000000000}Arabic Transparent;}{\f548\fnil\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 02010000000000000000}Andalus;}{\f549\fnil\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 02010000000000000000}Simplified Arabic;} {\f550\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1{\*\panose 02010009000000000000}Simplified Arabic Fixed;}{\f551\fmodern\fcharset134\fprq1{\*\panose 02010609030101010101}NSimSun;}{\f552\fmodern\fcharset134\fprq1{\*\panose 02010609030101010101}@NSimSun;} {\f553\fnil\fcharset134\fprq2{\*\panose 02010600030101010101}@SimHei;}{\f554\froman\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 02020600040205080304}MS PMincho;}{\f555\froman\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 02020600040205080304}@MS PMincho;} {\f556\fmodern\fcharset128\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0609070205080204}@MS Gothic;}{\f557\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0600070205080204}MS PGothic;}{\f558\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0600070205080204}@MS PGothic;} {\f559\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0600070205080204}MS UI Gothic;}{\f560\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0600070205080204}@MS UI Gothic;}{\f561\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}AngsanaUPC;} {\f562\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}BrowalliaUPC;}{\f563\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Browallia New;}{\f564\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0304020202020204}CordiaUPC;} {\f565\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}DilleniaUPC;}{\f566\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}EucrosiaUPC;}{\f567\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}FreesiaUPC;} {\f568\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}IrisUPC;}{\f569\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}JasmineUPC;}{\f570\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}KodchiangUPC;} {\f571\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}LilyUPC;}{\f572\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0604020202020204}Typographic Ext;}{\f573\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Iconic Symbols Ext;} {\f574\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Math Ext;}{\f575\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05020603050405020304}Multinational Ext;}{\f576\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05020603050405020304}Greek Symbols;} {\f577\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}SPSS Marker Set;}{\f578\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05050102010607020607}MapInfo Cartographic;}{\f579\fmodern\fcharset136\fprq1{\*\panose 02020309000000000000}@MingLiU;} {\f580\froman\fcharset136\fprq2{\*\panose 02020300000000000000}@PMingLiU;}{\f581\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}(Use Asian text font){\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f582\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}PMingLiU Western{\*\falt !Ps2OcuAe};}{\f583\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Gothic Western{\*\falt ?l?r ?S?V?b?N};} {\f584\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Gothic CE{\*\falt ?l?r ?S?V?b?N};}{\f585\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Gothic Cyr{\*\falt ?l?r ?S?V?b?N};} {\f586\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Gothic Greek{\*\falt ?l?r ?S?V?b?N};}{\f587\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Gothic Tur{\*\falt ?l?r ?S?V?b?N};} {\f588\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Gothic Baltic{\*\falt ?l?r ?S?V?b?N};}{\f589\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MingLiU Western{\*\falt 2OcuAe};} {\f590\froman\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New Roman CYR (Vietnamese;}{\f591\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f592\froman\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New Roman Greek (Vietname;} {\f593\froman\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New Roman TUR (Vietnamese;}{\f594\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f595\froman\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New Roman Baltic (Vietnam;} {\f596\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}NSimSun Western;}{\f597\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@NSimSun Western;}{\f598\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PMincho Western;} {\f599\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PMincho CE;}{\f600\froman\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PMincho Cyr;}{\f601\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PMincho Greek;} {\f602\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PMincho Tur;}{\f603\froman\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PMincho Baltic;}{\f604\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PMincho Western;} {\f605\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PMincho CE;}{\f606\froman\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PMincho Cyr;}{\f607\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PMincho Greek;} {\f608\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PMincho Tur;}{\f609\froman\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PMincho Baltic;}{\f610\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Gothic Western;} {\f611\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Gothic CE;}{\f612\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Gothic Cyr;}{\f613\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Gothic Greek;} {\f614\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Gothic Tur;}{\f615\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Gothic Baltic;}{\f616\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PGothic Western;} {\f617\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PGothic CE;}{\f618\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PGothic Cyr;}{\f619\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PGothic Greek;} {\f620\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PGothic Tur;}{\f621\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PGothic Baltic;}{\f622\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PGothic Western;} {\f623\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PGothic CE;}{\f624\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PGothic Cyr;}{\f625\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PGothic Greek;} {\f626\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PGothic Tur;}{\f627\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PGothic Baltic;}{\f628\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS UI Gothic Western;} {\f629\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS UI Gothic CE;}{\f630\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS UI Gothic Cyr;}{\f631\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS UI Gothic Greek;} {\f632\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS UI Gothic Tur;}{\f633\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS UI Gothic Baltic;}{\f634\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS UI Gothic Western;} {\f635\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS UI Gothic CE;}{\f636\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS UI Gothic Cyr;}{\f637\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS UI Gothic Greek;} {\f638\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS UI Gothic Tur;}{\f639\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS UI Gothic Baltic;}{\f640\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Browallia New (Thai);} {\f641\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MingLiU Western;}{\f642\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@PMingLiU Western;} {\f643\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}????????????????????\'a1\'a7?????????;}{\f644\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Sans Serif{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f645\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0502040204020203}Segoe Media Center;}{\f646\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0702040200020203}Segoe Media Center Semibold;}{\f647\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0804030504040204}Tahoma Small Cap;} {\f648\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Elite{\*\falt Arial};}{\f649\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}GothicPS{\*\falt Arial};} {\f650\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}????????????\'a1\'a7???????;}{\f651\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}??????????????????\'a8\'ac?????????;} {\f652\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}????????????????????????\'a1\'a7?????;}{\f653\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}??????????????????????\'a1\'a7???????;} {\f654\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CG Times (W1){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f655\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CG Times 12pt;} {\f656\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}????????????????????\'a8\'ac?????????;}{\f657\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}?????\'a1\'ec???;} {\f658\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}????\'a1\'a7???;}{\f659\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Prestige;}{\f660\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}?????????????????\'a1\'ec?????????;} {\f661\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}??????????????????\'a1\'a7??????????;}{\f662\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}o{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f663\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}ome{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f664\fnil\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f665\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Plain text{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f666\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}boscombe{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f667\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}??????????????????????????\'a8\'ac???;}{\f668\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Rockwell CE;} {\f669\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Sans Serif CE;}{\f670\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Sans Serif Cyr;} {\f671\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Sans Serif Greek;}{\f672\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Sans Serif Tur;} {\f673\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Sans Serif Baltic;}{\f674\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Serif CE;} {\f675\froman\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Serif Cyr;}{\f676\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Serif Greek;} {\f677\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Serif Tur;}{\f678\froman\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Serif Baltic;} {\f679\froman\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Serif (Vietnamese);}{\f680\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana Ref CE;}{\f681\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana Ref Cyr;} {\f682\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana Ref Greek;}{\f683\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana Ref Tur;}{\f684\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana Ref Baltic;} {\f685\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana Ref (Vietnamese);}{\f686\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Georgia Ref CE;}{\f687\froman\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Georgia Ref Cyr;} {\f688\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Georgia Ref Greek;}{\f689\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Georgia Ref Tur;}{\f690\froman\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Georgia Ref Baltic;} {\f691\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gill Sans MT CE;}{\f692\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gill Sans MT Condensed CE;} {\f693\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gill Sans Ultra Bold CE;}{\f694\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Sydnie;}{\f695\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Sydnie Greek;} {\f696\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial Baltic;}{\f697\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 Courier New Baltic;}{\f698\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f699\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial CE;}{\f700\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial Greek;} {\f701\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 Courier New CE;}{\f702\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 Courier New Greek;}{\f703\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};} {\f713\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial CE;}{\f714\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Cyr;}{\f716\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Greek;}{\f717\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Tur;}{\f718\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial (Hebrew);} {\f719\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial (Arabic);}{\f720\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Baltic;}{\f721\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial (Vietnamese);}{\f723\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New CE;}{\f724\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New Cyr;} {\f726\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New Greek;}{\f727\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New Tur;}{\f728\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New (Hebrew);}{\f729\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New (Arabic);} {\f730\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New Baltic;}{\f731\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New (Vietnamese);}{\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);}{\f815\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 MS Mincho Western{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};}{\f813\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 MS Mincho CE{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};} {\f814\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 MS Mincho Cyr{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};}{\f816\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 MS Mincho Greek{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};}{\f817\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 MS Mincho Tur{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};} {\f820\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 MS Mincho Baltic{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};}{\f825\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Batang Western{\*\falt \'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcEcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};} {\f823\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Batang CE{\*\falt \'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcEcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};} {\f824\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Batang Cyr{\*\falt \'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcEcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};} {\f826\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Batang Greek{\*\falt \'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcEcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};} {\f827\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Batang Tur{\*\falt \'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcEcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};} {\f830\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Batang Baltic{\*\falt \'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcEcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};}{\f835\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2 SimSun Western{\*\falt ?????????????\'a1\'ec???????};} {\f913\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Century CE;}{\f914\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Century Cyr;}{\f916\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Century Greek;}{\f917\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Century Tur;}{\f920\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Century Baltic;} {\f925\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Angsana New;}{\f935\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Cordia New;}{\f963\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Sylfaen CE;}{\f964\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Sylfaen Cyr;}{\f966\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Sylfaen Greek;} {\f967\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Sylfaen Tur;}{\f970\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Sylfaen Baltic;}{\f1045\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Western;}{\f1043\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS CE;} {\f1044\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Cyr;}{\f1046\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Greek;}{\f1047\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Tur;}{\f1048\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS (Hebrew);} {\f1049\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS (Arabic);}{\f1050\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Baltic;}{\f1051\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS (Vietnamese);}{\f1052\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS (Thai);} {\f1053\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Tahoma CE;}{\f1054\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Tahoma Cyr;}{\f1056\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Tahoma Greek;}{\f1057\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Tahoma Tur;}{\f1058\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Tahoma (Hebrew);} {\f1059\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Tahoma (Arabic);}{\f1060\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Tahoma Baltic;}{\f1061\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Tahoma (Vietnamese);}{\f1062\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2 Tahoma (Thai);} {\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};}{\f1093\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Lucida Console CE;} {\f1094\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Lucida Console Cyr;}{\f1096\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Lucida Console Greek;}{\f1097\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Lucida Console Tur;}{\f1103\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Verdana CE;}{\f1104\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Verdana Cyr;} {\f1106\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Verdana Greek;}{\f1107\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Verdana Tur;}{\f1110\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Verdana Baltic;}{\f1111\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Verdana (Vietnamese);}{\f1113\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial Black CE;} {\f1114\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Black Cyr;}{\f1116\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Black Greek;}{\f1117\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Black Tur;}{\f1120\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Black Baltic;} {\f1123\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2 Comic Sans MS CE;}{\f1124\fscript\fcharset204\fprq2 Comic Sans MS Cyr;}{\f1126\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2 Comic Sans MS Greek;}{\f1127\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2 Comic Sans MS Tur;} {\f1130\fscript\fcharset186\fprq2 Comic Sans MS Baltic;}{\f1133\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Impact CE;}{\f1134\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Impact Cyr;}{\f1136\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Impact Greek;}{\f1137\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Impact Tur;} {\f1140\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Impact Baltic;}{\f1143\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Georgia CE;}{\f1144\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Georgia Cyr;}{\f1146\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Georgia Greek;}{\f1147\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Georgia Tur;} {\f1150\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Georgia Baltic;}{\f1153\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium CE;}{\f1154\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cyr;}{\f1156\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Greek;} {\f1157\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Tur;}{\f1160\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Baltic;}{\f1163\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Palatino Linotype CE;}{\f1164\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Palatino Linotype Cyr;} {\f1166\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Palatino Linotype Greek;}{\f1167\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Palatino Linotype Tur;}{\f1170\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Palatino Linotype Baltic;}{\f1171\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Palatino Linotype (Vietnamese);} {\f1173\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Trebuchet MS CE;}{\f1174\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Trebuchet MS Cyr;}{\f1176\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Trebuchet MS Greek;}{\f1177\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Trebuchet MS Tur;} {\f1180\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Trebuchet MS Baltic;}{\f1213\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif CE;}{\f1214\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif Cyr;}{\f1216\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif Greek;} {\f1217\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif Tur;}{\f1218\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif (Hebrew);}{\f1219\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif (Arabic);}{\f1220\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif Baltic;} {\f1221\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif (Vietnamese);}{\f1222\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif (Thai);}{\f1226\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Alba Greek;}{\f1236\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Alba Matter Greek;} {\f1246\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Alba Super Greek;}{\f1256\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Baby Kruffy Greek;}{\f1266\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Chick Greek;}{\f1276\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Croobie Greek;}{\f1296\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Freshbot Greek;} {\f1306\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Frosty Greek;}{\f1316\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 GlooGun Greek;}{\f1326\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Jenkins v2.0 Greek;}{\f1366\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Pussycat Greek;}{\f1376\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Weltron Urban Greek;} {\f1383\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2 Mistral CE;}{\f1384\fscript\fcharset204\fprq2 Mistral Cyr;}{\f1386\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2 Mistral Greek;}{\f1387\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2 Mistral Tur;}{\f1390\fscript\fcharset186\fprq2 Mistral Baltic;} {\f1393\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode CE;}{\f1394\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode Cyr;}{\f1396\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode Greek;}{\f1397\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode Tur;} {\f1398\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode (Hebrew);}{\f1513\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Book CE;}{\f1514\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Book Cyr;}{\f1516\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Book Greek;} {\f1517\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Book Tur;}{\f1520\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Book Baltic;}{\f1523\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi CE;}{\f1524\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi Cyr;} {\f1526\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi Greek;}{\f1527\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi Tur;}{\f1530\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi Baltic;}{\f1533\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cond CE;} {\f1534\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Cyr;}{\f1536\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Greek;}{\f1537\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Tur;} {\f1540\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Baltic;}{\f1553\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Century Gothic CE;}{\f1554\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Century Gothic Cyr;}{\f1556\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Century Gothic Greek;} {\f1557\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Century Gothic Tur;}{\f1560\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Century Gothic Baltic;}{\f1675\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS Western;}{\f1673\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS CE;} {\f1674\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS Cyr;}{\f1676\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS Greek;}{\f1677\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS Tur;}{\f1678\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS (Hebrew);} {\f1679\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS (Arabic);}{\f1680\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS Baltic;}{\f1681\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS (Vietnamese);}{\f1682\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS (Thai);} {\f1685\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 @Batang Western;}{\f1683\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 @Batang CE;}{\f1684\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 @Batang Cyr;}{\f1686\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 @Batang Greek;}{\f1687\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 @Batang Tur;} {\f1690\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 @Batang Baltic;}{\f1693\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Book Antiqua CE;}{\f1694\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Book Antiqua Cyr;}{\f1696\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Book Antiqua Greek;}{\f1697\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Book Antiqua Tur;} {\f1700\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Book Antiqua Baltic;}{\f1703\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Bookman Old Style CE;}{\f1704\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Cyr;}{\f1706\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Greek;} {\f1707\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Tur;}{\f1710\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Baltic;}{\f1713\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Garamond CE;}{\f1714\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Garamond Cyr;} {\f1716\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Garamond Greek;}{\f1717\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Garamond Tur;}{\f1720\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Garamond Baltic;}{\f1723\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Haettenschweiler CE;}{\f1724\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Haettenschweiler Cyr;} {\f1726\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Haettenschweiler Greek;}{\f1727\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Haettenschweiler Tur;}{\f1730\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Haettenschweiler Baltic;}{\f1735\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 @MS Mincho Western;} {\f1733\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 @MS Mincho CE;}{\f1734\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 @MS Mincho Cyr;}{\f1736\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 @MS Mincho Greek;}{\f1737\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 @MS Mincho Tur;}{\f1740\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 @MS Mincho Baltic;} {\f1753\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2 Monotype Corsiva CE;}{\f1754\fscript\fcharset204\fprq2 Monotype Corsiva Cyr;}{\f1756\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2 Monotype Corsiva Greek;}{\f1757\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2 Monotype Corsiva Tur;} {\f1760\fscript\fcharset186\fprq2 Monotype Corsiva Baltic;}{\f1765\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2 @SimSun Western;}{\f1783\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial Narrow CE;}{\f1784\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Narrow Cyr;} {\f1786\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Narrow Greek;}{\f1787\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Narrow Tur;}{\f1790\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Narrow Baltic;}{\f1853\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Albertus Medium CE;} {\f1857\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Albertus Medium Tur;}{\f1860\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Albertus Medium Baltic;}{\f1863\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Albertus CE;}{\f1867\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Albertus Tur;}{\f1870\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Albertus Baltic;} {\f1873\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Albertus Extra Bold CE;}{\f1877\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Albertus Extra Bold Tur;}{\f1880\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Albertus Extra Bold Baltic;}{\f1883\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 ITC Avant Garde Gothic CE;} {\f1887\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 ITC Avant Garde Gothic Tur;}{\f1890\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 ITC Avant Garde Gothic Baltic;}{\f1893\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 ITC Avant Garde Gothic Demi CE;} {\f1897\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 ITC Avant Garde Gothic Demi Tur;}{\f1900\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 ITC Avant Garde Gothic Demi Baltic;}{\f1903\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 ITC Bookman Light CE;}{\f1907\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 ITC Bookman Light Tur;} {\f1910\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 ITC Bookman Light Baltic;}{\f1913\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 ITC Bookman Demi CE;}{\f1917\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 ITC Bookman Demi Tur;}{\f1920\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 ITC Bookman Demi Baltic;} {\f1923\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 CG Omega CE;}{\f1927\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 CG Omega Tur;}{\f1930\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 CG Omega Baltic;}{\f1933\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 CG Times CE;}{\f1937\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 CG Times Tur;} {\f1940\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 CG Times Baltic;}{\f1943\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2 ITC Zapf Chancery CE;}{\f1947\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2 ITC Zapf Chancery Tur;}{\f1950\fscript\fcharset186\fprq2 ITC Zapf Chancery Baltic;} {\f1953\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Clarendon CE;}{\f1957\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Clarendon Tur;}{\f1960\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Clarendon Baltic;}{\f1963\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Clarendon Condensed CE;} {\f1967\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Clarendon Condensed Tur;}{\f1970\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Clarendon Condensed Baltic;}{\f1973\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Clarendon Extended CE;}{\f1977\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Clarendon Extended Tur;} {\f1980\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Clarendon Extended Baltic;}{\f1983\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2 Coronet CE;}{\f1987\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2 Coronet Tur;}{\f1990\fscript\fcharset186\fprq2 Coronet Baltic;}{\f1993\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 CourierPS CE;} {\f1997\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 CourierPS Tur;}{\f2000\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 CourierPS Baltic;}{\f2013\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Helvetica Narrow CE;}{\f2017\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Helvetica Narrow Tur;} {\f2020\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Helvetica Narrow Baltic;}{\f2023\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Letter Gothic CE;}{\f2027\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Letter Gothic Tur;}{\f2030\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Letter Gothic Baltic;} {\f2033\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2 Marigold CE;}{\f2037\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2 Marigold Tur;}{\f2040\fscript\fcharset186\fprq2 Marigold Baltic;}{\f2043\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 New Century Schoolbook CE;} {\f2047\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 New Century Schoolbook Tur;}{\f2050\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 New Century Schoolbook Baltic;}{\f2053\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Antique Olive CE;}{\f2057\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Antique Olive Tur;} {\f2060\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Antique Olive Baltic;}{\f2063\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Antique Olive Compact CE;}{\f2067\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Antique Olive Compact Tur;}{\f2070\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Antique Olive Compact Baltic;} {\f2073\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Palatino CE{\*\falt Book Antiqua};}{\f2077\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Palatino Tur{\*\falt Book Antiqua};}{\f2080\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Palatino Baltic{\*\falt Book Antiqua};}{\f2093\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Univers CE;} {\f2097\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Univers Tur;}{\f2100\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Univers Baltic;}{\f2103\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Univers Condensed CE;}{\f2107\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Univers Condensed Tur;} {\f2110\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Univers Condensed Baltic;}{\f6103\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR CE;}{\f6104\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR Cyr;}{\f6106\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR Greek;} {\f6107\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR Tur;}{\f6108\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR (Hebrew);}{\f6109\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR (Arabic);}{\f6110\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR Baltic;} {\f6111\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR (Vietnamese);}{\f6113\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR CE;}{\f6114\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR Cyr;}{\f6116\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR Greek;} {\f6117\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR Tur;}{\f6118\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR (Hebrew);}{\f6119\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR (Arabic);}{\f6120\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR Baltic;} {\f6121\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR (Vietnamese);}{\f6123\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial CYR CE;}{\f6124\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial CYR Cyr;}{\f6126\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial CYR Greek;} {\f6127\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial CYR Tur;}{\f6128\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial CYR (Hebrew);}{\f6129\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial CYR (Arabic);}{\f6130\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial CYR Baltic;} {\f6131\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial CYR (Vietnamese);}{\f6133\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial TUR CE;}{\f6134\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial TUR Cyr;}{\f6136\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial TUR Greek;}{\f6137\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial TUR Tur;} {\f6138\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial TUR (Hebrew);}{\f6139\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial TUR (Arabic);}{\f6140\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial TUR Baltic;}{\f6141\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial TUR (Vietnamese);} {\f6143\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New CYR CE;}{\f6144\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New CYR Cyr;}{\f6146\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New CYR Greek;}{\f6147\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New CYR Tur;} {\f6148\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New CYR (Hebrew);}{\f6149\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New CYR (Arabic);}{\f6150\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New CYR Baltic;}{\f6151\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New CYR (Vietnamese);} {\f6153\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New TUR CE;}{\f6154\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New TUR Cyr;}{\f6156\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New TUR Greek;}{\f6157\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New TUR Tur;} {\f6158\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New TUR (Hebrew);}{\f6159\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New TUR (Arabic);}{\f6160\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New TUR Baltic;}{\f6161\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New TUR (Vietnamese);} {\f6613\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek CE;}{\f6614\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek Cyr;}{\f6616\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek Greek;}{\f6617\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek Tur;} {\f6618\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek (Hebrew);}{\f6619\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek (Arabic);}{\f6620\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek Baltic;} {\f6621\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek (Vietnamese);}{\f6643\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic CE;}{\f6644\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic Cyr;}{\f6646\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic Greek;} {\f6647\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic Tur;}{\f6648\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic (Hebrew);}{\f6649\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic (Arabic);} {\f6650\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic Baltic;}{\f6651\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic (Vietnamese);}{\f7663\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial Baltic CE;}{\f7664\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Baltic Cyr;} {\f7666\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Baltic Greek;}{\f7667\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Baltic Tur;}{\f7668\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial Baltic (Hebrew);}{\f7669\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial Baltic (Arabic);} {\f7670\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Baltic Baltic;}{\f7671\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial Baltic (Vietnamese);}{\f7673\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New Baltic CE;}{\f7674\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New Baltic Cyr;} {\f7676\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New Baltic Greek;}{\f7677\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New Baltic Tur;}{\f7678\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New Baltic (Hebrew);}{\f7679\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New Baltic (Arabic);} {\f7680\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New Baltic Baltic;}{\f7681\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New Baltic (Vietnamese);}{\f7683\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE CE;}{\f7684\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman CE Cyr;} {\f7686\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman CE Greek;}{\f7687\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman CE Tur;}{\f7688\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman CE (Hebrew);}{\f7689\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman CE (Arabic);} {\f7690\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman CE Baltic;}{\f7691\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman CE (Vietnamese);}{\f7693\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial CE CE;}{\f7694\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial CE Cyr;} {\f7696\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial CE Greek;}{\f7697\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial CE Tur;}{\f7698\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial CE (Hebrew);}{\f7699\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial CE (Arabic);}{\f7700\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial CE Baltic;} {\f7701\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial CE (Vietnamese);}{\f7703\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial Greek CE;}{\f7704\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Greek Cyr;}{\f7706\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Greek Greek;} {\f7707\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Greek Tur;}{\f7708\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial Greek (Hebrew);}{\f7709\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial Greek (Arabic);}{\f7710\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Greek Baltic;} {\f7711\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial Greek (Vietnamese);}{\f7713\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New CE CE;}{\f7714\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New CE Cyr;}{\f7716\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New CE Greek;} {\f7717\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New CE Tur;}{\f7718\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New CE (Hebrew);}{\f7719\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New CE (Arabic);}{\f7720\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New CE Baltic;} {\f7721\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New CE (Vietnamese);}{\f7723\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New Greek CE;}{\f7724\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New Greek Cyr;}{\f7726\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New Greek Greek;} {\f7727\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New Greek Tur;}{\f7728\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New Greek (Hebrew);}{\f7729\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New Greek (Arabic);}{\f7730\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New Greek Baltic;} {\f7731\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New Greek (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255; \red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;\red255\green255\blue255;\red51\green51\blue51;}{\stylesheet{ \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \snext0 Normal;}{\s1\ql \li0\ri0\keepn\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\outlinelevel0\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 1;}{\s2\ql \li0\ri0\keepn\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\outlinelevel1\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 2;} {\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb240\sa120\keepn\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f4\fs28\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext16 Heading;}{\s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 Body Text;}{ \s17\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon16 \snext17 List;}{\s18\ql \li0\ri0\sb120\sa120\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \i\f37\fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext18 \ssemihidden caption;}{\s19\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext19 Index;}{ \s20\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext20 Plain Text;}{\s21\ql \fi-1134\li1134\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1134\tx1418\tx9781\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin1134\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext21 dday;}{\s22\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext22 Table Contents;}{ \s23\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon22 \snext23 Table Heading;}{\*\cs24 \additive \f3 RTF_Num 2 1;}{\*\cs25 \additive \f2 RTF_Num 2 2;}{\*\cs26 \additive \f10 RTF_Num 2 3;} {\*\cs27 \additive \f3 RTF_Num 2 4;}{\*\cs28 \additive \f2 RTF_Num 2 5;}{\*\cs29 \additive \f10 RTF_Num 2 6;}{\*\cs30 \additive \f3 RTF_Num 2 7;}{\*\cs31 \additive \f2 RTF_Num 2 8;}{\*\cs32 \additive \f10 RTF_Num 2 9;}}{\*\revtbl {Unknown;}}{\*\pgptbl {\pgp\ipgp0\itap0\li0 \ri0\sb0\sa0}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid920401\rsid4879481\rsid6037987\rsid13247795\rsid15159909}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6612;}{\info{\author matt}{\operator John Palmer}{\creatim\yr2007\mo7\dy21\hr20\min53}{\revtim\yr2007\mo7\dy31\hr13\min1} {\printim\yr2113\mo1\dy1}{\version5}{\edmins12}{\nofpages173}{\nofwords79078}{\nofchars450750}{\*\company University of Hull}{\nofcharsws528771}{\vern16389}} \deftab1080\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\makebackup\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot920401 \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\pararsid4879481 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid920401 NOTES \par }{\insrsid920401 (version 1a)}{\insrsid4879481 \par }\pard \s21\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid4879481 {\insrsid4879481 \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4879481 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\cf1\insrsid920401 LEICESTERSHIRE. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the running title }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 LEDECESTRESCIRE }{\cf1\insrsid920401 in vermilion capitals across the top of folio 230ab centred above both columns, as also in the List of Landholders on folio 230b, and }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 LEDECEST'SCIRE }{\cf1\insrsid920401 across the top of every other folio (}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 LEDECESTR'SCIRE}{\cf1\insrsid920401 on folio 233ab). On folio 234abcd the running title is off-centre because of a la}{\cf1\insrsid13247795 rge hole in the parchment.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid13247795 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 When quoting from the text, the abbreviated forms are retained wherever possible, or the extensions to them are enclosed in square brackets; only where there is no doubt is the Latin extended silently. The Anglo-Saxon}{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 letters thorn (\'fe) and eth (\'f0) are reproduced as }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 th}{\cf1\insrsid920401 .}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid4879481 \par }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid4879481 {\cf1\insrsid920401 C1\tab THE CITY OF LEICESTER. Leicester was a Roman }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 civitas}{\cf1\insrsid920401 -capital of the }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 Coritani}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , known as }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Ratae Coritanorum}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . From the late seventh century it was the cathedral city of a bishopric. A Danish army established itself here in the late ninth century but capitulated to Aethelflaed, Lady of the Mercians, in 918 without a fight. There was presumably a Danish fortified }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 burh}{\cf1\insrsid920401 at Leicester, and some of the late Roman town defences no doubt remained. It seems very likely that there was a Norman castle here in 1086, though Domesday does not mention it; see Buckley and Lucas, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Leicester Town Defences}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 ; Fox, 'Leicester Castle'; Chinnery, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Leicester Castle}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ;}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 and \{Introduction: Castle\}. On the history of the city, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , iv. pp. 1-19; Chinnery, 'Leicester at Domesday'.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Like several important or ancient towns in Domesday, Leicester is called a }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 civitas}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('city') in C1;3, but it is also called a }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 burgus}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('borough') in C2;11-12;16-17). The schedule begins with the customs and customary payments of the city (C1-5), then proceeds (C 6-17) to list the houses and burgesses belonging to the major landholders in the shire, extended, in the case of Countess Judith, to include land she held outside the city (C17). The survey concludes with a brief reference to the woodland that belonged to the shire (C18). To the section that lists burgesses and houses should be ad ded 1 burgess at Arnesby (25,2) and 9 burgesses at Poultney (3,6). \par \tab \tab Orderic Vitalis, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Ecclesiastical History}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (Chibnall, vi. pp. 18-21) in explaining how Count Robert of Meulan, who held nothing in the borough in 1086, managed to impose himself on the city a nd the county, says: 'the town of Leicester had four lords: the king, the Bishop of Lincoln, Earl Simon and Ivo son of Hugh'. Although this refers to the situation in the 1090s, it accurately reflects the 1086 situation where the borough was dominated by t he king, the Bishop of Lincoln (his portion is surveyed at 3,1 and subsequently known as Bishop's Fee), Countess Judith (whose daughter Matilda married Simon of Senlis, Earl of Northampton), and Hugh of Grandmesnil, father of Ivo. By the year 1130, if not before, Robert, son of Robert of Meulan and Earl of Leicester, possessed all the revenues that in other boroughs and cities would be held by the Crown; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 301; and LEC 9 count note and LEC 13 Hugh note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab AT FACE VALUE. That is, the opposite of payment by weight or in blanched or assayed money.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab "ORA".}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Literally an ounce, in Scandinavia a monetary unit and coin still in use; in Domesday it is valued at 16d or, as here, at 20d (PM). The 20d rate was primarily a unit of account, foun d on estates in the king's hands, and was payment 'at face value'. For every 16d due in revenue, 20d was collected, the result being equivalent to a payment in assayed or blanched money. For a different view of the two rates, see Philip Grierson, 'The Mon etary System under William I', }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday Book Studies}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 75 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Story of Domesday Book}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p.}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 112).}{ \i\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SESTER.}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 A dry or liquid measure of uncertain capacity; reckoned at 32 ounces for honey (PM). Sometimes the sester payment was commuted: in WIL 24p Edward of Salisbury had, among other commodities as his annual payment as sheriff, '16 sesters of honey, or, instead of honey, 16s'. In 1086 the borough of Warwick paid '6 sesters of honey, that is, a sester at 15 pence' (WAR B5), whereas}{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 the sheriffdom of Warwick, the borough and the royal manors paid \'a365 and 36 sesters of honey, 'or \'a324 8s for all [the dues] that belonged to the honey' (WAR B4).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 C2\tab ON CAMPAIGN. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 in exercitu}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , literally 'in the army'. The Alecto translation has 'with his army', for which the Latin would be }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 cum exercitu}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 .}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab CARRYING WEAPONS. The Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 ad comportanda arma}{\cf1\insrsid920401 was translated 'for bringing together weapons' in the Phillimore printed translation. The prefix }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 com}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 - can certainly have this sense, but }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 comporto}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ca n also mean 'to carry together', 'carry jointly' ' carry in quantity' or simply 'convey'. It seems to be the transport of weapons that is referred to here, not their stockpiling.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab OR OTHER THINGS WHICH MIGHT BE NEEDED. The Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 uel alia quae opus esset}{\cf1\insrsid920401 was translated 'and anything else required' in the Phillimore printed edition. Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 uel }{\cf1\insrsid920401 represents an alternative, and the force of the subjunctive }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 esset}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is lost in that rendering.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 C3\tab \'a342 10s. Domesday Book uses the Old English currency system which endured for a thousand years until 1971. The pound contained 20 shillings, each of 12 pence, abbreviated as }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 \'a3}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [} {\i\cf1\insrsid920401 ibrae}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ], }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 s}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 olidi}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ], }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 d}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 enarii}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ] (PM). Domesday often expresses sums above a shilling in pence (as 28d in 13,5) and above a pound in shillings, as 20s in C17.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BY WEIGHT. Payment in this manner avoided losses from the clipping of coins or wear, and was therefore carefully noted, as the opposite of money 'at face value' (as in C1;4).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab PAYMENTS. Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 redditibus}{\cf1\insrsid920401 : 'renders', 'revenues' are meant.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 C4\tab FOR A HAWK, \'a310. Hawks are often recorded in Domesday as part of the customary dues of a borough or a county. Where they were commuted for a money render, the rate was generally at least \'a3 10, as here, and in WAR B4. NTH B36. WIL B2. OXF 1,12 and WOR C2; in the last the sheriff of Worcester could pay either a Norwegian hawk or \'a3 10 'of pence at 20 to the "ora", which is the equivalent of the phrase 'at face value' here. Hawks are also often mentioned as part of a manor's value or render, as in SHR 4,8,16. 4,24,4, and there are two references to Welshmen paying hawks (HEF 25,4. SHR 4,27,4). Their eyries were also regarded as of considerable value and are regularly recorded in Great Domesday, either on their own or in connection with hedged enclosures or woodland, and are pa rticularly well reported in Cheshire. Apart from the Norwegian hawk mentioned in WOR C2, which was probably a Gyr Falcon (or Gerfalcon), Domesday records a sparrowhawk (CHS 2,9), a goshawk (NFK 1,61) and a sore hawk (YKS 6N56).}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 C5\tab MONEYERS, \'a320. The payment is for the right to mint coins. See also Fleming, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday Book and the Law}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 188 no. 942.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab HUGH OF GRANDMESNIL. He was the largest landholder in the borough and the county (LEC 13; see LEC 13 Hugh note). Shortly after the conquest he was created castellan of Leicester: }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Hugoni vero Grentemaisnilo municipatum Legrecestrae commendavit}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , ('to Hugh of Grandmesnil he [the Conqueror] entrusted the wardenship/overlordship of Leicester'): Orderic Vitalis, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Ecclesiastical History}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 (Chibnall, ii. p. 264) (PM). See \{Introduction: Administration of the Shire\}. Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 municipatus}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is translated 'castellany' by Chibnall in her edition of Orderic Vitalis. It may well mean this, but the root-meaning is 'control of a }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 municipium}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ': in this case, of a borough. Elsewhere Ivo, son of Hugh of Grandmesnil, is called a }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 municeps}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , again translated by Chibnall as 'castellan': Orderic Vitalis, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Ecclesiastical History}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (Chibnall, vi. pp. 18-19).}{ \insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab THE THIRD PENNY. This means that Hugh of Grandmesnil received a third of the revenues, the king two-thirds. This division between king and earl or king and sheriff was common; see Round, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Geoffrey de Mandeville}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , Appendix H, pp. 287-96; Round, 'Tertius Denarius', pp. 62-64. See also }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Dialogus de Scaccario}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , Book I, section xvii, pp. 64-65.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 C6\tab THE KING. The main scribe of Great Domesday marked the beginning of this section on the houses and churches of Leicester with a large rubricated }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 R}{\cf1\insrsid920401 for }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Rex}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 and }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 LEDECESTRE}{\cf1\insrsid920401 lined through in vermilion for emphasis.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab HOUSES. The schedule distinguishes between those houses that belong to the borough (C6;9;10;17) and the 110 houses held by Hugh of Grandmesnil and the 24 shared by him with the king (C 11), and those that belong to rural estates. Presumably the latter group paid tax with their manors, so the distinction is fa irly important. See C10 tax note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 C7\tab ARCHBISHOP OF YORK. His lands are scheduled in LEC 2; see LEC 2 York note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab FULL JURISDICTION. This phrase seems to mark out the archbishop, Hugh of Gouville (C12) and Robert of Vessey (C13) from the others who do not have it.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab TUR LANGTON. The Domesday form is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Cherlintone}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , apparently an error for }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Terlintone}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , that is Tur Langton (2,1-2).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 C8\tab EARL HUGH. His fief is LEC 43; see LEC 43 Hugh note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab [HAS]. The main scribe of Great Domesday omitted }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 habet}{\cf1\insrsid920401 : although the cases of the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 .x. dom'}{\cf1\insrsid920401 and the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 vi. dom'}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 could be either nominative or accusative, the }{\i\f710\cf1\insrsid920401 un\'e2 dom'}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in the second line is definitely accusative.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BARROW[-UPON-SOAR]. See 43,1.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab WHICH BELONG TO KEGWORTH. The Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 p'tin'}{\cf1\insrsid920401 here and in the second line could be extended to the present participle }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 pertinentes}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (}{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 pertinenti}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in the second line), which is how they have been translated in the Phillimore printed edition. Or they could abbreviate the present tense }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 pertinent}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (}{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 pertinet}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in the second line) like the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 p'tin'}{\cf1\insrsid920401 earlier in this first line. The former is more likely if, as suggested, the main scribe of Great Domesday omitted }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 habet}{\cf1\insrsid920401 here (C8 has note).}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab On Kegworth, see 43,6.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab LOUGHBOROUGH. See 43,2.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 C9\tab COVENTRY ABBEY. The abbey's lands are scheduled at LEC 6; see LEC 6 Coventry note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 C10\tab CROWLAND ABBEY. See LEC 7 and LEC 7 Crowland note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab FROM ALL OF THESE THE KING HAS HIS TAX. The presence of 'all' suggests that this sentence concerns more than the 3 houses held by Crowland Abbey. It probably includes the 10 houses of Coven try Abbey (C9), but not the houses of the Archbishop of York and Earl Hugh (C7-8), as they probably paid tax with the manors to which they belonged. This view is reinforced by the fact that this is a new sentence (not indicated in the Phillimore printed t ranslation) and by the highlighting with vermilion ink of the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 D}{\cf1\insrsid920401 of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 De quibus}{\cf1\insrsid920401 .}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 C11\tab 110 HOUSES. In this entry the description of Hugh's holding of houses in the borough is in three parts: those he held entirely in the borough (110 houses), those he shared wit h the king also in the borough (24 houses) and those attached to rural manors (61 houses); on this attachment, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 303. The order in which the rural manors are listed does not correspond to the order in which they appear in Hugh's fief, so it is unlikely that these references to houses were drawn from fuller information in the manorial entries in the circuit volume. They are more likely to have been part of the schedule of Leicester itself.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The Phillimore printed edition turned the account of these rural manors into a list with the number of houses succeeding the place-name; the present edition follows the wording and order of the Latin.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 2 CHURCHES. There were, in all, six churches in Leicester in 1086, four held by Hugh of Gra ndmesnil (C11-12) and two by the Bishop of Lincoln (3,1). The latter two were probably the Church of St Margaret and the chapel of St Mary Magdalene in Knighton: 3,1 churches note. Churches known or thought likely to have existed in Leicester in 1086 were St Martin's, regarded as the principal church of the borough, St Nicholas' which was probably the oldest, together with St Peter's, St Clements' and St Michael's. St Nicholas' church was possibly constructed on the site of a church originally dedicated to St Augustine and with an associated chapel of St Columba which had been the cathedral for the see of Leicester (founded late seventh century). It is not unlikely that one or more of these churches was a collegiate establishment, that is a minster church. If the total of six churches given by Domesday is correct, then one of these seven churches listed above was not in existence in 1086.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab In addition, there had been a church of St Mary de Castro, possibly the original minster church for Leicester, constructed in a fortified part of the city; see \{Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\} . Before 1066 this was a collegiate church with prebends, but was destroyed some time afterwards, possibly for the enlargement of the castle on Norman lines. It was rebuilt as a secular college in 1107 by Robert of Beaumont, the Count of Meulan and Earl of Leicester (LEC 9). He endowed it with all the churches in Leicester, apart from those belonging to the Bishop of Lincoln. Subsequently St Mary de Castro became part of the endowment of the Augustinian Abbey of Leicester, known as St Mary du Pr\'e9 or de Pratis; see Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Medieval Religious Houses}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , pp. 141, 163, 415, 428-29; }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire }{\cf1\insrsid920401 , iii. pp. 13-18; 45, iv. pp. 342, 348-49, 384-89.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SHARED WITH. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 in commune}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , translated 'in common with' in the Phillimore printed edition and in the Alecto edition.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab ANSTEY. See 13,22.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SILEBY. See 13,64.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab [OLD] INGARSBY. See 13,51.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BELGRAVE. See 13,20.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BROUGHTON [ASTLEY] . See 13,38.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab STOCKERSTON. See 13,15.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab WIGSTON [MAGNA] . See 13,1.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab ENDERBY. See 13,39.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab [EARL] SHILTON. See 13,4.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BIRSTALL. See 13,21.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BURTON [OVERY] . See 13,16.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 'BROMKINSTHORPE'. See 13,5.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab DESFORD. See 13,5.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab WHICH HE BOUGHT FROM OSBERN. An Osbern held from Hugh of Grandmesnil at Broughton Astley and Thorpe Langton (13,38;57). No Osbern in Domesday Leicestershire held }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 so the purchase must have been made during William I's reign. \par \tab \tab See also Fleming, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday Book and the Law}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 188 no. 943.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab WHICH BELONG. The Latin word order indicates that }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 p}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 er}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 tin}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 entes}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 ] describes the 3 houses, not "Legham", as implied by the translation in the Phillimore printed edition.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab "LEGHAM". No name that is at all like }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Legham}{\cf1\insrsid920401 appears anywhere in Hugh of Gra ndmesnil's fief, nor in Domesday Leicestershire as a whole. Hugh holds no unnamed land. It is possible that this estate obtained by purchase was omitted from Domesday.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab "LETITONE". Domesday }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Letitone}{\cf1\insrsid920401 could be a bad form of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Lestone}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Leyton}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in the Leicestersh ire Survey) of which Hugh held two parts (13,27-28) and which otherwise does not appear in this list; see 13,27 "Lestone" note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab THURCASTON. See 13,19.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 C12\tab 2 CHURCHES. See C11 churches note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab DERELICT HOUSES. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 domos uastas}{\cf1\insrsid920401 and does not necessar ily imply destruction, though in some boroughs the erection of a castle had caused the abandonment and removal of some houses.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab HUGH OF GOUVILLE. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Hugo de Wituile}{\cf1\insrsid920401 .}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 This Hugh is identified twice by Domesday, here and in Northamptonshire (as }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 Hugo de Widuile}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ) where he has 2 houses in Northampton (NTH B35). In some or all cases in Leicestershire he could be the Hugh who holds from Hugh of Grandmesnil (13,55-56;68;72-73), as he does here. According to Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 267, Hugh, the t enant of Hugh of Grandmesnil (13,55-56), is the same as Hugh of Gouville, though she has only two references for folio 233a and there are three mentions of the subtenant Hugh there (13,68;72-73). Similarly, he may be the undifferentiated Hugh who holds fr om Hugh of Grandmesnil in Northamptonshire (NTH 23,2-4;8;10-11;14); he certainly was the Hugh of NTH 23,3 where he held land in exchange for Watford, like the houses in the present entry (C12 Watford note). \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab His place of origin is uncertain. A suggestion by Dupont (}{\i\insrsid920401 Recherches Historiques et Topographiques}{\insrsid920401 , I. p. 161) that he was from Viville (d\'e9 partement Charente, arrondissement Cognac, canton Ch\'e2teauneuf-sur-Charente) may be no more than a guess from the similarity of names and is far from the origin of other Domesday holders. Tengvik (}{\i\insrsid920401 Old English Bynames}{\insrsid920401 , p. 121) suggested Gouville (d\'e9partement Eure, arrondissement Evreux, canton Damville),}{\cf1\insrsid920401 which he prefered to Viville}{\insrsid920401 . Keats-Rohan (}{\i\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\insrsid920401 , p. 267) suggests Iville (d \'e9partement Eure, arrondissement Evreux, canton Le Neubourg); Tengvik does not mention this possibility. However, the evolution of the name-form is important here. It is difficult to accept Iville as a possible descendant of }{\i\insrsid920401 Widuile}{ \insrsid920401 , whereas the forms quoted by Tengvik for Gouville (}{\i\insrsid920401 Wivilla}{\insrsid920401 , }{\i\insrsid920401 Guidvilla}{\insrsid920401 , }{\i\insrsid920401 Gouvilla}{\insrsid920401 ) give a more credible evolution of the name, the }{ \i\insrsid920401 G}{\insrsid920401 - being attached to initial }{\i\insrsid920401 W}{\insrsid920401 - to aid pronounciation, as in the case of Modern French }{\i\insrsid920401 guerre}{\insrsid920401 and }{\i\insrsid920401 gardien}{\insrsid920401 (English 'war' and 'warden') from hypothetical Frankish }{\i\insrsid920401 werra}{\insrsid920401 and }{\i\insrsid920401 wardon}{\insrsid920401 . However, even though }{\i\insrsid920401 Widuile}{\insrsid920401 /}{\i\insrsid920401 Wituile}{\insrsid920401 could yield Gouville, the identification has yet to be clinched. \par \tab \tab Hugh was an ancestor of the family called Wyville or de Widville. His twelfth-century successors Ralph and William de Wiville were probably his sons.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 Another member of the family, Elizabeth Wydville, was Edward IV's queen: } {\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 306 note 1.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab IN EXCHANGE FOR WATFORD. This place was in Northamptonshire where Hugh held '3 \'bd hides in Weedon Bec in exchange for Watford' (NTH 23,3). Gilbert the cook held 2 hides at Watford (NTH 57,2) (PM). Thus it appears that Gilbert the cook had held 5 houses in the borough of Leicester and Weedon B ec in Northamptonshire which he swapped with Hugh of Grandmesnil for Hugh's holding at Watford in Northamptonshire. Fleming, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday Book and the Law}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 188 no. 944, has 'They are part of the exchange for Watford'.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 C13\tab ROBERT OF VESSEY. His fief is LEC 16; see LEC 16 Robert note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab NEWTON [HARCOURT]. See 16,9.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab KIBWORTH [HARCOURT]. See 16,8.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 C14\tab GEOFFREY OF LA GUERCHE . His lands are listed in LEC 29; see LEC 29 Geoffrey note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab [LITTLE] DALBY. See 29,19.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab PICKWELL. See 29,10.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 C15\tab 4 HOUSES. From the names of the manors to which these houses are attached it is clear that they are held by the king himself.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SHEPSHED. See 1,10.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SADDINGTON ... THORPE [ACRE]. These two manors were held by Queen Edith }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 and by King William in 1086 (1,6;8).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 C16\tab HENRY OF FERRERS. His fief is LEC 14; see LEC 14 Henry note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab ROBERT THE BURSAR. His lands form LEC 19; see LEC 19 Robert note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab HAVE. Manuscript error, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 h't }{\cf1\insrsid920401 for }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 h'nt}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 'has' for 'have' (PM). Such a mistake easily occurs when the verb precedes the subject which turns out to be plural.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 1 BURGESS. It is not clear whether Hugh and Robert share the burgess or whether 'each' is to be understood.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 C17\tab COUNTESS JUDITH. Her large fief forms LEC 40; see LEC 40 Judith note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab HALF A MILL. The other half is held by the Bishop of Lincoln (3,1). See 1,1a mills note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 6 CARUCATES. These are presumably the carucates used as a land-measure throughout the county and whose subdivision is the bovate. It is to be observed, however, that in some counties that are not otherwise carucated, carucated land is attached to a borough, (for example, HUN B18). In those cases, the carucate is a unit that does not pay tax.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 C18\tab SHERIFFDOM. Since each county had its sheriff (}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 vicecomes}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ),}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 but few had an}{\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 earl (}{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 comes}{\cf1\insrsid920401 )}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 in 1086, the terms [}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 vicecomitatus}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('sheriffdom') and }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 comitatus}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('county')] are interchangeable (PM).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab "HERESWODE". This means 'the wood of the army', later Leicester Forest; it is probably associated with the Danish army at Leicester (PM); see \{Introduction: Forest\}.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 L13\tab EARL HUGH. He is entered here at number }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 XIII}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , but the main scribe of Great Domesday failed to include his fief initially (LEC 43 fief note), so the land of Hugh of Grandmesnil (here numbered }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 XIIII}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ) was numbered }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 XIII}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 in the text . The scribe omitted to mention the holding of Robert of Bucy in the Landholders' List (folio 230b), but included his lands as chapter 17 in the text. There is thus a discrepancy between the numbering of the Landholders' List and of the chapters in the te xt until number }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 XVIII}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (Robert of Bully). The differences between the List and the text, as well as the later addition of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 XLIII Comes Hugo}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in the List (L43 Hugh note) are clear indicators that the List was written before the text, though this was not always the case in Great Domesday. It was, however, not written at the same time as the account of the city of Leicester and chapter 1 because the scribe used a different pen and darker ink.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 L43\tab EARL HUGH. The main scribe of Great Domesday added }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Comes Hugo}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in the outer margin of folio 230b in a darker ink than he had used for the rest of the Landholders' List, presumably when he had discovered the omission of his fief and added it on a previously blank folio at the end of the quire containing Leicestershire (LEC 43 fief note). At the same time he added a }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 I}{\cf1\insrsid920401 to the number beside the 'The Count of Meulan's men', which was also a later addition in the text (LEC 44 chapter note) but was not an addition to the Landholders' List.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 1\tab LAND OF THE KING. He }{\insrsid920401 was born in 1027 or 1028, the son of Robert I, Duke of Normandy, and Arlette, daughter of Fulbert the tanner of Falaise. Duke of Normandy from 1035 to 1087, William seized the English throne in 1066 having defeated the uncrowned English King Harold, son of Godwin, at the ba ttle of Hastings. William himself was crowned in Westminster Abbey on 25}{\up6\insrsid920401 th}{\insrsid920401 December 1066 and ruled England until his death in 1087. In 1050 or 1051 he married Matilda, daughter of Baldwin V, Count of Flanders; she predeceased him. Among his children were Ro bert Curthose, William Rufus, Henry, Cecilia (Abbess of Caen), and Constance (married to Count Alan of Brittany). He was succeeded in Normandy by his son Robert Curthose and in England first by his son William Rufus (William II, 1087-1100), then by his so n Henry (Henry I, 1100-1135).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab At the time of the Leicestershire Survey the king still held many of these estates, but others had been granted away; see Leicestershire Survey, pp. 84-85.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab These lands are not arranged in the standard sequence of wapentakes largely visible in other fiefs in Leicestershire; see \{Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes\} . Instead they are essentially arranged by 1066 holders: Earl Morcar, King Edward, Queen Edith, Osgot, Leofwin. Even where the same }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 holder had lands i n more than one wapentake, the standard sequence is not applied: King Edward had held in 'Goscote' Wapentake (1,3) and Gartree Wapentake (1,4), but in the standard order these are reversed.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Framland Wapentake: 1,1-2 (Earl Morcar)}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab ['Goscote' Wapentake]: 1,3 (King Edward)}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Gartree Wapentake]: 1,4-6 (King Edward held 1,4; no }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 holder is given for 1,5:}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab 1,5 jurisdiction note. Queen Edith apparently held 1,6: 1,9 lands note). The Gartree wapentake head at 1,6 is misplaced. \par \tab \tab ['Goscote' Wapentake]: 1,7-10 (Queen Edith held 1,7-9. Osgot held 1,10)}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Gartree Wapentake]: 1,11 (Part of Oakham, Rutland)}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Guthlaxton Wapentake: 1,12 (Leofwin)}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 1,1a\tab CROXTON [KERRIAL]. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086 and it was in that wapentak e, in Croxton [Kerrial] Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 22, 57), where the Count of Mortain holds it.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The numbering of this and the following two entries (1,1b-1c) indicates that all formed a single estate. However, this was not systema tically applied in the Phillimore printed edition. For example, it is not used for the royal manors of Derbyshire (DBY 1,1-38) where it would help clarify the relationships of estate to estate, nor here in Leicestershire is it applied to a case such as 15 ,6-7 which are both dependencies of Bottesford (15,5). However, since the Phillimore numbering is widely used, no attempt has been made to modify it.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 2 MILLS. There are almost 130 mills recorded in Domesday Leicestershire. Their renders were given in almos t every instance, as here, ranging from 4d (in 29,10) to 25s for the two mills at Melton Mowbray (29,3), although 2s was a common payment.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 1,1b\tab KNIPTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086 like the other dependencies o f Croxton Kerrial. Another part (15,7) belonged to the manor of Bottesford (15,5). This present estate was in Framland Wapentake (in Scalford Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 21, 54), where it is held by the Count of Mortain.}{ \insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 8 CARUCATES OF LAND AND 6 BOVATES. The Phillimore printed translation has '8 carucates and 6 bovates of land', putting the 'of land' here as elsewhere after the bovates when both carucates and bovates are listed. The main scribe of Great Domesday included }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 t}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 er}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\f703\cf1\insrsid920401 r\'ea}{\cf1\insrsid920401 after }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 car'}{\cf1\insrsid920401 deliberately in order to distinguish }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 carucata}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 e}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ) ('carucate(s)') from }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 caruca}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 e}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ) ('plough(s)'). The present edition follows the Latin word order.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 1,1c\tab HARSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086 like the other d ependencies of Croxton Kerrial. It was in that wapentake, in Croxton [Kerrial] Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 22, 57), where the Count of Mortain holds it. The place-name means 'stone on boundary': }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Place-Names of Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 10. Harston lies on the boundary between Lincolnshire and Leicestershire, which suggests that the place-name was a late tenth or early eleventh-century formation, or that a more ancient boundary was adopted when shiring took place.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab THE WHOLE. That is, Croxton Kerrial and its members (1,1a-c).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 1,2\tab [NETHER] BROUGHTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086 (head at 1,1a) and it was in that wapentake, in [Nether] Broughton Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 20 , 52), where it is held (still as 12 carucates) by the Count of Mortain.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Upper Broughton is in Nottinghamshire (NTT 1,59).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab EARL MORCAR. He was the son of Algar }{\insrsid920401 and his wife Aelfeva, grandson of Earl Leofric and brother of Earl Edwin}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . Algar was Earl of E ast Anglia 1051-1052, later of Mercia from about 1057. Morcar was }{\insrsid920401 chosen as earl by the Northumbrians when they had deposed Earl Tosti }{\cf1\insrsid920401 (King Harold\rquote s brother) in 1065. He submitted to King William, but rebelled twice and was in custody in Normandy at the time of the Domesday Survey.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab THESE 2 MANORS. That is, Croxton Kerrial and Nether Broughton (1,1-2). Earl Algar, father of Earl Morcar, had also held Upper Broughton, adjacent in Nottinghamshire NTT 1,59).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab HUGH SON OF BALDRIC.}{\insrsid920401 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\rquote s successor. His sons-in-law were Guy of Craon and Walter of Rivers, both Domesday tenants. See Green, }{ \i\insrsid920401 English Sheriffs}{\insrsid920401 , pp. 67, 89; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\insrsid920401 , pp. 267-68.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab AT A REVENUE. Hugh was managing or 'farming' them for the king. Under this system the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 firmarius }{\cf1\insrsid920401 or 'farmer' (here Hugh son of Baldric) agreed to pay a fixed sum of money annually to the king (as here) or to the sheriff or the lord of the manor, which he hoped he would more than recover from the rents and dues he received from that manor as well as from the profits of the lordship. See Lennard, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Rural England}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , pp. 105-75.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 1,3\tab [IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 1,3 Rothley note. The one line's space left before this entry may have been for the later insertion of the wapentake head or to separate this multiple estate from the previous entry. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space before the next entry (1,4), another multiple estate, though this was partially filled by the overrun from the render of the present estate's members. He also left a line's space before 1,6, in which he wrote a Gartree wapenta ke head.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab ROTHLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086, as it was (in Rearsby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 17, 41), where the king still holds these 5 carucates.}{ \cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The members of this multiple estate were in three different wapentakes (Gartree, 'Goscote' and Framland) in 1086. They are not entered in distinct groups by wapentake.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab IN LORDSHIP 2 OF THEM. That is, 2 carucates. Although the land held in lordship was probably specified in the circuit vo lume, the main scribe of Great Domesday only included it in Leicestershire here and in 13,1. 14,1-2;6. Its inclusion elsewhere in Great Domesday was sporadic.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab THE LORD'S WOODLAND. The distinction between the woodland that was part of the lordship and the woodland held by the villagers is very unusual. There is no other instance of this distinction in Domesday, though there are several cases where the woodland is specifically said to be in lordship (HEF 2,11. 8,7. SHR 4,3,28. STS 11,62). The woods themselv es were not necessarily separate on the ground, the lord's and the villagers' woodland being recorded as separate oblongs only for assessment purposes. On meadow occasionally being said to be part of the lordship, see DBY 16,8 meadow note.}{ \insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab ALLEXTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in }{\insrsid920401 'Goscote' }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Wapentake in 1086 (another part is directly below a }{\insrsid920401 'Goscote' }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Wapentake head at 40,39). It was in that wapentake (in Loddington Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 15, 36), where it}{\insrsid920401 is still held by the king.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BARSBY. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Ashby Folville. Another part was apparently in }{\insrsid920401 'Goscote' Wapentake (32,2) }{\cf1\insrsid920401 and it was in that wapentake (in Barkby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 16, 39), where the 5 carucates less 1 bovate of Domesday seem to be accounted for by 2 carucates and 1 \'bd bovates in South Croxton (SK6910) and 3 carucates and \'bd bovate in Barsby. This is larger by 3 bovates than the Domesday assessment, but it is part of a larger assessment; see 32,2 Barsby note. There are also two named Domesday estates at South Croxton (3,13. 15,11).}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SEAGRAVE. This was an Ancient Parish. Other parts (14,7. 17,23. 43,1) appear to have been in }{\insrsid920401 'Goscote' Wapentake. There is no entry for this estate in the extant part of the Leicestershire Survey.}{ \insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SILEBY. This was an Ancient Parish. Another portion seems to have been in }{\insrsid920401 'Goscote' Wapentake at 13,64. This holding does not appear in the }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 15, 24, 38), but Robert de Ferrers there ho lds 5 bovates otherwise unaccounted for and the Earl of Leicester has more carucates than in the corresponding Domesday entry at Sileby (13,64), so it is likely that this royal holding had been divided between them.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab TUGBY. This was an Ancient Parish. This is its only mention in Domesday. It probably lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086, as it was (in Loddington Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 14, 36), where it}{ \insrsid920401 is held by Norman de Verdun.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SKEFFINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. This is its only mention in Domesday. It probably lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086, as it did (in Loddington Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 14-15, 36), where}{ \insrsid920401 this 12-carucate estate is divided between Norman de Verdun (8 \'bd carucates) and Richard Basset (3 \'bd carucates).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab MAREFIELD. There were two townships, 'Newbold Marefield', also known as 'North Marefield', in Owston Ancient Parish and Marefield (also known as 'South Marefield') in the Ancient Parish of Tilton-on-the-Hill. Unless 'Newbold Maref ield' was an unnamed part of Newbold (14,33) and the Marefields of Domesday were both divisions of 'South Marefield', it is likely that 'North Marefield' and 'South Marefield' are represented by these two estates at }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Merdefelde}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 and }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 alia Merdefelde}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in Domesd ay. The Phillimore printed edition identified them respectively as North and South Marefield, but the details of both are identical (they were presumably an equal division of an estate called 'Marefield') so it is impossible to relate them individually to the two later holdings here (see, for example, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Book of Fees}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , pp. 375, 1280). They remained members of Rothley and are both identified as ancient demesne in }{\i\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{ \insrsid920401 , p. 165. They are treated as the same vill in }{\i\insrsid920401 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid920401 , i. p. 237.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 The Alecto edition wisely identified each as 'North' Marefield or Marefield (the 'South' is no longer in use). This is the only mention of 'Marefield' in Domesday. The two parts probably lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086, as they were (in Knossington Hund red) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 14, 31), where }{\insrsid920401 these estates (}{\i\insrsid920401 Mardefeud}{\insrsid920401 and }{\i\insrsid920401 alia Mardefeud}{\insrsid920401 ) are still held by the king.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab 'North Marefield' is an abandoned site whose location is known (at SK752088): Deserted Medieval Village Research Group, 'Deserted Medieval Villages in Leicestershire', p. 25.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 South Marefield is now known simply as Marefield at SK749079. See Hoskins, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Essays in Leicestershire History}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 82.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The two Marefields, together with Knossington (1,11. 18,1) and Owston (40,26), formed a detached part of Gartree Wapentake within the area of 'Goscote' Wapentake.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab ANOTHER MAREFIELD. See 1,3 Marefield note. Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 alia}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('another') is a scribal device often used in lists to emphasis that two successive place of the same name are not the same estate. The word does not, therefore, in itself prove the existence of separate settlements or villages, although in this case they may well have been in existence by 10 86; see 13,32 Peatling note and Thorn, 'Manorial Affixes'.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab HALSTEAD. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Tilton-on-the-Hill. This is its only mention in Domesday. It probably lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086, as it did (in Tilton[-on-the-Hill] Hun dred), in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 15, 37). There it}{\insrsid920401 is held by Norman de Verdun as 3 carucates less 1 virgate, corresponding to the 3 carucates less 2 bovates here and showing that the virgate of the Survey was probably equivalent to 2 bovates (\{Introduction: Hides and Virgates\}).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab CHADWELL. This was a chapelry of Rothley Ancient Parish. This is its only mention in Domesday. Geographically, Chadwell and the next place, Wycomb, lay in Framland Wapentake, but it is possible that they were outlyi ng parts of 'Goscote' Wapentake, because of their attachment to Rothley. To support this, it could be argued that whereas the two hundreds of Framland Wapentake (Scalford Hundred and Waltham-on-the-Wolds Hundred) in which Chadwell and Wycomb would be expe cted to lie, are included in the Leicestershire Survey, these two estates are missing. Moreover, the carucage of these two hundreds in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 21, 54), is 36 carucates each (\'bd carucate more, in the case of Scalford Hundred, tha n the Domesday totals) and there seems no place in them for the 4 carucates of these two outliers of Rothley. The fact that Chadwell and Wycomb were respectively a chapelry and hamlet of Rothley Ancient Parish, suggests that they formed an outlying portio n of Rothley manor and Ancient Parish and of 'Goscote' Wapentake.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab WYCOMB. This was a hamlet in Rothley Ancient Parish, and, with Chadwell, was probably in an outlying part of 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086: 1,3 Chadwell note}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab TILTON}{\insrsid920401 [-ON-THE-HILL]}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . This was an Ancient Parish. Other parts (2,7. 19,17) seem to have lain in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 and this estate was in that wapentake, in Tilton[-on-the-Hill] Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 15, 37), where it}{\insrsid920401 is still held by the king but assessed at 2 carucates less 1 bovate.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab ASFORDBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086. It was in that wapentake (in Great Dalby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 17, 42), where the Earl of Leicester holds it, though it is assessed at 13 carucates.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Asfordby and Wartnaby were granted by Henry I to a certain Hardulf (1102 x 1106): }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , ii. no. 793 p. 61. \par \tab \tab The Domesday name form }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Offerdebie}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (possibly a scribal error at some stage for }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Osferdebie}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ) seems a reasonable predecessor of Asfordby, but a different name-form, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Esseberie}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , has been identified with another part of Asfordby at 42,9.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab KEYHAM. This was a chapelry and peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdiction (until 1851) of Rothley Ancient Parish: Youngs, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Local Administrative Units}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 240. This is its only mention in Domesday. It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 as it was (in Beeby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 15, 37), where it is still held by the king.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab WARTNABY. This was a chapelry and peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdiction (until 1851) of Rothley Ancient Parish: Youngs, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Local Administrative Units}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 240 This is its only mention in Domesday. It probably lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086, as it did (in Great Dalby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 17, 42), where the king continues to hold it.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab TWYFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. Another part (13,30) appears to have been in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086. This estate was in that wapentake (in Loddington Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 15, 36).}{ \insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\insrsid920401 In the Leicestershire Survey, this 4 \'bd -carucate estate appears to be treated as one with the 2-carucate estate held by the Hugh of Grandmesnil (13,30). That Survey has the king holding 5 carucates of which Grimbald holds \'bd carucate and King David (of Scotland) 1 carucate. The editor of the Le icestershire Survey points out, however, that if these two small subinfeudations were additional to, rather than part of the 5 carucates, the total would be the same as in Domesday. In that Survey, these estates are said to lie in Thorpe Satchville (SK731 1) and in Twyford.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SOMERBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a Framland wapentake head at 19,19 and another part appears to be in that wapentake at 14,31. The present estate was in th at wapentake (in Cold Overton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 49), where it is held by Roger de Mowbray, as 6 carucates. It seems that Roger de Mowbray is not only holding the royal estate (1 \'bd carucates), but also the 4 carucates at Burrough-on-the-Hill, held by Herbert in 1086 (42,1). The estates of Somerby and Burrough-on-the-Hill are greatly intermingled; see the tabulation and discussion in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 49).}{ \insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab FRISBY[-ON-THE-WREAKE]. This was an Ancient Pari sh. A further portion, probably also in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086) was a part of the multiple estate of Barrow-upon-Soar (43,1). This present estate was in that wapentake (in Great Dalby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 17, 42), where t he king still holds it. For the history of this estate, see Hoskins, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Essays in Leicestershire History}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , pp. 24-66.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab PART OF A MILL. No matching part of a mill appears nearby in Domesday Leicestershire.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SAXELBY. This was an Ancient Parish. This is its only m ention in Domesday but it was probably in 'Gosecote Wapentake in 1086 as it was (in Dalby-on-the-Wolds Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 17, 42), where the king still holds it.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab GRIMSTON. This was a chapelry and peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdiction (until 1851) of Rothley Ancient Parish: Youngs, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Local Administrative Units}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 240. Another part (17,22) seems to have been in 'Goscote' Wapentake, and the present estate was placed there (in Dalby-on-the-Wolds Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 17, 25, 42), where the king still holds it.}{ \cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BAGGRAVE. It was a part of Hungarton Ancient Parish. This is its only mention in Domesday. It probably lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086, as it did (as an outlying part of that wapentake, in Kno ssington Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 14, 31), where it}{\insrsid920401 is still held by }{\cf1\insrsid920401 the king.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The deserted medieval village of Baggrave lies at SK697087.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab GADDESBY. This was a chapelry and peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdiction (until 1851) of Rothley Ancient Parish: Youngs, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Local Administrative Units}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 240. Other parts of Gaddesby (40,34-35) seem to have lain in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 and a further part, a jurisdiction of Barrow-upon-Soar (43,1), may also have been there. This particul ar estate was in that wapentake (in Barkby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 16, 24, 40), where 8 carucates and 4 \'bd bovates correspond roughly to the 8 carucates and 3 bovates of Domesday.}{\i\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \'a331 8s 1d. On this sum, see}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 287, where Stenton points out that such a figure was clearly composed of a whole series of small payments and contrasts with the round figures paid by multiple estates elsewhere. He further suggests that this may indicate that the members of Rothley w ere not parts of some ancient unit but had grown by accretion, individual Freemen seeking the king's protection. It is however possible that an even larger manor had partially broken up and these payments were for the large fragment that remained.}{ \insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 1,4\tab [IN GARTREE WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based on the evidence relating to Great Bowden: 1,4 Bowden note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab [GREAT] BOWDEN. This was an Ancient Parish, It probably lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086, as probably did its members and another portion (40,18). In due course the important settlement of Market Harborough developed on the land of Great Bowden; see Hoskins, 'Origin and Rise of Market Harborough', p. 56; }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. p. 138.}{ \insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Little Bowden lay just over the border in Northamptonshire in 1086 (NTH 18,19), but was taken into Leicestershire in 1889.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab MEADOW, [***] ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a space for about seven letters, presumably for the number of acres, after writing }{\i\f703\cf1\insrsid920401 Ibi p'ti acr\'ea}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , an unusual word order. He wrote }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 r}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (for }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 require}{\cf1\insrsid920401 : 'enquire') in the outer margin next to this space, but it did not produce an answer. The }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 r}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 is faint in the MS and is unclear in the Alecto facsimile and not visible in the Ordnance Survey facsimile; Farley did not print it. On these requests, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 124-26 (= Erskine and Williams, }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 The Story of Domesday Book}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , pp. 190-91) and compare 28,1 margin note, 43,1 value note and 11,2 lordship note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab MEDBOURNE. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Gartree Wapentake at 15,2.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 232-36.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab [CARUCATE]. There is an ink blot in the manuscript obscuring }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 car'}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , though it can be seen beneath it; Farley left a space. This blot also partially obscures the reading in the next line: 1,4 bovates note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab CRANOE. Cranoe was an Ancient Parish, though perhaps originally dependent on Welham Ancient Parish: Youngs, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Local Administrative Units}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 224. Another part (40,29) lay in a group of places in Gartree Wapentake. This estate was in Gartree Wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 23, 32), where it may well still be held}{\insrsid920401 by the king, though the text breaks off after }{\i\insrsid920401 Et de socha}{\insrsid920401 : }{\i\insrsid920401 regis}{\insrsid920401 and an assessment figure are missing. }{\cf1\insrsid920401 For its later history, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. }{\insrsid920401 82-83.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab IN THE OUTER MARGIN next to the text detailing the members of Great Bowden (Cranoe to Carlton Curlieu) there are two not es written later in the medieval period. The first is by Arthur Agarde, the keeper of Domesday Book (1570-1615) and is unclear ( }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 ... in alio libro et ibi guort}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (?) }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 ...}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , translated as 'look in the other book and there you will find a weir' on folio 230v of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Leicestershire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (from a personal communication from Dr E. Hallam). The meaning of this note is not certain, though further on in the Leicestershire folios (13,53) a mill (and so perhaps a weir) is recorded on Hugh of Grandmesnil's estate in Gaulby, part of which might be the same as the holding in Gaulby detailed here (13,53 Gaulby note). However, this does not explain Agarde's mention of 'the other book'; he was a noted scholar and archivist and is unlikely to have made such a mistake. On other not es written by Agarde }{\insrsid920401 in Domesday Book, which are included in the Alecto edition, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 133-34 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\insrsid920401 The Story of Domesday Book}{\insrsid920401 , p. 201) and on Agarde generally, see Hallam, 'Annotations in Domesday Book since 1100', pp. 140-46 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\insrsid920401 The Story of Domesday Book}{\insrsid920401 , pp. 211-17). \par \tab \tab The second note reads }{\i\insrsid920401 Ibi vi}{\insrsid920401 and is an unknown hand, possibly written earlier than Agarde's note and in a much darker ink. It is a clarification of the adjacent reading of }{\i\f703\insrsid920401 .vi. bovat \'ea}{\insrsid920401 for Carlton Curlieu: a series of dashes link it to that entry. The }{\i\f703\insrsid920401 .vi. bovat\'ea}{\insrsid920401 (the }{\i\insrsid920401 v }{\insrsid920401 of }{\i\f703\insrsid920401 bovat\'ea }{\insrsid920401 overwritten) is obscured by an ink blot of the same colour as this marginal note, possibly suggesting that its writer made the blot. If so, he did not feel it necessary to clarify the reading of }{\i\insrsid920401 car'}{\insrsid920401 in the line above, which was similarly obscured (1,4 carucate note).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SHANGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. Other parts (13,55. 16,5) lay in a group of places in Gartree Wapentake and it seems t o be accounted for in that same wapentake (in Langton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 14, 30). }{\insrsid920401 In that}{\i\insrsid920401 }{\insrsid920401 Survey the Earl of Leicester holds 10 carucates here which more than accounts for the 4 carucates of Hugh (13,55) and the 2 carucates held by the king (1,4). It seems that an estate of 4 carucates is missing from Domesday, or its figures are wrong. \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the possibility that this was the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Scenctune}{\cf1\insrsid920401 of Wulfric Spot's will, see 10,5 Shenton note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab CARLTON [CURLIEU]. This was an Ancient Parish. Another part (13,17) lay in a group of places in Gartree Wapentake and it was in the same wapentake (in Kibworth Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 14, 31), where it}{ \insrsid920401 is still held by the king (as 3 virgates, corresponding to the 6 bovates of Domesday). }{\cf1\insrsid920401 For its later history, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 77-78.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab [6 BOVATES]. An ink blot has partially obscured the reading, but }{\i\f703\cf1\insrsid920401 vi bouat\'ea}{\cf1\insrsid920401 can be seen beneath it; Farley printed }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 v .. atae}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . The Phillimore printed}{\insrsid920401 edition mistranslated this as 5 bovates. See 1,4 margin note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab ILLSTON[-ON-THE-HILL]. This was a chapelry and township of the Ancient Parish of Carlton Curlieu. It no doubt lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a Gartree wapentake head at 13,13. It was in the same wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 24, 34), where it}{\insrsid920401 is held (as 1 virgate) by the king.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab GAULBY. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes spelt as Galby. Another part (13,53) lay in a group of places in Gartree Wapentake. A portion of that may be a duplicate of the present entry; see 13,53 Gaulby note.}{ \cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab In the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 24, 27, 35) there is an estate of 1 \'bd carucates, held by the king, listed under Kings Norton. It is probab ly this estate at Gaulby, for Gaulby does not appear at all in that Survey, but Hugh of Grandmesnil's 13 carucates and 2 bovates at Gaulby (13,53) are similarly listed under Kings Norton. However, the total of the estates at Kings Norton and at Gaulby in Domesday (1,4. 13,53) is 17 carucates and 6 bovates whereas those listed under Kings Norton in the Leicestershire Survey total 16 carucates. This discrepancy would be almost eliminated if Domesday had included the 1 \'bd carucates of Gaulby twice, once under t he land of the king and once in the estate of Hugh of Grandmesnil (or totally eliminated if other readings in the Sloane Roll were also accepted: 13,53 Gaulby note). Under Gaulby at 13,53, there is a subinfeudation of 1 carucate and 3 bovates held by 2 me n-at-arms, but it is difficult to say if this is a duplicate of the royal estate. \par \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 97-98; Hoskins, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Essays in Leicestershire History}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , pp. 24-66.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab [KINGS] NORTON. It was an Ancient Parish. This entry is its only mention in Domesday. It probably lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086, as it did in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 24, 27, 35). There the Earl of Leicester has a holding of 3 carucates at Kings Norton. On this entry in the Survey, see 1,4 Gaulby note; see also 13,53 Gaulby note. \par \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 257-59.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab STRETTON. These 9 carucates may have included both Stretton Magna or Great Stretton and Stretton Parva or Little Stretton. Stretton Magna was a chapelry and township of Great Glen Ancient Parish while Stretton Parva was a chapelry of Kings Norton (the previously entered member of Great Bowden here). 'Stretton Magna' is marked as the site of a deserted medieval village on the Ordnance Survey six-inch sheet SK60SE of 1967. It is really a shrunken settlement of which the church survives at SK657004. Little Stretton is a village at SK6600. This is the only mention of either Stretton in Domesd ay, but it seems probable that they lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086. They do not appear in the Leicestershire Survey.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of these two estates, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 109-11, 262-63.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SMEETON [WESTERBY]. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Kibworth Beauchamp. It represents the merging of two settlements, Smeeton and Westerby, which were still separate in the fourteenth century: }{\i\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid920401 , p. 165}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . It was probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086, as it was in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 23, 27, 34), where it }{\insrsid920401 is still held by the king (as 1 carucate and 1 virgate). For other parts of Smeeton Westerby, see 13,26;29. 19,11. }{\cf1\insrsid920401 For its later history, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. }{\insrsid920401 184-85.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab FOXTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086. Another part is in a group of places in Gartree Wapentake at 40,16. This estate is not listed in the extant parts of the Leicestershire Survey.}{ \insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For its later history, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 91-94.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 150s 18d. On this sum, see}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 287, where Stenton points out that such a figure looks to be composed of a whole series of small payments and contrasts with the round figures paid by multiple estates elsewhere. He further suggests that this may indicate that the members of Rothley (1,3) were not parts of some ancient unit but had grown by accretion, individual Freemen seeking the king's protection. It is however possible that an even larger manor had partially broken up a nd these payments were for the large fragment that remained.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BLASTON. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote a transposition sign above }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Blauestone}{\cf1\insrsid920401 corresponding to one in the line below above }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 hanc}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , indicating that Robert of Tosny holds Blaston, not Great Bowden, which the word order might suggest. Farley printed both these transposition signs as abbreviation signs, apparently in error. \par \tab \tab Blaston was a free chapel of Medbourne Ancient Parish. Another part (40,20) lies in a group of places in Gartree Wapentake. This estate is not listed in the extant parts of the Leicestershire Survey.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab IT BELONGS. Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 p'tin'}{\cf1\insrsid920401 could be extended either to the singular (}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 pertinet}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ) or to the plural (}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 pertinent}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 ). If it is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 pertinent}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , as translated in the Phillimore printed edition, its subject is the 2 carucates, which therefore belong both to Medbourne (1,4 Robert note) and to Great Bowden. However, if, as seems more likely, it is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 pertinet}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (as translated in the Alecto edition), it refers to }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 soca }{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('jurisdiction') and there is no conflict: the 2 carucates belong to Medbourne, but their jurisdiction belongs to Great Bowden.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab [GREAT] BOWDEN. The form in the manuscript is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Bugedone}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ; in the Ordnance Survey and Alecto facsimiles it appears as }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Bigedone}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , perhaps because of the poor state of the parchment. Compare 1,7 Whatborough note and 2,6 Keythorpe note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab ROBERT OF TOSNY HOLDS. These 2 carucates reappear in Robert of Tosny's fief at 15,2. There they are said to belong to Medbourne (itself assessed at 4 carucates) and held by Robert. It seem s probable that the whole of Medbourne (like other adjacent estates held by others in 1086) had once belonged to Great Bowden. By the date of Domesday part of Medbourne (15,2) had become severed from the main manor. The jurisdiction of Blaston, however, s till belonged to Great Bowden: 1,4 belongs note.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab See also Fleming, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday Book and the Law}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 188 no. 945.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab THIS JURISDICTION. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Soca ista}{\cf1\insrsid920401 to clarify that the value was of the jurisdiction only: he had already given the value of the lordship earlier in the entry.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 1,5\tab "ABEGRAVE". This has been identified as 'Prestgrave', a deserted village. Peterborough Abbey held land here in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 23), which formed part of the grant by Earl Ralph of Hereford; see 5,2 Ralph note (PM). 'Prestgrave' lay in Nevill Holt which itself was a chapelry of Medbourne Ancient Parish. It was very probably in Gartree Wapentake (heading supplied at 1,4). Despite a grid reference being given in the Phillimore pri nted edition (SP8692), the site is unlocated: }{\insrsid920401 Deserted Medieval Village Research Group, 'Deserted Medieval Villages in Leicestershire', p. 26.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid920401 T}{\insrsid920401 he editor of the Leicestershire Survey }{\cf1\insrsid920401 (Slade}{\insrsid920401 , pp. 32, 35) has suggested that these 2 carucates held by Humphrey the Chamberlain in }{\i\insrsid920401 Abegrave}{\insrsid920401 were divided after 1086 into \'bd carucate held by Peterborough Abbey and 1 \'bd carucates held by a William said to lie in Slawston. If this is so, then Peterborough Abbey will have regained a part of its former lands. The name 'Pr estgrave' is presumably from 'Priest(s)' and referred only to the church holding at "Abegrave". For other parts of Slawston, see 17,17;20. \par \tab \tab On the 2 carucates in "Abegrave" being a jurisdiction of Great Bowden, see 1,5 jurisdiction note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab HUMPHREY THE CHAMBERLAIN. He holds other land as tenant-in-chief in this county (LEC 32).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab FROM THE KING'S JURISDICTION. The layout of the manuscript here suggests that 1,5 is part of Great Bowden (1,4): the main scribe of Great Domesday detailed the main holding there, left a space before the list of its members, then another space before giving the total number of Freemen, villagers and smallholders with their ploughs and the render, before recording the jurisdiction of 2 carucates in Blaston belonging t o Great Bowden (1,4 belongs note) and the account of "Abegrave". Although he highlighted the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 R}{\cf1\insrsid920401 of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Rex}{\cf1\insrsid920401 before the detail concerning Blaston, he did not highlight the }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 H}{\cf1\insrsid920401 of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Hunfrid'}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in the present entry. It thus seems that the phrase}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 de soca regis}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is an abbrev iated variant of 'The king has the jurisdiction of 2 carucates of land in "Abegrave" and Humphrey the chamberlain holds them from him at a revenue'.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 1,6\tab IN GARTREE WAPENTAKE. This heading seems misplaced, since Great Bowden (1,4) and probably "Abegrave" (1 ,5) also lay in Gartree Wapentake. The heading here is not (as it usually is in Leicestershire) at the end of a line of writing, but stands on a line by itself; see 1,3 Goscote note.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The land of the king is an amalgamation of estates held by different individuals }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 and it is possible that it was brought together from several different schedules in which wapentake heads sometimes appeared. Great Bowden and Saddington had different holders in 1066 (King Edward and Queen Edith) and the scribe may have f ailed to rationalize the wapentakal information.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SADDINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086. For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 283-85.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 1,7\tab [IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 1,7 Whatborough note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab WHATBOROUGH. The lower outer edge of folio 230d is rubbed in the manuscript, but the name }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 WETBERGE}{\cf1\insrsid920401 can be clearly seen. In both the Ordnance Survey and th e Alecto facsimiles the first four letters are unclear. Whatborough was an Ancient Parish. It does not appear elsewhere in Domesday Book, but was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086, as it was (in Tilton[-on-the-Hill] Hundred) in the Leicestershire Su rvey (Slade, pp. 15, 37).}{\insrsid920401 \par \tab \tab In the Leicestershire Survey, this estate is still held by the king, though rated at 4 carucates. Slade (}{\i\insrsid920401 Leicestershire Survey}{\insrsid920401 , p. 37) has suggested that one carucate additional to the Domesday total may come from the 1\'bd carucates }{\i\insrsid920401 in Burgo}{\insrsid920401 which are apppurtenant to Whatborough, and which he identifies as Burrough-on-the Hill. It is here identified as the lost 'Burfielde'.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab MEADOW 1 FURLONG LONG AND 1 WIDE. In Domesday Leices tershire meadow is mostly described in terms of acres, but there are some twenty-one occasions when two dimensions are given, as here, a third of these being in the fief of Earl Aubrey (LEC 10).}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 'BURFIELDE'. In the Phillimore printed translation Domesday }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 in Burgo}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is identified as 'in 'The Burgh' ', which is the same place as 'Burfielde'. The note there reads: 'This is a lost village between Whatborough and Launde; it appears as 'Burthveit'}{\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 in twelfth-century charters, and 'Burfielde' on a map of 1586: Hoskins, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Essays in Leicestershire History}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , pp. 95-96' (PM). Hoskins gives the location as due south of Withcote, due north of the site of Launde Priory and immediately north of the road that runs on the north side of Launde by the headwater of the River Chater , that is, at approximately SK7904. It was called 'The Burgh' in the Phillimore printed edition.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab An earlier identification (}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 308, followed by the Leicestershire Survey: Slade, pp. 37, 49) was as a part of Burrough-on-the-Hill. This is repeated in }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 64-66, which does not, however, record any separate later history for the estate. In the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19-20, 49) the bulk of Burrough-on-the-Hill is included in Cold Overton Hundred in Framland Wapentake. However, if the 1 \'bd carucates that Domesday places }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 in Burgo}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , as an appurtenance of Whatborough, are included, then the size of Cold Overton Hundred in that Survey increases from 18 carucates to 19 carucates and 4 bovates, but there is still a discrepancy of 2 bovates. Conversely, in Tilton[-on-the-Hill] Hundred in 'Goscote' Wapentake, Whatborough is assessed at 4 carucates in the Survey (pp. 15, 37) whereas, without the 1 \'bd carucates }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 in Burgo}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , it is only 3 carucates in Domesday in 1086. It seems likely that the 1 \'bd carucates }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 in Burgo}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (with a difference of \'bd carucate) were counted as an unnnamed part of Whatborough in the Survey and lay in Tilton-on-the-Hill Hundred and in 'Goscote' Wapentake. A few other places are found in the Survey divided between hundreds and wapentakes. However, in this instance, Burrough-on-the-Hill is separated from Whatborough by an outlying portion of Gartree Hundred and there is no obvious reason why Burrough-on-the-Hill should be a dependency of Whatborough. Hoskins ' suggestion is more likely to be correct.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab 'Burfielde', if correctly identified, will have been a part of Whatborough in 1086. Geographically it will have lain in 'Goscote' Wapentake in the extra-parochial area of Launde which itself was probably granted out of Loddington (17,24); see 17,24 Loddington note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 1,8\tab THORPE [ACRE]. This lay in Dishley Ancient Parish. Apart from the mention of one house in the borough of Leicester belonging to it (C15), it is not mentioned elsewhere in Domesday. Nonetheless, it p robably lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086, as it did (in Loughborough Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 18, 45).}{\insrsid920401 \par \tab \tab In the Leicestershire Survey there is an estate of 9 carucates at Dishley, Garendon and Thorpe Acre in Loughborough Hundred, a \'bd hide at Hathern in the same hundred, and (on pp. 19, 45) a further 9 carucates at Hathern, but in Diseworth Hundred. At 18 carucates to the hide, this would make 27 carucates. The Domesday total is 26 carucates, comprising 3 carucates at Dishley and H athern (43,6), 1 hide at Dishley (1,9) and 5 carucates at Thorpe Acre (1,8). No holders are given in that Survey, but the most obvious way of reconciling the two lists is: \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts11\trleft360\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4140\clshdrawnil \cellx4500\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4140\clshdrawnil \cellx8640\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid4879481 {\b\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday Book\cell }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid4879481 { \b\cf1\insrsid920401 the Leicestershire Surve}{\cf1\insrsid920401 y}{\insrsid920401 \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid920401 \trowd \irow0\irowband0 \ts11\trleft360\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4140\clshdrawnil \cellx4500\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4140\clshdrawnil \cellx8640\row }\trowd \irow1\irowband1 \ts11\trleft360\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4140\clshdrawnil \cellx4500 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4140\clshdrawnil \cellx8640\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl \tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid4879481 {\cf1\insrsid920401 1,8 Thorpe (Acre) 5 carucates}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 1,9 Dishley 1 hide (=18 carucates?)}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 43,6 Dishley and Hathern (3 carucates)}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \cell part of Dishley, Garendon and Thorpe Acre (5 out of 9 carucates) in Loughborough Hundred}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Dishley (say 2 carucates out of 9); also Hathern in Loughborough Hundred (say 7 carucates out of 9); also Hathern in Diseworth Hundred (9 carucates)}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 part of Dishley, Garendon and Thorpe Acre (say 2 out of 9 carucates); also part of Hathern (say 1 carucate) all in Loughborough Hundred}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 1 carucate in Hathern in Loughborough Hundred unaccounted for \par }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid4879481 {\cf1\insrsid920401 \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\cf1\insrsid920401 \trowd \irow1\irowband1\ts11\trleft360\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4140\clshdrawnil \cellx4500\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4140\clshdrawnil \cellx8640\row }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid4879481 {\cf1\insrsid920401 TOTAL 26 carucates}{\insrsid920401 \cell }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl \tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid4879481 {\cf1\insrsid920401 TOTAL 27 carucates}{\insrsid920401 \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid920401 \trowd \irow2\irowband2\lastrow \ts11\trleft360\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4140\clshdrawnil \cellx4500 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4140\clshdrawnil \cellx8640\row }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid4879481 {\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab Garendon, not mentioned in Domesday, lies at SK5019. An abbey was founded here in 1133 by the second Earl of Leicester, who gave 5 carucates and 3 virgates: }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 268 no. 1790; see \{Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\}.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 1,9\tab DISHLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. Another part was a member of Kegworth (43,6). Dishley no doubt lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086, as it did (in Loughborough Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 18, 45). This large holding (of 1 h ide, so probably 18 carucates) may well have incuded portions of Hathern in Loughborough and Diseworth Hundreds : see 1,8 Thorpe note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab QUEEN EDITH. }{\insrsid920401 She was the daughter of Godwin, Earl of Wessex, and married King Edward the Confessor in 1045. When her fat her and brothers (Swein, Harold, Tosti, Gyrth and Leofwin) were outlawed in 1051 she shared their disgrace and was sent to the nunnery at Wherwell (Hampshire). However, she returned to the king\rquote s favour with their restoration in 1052. She died in 1075 at Winchester; see Harmer, }{\i\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Writs}{\insrsid920401 , p. 559.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab THESE LANDS. That is 1,6-9.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab GODWIN. It is unclear how this individual relates to the other undifferentiated Godwins holding in 1086 in Domesday Leicestershire (17,20. 40,37), though he is the same man as the Godwin of 1,10. A Godwin the priest holds in 8,1. }{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab AT A REVENUE ... AS A HOLDING. Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 ad firma}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 m}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ] ... }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 in feudo}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . On the phrase 'at a revenue', see 1,2 revenue note. The phrase }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 ad firmam}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is often rendered 'at farm', while }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 in feudo}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is translated 'in fee' (that is, as part of the person's fief). The distinction is important. Godwin's tenure at Dishley (1,9) was heritable, whereas the lands farmed (presumably 1,6-8) could be removed from him at any time; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 288.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 1,10\tab SHEPSHED. }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 SCEPESHEFDE}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , split over two lines in the manuscript, is rubricated, although the rubrication in the first half is faint. In the Alecto facsimile only the }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 H}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is lined through in vermilion; see 2,6 Keythorp note. The whole name is rubricated in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. Shepshed was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Goscote' Wape ntake in 1086 as it did (in Shepshed Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 48), where it is held by an unnamed earl, probably the Earl of Chester.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab A carucate of land in Worthington (14,3) was said to belong to this estate. Members of it, unnamed in Domesday but identified by the Leicestershire Survey, were at Lockington (SK4628), Hemington (SK4528) and a part of Long Whatton (SK4723). For the other part of Long Watton held by Norman de Verdun in the Leicestershire Survey but which cannot be identified with a Domesday holding, see \{Introduction: The Leicestershire Survey\} \par \tab \tab Appurtenant to this manor was probably what became Charnwood Forest: }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 286.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab AS A HOLDING. See 1,9 revenue note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BISHOP OF BAYEUX. }{\insrsid920401 Bishop Odo of Bayeux was the full brother of Count Robert of Mortain and half-brother of William the Conqueror. He fought at the battle of Hastings and thereafter was appointed castellan of Dover and Earl of Kent. He was arrested in 1082 according to later writers beca u se he had recruited knights from all over England and was planning an expedition to Rome to seize the papacy. In 1086 he was in prison in Rouen, his estates forfeited, though in some counties in Domesday Book he is still said to be in present possession o f them. He held these estates in a personal capacity, not as bishop. He was restored by William II, but forfeited in 1088 for conspiracy. He died at Palermo in 1096 on the way to the Holy Land. See Stenton, }{\i\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon England}{ \insrsid920401 , pp. 616-617; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\insrsid920401 , p. 309.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab FOR SERVICE CONCERNING THE ISLE OF WIGHT. As a contribution to the reorganized system of}{\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 coastal defence established after the conquest, perhaps }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 c}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . 1066/1067 while Odo and William}{\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 son of Osbern, lord of the Isle of Wight, were acting as viceroys during William's absence in}{\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Normandy, although more probably after William son of Osbern's death in 1071 (PM). See also }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 288; Fleming, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday Book and the Law}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 189 no. 946.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 p}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 ro}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ] }{\i\f703\cf1\insrsid920401 seruitio insul\'ea de }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 With}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . The Phillimore printed translation has 'for the service of the Isle of Wight'; the Alecto edition has 'for the service on the Isle of Wight'. Neither reflects the lack of clarity of the Latin genitive }{\i\f703\cf1\insrsid920401 insul\'ea}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 , which merely links the service with the Isle. The service was not necessarily 'on' the Isle of Wight, but could have been in a boat in its waters. An alternative translation could be 'for Isle of Wight service'.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 1,11\tab [IN GARTREE WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 1,11 Knossington note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab KNOSSINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a Garteee Wapentake head at 18,1. It was in the same wapentake (in Knossington Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, ), where it}{\insrsid920401 is held (as 3 carucates and 3 virgates) by Henry de Ferrers. Together with the two Marefields (1,3) and Owston (40,26), it formed a detached part of Gartree Wapentake within the area of 'Goscote' Wapentake. }{\cf1\insrsid920401 For its later history, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. }{\insrsid920401 188-90.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid4879481 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab OAKHAM. This place lay in Rutland ('Roteland') in 1086 and was held by the king, formerly by Queen Edith (RUT 1,17). It was part of an important royal complex. It is not certain wheth er the laying out of the shires cut through an existing tenurial link, or whether, in view of its position on the ground, it was more convenient for the king's men to manage it from Oakham.}{\insrsid15159909 }{\insrsid920401 Land in Knossington was still included in Rutland in the time of Edward III: }{\i\insrsid920401 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 50b.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid4879481 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab WOODLAND. See 18,1 woodland note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 1,12\tab THIS ENTRY was inserted by the main scribe of Great Domesday into the small space he had left at the end of the king's fief. He was forced to write the first two lines in the space allocated for one and to use the margin for the Guthlaxton wapentake head. It was done at a late stage, after rubrication, and the scribe used an almost black ink, as he did for three large insertions in Warwickshire (WAR 3,4. 6,9. 1 4,2) and two entries in Staffordshire (STS 16,2-3) which were similarly added after rubrication and probably at the same time as the present entry. The other entries and the chapter in Leicestershire that were added by him after rubrication were done in a different campaign; see 42,9 entry note. He added no entries before rubrication; the only other counties where his only added entries were unrubricated ones are Kent in circuit I and Staffordshire in the same circuit as Leicestershire.}{ \cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The inclusion of a wapentake (or hundred) head in an unrubricated entry is very unusual, the only other instances being in SHR 3c,14 (probably because the location of the holding was not included), in the added fief HAM 5a, and in an entry inserted by scribe B (CAM 1,22). T his present entry is unusual also in having a plough estimate, the only occurrence of this in the royal lands in Leicestershire. Other added entries and chapters in Great Domesday have differences in formulae, layout and content, sometimes because they we re done after the main scribe of Great Domesday had changed his policy; compare SHR 3d,7 land note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab GUTHLAXTON WAPENTAKE. In the manuscript this is clearly }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 GVTLACIST' WAPENT'}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , as in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile the letters }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 CIS}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 are blurred and the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T}{\cf1\insrsid920401 and the abbreviation signs after it and after }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 WAPENT'}{\cf1\insrsid920401 are not visible. Compare 2,6 Keythorpe note. Farley printed }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 GVTLACIS}{\cf1\insrsid920401 .}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BITTESBY. Bittesby was a chapelry of Claybrooke Ancient Parish. It lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab LAND FO R 4 PLOUGHS. This is the only occurrence of the plough estimate in the king's lands and is almost certainly because this entry was a late addition to the fief (1,12 entry note). It is unclear whether this was because the information had not been available earlier for the rest of the king's land or because the source of this entry was different to the source of 1,1-11. There are no plough estimates in chapter 2 or in the short chapters 26 and 31, and they are missing in many entries in other fiefs. The vari ant formula }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 ' n }{\cf1\insrsid920401 plough(s) possible' is found twice in Domesday Leicestershire: 3,4 plough note. On the statement 'There were }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 n}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ploughs (before 1066)', see 9,1 1066 note. See \{Introduction: Ploughlands\}.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 2\tab LAND OF THE [ARCH]BISHOP OF YORK. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 EP'I}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (= }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 EPISCOPI}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , 'bishop') in error for }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 ARCHIEP'I}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (= }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 ARCHIEPISCOPI}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , 'archbishop').}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The church of York was a secular college and cathedral dedicated to St Peter. There was a bishop here in 314, but the next known is Paulinus consecr ated in 625 by Justus, Archbishop of Canterbury. Paulinus baptized Edwin, King of Northumbria, in a wooden church in York in 627. After Edwin\rquote s death, paganism returned. In 664 the see of Lindisfarne was transferred to York. There were secular clerics here at an early date. The church was burnt down in 741 and the Danish invasion of 867 interrupted the work of the diocese. From 972-1016 the sees of York and Worcester were jointly held. Archbishop Oswald (972-992) is said to have introduced monks, but secul a r canons were placed there soon after and are mentioned in Domesday. The cathedral was burnt down in 1069 by the Norman garrison of the town, but Thomas of Bayeux, appointed archbishop in 1070, rebuilt the church. After it was apparently destroyed by a Da nish army in 1075, he commenced work on the Norman cathedral.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The archbishops who spanned the period from 1066 to 1086 were: \par \tab 1061-1069 Aldred (Bishop of Worcester 1047-1062; Bishop of Hereford 1056-1060). \par \tab 1070-1100 Thomas of Bayeux (a royal chaplain, treasurer of Bayeux cathedral and brother of Samson the chaplain, later bishop of Worcester). \par \tab \tab See Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid920401 Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid920401 , pp. 419, 445; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\insrsid920401 , p. 535. \par \tab \tab Lacking evidence to the contrary, it can be assumed that the Archbishop of York held this land in 1066, and it may have been part of a much earlier endowment, although Leicestershire lay within the see of Leicester, then in that of Lincoln; see \{Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\}. \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab All the land in this fief was subinfeudated and the two wapentakes where it lay are entered in the standard sequence:}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Gartree Wapentake: 2,1-6 \par \tab \tab ['Goscote' Wapentake]: 2,7}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 2,1\tab IN THE CENTRAL MARGIN next to this entry are the letters }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 fr}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , not written by th e main scribe of Great Domesday or scribe B. These two letters also appear in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Warwickshire (possibly) and Yorkshire, and in Little Domesday, while }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 f}{\cf1\insrsid920401 on its own (which may be related to the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 fr}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , and also to the marginal letters }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 fd}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , which only occur in Lincolnshire) occurs next to 18,1 and LEC 24 and in Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Gloucestershire, Warwickshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Hampshire, Lincolnshire, once in Dorset and throughout Little Domesday and in Exon as well. Thes e letters usually appear beside a chapter heading or, as here, beside the first line of the first entry in it, though in Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and Exon they were written next to successive entries. There have been various views put forward on the meanin g of these letters; see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 129-31 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 The Story of Domesday Book}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , pp. 195-97).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab TUR LANGTON. The Ancient Parish of Church Langton lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086 and contained the township of East La ngton and the townships and chapelries of West Langton, Thorpe Langton and Tur Langton. Domesday Book and the Leicestershire Survey distinguish Tur Langton from other places simply called 'Langton'; Thorpe Langton is called }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Torp}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 in Domesday. Church Langton does not seem to have had a separate manorial existence: only East Langton and West Langton are distinguished in, for example, }{\i\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid920401 , p. 165.}{ \insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The}{\cf1\insrsid920401 present estate was in Gartree Wapentake (in Langton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 14, 30). }{\insrsid920401 In that Survey this 13-carucate holding is divided between 12 carucates in Tur Langton and 1 carucate in }{\i\insrsid920401 alia Langeton'}{\insrsid920401 both held by Henry de Port. The Abbot of Peterborough also holds land in the latter place (5,1). \par \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid920401 For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 210-12.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab WALKELIN [* NEPHEW OF THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER *]. This man is probably the Walkelin who is described as }{\i\insrsid920401 nepos}{\insrsid920401 (in this case 'nephew') of the Bishop [of Winchester] in Gloucestershire (GLS 2,3) where he likewise holds from the Archbishop of York.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab [WEST] LANGTON. On the estates at 'Langton', see 2,1 Langton note. The present estate seems to have been at West Langton, the nearest Langton to Tur Langton. In the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 14, 30)}{\insrsid920401 1 carucate in }{\i\insrsid920401 alia Langeton'}{\insrsid920401 (identified as East Langton) is held by Henry de Port as are the 12 carucates of Tur Langton. The Abbot of Peterborough also holds land in the latter place (5,1) and his holding is likewise identified as West Langton; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 196-99, 210.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 2,2\tab IN THE SAME VILLAGE. The Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 eadem uilla}{\cf1\insrsid920401 refers to Tur Langton, not West Langton. The 3 carucates here are part of the 13 carucates in Tur Langton (2,1). The main scribe of Great Domesday merely separated this subholding from the main account of Tur Langton with a gallows sign and then gave the value of the whole at the end of the account. The Phillimore edition obscures this by giving a separate number (2,2) to this detail; compare 2,4 carucate s note. These 3 carucates are not separately identified in the Leicestershire Survey: 2,1 Langton note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Langton Ancient Parish contained the township of East Langton and the townships and chapelries of West Langton, Thorpe Langton and Tur Langton..}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab HERBE RT. It is unusual for Domesday to give more than the tenant-in-chief and his subtenant. Herbert represents a further layer, as he holds from Walkelin, the archbishop's subtenant in 2,1. Lower levels of subtenancy may well have been included regularly in t h e feudal returns and in the circuit volumes, but then almost all of them were abbreviated out by the main scribe of Great Domesday, as can be seen from a study of Exon and the corresponding entries in Domesday circuit II. The reason for this exclusion was probably because this 'sub-subtenant' was not responsible for the payment of tax. In a few entries he failed to edit them out (see also 2,3. 3,10 in this county) and occasionally they were deliberately added, mostly appearing in entries that were themselv es later additions to the text. Moore ('Quot Homines', p. 323) has calculated that up to 25,000 under-tenants and demesne lessees were excluded from Domesday Book. Compare 2,3 Robert note and 15,11 Roger note. See also STS 2,6 Nigel note.}{ \insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab WALKELIN. See 2,1 Walkelin note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab VALUE OF THE WHOLE. That is, of the 13 carucates of Tur Langton (with [West] Langton); see 2,2 village note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 2,3\tab WALKELIN. See 2,1 Walkelin note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab LUBENHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086 (another part is directly below a Gartree wapentake head at 40,15).}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 222-24.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab ROBERT FROM HIM. It is unusual for Domesday to give more than the tenant-in-chief and his subtenant; see 2,2 Herbert note. Rob ert represents a further layer. Under him in 2,4 is a man-at arms. Thus the villagers and smallholder in that part of Lubenham had over them a man-at-arms, Robert, Walkelin, the Archbishop of York and the king; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 288.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 2,4\tab LUBENHAM. See 2,3 Lubenham note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 3 CARUCATES. These are part of the 8 carucates of 2,3. The main scribe of Great Domesday did not distinguish the start of this statement in any way (by highlighting or a gallows sign etc.) and wrote the value of the whole manor of Lubenham and its }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 tenants after it. Farley printed the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 I}{\cf1\insrsid920401 of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 In}{\cf1\insrsid920401 as if it had been highlighted in the manuscript; probably because of this the Phillimore edition confusingly gives a separate number to this subholding; see 2,2 village note and compare 6,4 village note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab MAN-AT-ARMS ... ROBERT ... VILLAGERS. See 2,3 Robert note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab VALUE OF THE WHOLE. That is, of 2,3-4; see 2,4 carucates note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab OSLAC . }{\insrsid920401 The name Oslac occurs on 22 holdings in Domesday Book, probably representing between 13 an d 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 (NTH 1,21) since a l l of the properties lay 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 ar o und Lubenham (NTH 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\insrsid920401 T.R.E}{\insrsid920401 . 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).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab HELD IT. That is, the whole of Lubenham (2,3-4); see 2,4 carucates note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 2,5\tab WELHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086: the wapent ake head is at 2,1, and another part is in a group of places in Gartree Wapentake at 17,19. This estate was in the same wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 24, 35), where}{\i\insrsid920401 }{\insrsid920401 it is held by Henry de Port.}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 For its later history, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. }{\insrsid920401 332-34.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 2,6\tab KEYTHORPE. In the manuscript the form of this place-name is clearly }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 CAITORP}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , but in the Alecto facsimile it appears as }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 CUTORP}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . According to the Editors' note at the end of the Places Index in the Alecto edition of Leicestershire (}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Leicestershire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 43), this phenomenon was caused by 'the continuous-tone process of reproduction employed for the facsimile ... where the red of the rubrication is either contiguous with or superimposed over the dark browns of the lettering'. In Leicestershire similar misreadings of place-names could occur in ten other entries; see 6,6 Packington note, 11,3 Bilstone note, 13,27 "Lestone" note, 14,23 Swepstone note, 15,15 Bottesford note, 16,2 Shenton note, 16,7 Bosworth note, 17,15 Bosworth note, 38,1 Kilby note, 40,18 Bowden note. A wapentake head is also affected: 1,12 Guthlaxton note. The omission of the rubrication on some or all of several place-names in the Alecto facsimile is probably also caused by this phenomenon; see 1,10 Shepshed note, 1 3,53 Gaulby note, 17,9 Cosby note, 17,10 Barlestone note, 24,1 Stonesby note, 29,14 Burton note, 39,2 Donington note, 40,22 Glooston note, 40,38 Welby note, 40,41 Sproxton note, 42,8 Goldsmith's note. The rubrication in the Ordnance Survey facsimile was a p plied by hand in a separate exercise so tended to reflect the rubrication of the manuscript more closely. The fact that the parchment in this quire has been frequently rubbed and in some places has suffered from damp adds to the problem of reading some of the text; see, for example, 1,4 [Great] Bowden note, 1,7 Whatborough note, 3,1 bishop note, 7,1 Sutton note, 8,5 Sharnford note, LEC 29 Geoffrey note, LEC 31 Gunfrid note, LEC 39 fief note, 39,2 hides note, 39,2 waste note, 42,9 meadow note, LEC 43 fief n ote, 43,8 Cotes note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Keythorpe was a part of Tugby Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Gartree Wapentake at 28,3.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab VILLAGERS. In the manuscript }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 uill'is}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (= }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 uillanis}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , ablative after }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 cu}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 m}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 ]) appears clearly and Farley printed this. In the Ordnance Survey facsimile it appears as }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 uill'es}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , which is meaningless.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab WOOD. Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 nemoris}{\cf1\insrsid920401 from }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 nemus}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is a variation on }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 silua}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , which is the preferred word in Great Domesday. John Morris decided to translate the two words differently ('wood' for }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 nemus}{\cf1\insrsid920401 and 'woodland' for }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 silua}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ) as far as possible, although there is no obvious distinction. In Exon }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 nemus}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is the normal word for 'wood(land)' and it was deliberately altered to }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 silua}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in the corresponding entries in Domesday circuit II; it may have been used in other circuit volumes and similarly replaced with }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 silua}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Nemus}{\cf1\insrsid920401 also occurs in 36,1 and in a few other entries in Great Domesday w ith a measurement, but the vast majority of occurrences are in the phrase 'wood for fences (and houses)' and are in Middlesex, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Cambridgeshire in circuit III (the corresponding word in circuit I is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 silua}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 2,7\tab [IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this wapentake head is based on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 2,7 Tilton note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab TILTON}{\insrsid920401 [-ON-THE-HILL].}{\cf1\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was in 'Goscote' Wapentake (in Tilton[-on-the-Hill] Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 15, 37), where it}{\insrsid920401 is still held by the Archbishop (}{\i\insrsid920401 Archidi}{\insrsid920401 [}{\i\insrsid920401 aconus}{\insrsid920401 ], 'archdeacon', in error for }{\i\insrsid920401 Archiepiscopus}{\insrsid920401 ) of York.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab FRIENDAY. }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Friendai }{\cf1\insrsid920401 is an Old Frisian variant, with the weak inflection of the goddess's name, of the byname }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Friday }{\cf1\insrsid920401 (Old English }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 Frigedaeg}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Old German }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Frigdag}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 etc.); see Oxford English Dictionary under Friday; Tengvik, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Old English Bynames}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 p. 218 (PM).}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab On this lower level of subtenancy, see 2,3 Robert note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SAINT MARY'S, SOUTHWELL. Southwell is in Nottinghamshire. This was a secular college founded in the tenth century; see NTT 5,1 Southwell note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab [* COUNTESS *] GYTHA. }{\insrsid920401 Wife of Earl Ralph of Hereford and mother of another Earl Harold, easily confused with Gytha, wife of Earl Godwin and mother of Earl Harold Go dwinson. She may have been the daughter of Osgod "Clapa" and widow of Tovi the proud: Williams, 'The King's Nephew', pp. 327-43. Countess Gytha was a major predecessor of William Peverel in Buckinghamshire which enables her to be identified as the Gytha w h o preceded him in his Northamptonshire manors. The links between Gytha and Peverel make it probable that the Countess Goda of BDF 22,2 and NTT S5 and 10,5 are scribal errors for Countess Gytha, as also at NTT 23,1: see NTT 10,5 Gytha note and Williams, 'T h e King's Nephew', p. 333 note 36. It also likely that the Goda who held two royal manors in Rutland was Countess Gytha: see RUT 1,5 Countess note. In all these cases, the particular reasons for the identifications are also supported by the fact that Count ess Goda is not known to have held land anywhere north Twyford in Buckinghamshire (JP). \par \tab \tab When the two countesses are accounted for, there are only four other occurrences of the name Gytha in Domesday Book, any of which could refer to Countess Gytha of Here ford though only those at Tilton in Leicestershire and Walton in Warwickshire lay within the territory in which she and her family held land. Tilton lay just 10 miles from her husband's manor of Stockerston (10,15) and a cluster of his other holdings, and Walton a similar distance from her son's manor of Burton Dassett (WAR 38,2), itself a few miles from his father's manor at Mollington (NTH 35,26); in view of the rarity of the name, it is perhaps more likely than not that both properties had been held by Countess Gytha. The remaining holdings of a Gytha, in Lincolnshire (LIN 53,6) and Yorkshire (5E35-36), are perhaps more likely to have belonged to other individuals given that her family had no known associations with either county. See also Clarke, }{ \i\insrsid920401 English Nobility}{\insrsid920401 , pp. 225-26, whose list omits dependencies and BDF 22,2. LEC 2,7. NTH 35,22. NTT 10,5. 23,1. RUT 1,5-6 and WAR 16,10 (JP).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 3\tab LAND OF THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN. }{\insrsid920401 The church was a cathedral and a secular college dedicated to St Mary. A house for secular priests was established here }{\i\insrsid920401 c}{\insrsid920401 . 953; there was also a nunnery. Bishop Remigius (consecrated in 1067 as successor to Bishop Wulfwin) was authorised to move his see from Dorchester-on-Thames (Oxfordshire), in origin a West Saxon then Mercian see, to Lincoln in 1072; see }{ \cf1\insrsid920401 Bates, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , pp. 587-89 no. 177. }{\insrsid920401 Remigius was a monk of F\'e9camp and apparently a relative of the Conqueror. }{\cf1\insrsid920401 He had furnished ships for Duke William's invasion of England and had accompanied him. Installed at Lincoln}{\insrsid920401 he began to replace the church of St Mary with a large cathedral. He died in 1092 and was succeeded by Robert Bloet (1094-1123). See Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid920401 Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid920401 , pp. 415, 429; Keats-Rohan, }{ \i\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\insrsid920401 , pp. 357, 527. Canons are mentioned in Domesday which also occasionally mentions the 'Bishop of Lincoln' anachronistically as a 1066 holder. \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The fief is essentially divided between lordship land (3,2-3) and subinfeudations (3,4-16); the main scribe of Great Domesday marked the division by leaving a line's space after 3,3. As all the lordship lands were in Guthlaxton Wapentake (the first in the normal sequence), the scribe was able to pass from these to the subinfeudations without changing wapentake, so the whole chapter is in the stand ard sequence: \par \tab \tab Borough of Leicester: 3,1 \par \tab \tab [Guthlaxton Wapentake]: 3,2-10 (Lordship land: 3,2-3; Subinfeudations: 3,4-10) \par \tab \tab Gartree Wapentake: 3,11 Subinfeudation \par \tab \tab 'Goscote' Wapentake: 3,12-13 Subinfeudations \par \tab \tab Framland Wapentake: 3,14-16 Subinfeudations}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Stenton in }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 288, suggested that only the land in Leicester and at Knighton and Leire (3,1-3) actually belonged to the Church, whereas the rest were Bishop Remigius' personal holdings. He pointed out that the holders of this latter group }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 were a number of Englishmen and there is no sign that the church had held them. Certainly the first three lands have a single valuation at 3,3, but possibly because they were the lordship lands. In the case of the other lands, it is difficul t to distinguish lands held by Bishop Remigius personally (if any) and lands subinfeudated by the church. Even some of the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 holders could in fact be church tenants, holding, say, for the lives of three men.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab However, in 1066, the bishopric was not a t Lincoln but at Dorchester-on-Thames in Oxfordshire. The Mercian sees had been badly disrupted by the Danish attacks and settlement in the late ninth and early tenth centuries and had been slow to recover. The see of Leicester had ceased to function alto g ether between 869 and 888. There is nothing in this chapter that clearly indicates that any of these lands had been held by the Bishops of Dorchester-on-Thames before 1066. It is quite possible that this fief had been put together for the new bishopric af ter 1072 by William the Conqueror, probably from lands that were in his hands as a result of death or confiscation. \par \tab \tab Among estates held at the time of the Leicestershire Survey is one that cannot be related to a Domesday holding of the bishop: 8 bovates in Gaddesby}{\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 (Slade,}{\insrsid920401 pp. 16, 24, 40).}{ \insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 3,1\tab BISHOP OF LINCOLN. The main scribe of Great Domesday lined this through in vermilion, as he usually did f or the tenant-in-chief in the first entry, though it is rather faint. This lining is not visible in the Alecto facsimile except on the final }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 S}{\cf1\insrsid920401 of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 LINCOLIENSIS}{\cf1\insrsid920401 and in the space after it, where there is no sign of it in the manuscript. See 2,6 Keythorpe note and compare 4,1 bishop note and 5,1 Peterborough note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab IN LEICESTER. The bishop's lands here formed a separate area of the city, lying outside the medieval town walls to the north-east and known as Bishop's Fee: }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Place-Names of Leicestershire}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. xi.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 LEDECECTRE}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , but then corrected the second }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 C}{\cf1\insrsid920401 to an }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 S.}{ \insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 1 \'bd MILLS. The other \'bd mill is held by Countess Judith (C17).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 2 CHURCHES. These were probably St Margaret and the chapel of St Mary Magdalene in Knighton (3,2): the Lincoln Cathedral}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Registrum Antiquissimum}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (Foster, i. pp. 139, 190) (PM). The church of St Margaret, which lay within the area known as Bishop's Fee (3,1 Leicester note), was annexed as a prebend to Lincoln cathedral: }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , iv . pp. 350-53, 357; }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Place-Names of Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. xi.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The Latin }{\i\f703\cf1\insrsid920401 \'eacclesias}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is accusative after }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 habet}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('has') earlier in the line, so presumably is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 molin'}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 ('mill') before it.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 17 BURGESSES WHO PAY. Their payment appears to be to the Bishop of Lincoln and not to the king and sheriff as part of the borough revenues. This became a matter of contention later; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 , iv. p. 353-55.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab FROM A PART OF THE LAND OUTSIDE THE WALL. The Latin reads }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 de una parte terrae extra murum}{\cf1\insrsid920401 and was translated as 'From a piece of land outside the wall' in the Phillimore printed edition. However, this appears to be a part of the land 'outside the borough' which is otherwise held by Countess Judith (C17) and with whom a mill is shared.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 3,2\tab [IN GUTHLAXTON WAPENTAKE]. This heading is supplied from the fact that a number of these estates (3,2-10) can be shown probably or almost certainly to have been in Guthlaxton Wapentake.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BISHOP. The abbreviation sign above }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 eps}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is not reproduced in the Alecto facsimile, but is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab KNIGHTON. This was a chapelry, prebend and peculiar jurisdiction of the Ancient Parish of Leicester St Margaret. For its church, see 3,1 churches note, and for its later history,}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 , iv. pp. 443-45.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 3,3\tab LEIRE. This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 Another part is directly below a Guthlaxton Wapentake head at 19,1.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab THESE LANDS. That is, 3,1-3.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab ST MARY'S OF LINCOLN. The cathedral church of Lincoln; see LEC 3 bishop note. For the possible division of lands between the church's lordship and Bishop Remigius' personal possession, see LEC 3 bishop note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 3,4\tab SHARNFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086; other parts are in groups of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 13,3. 40,5 and, probably, 8,5.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Between 1002 and 1004, by his will, Wulfric Spot gave 1 hide at }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Scearnforda}{\cf1\insrsid920401 along with other lands to Burton Abbey and the gift was confirmed in 1004 by King Ethelred (Sawyer, }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , nos. 1536, 906 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Early Charters of Northern England}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 71 nos. 39-40; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. xxxiii). The 1 hide of the will might correspond to the 1 carucate of the present holding. There is, however, no trace of a holding of Burton Abbey here in Domesday.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 1 PLOUGH POSSIBLE. This is a variation on the plough estimate formula 'Land for }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 n}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ploughs' and is used only here and in 3,5, though it is found in circuits III, IV and V in entries with or without the 'Land for' es timate. In Yorkshire a decision seems to have been made after YKS 14E50 to discontinue the related formula 'where there can be }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 n}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ploughs' and to use the 'Land for' formula for the rest of circuit VI. The first formula is akin to that used in Exon ('}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 n}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ploughs can plough this land') which was converted into the 'Land for }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 n}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ploughs' in Domesday circuit II. See 1,12 land note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 3,5\tab RALPH . This corrects the Phillimore printed edition which has 'Robert' in the translation but Ralph in the Index of Persons for this entry.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Keats-Rohan (}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 345) suggests that Ralph here and in 3,6-10;14 might be the same as the man ['the bishop's man'] who holds Dunsby and Silk Willoughby in Lincolnshire (LIN 7,30;53). For Ralph's holding of Kimcote, see 3,9.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab COTES [DE VAL]. This was a settlement in Gilmorton Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 (heading supplied at 3,2).}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 3,6\tab RALPH . See 3,5 Ralph note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab POULTNEY. This appears to have lain in Misterton Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 (heading supplied at 3,2).}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 9 BURGESSES IN THE CITY. That is, in Leicester. There is no reference in the corresponding Borough section on folio 230a.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 3,7\tab HE ALSO. See 3,5 Ralph note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab MISTERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. Another part is in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 23,3. It was in the same wapentake (in Misterton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey,}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{ \cf1\insrsid920401 pp. 26, 58. There it is still held by the Bishop of Lincoln, but no extent is given because the text is corrupt at this point.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 3 \'bd CARUCATES OF LAND. Scribe B interlined }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 7 dimid'}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , extending the tail of the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 7}{\cf1\insrsid920401 down after }{\i\f703\cf1\insrsid920401 t'r\'ea}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 to form an insertion sign. This is the first of his thirteen contributions to Leicestershire; see also 13,51 (insertion of the 1086 value), 14,3 (interlineation of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 regis}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ), 14,6 (correction to the lordship land), 15,16 (addition to the carucage), 17,15 (correction to the value), 17,20 (addition of the value), 1 7,31 (addition of the value), 24,2 (addition to the carucage), 27,3 (correction to the population), 27,4 (marginal memo), 38,1 (addition of a place-name) and 44,3 (addition of a place-name). He made two other insertions to the carucates in 15,16 and 24,2. }{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab PAYS JURISDICTION. In both the occurrences of this unusual phrase (3,7-8), a piece of land 'which pays jurisdiction' is coupled with the land to which the entry principally refers. It appears that these carucates that 'pay jurisdiction' (or 'render soke' as in the Alecto translation) are in effect sokelands of the main manors, Misterton and Walcote respectively.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 3,8\tab HE ALSO. See 3,5 Ralph note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab WALCOTE. This lay in Misterton Ancient Parish. Another part is in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 1 7,8. It was in the same wapentake (in Misterton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 26, 58). In that Survey, the 4 carucates and 2 carucates of Walcote, given in Domesday, form a single 6-carucate unit, still held by the Bishop of Lincoln.}{ \insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab WHICH PAY JURISDICTION. See 3,7 jurisdiction note. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 q}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 ua}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ] }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 redd}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [}{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 un}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 t soca}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 m}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ], plural; the Phillimore printed edition mistranslates it as 'which pays jurisdiction'. The singular }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 redd}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 it}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ] is used in 3,7, but the plural is required here as it refers to 2 carucates.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 3,9\tab HE ALSO. See 3,5 Ralph note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab KIMCOTE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: a heading is supplied at 3,2.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 3,10\tab SWINFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086; another part is directly below a Guthlaxton wapentake head at 17,7.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab ULF ... FROM THE SAME RALPH . This is another rare example of a lower level of subtenancy; see 2,3 Robert note. On Ralph, see 3,5 Ralph note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab LANDS OF RALPH. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 terras Radulfi}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ; the Phillimore printed translation has 'lands from Ralph' as if the Latin were }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 terras de Radulfo}{\cf1\insrsid920401 which would mean that Ralph held }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 and Godric held from him.}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 On Ralph, see 3,5 Ralph note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 3,11\tab HOLYOAKS. This was a settlement in Stockerston Ancient Parish.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BARTHI . The Domesday form }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Bardi}{\cf1\insrsid920401 represents Old Danish }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Barthi}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , Old Swedish }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Bardhe}{\cf1\insrsid920401 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 192. The Phillimore printed edition has Bardi for the occurrences of th is name in Northamptonshire and here, but Barthi for those in Lincolnshire; these have now been standardized as Barthi. The Alecto edition has Barthi.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Barthi had held all the lands of the Bishop of Lincoln in Northamptonshire (NTH 5) and four of his in L incolnshire (LIN 7,38-39;43;48), as well as the present estate. 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. This is the only occurrence of this na me in Leicestershire.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 3,12\tab [GREAT] DALBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It was in the same wapentake of 'Goscote' (in Great Dalby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 17, 25, 42), where the Bishop of Lincoln holds 9 \'bd carucates in }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 Magna Dalbia}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . I f the 1 carucate held by the man-at-arms here is additional to the 8 carucates held from the bishop, there is less of a discrepancy between the figures in Domesday and in that Survey. Although other holdings 'in the same village' were part of the main hol ding (see 2,2 village note and 2,4 carucates note), this holding is given a separate value, unlike them.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Little Dalby (C14. 14,31. 29,19;21) was in Framland Wapentake.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 70[s]. The main scribe of Great Domesday omitted }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 sol}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 idos}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ] after }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 lxx}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , as he did on several occasions in Great Domesday.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 3,13\tab [SOUTH] CROXTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It is similarly found in a group of places in 'Goscote' Wapentake at 15,11, where the subtenant is also a Roger. It was omitted from the Leicestershire Su rvey (see Slade, p. 39) but continued to be held by the Bishops of Lincoln according to the Red Book of the Exchequer (Hall, p. 375).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 3,14\tab RALPH . See 3,5 Ralph note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BRANSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was placed in the same wapentake (Framland, in Eastwell Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 20, 51), where the Bishop of Lincoln continues to hold 7 \'bd carucates.}{ \cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 3,15\tab R[***] SON OF WALTER. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote and rubricated }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 R}{\cf1\insrsid920401 and left a space suitable for about six letters after it; almost certainly his source had }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 R.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , possibly because the full name had been given in the preceding entry there. There is a dot in the inner margin of the manuscript level with it, perhaps connected with this space. There is a Ran ulf son of Walter who was an important subtenant in Norfolk and Suffolk and a benefactor of Thetford Priory. He appears in NFK 66,73 as }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Idem R.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , following on from the previous entry's }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Ranulfus filius Galteri}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ; see }{\insrsid920401 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\insrsid920401 , p.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 354. There are also two occurrences of Robert son of Walter, one a holder in Buckingham, the other in Somerset (his father's name supplied in Exon), unless they are the same man. There is, however, no reason why the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 R.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 could not have abbreviated }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Rogerus}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Radulfus}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Ricardus}{\cf1\insrsid920401 or any other name beginning with }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 R}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 and this was his only holding in Domesday.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BUCKMINSTER. This was an Ancient Parish. It was located in the same wapentake (Framland, in Sproxton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 22, 55), where thi s holding (still in the hands of the Bishop of Lincoln) is combined under a single joint heading: Buckminster and Sewstern. Compare 27,3 Sewstern note.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The place-name means 'Bucca's minster': }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Place-Names of Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 54. No churches are ment ioned in Domesday Leicestershire, except in Leicester iself, but priests are and there is no mention of one or more here. It seems that any importance the 'minster' may have possessed was in decline or that it was a victim of the Danish attacks of the lat e ninth century.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 3,16\tab KETILBIORN . }{\insrsid920401 The name Ketilbiorn occurs on more than two dozen holdings in Domesday Book, probably representing four or five individuals. The single, modest Leicestershire holding is isolated from the remainder to which it has no discernible connections. It is likely to have been the sole property of this Ketilbiorn (JP).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab HOLWELL. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Ab Kettleby. It lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a Framland wapenta ke head at 17,30. It was in the same wapentake (apparently in [Nether] Broughton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 21, 25, 53), where it is still held by the Bishop of Lincoln and coupled with Ab Kettleby.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab VILLAGERS ... HAVE IT. The Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 hanc}{\cf1\insrsid920401 refers to the last-mentioned feminine word, which is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 caruca}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in the plough estimate. Compare 13,25;33;72.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 4\tab THIS FIEF was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in a space left by him at the end of the column after the fief of the Bishop of Lincoln . The chapter on the king's almslands (LEC 8) was added at the same time in a similar space at the end of the other column on folio 231ab. The fief of the Bishop of Coutances was also added in Warwickshire (WAR 5) which is in the same circuit as Leicester s hire and like this fief was of a single holding. It is possible that if both fiefs had been written next to each other (likely in a feudally-arranged circuit volume) the folio containing them was initially mislaid, as may have been the case with Earl Hugh 's fief (LEC 43 fief note). }{\insrsid920401 Alternatively, as the scribe had incorporated seven of the bishop's lands in Oxfordshire at the end of his Northamptonshire fief (all part of the same circuit), it is possible that the circuit volume was missing some cross-heads separating the counties in which the bishop held lands and that a check revealed the omissions. Three of the bishop's holdings in Devon were also initially omitted and not inserted until after rubrication (DEV 3,19;55;75).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab LAND OF THE BISHOP OF COUTANCES. }{\insrsid920401 Geoffrey of 'Mowbray' was Bishop of Coutances (1049-1093) and also of Saint- L\'f4; he is sometimes named from the latter in Domesday Book. Both Coutances and Saint-L\'f4 are in the French d\'e9partement of Manche. He was apparently named from Montbray (arrondissement Saint-L\'f4 , canton Percy). Geoffrey fought at Hastings and was an important administrative and judicial supporter of King William, but he also rebuilt the cathedral of Coutances and reformed its see. In Domesday his fief is a personal holding, not a hol ding of his Norman bishopric. Robert of 'Mowbray', Earl of Northumberland (1080/1081-1095) may have been his nephew; it was to him that the English fief passed after Geoffrey\rquote s death, though it was forfeited for treason under William II.}{ \insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab There is only one estate in this fief, in Guthlaxton Wapentake; it is subinfeudated.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 4,1\tab BISHOP. }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 EP'S}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is lined through in vermilion in the manuscript, but though the line is visible in the Alecto facsimile it appears as brown; compare 3,1 bishop note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab ARNESBY. This was an Ancient Parish, which lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 5\tab LAND OF ST PETER'S OF PETERBOROUGH. }{\insrsid920401 An early monastery founded at \'93Medeshamstede\'94 }{\i\insrsid920401 c}{\insrsid920401 . 655, allegedly by a monk Saxulf, was destroyed by the Danes in 870. It was rebuilt and re-founded as a Benedictine abbey }{\i\insrsid920401 c}{\insrsid920401 . 966, dedicated to St Peter, by Aethelwold Bishop of Winchester (963-984) supported by King Edgar (959-973). \par \tab Three abbots spanned the period from 1066 to 1086:}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab 1052-1066 Abbot Leofric. He was nephew of Earl Leofric of Mercia and had previously been a monk of the abbey \par \tab \tab 1066-1069 Abbot Brand. He had previously been prior of the abbey. He acknowledged Edgar Aetheling as king in 1066, but was later reconciled to William I \par \tab \tab 1070-1098 Abbot Turold. He was a monk of F\'e9camp Abbey in Normandy, then Abbot of Malmesbury from }{\i\insrsid920401 c}{\insrsid920401 . 1066 until 1070. He is sometimes referred to as a }{\i\insrsid920401 nepos}{\insrsid920401 ('nephew') of William the Conqueror \par \tab See Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid920401 Medieval Religious House}{\insrsid920401 s, pp. 56, 73; Knowles, Brooke and London, }{\i\insrsid920401 Heads of Religious Houses}{\insrsid920401 , p. 60; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{ \insrsid920401 , p. 507. \par \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid920401 A fabricated charter purporting to date from 664 and to record gifts of King Wulfhere of Mercia (}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Early Charters of Northern England}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 67 no. 1 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , no. 68) grants extensive estates in several counties to the Abbey of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Medeshamstede}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , later known as Peterborough. This charter, fabricated probably in the twelfth century, contains lands that the abbey had undoubtedly held, together with others in which it may have had an interest or wh ich it desired to possess and which are not evidenced as belonging to it in later times. Those that can be assigned to Leicestershire are Breedon-on-the-Hill, Langton, Great Easton and appurtenant estates at Bringhurst and 'Prestgrave'. The abbey held Wes t Langton (5,1) and Great Easton (5,2) in 1086. It also held land in 'Prestgrave' omitted from or hidden in Domesday. A further forgery, a letter ostensibly from Pope Agatho and confirmed by King Ethelred of Mercia in 680, confirms the grant of land at Bre edon-on-the-Hill: }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Early Charters of Northern England}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 67 no. 33 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , no. 72.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Peterborough Abbey had certainly been granted some land in Leicestershire at an early date. Between 675 and 691 Friduric, one of the leading men (}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 principes}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ) of King Ethelred of Mercia, granted 20 }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 manentes}{\cf1\insrsid920401 at }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Bredune }{\cf1\insrsid920401 (Breedon-on-the-Hill)}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 to the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 familia}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 ('community') at }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Medeshamstede}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (Peterborough) for the foundation of a monastery. The charter is regarded as authentic: }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Early Charters of Northern England}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 67 no. 32a (= Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , no. 1803). In 848 Beorhtwulf, king of the Mercians, granted to the abbot and community of Breedon-on-the-Hill 'in the province of the }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 Tomsaetan'}{\cf1\insrsid920401 freedom from various obligations and as part of arrangements for providing hospitality for envoys gave it 15 hides at }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Stanlega}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (Stanley, Derbyshire: DBY 15,1) and }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Bellanforde }{\cf1\insrsid920401 (possibly Belford, Northamptonshire): }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Early Charters of Northern England}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 68 no. 34 (= Sawyer, }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , no. 197). The monastery was important. }{\insrsid920401 Repton (Derbyshire) may even have begun life as one of its colonies, if the 31 }{\i\insrsid920401 manentes}{\insrsid920401 called }{ \i\insrsid920401 Hrepingas}{\insrsid920401 granted 675 x 691 by Friduricus to Hedda [abbot of Breedon] are to be identified with Repton: Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid920401 , no. 1805 (= }{\i\insrsid920401 Early Charters of Eastern England}{\insrsid920401 , p. 98 no. 144). These }{\i\insrsid920401 manentes}{\insrsid920401 have more often been identified with Rippingale, Lincolnshire, but see Dornier, 'Monastery at Breedon-on-the Hill', p. 158, and Rumble 'Hrepingas Reconsidered', pp. 169-71. It is possib le that another grant by King Aethelred of Mercia to the monastery of Breedon-on-the-Hill of 15 }{\i\insrsid920401 manentes}{\insrsid920401 called }{\i\insrsid920401 Cedenan ac}{\insrsid920401 (Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{ \insrsid920401 , no. 1804 = }{\i\insrsid920401 Early Charters of Eastern England}{\insrsid920401 , p. 99 no. 145) which is usually identified as Cadney in Lincolnshire, was in fact closer to the monastery. \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The monastery seems to have lasted at least until the Viking attacks at the end of the ninth century. A later grant (967 for 972) by King Edgar to Bishop Aethelwold (of Winchester) for the church at Bree don-on-the Hill, consisting of 3 }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 cassati}{\cf1\insrsid920401 at Breedon itself, 3 at }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Wifelesthorpe }{\cf1\insrsid920401 (Wilson? SK4024 in Breedon-on-the Hill), 3 at }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Aetheres dune}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 (Atterton? SP3598, a chapelry then hamlet in Witherley Ancient Parish) and 4 at Diseworth (27,1), may have been an at tempt to re-establish the monastery or is possibly evidence that it survived the Danish attacks, but, even so, it does not seem to have endured; see}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Early Charters of Northern England}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 69 no. 37 (= Sawyer, }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , no. 749 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , no. 22 pp. 35-36); Stenton, 'Medeshamstede', pp. 317-18; Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Medieval Religious Houses}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 468; }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , iii. pp. 8-9; Dornier, 'Monastery at Breedon-on-the Hill'.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The Ancient Parish of Breedon-on-the-Hill contained the Domesday estates of Staunton Harold (13,67), Tonge (14,2) and Worthington (14,3). Of these, Staunton Harold and Worthington were chapelries. The earliest endowment of the monastery at Breedon is probably to be looked for under these places. Later Ton ge was among the lands destined for Burton Abbey in the will of Wulfric Spot; see 14,2 Tonge note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Between 1041 and 1057 Earl Ralph (of Hereford) granted several lands (Great Easton, Bringhurst, 'Prestgrave' and Drayton in Leicestershire and Glaston in No rthamptonshire, later in Rutland) to Peterborough Abbey, according to Hugh Candidus in his}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Chronicle}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (Mellows, p. 69 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Early Charters of Northern England}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , no. 20 p. 71). These all appear in the forged charter of Wulfhere, but were clearly an eleventh-century rather than a seventh-century grant; see 5,2 Ralph note.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\insrsid920401 In the Leicestershire Survey }{\cf1\insrsid920401 (Slade,}{\insrsid920401 pp. 23, 32) the Abbot of Peterborough holds \'bd carucate at 'Prestgrave' in Gartree Wapentake. The abbey certainly held land there later and it may well have been omitted from Domesday Book. On the other hand it may in 1086 have been part of the 2 carucates held by Humphrey the chamberlain in "Abegrav e" (1,5), since Humphrey's holding may be what later appears as 1 \'bd carucates in Slawston; see the Leicestershire Survey }{\cf1\insrsid920401 (Slade,}{\insrsid920401 pp. 32, 35); and 1,5 "Abegrave" note. \par \tab \tab The three estates in this fief all lay in }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Gartree Wapentake. Lordship land is entered first (5,1-2) followed by the single subinfeudation (5,3).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 5,1\tab IN THE OUTER MARGIN next to this entry the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 i}{\cf1\insrsid920401 and next to the 5,2 he wrote }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 ii}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . These numbers are reproduced in the Alecto facsimile, but not in the Ordnance Sur vey facsimile. The purpose of these marginal numbers is unclear. He also wrote them in Northamptonshire, Warwickshire, Nottinghamshire, Bedfordshire and Yorkshire, and scribe B wrote them in Northamptonshire and Warwickshire too; they appear also in Littl e Domesday. Some of these marginal figures were followed by a letter standing for a noun, such as }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 h}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (for }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 hida}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ), }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 v}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (for }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 virgata}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ), suggesting that they were measurements or assessments. In Northamptonshire almost every entry in chapter 6, the lordship holding s of Peterborough Abbey, has a figure (twice with a letter beside it), written by both Domesday scribes. For more on these marginal figures, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 128-29 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 The Story of Domesday Book}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , pp. 193-95); part of folio 221c, showing the figures beside Peterborough Abbey's lordship lands in Northamptonshire, is reproduced as fig. 15.15 there.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab [IN GARTREE WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 5,1 Langton note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab PETERBOROUGH ABBEY. In the manuscript }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 BVRCH}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is lined through in vermilion, though it is faint; it is not reproduced in the Alecto facsimile; compare 3,1 bishop note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab [WEST] LANGTON. The Ancient Parish of Church Langton lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086 and contained the township of East Langton and the townships and chapelries of West Langton, Thorpe Langton and Tur Langton. Domesday Book and the Leicestershire Survey distinguish Tur Langton from other places simply called Lang ton. Thorpe Langton is called }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Torp}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . Church Langton does not seem to have had a separate manorial existence: only East Langton and West Langton are distinguished in, for example, }{\i\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid920401 , p. 165. \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab This estate was in Gartree Wapentake (in Langton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 14, 30) and appears to have been at West Langton; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 196-97. \par \tab \tab According to the fabricated charter of King Wulfhere (LEC 5 Peterborough note), Peterborough Abbey was granted land here in 664. It is more probable that it was a much more recent acquisition, for, }{\insrsid920401 according to Hugh Candidus in his }{\i\insrsid920401 Chronicle }{\insrsid920401 (Mellows, p. 70) this land had been the gift of Frani of Rockingham }{\i\insrsid920401 c}{\insrsid920401 . 985; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Early Charters of Eastern England}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 244 no. 345; }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Early Charters of Northern England}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 70 no. 38. The date is supplied by Hart, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Early Charters of Eastern England}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ; Hugh Candidus gives none. Frani of Rockingham witnessed royal diplomas between }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 c}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . 974 and }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 c}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . 1004; see Hart, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Danelaw}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , pp. 194-97. This undermines the statement of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 289, that Frani succeeded Aelmer, the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 tenant. Rockingham (NTH 1,27) was given by King Ethelred to his second wife Emma on their marriage in 1002: RUT \{Introduction: History\}. Ethelred may have obtained it from Frani after the latter's death.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\insrsid920401 In the Leicestershire Survey this estate is still held by the Abbot of Peterborough, as }{\i\insrsid920401 alia Langeton'}{\insrsid920401 . On this use of }{\i\insrsid920401 alia}{\insrsid920401 , }{ \cf1\insrsid920401 see 13,32 Peatling note, and Thorn, 'Manorial Affixes'.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab FREELY. This means that Aelmer was free to choose any lord as his patron and protector. However, this conflicts with the fact that this was a holding of Peterborough Abbey, of which Aelmer was probably a tenant.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 5,2\tab IN THE OUTER MARGIN next to this entry the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 i}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ; see 5,1 margin note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab [GREAT] EASTON. This was a chapelry of Bringhurst Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086: a heading is supplied at 5,1. The abbey still held }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Eston super Weland}{\cf1\insrsid920401 at the Dissolution: }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Valor Ecclesiasticus}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , iv. p. 281.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab EARL RALPH [* OF HEREFORD *] GAVE IT. }{\insrsid920401 He was the son of Drogo, Count of Mantes and the Vexin, and Goda sister of King Edward the Confessor. His father died in 1035 and Ralph }{\cf1\insrsid920401 came to England in 1041. He was Earl of Hereford from 1053 or earlier to 1057 and possibly of }{\insrsid920401 Oxfordshire and of the East Midlands, all of which were divisions of the Mercian earldom of Earl Swein. He failed to defend Hereford in 1055 against Earl Algar working in alliance with King Gruffydd, and was hence sometimes called Ralph the Timid. He died in 1057 and was buried at Peterborough Abbey of which he was a benefactor. His son Harold became lord of Ewyas Harold to which he gave his name. See Harmer, }{\i\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Writs}{\insrsid920401 , p. 570; Williams, \lquote The King\rquote s Nephew'. According to }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Hugh Candidus,}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Chronicle}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (Mellows, p. 69) }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Raulfus comes propinquus regis Eduuardi dedit Estun et Brinninghirst et Prest[e]graue et Dreitun et Glathestun }{\cf1\insrsid920401 ['Earl Ralph, a relative of King Edward gave }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Estun }{\cf1\insrsid920401 and}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Brinninghurst }{\cf1\insrsid920401 and}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Prest[e]grave }{\cf1\insrsid920401 and}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Dreitun }{\cf1\insrsid920401 and }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Glathestun}{\cf1\insrsid920401 '] (PM). Easton is Great Easton, and }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 Brinninghurst}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (Bringhurst) was probably included silently in the 1086 manor. }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Prestgrave}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('Prestgrave') may similarly be included there or partly or fully alienated in 1086; see 1,5 "Abegrave" note and LEC 5 Peterborough note. }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Dreitun}{\cf1\insrsid920401 may well be the Leicestershire Drayton adjacent to the others (SK8392). }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Glathestun}{\cf1\insrsid920401 was, however, apparently Glaston, the place in Northamptonshire in 1086, later in Rutland. See}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Early Charters of Eastern England}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 246 no. 352 (=}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Early Charters of Northern England}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 71 no. 20); }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 49-56. See also Fleming, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday Book and the Law}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 189 no. 947.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 5,3\tab [[GREAT] EASTON]. This was a chapelry of Bringhurst Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086: a heading is supplied at 5,1. This entry is misnumbered 5,39 in the Phillimore printed translation.}{ \insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab MEADOW, 10 ACRES. Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 acras}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is accusative after }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 habent}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('have'). It is unusual for Domesday to specify that the villagers hold any r esources.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 6\tab LAND OF ST MARY'S OF COVENTRY. }{\insrsid920401 This was a Benedictine abbey dedicated at various times to St Mary, St Peter and St Osburga and All Saints. It was founded by Leofric, Earl of Mercia, and his wife, the lady Godiva, the papal confirmation dating f rom 1043. It is possible that it was preceded by a convent which was destroyed by the Danes in 1016 and of which Osburga was abbess. The abbot in 1066 was another Leofric who fought at Hastings, for which King William seems to have taken the abbey\rquote s lands into his own hands, but he restored them, apparently in 1070/1071 to Leofwin, Leofric\rquote s successor. The abbey became a cathedral priory in 1102 when the bishopric was transferred there from Chester, having earlier been at Lichfield.}{ \insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The eleventh-century abbots were: \par }{\i\insrsid920401 \tab c}{\insrsid920401 . 1043-1053 Leofwin I, subsequently Bishop of Lichfield \par }{\i\insrsid920401 \tab c}{\insrsid920401 . 1053-1066 Leofric. \par \tab \tab 1070/1071 onwards Leofwin II \par \tab \tab See Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid920401 Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid920401 , pp. 53, 63; Knowles, Brooke and London, }{\i\insrsid920401 Heads of Religious Houses}{\insrsid920401 , p. 40; }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 284, Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , pp. 500, 509. For the forged writ of William the Conqueror (1070 x 1071), which may, nonetheless contain genuine information, see Bates, }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , no. 104 pp. 380-81.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab It appe ars probable that all its Domesday estates had been held by Earl Leofric of Mercia who had granted them to the abbey at its foundation in 1043. The 'foundation charter' contains no place-names and is regarded as spurious, but its information that he was f ounder and grantor seems to be correct: }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Early Charters of the West Midlands}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 69 no. 159 (= }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Early Charters of Northern England}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 71 no. 22 = Sawyer, }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , no. 1226); Harmer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Writs}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , no. 45 pp. 214-21, 462-63. The estates (unna med) were confirmed on the abbey in that year by a forged charter of King Edward the Confessor: }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Early Charters of Northern England}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 71 no. 23 (= Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 , no. 1000 = Harmer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Writs}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , no. 46 pp. 221-22, 463-64). A writ of Wi lliam I confirms the gifts of Earl Leofric and mentions charters of Edward the Confessor to the same effect. It is also regarded as manufactured: Bates, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , no. 104 pp. 380-81. A second writ of William I (Bates, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , no. 105 pp. 382-83) may be genuine.}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 However, the substance is not in dispute} {\insrsid920401 : a general confirmation by King Stephen to the abbey (}{\i\insrsid920401 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid920401 , iii. p. 88 no. 246) states that the abbey is to enjoy the estates as }{\i\insrsid920401 Lefwinus}{\insrsid920401 [Earl Leofwin] did and refers to Henry's predecessors King Edward and King William I and }{\i\insrsid920401 carte predecessorum meorum}{\insrsid920401 ('charters of my predecessors') presumably referring to charters of those two kings.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab In Domesday the lands are divided between lordship estates (in the standard wapentake sequence) and the single subinfeudated holding as follows:}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Guthlaxton Wapentake: 6,1-4 Lordship land \par \tab \tab Gartree Wapentake: 6,5 Lordship land \par \tab \tab 'Goscote' Wapentake: 6,6 Lordship land}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Guthlaxton Wapentake]: 6,7 Subinfeudation}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 6,1\tab BURBAGE. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Aston Flamville. It lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086. The estate was granted to the abbey at its foundation in 1043; see LEC 6 Coventry note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 1 HIDE AND THE FOURTH PART OF 1 HIDE. The next phrase '22 \'bd carucates of land' is presumably an explanation, not a further assessment. At 38,1 the Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 .ii. partes uni}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [}{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 us}{\fs22\cf1\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\f703\cf1\insrsid920401 hid\'ea . idest xii. car}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [}{\i\f703\cf1\insrsid920401 ucat\'ea}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 t}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 er }{\cf1\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\f703\cf1\insrsid920401 r\'ea}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (' 2 parts of one hide, that is 12 carucates of land') and the same expression occurs at 44,6. This gives a hide of 18 carucates, which is easily divisible into thirds, but not, as here, into quarters. On the relation of hide to carucate, see \{ Introduction: Hides and Virgates\}.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The}{\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 statement in 29,3 'In each hide are 14 \'bd carucates of land', was seen by Round, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Feudal England}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{ \cf1\insrsid920401 p. 77, as a description of an unusual assessment (PM).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab WHEN THE ABBOT ACQUIRED IT. Burbage [probably] formed part of the original foundation of Earl Leofric of Mercia in 1043, although the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 valuit }{\cf1\insrsid920401 clause here probably refers to a re-grant of the abbey's temporalities by William I in 1070: }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 284. Where an earlier value is given for Leicestershire it is never stated to be t hat current in 1066 and indeed many of the larger holdings, notably that of Hugh of Grandmesnil, cannot have been organized much before 1070/1071, the period to which the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 valuit }{\cf1\insrsid920401 entries presumably refer (PM). See LEC 6 Coventry note.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 abb'}{\cf1\insrsid920401 invariably abbreviates }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 abbas}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('abbot'), not }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 abbatia}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('abbey'), in Domesday, and in any case fits in with the grantee (Abbot Leofwin) in the grant. This corrects the 'abbey' of the Phillimore printed translation.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 6,2\tab [POTTERS] MARSTON. This was a chapelry of Barwell Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 6,1). The estate was presumably granted to the abbey at its foundation and was still held as }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 Potersmerston}{\cf1\insrsid920401 at the Dissolution (}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Valor Ecclesiasticus}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , iii. p. 51).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 6,3\tab BARWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 6,1). The estate was presumably granted to the abbey at its foundation in 1043; see LEC 6 Coventry note. It was held by the prior of Coventry as }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Barewell'}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Book of Fees}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 583.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab VALUE 30s. This statement was briefly omitted by the main scribe of Great Domesday and inserted at the end of the first line of the entry in a space left by him (reason unknown); a pair of transposition signs indicate its correct position after th e resources.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 6,4\tab IN THE SAME VILLAGE. That is Barwell, which was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 6,1). The estate was presumably granted to the abbey at its foundation in 1043; see LEC 6 Coventry note. It was held by the prior of Coventry as }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Barewell'}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Book of Fees}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 583.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Farley printed the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 I}{\cf1\insrsid920401 of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 In}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in bold and the same size as the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 I}{\cf1\insrsid920401 of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Ipsa }{\cf1\insrsid920401 in 6,2-3;5-6, but the main scribe of Great Domesday did not highlight this }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 I}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , as he did the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 I}{\cf1\insrsid920401 s of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Ipsa}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 , because this statement is not a separate entry, the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 In ipsa uilla}{\cf1\insrsid920401 being equivalent to }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Ibi}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('there'). The Phillimore printed edition presumably followed Farley's lead and gave a separate number to it. Compare 2,4 carucates note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab STAPLETON. This 1 carucate is possibly duplicated in 13,9. For a further part of Stapleton, see 7,1.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab AND ITS RESOURCES ARE HERE ENTERED ABOVE. Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 pecunia}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in Domesday often means livestock, a reversion to its origin in Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 pecus}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('flock', 'herd'). Here the more general sense of resources (as in the Alecto edition) is needed: the clause means that Stapleton's resources in men and land have already been included in the entry for the adjacent Barwell (6,3). The usual meaning of }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 pecunia}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is 'money' and the sense of 'valuation' is never far away from the Domesday use. Compare 24,2 resources note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 6,5\tab SCRAPTOFT. This was an Ancient Parish which lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086. The estate was presuymably granted to the abbey at its foundation in 1043; see LEC 6 Coventry note.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 289-90.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 6,6\tab PACKINGTON. The Domesday form is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 PACHINTONE}{\cf1\insrsid920401 and this is reproduced clearly in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile the bottom half of the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 P}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 has not been reproduced and the place-name resembles }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 DACHINTONE}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . See 2,6 Keythorpe note.}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Packington was an Ancient Parish. It lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 and was in the same wapentake (divided between Diseworth and Seal Hundreds) in the Leicesters hire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 28, 47-48). The estate was presumably granted to the abbey at its foundation in 1043; see LEC 6 Coventry note.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab It was assessed at 8 \'bd carucates in 1086, and in the Leicestershire Survey seems to consist of 2 carucates at Snibs ton (SK4114) in Diseworth Hundred and 5 carucates at Packington in Seal Hundred. Both parts are there held by Hugh the sheriff, but the reason is unclear as Coventry Abbey held Packington and Snibston at the Dissolution: }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Valor Ecclesiasticus}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , iii. pp. 49-50. \par \tab \tab Part of Packington Ancient Parish lay in Derbyshire, though it is not differentiated in Domesday Book. The Derbyshire portion was placed in Leicestershire in 1884: Youngs, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Local Administrative Units}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , ii. pp. 82, 234.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 6,7\tab [IN GUTHLAXTON WAPENTAKE]. This heading is supplied from the later history of the estate and from the location of another part among places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 13,7.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab KIRKBY [MALLORY]?. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 13,10. It was in that wapentake according to }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Rolls (1334)}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 158. Kirkby Mallory was presumably granted to the abbey at its foundation; see LEC 6 Coventry note.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab It is easy to confuse Kirby and Kirkby represented in Leicestershire by Kirby Muxloe and Kirkby Mallory, both in Guthlaxton Wapentake. Most Kirbys and Kirkbys have the same origin ('settlement with a church'), but Kirby Muxloe appears to have the same origin as Kearby (Yorkshire), being Kaerir's }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 by}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('farm', 'homestead'): }{\insrsid920401 Ekwall,}{\i\insrsid920401 Dictionary of English Placenames}{\insrsid920401 , under Kirby Muxloe. In Domesday there are five entries that have been identified as Kirkby Mallory or Kirby Muxloe: 6,7 (}{\i\insrsid920401 Cherchebi}{\insrsid920401 ); 13,7 (}{\i\insrsid920401 Cherebi}{\insrsid920401 ); 13,10 (}{\i\insrsid920401 Cherchebi}{\insrsid920401 ); 13,42 (}{\i\insrsid920401 Cherebi}{\insrsid920401 ) and 25,4 (}{\i\insrsid920401 Carbi}{\insrsid920401 ). Of these, }{\i\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\insrsid920401 , i. pp. 311, 328, followed by the Alecto edition, identified 6,7 and 25,4 as Kirby Muxloe and the holdings of Hugh of Grandmesnil (13,7;10;42) as Kirkby Mallory (}{\i\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\insrsid920401 , i. pp. 314, 316). The Phillimore printed edition identifies all apart from 25,4 as Kirkby Mallory (Kirby Mallory in the translation at 6,7 is a spelling mistake). Certainly the Peverel holding (25,4) lay at }{\i\insrsid920401 Kerby}{\insrsid920401 , that is Kirby Muxloe (}{ \i\insrsid920401 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid920401 , iii. p. 99), while at least one of Hugh of Grandmesnil's holdings (which later passed to the earls of Leicester) was at }{\i\insrsid920401 Kyrkeby}{\insrsid920401 }{\i\insrsid920401 Malure}{\insrsid920401 , that is Kirkby Mallory (}{\i\insrsid920401 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid920401 , iii. p. 98). It seems probable that he held land at both places since }{\i\insrsid920401 Cherchebie}{\insrsid920401 is mentioned in the 1081 grant to Saint-Evroult (LEC 13 Hugh note) and in a record compiled between 1190 and 1204, detailing the gifts of Hugh of Grandmesnil and others to Saint-Evroult, both }{\i\insrsid920401 Cherchebi}{\insrsid920401 and }{\i\insrsid920401 Carobi}{\insrsid920401 occur (Round, }{\i\insrsid920401 Calendar of Documents}{\insrsid920401 ,}{\i\insrsid920401 France}{\insrsid920401 , no. 653 pp. 229-31). There }{\i\insrsid920401 Carobi}{\insrsid920401 is coupled with }{\i\insrsid920401 Brandestona}{\insrsid920401 (Braunstone: 13,41) and both appear to be gifts from Hugh's land made later than 1086. Ekwall,}{\i\insrsid920401 Dictionary of English Placenames}{\insrsid920401 , cites this occurrence of }{\i\insrsid920401 Carobi}{\insrsid920401 unde r Kirby Muxloe. The Peverel holding (25,4) belonged to 'Lubbesthorpe' to which Kirby Muxloe, but not Kirkby Mallory, is adjacent. The name-forms with -}{\i\insrsid920401 che}{\insrsid920401 - should give Kirkby and those without should give Kirby. (Kirby Bellars is a late spelling for a Kirby, probably influenced by Kirby Muxloe.) \par \tab \tab On these grounds, the holdings of 6,7 and 13,10 belong to Kirkby Mallory and those of 13,7;42 and 25,4 to Kirby Muxloe. The carucage does not greatly help, though it is possible that the 3 carucates less 3 bovates of 25,4 are connected with the 5 bovates of 13,42, making a neat joint total of 4 carucates. Kirby Muxloe and Kirkby Mallory have been provisionally identified on the basis of their name forms for this edition, but the problem requires further investigat ion, although the identification of 25,4 (Kirby Muxloe) seems secure.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab HUGH [* OF GRANDMESNIL *]. Hugh of Grandmesnil held another part of Kirkby Mallory (13,10).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 7\tab LAND OF CROWLAND CHURCH. This was a}{\insrsid920401 Benedictine abbey. It was said to have been founded by K ing Ethelbald (716-757) and dedicated to St Guthlac who had settled on the remote site in 699 (he died in 714). This early monastery was destroyed by the Danes in 870. It was said to have been re-founded for Benedictine monks by King Eadred (946-955), but perhaps by Thurcetel }{\i\insrsid920401 c}{\insrsid920401 . 966. \par \tab \tab The abbots who presided over the abbey in the mid-eleventh century were: \par }{\i\insrsid920401 \tab c}{\insrsid920401 . 1061/1062-1085/1086 Wulfketel, a monk of Peterborough \par \tab 1085/1086-1109 Ingulf, a monk of Saint-Wandrille in Normandy \par \tab \tab See Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid920401 Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid920401 , pp. 53, 63; Knowles, Brooke and London, }{\i\insrsid920401 Heads of Religious Houses}{\insrsid920401 , p. 42; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid920401 Domesday People }{\insrsid920401 , p. 509.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab Both the estates in this fief are held in lordship and entered in the standard sequence:}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Guthlaxton Wapentake: 7,1 Lordship land}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab ['Goscote' Wapentake]: 7,2 Lordship land}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 7,1\tab SUTTON [CHENEY]. In the manuscript this is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 SVTONE}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , though it and the preceding two words are faint. Only parts of the place-name have been reproduced in the Alecto facsimile; see 2,6 Keythorpe note. It and the preceding two words are clearly reproduced in the Ordnance Survey facsimile.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Sutton [Cheney] was a township of the Ancient Parish of Market Bosworth. It lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Crowland Abbey acquired this estate (including Stapleton) at an early date. In 833 King Wiglaf of Mercia confirmed Sutton and Stapleton on Abbot Siward of Crowland among lands elsewhere: Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , no. 189. King Burgred of Mercia confirmed Sutton on the abbey in 868 (Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , no. 213), and there were further confirmations by King Eadred in 948 and by King Edgar in 966: Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , nos. 538, 741.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The abbey still held Sutton Cheney at the Dissolution: }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Valor Ecclesiasticus}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , iv. p. 86.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab STAPLETON. This was a chapelry of Barwell Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 13,9.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 7,2\tab [IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 7,2 Beeby note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BEEBY. This was an Ancient Parish and probably lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086. It was in the same wapentake (in Beeby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 15, 37), where it }{\insrsid920401 is stil l held by the Abbot of Crowland, though assessed at 12 carucates. \par \tab \tab The abbey appears to have acquired this estate late in the tenth century. In 971, land at Beeby was left in the will of Bishop Oscytel (of Dorchester-on-Thames) to Bishop Aethelwold (of Winchester); see the }{\i\insrsid920401 Liber Eliensis}{ \insrsid920401 (Blake, p. 96); }{\i\insrsid920401 Early Charters of Eastern England}{\insrsid920401 , no. 304 p. 230 (= }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Early Charters of Northern England}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 69 no. 35). Subsequently Bishop Aethelwold exchanged this estate with Thurcytel (said to be the Abbot of Ramsey but actually the Abbot of Crowland) for land in Cambridgeshire: }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Early Charters of Northern England}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 69 no. 36.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The abbey still held Beeby at the Dissolution: }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Valor Ecclesiasticus}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , iv. p. 86.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 21 VILLAGERS. Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 xxi. uill}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 anu}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 s}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ; the singular of the noun is regularly used after '21' etc. which are often written as }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 xx 7 i}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('20 and 1') as spoken.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 8\tab THIS FIEF was squeezed by the main scribe of Great Domesday into a space left at the end of the column after the fief of Crowland Church; he had already begun th e account of the lay fiefs on folio 231c. The small writing of this fief contrasts with the larger writing of the preceding and succeeding chapters, except for chapter 4 which was added at the same time and in a similar position at the end of the adjacent column on folio 231ab (LEC 4 fief note). If in the circuit volume these almslands were recorded in a composite chapter with other small fiefs of churches (as was the policy for Devon, Somerset and probably Wiltshire and Dorset, in Exon, the circuit volume for circuit II), the scribe may simply have failed to return to this section enough times when picking out of it the various holdings; compare WIL 6 fief note, DOR 24,5 entry note, HAM 5a fief note, HEF 3 fief note and HEF 4 fief note. However, as this se ction would probably only have included the small fief of Crowland Abbey in Leicestershire, it may be that in this circuit volume this composite section included the small fiefs of churches in all the counties in circuit IV.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab THE KING'S ALMS [LANDS]. The fi rst two wapentakes in this fief, Guthlaxton Wapentake and Gartree Wapentake, are entered in the standard order, but are followed by two more estates in Guthlaxton Wapentake, probably initially missed by the main scribe of Great Domesday. It may be, howeve r, that he was intending to enter the lands by holder and not by wapentake although it turns out that each holder has only one estate.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Guthlaxton Wapentake]: 8,1-2}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Gartree Wapentake]: 8,3}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Guthlaxton Wapentake]: 8,4-5}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 8,1\tab [IN GUTHLAXTON WAPENTAKE]. For the insertion of this head, see 8,1 Peatling note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab PEATLING [MAGNA]. This was an Ancient Parish. This estate was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, as another part is directly below a Guthlaxton wapentake head at 17,1 . Domesday appears to distinguish the two Peatlings by the use of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 alia }{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('another') at 13,32 and 41,2, which are Peatling Parva. Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 alia}{\cf1\insrsid920401 does not normally mean this (it usually refers to the second occurrence of the same name in a list), but the peculiar circumstances of its use in Leicestershire suggest that there were already two distinct settlements in 1086; see 13,32 Peatling note.}{ \insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab No population is recorded for this manor, perhaps in error; compare 14,26.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab MEADOW, 1 \'bd ACRES. Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 ac}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 ra}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 m}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is accusative after }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 h}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 abe}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 t}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('has').}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 8,2\tab QUENTIN'S WIFE. Nothing is known of either of Quentin or his wife. She was presumably his widow and in receipt of alms for something he had done; see }{\insrsid920401 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{ \insrsid920401 , p.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 442, who includes two references for folio 231b, though this is the only occurrence.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SHEARSBY. This was a chapelry and township of Knaptoft Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086. Another part is in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 10,6.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SUTTON[-IN-THE-ELMS]. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Broughton Astley. Another part is associated with Croft which is apparently in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 10,7.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab It is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 SVTONE}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in the manuscript; Farley misprinted }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 SVTON}{\cf1\insrsid920401 .}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 8,3\tab [IN GARTREE WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 8,3 Illston note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab ILLSTON[-ON-THE-HILL]. This was a chapelry and township of Carlton Curlieu Ancient Parish. It must have la in in Gartree Wapentake in 1086, as another part is directly below a Gartree wapentake head at 13,13. It was in the same wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 23-24, 34), where it }{\insrsid920401 is held (as 2 carucates only) by Walter de Beauchamp. }{\cf1\insrsid920401 For its later history, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. }{\insrsid920401 164-65.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 8,4\tab [IN GUTHLAXTON WAPENTAKE]. For the insertion of this head, see 8,4 Swinford note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SWINFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a Guthlaxton wapentake head at 17,7.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 8,5\tab WIGSTON [PARVA]. This was a chapelry of Claybrooke Ancient Parish. The identification with Wigston Parva (rather than with Wigston Magna: 13,1. 40,25) is supported by its proximity to Sharnford. It no doubt lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part of Sharnford is in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 3,4.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Between 1002 and 1004, by his will, Wulfric Spot gave }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Wicgestane}{\cf1\insrsid920401 along with other lands (including Sharnford) to Burton Abbey and the gift wa s confirmed in 1004 by King Ethelred (Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , nos. 1536, 906 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Early Charters of Northern England}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 71 nos. 39-40; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. xxxiii). There is, however, no trace of a holding of Burton Abbey here in Domesday.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SHARNFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. For the several estates here, see 3,4. 13,3. 40,5. 42,10. The first letter of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 SCENEFORD}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in the manuscript has been almost entirely rubbed off; the parchment is very poor here; see 2,6 Keythorpe note. The Alecto facsimile has }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 CENEFORD}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , but the Ordnance Survey facsimile reproduces the }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 S}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . The other forms of this place-name in Domesday Leicestershire are }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 SCERNEFORD}{\cf1\insrsid920401 and }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 SCERNEFORDE}{\cf1\insrsid920401 .}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 9\tab LAND OF THE COUNT OF MEULAN. }{\insrsid920401 He was Robert, the son of Roger of Beaumont (from Beaumont-le-Roger, in the French d\'e9 partement of Eure, arrondissement Bernay) and Adeline sister and heir of Hugh, Count of Meulan (in the French d\'e9partement of Yvelines, arrondissement Mantes-la-Jolie). In 1086 his father had a small fief in his own name while Rober t had earlier succeeded his mother and was styled Count of Meulan. He subsequently inherited his father's lands. He supported William II and Henry I against Robert Curthose and was appointed Earl of Leicester by 1107. He died in 1118. His wife Isabel de V ermandois subsequently married William II of Warenne. His son Robert succeeded him as Earl of Leicester and this Robert\rquote s twin brother Walkeran, became Count of Meulan. }{\cf1\insrsid920401 The lands held by Count Robert descended in the earldom of Leicester and were joined by the lands formerly held by Hugh of Grandmesnil (LEC 13) and Earl Aubrey (LEC 10); see LEC 10 Aubrey note and LEC 13 Hugh note.}{\insrsid920401 See Keats-Rohan, }{ \i\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\insrsid920401 ,}{\i\insrsid920401 }{\insrsid920401 p. 371. \par \tab \tab When Ivo of Grandmesnil was on crusade, his lands were in the custody of Robert of Meulan, who, after Ivo's death, joined them to his own. Orderic Vitalis comments thus on Robert's advancement: }{\cf1\insrsid920401 'The town of Leicester had four lords: the king, the Bishop of Lincoln, Earl Simon and Ivo son of Hugh. The Count of Meulan, however, cunningly got a foothold there through the share of Ivo, who was castellan (}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 municeps}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 )}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 and sheriff and farmed it for the king, and with the king's aid and his own cunning brought the whole town un der his control. By this means he became an earl in England . . ': Orderic Vitalis,}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Ecclesiastical History}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (Chibnall,}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 vi. pp. 18-21) (PM). See C1 city note.}{ \insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab In Domesday, the Count of Meulan's fief is divided, as most of those in Leicestershire (\{Introduction: Layout and Content\} ), into lands held in lordship and lands held by his men. In this particular case, the main scribe of Great Domesday seems to have failed to enter the subinfeudated lands, but he found them later and added them on a previously-blan k folio at the end of the county: LEC 44 chapter note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab All the lands held in lordship, as well as Shawell and Bagworth (44,8;10), came to the count from an Englishman called Saxi. \par \tab \tab In 1086 a}{\insrsid920401 ll these lands appear to lie in a single wapentake (Guthlaxton Wapentake), as do the lands of the Count of Meulan's men (LEC 44).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 9,1\tab AYLESTONE. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086. Other parts were held by the Count of Meulan's men at 44,1-2.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 1 HIDE AND THE SIXTH PART OF 1 HIDE. At 18 carucates to the hide, this is equivalent to 21 carucates; see \{Introduction: Hides and Virgates\}.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BEFORE 1066 THERE WERE 14 PLOUGHS. This is almost certainly not a variant plough estimate formula, as suggested by Maitland, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday Book and Beyond}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , pp. 420-21, followed by Darby,}{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday England}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , pp. 109-10, and by Cain, 'Introduction', }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Leicestershire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 10. It is more likely that it and what Cain describes as a 'different formula' (the same as this, but without }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , which occurs only from 29 ,4 onwards) are the remnants of the request, preserved in the questions in the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Inquisitio Eliensis}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 97, for ploughs to be recorded for 1066 (and when acquired by the current holder) as well as for 1086. This information is regularly given in Little Dome sday, but it is only partially reported in Great Domesday, virtually all the occurrences being in circuit IV. Moore, 'Domesday Teamland in Leicestershire', mentions seven examples in this circuit where both the 'Land for' ploughland formula and the statem ent of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ploughs are given in the same entry. (An eighth example of his is the present entry, but the 'land for 6 ploughs' held by Saxi is not a plough estimate, but the equivalent of 6 carucates: 9,1 land note.) It is true that in Leicestershire the n umber of ploughs that had been on an estate is recorded in chapters 12, 14, 18, 28-30, 32-38, 40, 43-44 (though not in every entry) and that these chapters have no 'Land for' plough estimate, and that (as Darby, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 op. cit.}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 , suggested) this was connected with the fief-holder returns, but nine chapters contain both the plough estimate and the (}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ) ploughs (chapters 9, 11, 15-17, 19, 24, 27, 42: chapter 17 is especially mixed). The choice of information given on the ploughs cannot therefore be attributable o nly to the fief-holder. Moreover, the choice cannot have been dictated by the wapentake courts as entries in each wapentake contain both types of plough detail. Nor can the representatives of each village have been responsible because, in the accounts of at least two villages (which were split between several tenants), both types of plough data are included: Kilworth (23,2) has 'Land for ... ' while the other three entries for it (16,3. 44,12-13) record (}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ) ploughs, and Sproxton has the 'Land for ... ' plough estimate in 24,3, but 'there were }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 n}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ploughs' in 30,1 and 40,41. It may be that, when the normal plough estimate was missing in the Leicestershire sections of the circuit volume, the Great Domesday scribe retained the detail of the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ploughs, or this may have been done by the compilers of the circuit volume. In OXF 1,1;6;7a. 6,4. 14,4 the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ploughs are recorded but no plough estimate is given, while in OXF 6,16 (which has 'Land for 5 ploughs') the five }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ploughs and the three in lordsh ip were added in the margin during a campaign of addition by the scribe after the county had been rubricated.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Whether the number of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ploughs formed the basis for the 1086 'Land for' formula cannot be discussed here, though it may be worth noting th at in Huntingdonshire, and most of the other counties in circuit VI, there is no verb in }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Terra }{\cf1\insrsid920401 n }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 carucis}{\cf1\insrsid920401 and it is regularly succeeded by }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Nunc}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 ('now') before the lordship ploughs. However, the verb is sometimes missing in Oxfordshire and yet when it is not it is often succeeded by 'Now in lordship' (as here in 13,74. 41,2-3. 42,7), so the whim of the scribe cannot be ruled out.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab See \{Introduction: Ploughlands\}.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab SAXI . Every holding of Saxi in LEC & WAR bar one devolved upon the Count of Meulan. The one exception (WAR 44,2) is surrounded by the Meulan holdings so had probably belonged to the same Saxi }{\i\insrsid920401 T.R.E. }{\insrsid920401 (JP).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab LEOFWIN ... LAND FOR 6 PLOUGHS [***] ... 4. Leofwin's land for 4 ploughs appears to have been held in 1086 by Wulfnoth as 4 carucates: 44,2. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 tenuit }{ \cf1\insrsid920401 after }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 car'}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ; there was no need for the verb to be repeated and it was erased, though it is still just visible in the manuscript. Saxi's tenure of all of the lands that the Count of Meulan held in lordship in 1086 is given in a separate sentence at the end of chapter 9.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab IN SUCH A WAY THAT. Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 ita quod}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ; the Phillimore printed translation has 'so that' which would imply purpose, not result. Leofwin had been free to go where he would with t his portion of the land, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 facere quod volebat}{\cf1\insrsid920401 being equivalent to }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 ire quo volebat}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , that is, he could commend himself to another lord with four ploughlands, but he was tied to Saxi with two of them.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 9,2\tab FROLESWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: other parts are in groups of places in GuthlaxtonWapentake at 17,3 and 40,4.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab SAXI . See 9,1 Saxi note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 9,3\tab HUNCOTE. This was a hamlet of Narborough Ancient Parish by the thirteenth century, later it was a separate Ancient Parish: Youngs, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Local Administrative Units}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 228. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 9,1).}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab SAXI . See 9,1 Saxi note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 9,4\tab COSBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 9,1): another part is in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 17,9.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab HUNCOTE. The estate is given in the previous entry (9,3).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab SAXI . See 9,1 Saxi note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 9,5\tab [MARKET] BOSWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 13,72.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SAXI HELD ALL THESE LANDS. That is, all the lands in this fief, but see 9,1 land note. On the identification of Saxi, see 9,1 Saxi note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 10\tab LAND OF EARL AUBREY. }{\insrsid920401 He was the son of Count Ivo of Beaumont-sur-Oise (in the French d\'e9partement of Val-d'Oise, arrondissement Pontoise) but was known as Aubrey of Coucy from Coucy-le Ch\'e2teau -Auffrique, in the French d\'e9partement of Aisne (arrondissement Laon), which came to him from his wife. He succeeded the murdered Bishop Walcher of Durham as Earl of Northumbria in 1080, but was incapable of controlling his ealdom \lquote being insufficiently valorous in difficult circumstances\rquote and retired to his French estates. By this act he fortfeited his English earldom and estates, but the latter had not been granted out in 1086 and still formed a fief in his name in Domesday. He was murdered }{\i\insrsid920401 c}{\insrsid920401 . 1079 at Coucy, the victim of a plot by his wife Ada and her lover. See }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Symeon of Durham, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Historia Regum}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (Arnold, ii. p. 199); }{\insrsid920401 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\insrsid920401 , p. 131. \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Earl Aubrey's predecessor in all these lands was Harding, with his men (10,5;17). After 1086, Aubrey's L eicestershire estates were given to Robert of Meulan (LEC 9) and at the time of the Leicestershire Survey were held by his successor, the Earl of Leicester; see the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 86). \par \tab \tab The lands are essentially divided between those hel d in lordship and those subinfeudated, but see 10,2 entry note; the main scribe of Great Domesday distinguished the groups by leaving a line's space after 10,5, as he did in several fiefs. As all the lordship lands were in Guthlaxton Wapentake (the first in the standard sequence), the scribe was able to pass from these to the subinfeudations without changing wapentake. He then continued to enter the subinfeudations in the standard sequence. This conclusion rests on discussion of the possible location of } {\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Torp }{\cf1\insrsid920401 (10,14); see 10,14 "Torp" note. \par \tab \tab Guthlaxton Wapentake: 10,1-11 (Lordship land: 10,1;3-5; Subinfeudations: 10,2;6-11) \par \tab \tab [Gartree Wapentake]: 10,12-13 Subinfeudations \par \tab \tab ['Goscote' Wapentake]: 10,14-17 Subinfeudations}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 10,1\tab KNAPTOFT. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 2 FREEMEN. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 7 ii. soch'is}{\cf1\insrsid920401 .}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 10,2\tab THIS ENTRY belongs in the second part of this chapter with the other lands given 1086 subtenants, like Wulfric here.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SAPCOTE. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086. Another part is in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 13,2.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 10,3\tab HINCKLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 10,1). The An cient Parish contained the chapelries of Dadlington and Stoke Goldington in Leicestershire and that of Hydes Pastures in Warwickshire: Youngs, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Local Administrative Units}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 227.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 10,4\tab SIBSON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wa pentake in 1086 (heading at 10,1) and was certainly in the same wapentake (in Hinckley Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 26, 58), held by the Earl of Leicester to whom the holdings of this fief normally descended. It appears that Sibson al so included Upton (SP3699). No assessment figures are given to these places in that Survey.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 10,5\tab SHENTON. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Market Bosworth. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 10,1). Other parts are in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 14,15 and 16,2.}{ \cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Between 1002 and 1004, by his will, Wulfric Spot gave }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Scenctune}{\cf1\insrsid920401 along with other lands to Burton Abbey and the gift was confirmed in 1004 by King Ethelred (Sawyer, }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , nos. 1536, 906 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Early Charters of Northern England}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 71 nos. 39-40; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. xxx). There is, however, no trace of a holding of Burton Abbey here in Domesday. Hart in }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Early Charters of Northern England}{\cf1\insrsid920401 identified }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Scenctune}{\cf1\insrsid920401 with Shangton. On the other hand, Sawyer in }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. xxx, following }{\insrsid920401 Ekwall,}{\i\insrsid920401 Dictionary of English Placenames}{\insrsid920401 (under Shenton),}{\cf1\insrsid920401 identifies it with Shenton, which is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Scentone}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in Domesday (10,5. 14,15, 16,2). The identification of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Scenctone}{\cf1\insrsid920401 with Shenton see ms more likely than that with Shangton, for which the Domesday forms are }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Sanctone}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (13,55. 16,5) and }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Santone}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in 1,4.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab HARDING [* SON OF ALNOTH *] HELD THESE LANDS. This clause ends the lands held in lordship and is balanced by that at 10,17 'Harding held al l these lands with his men'. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space between the two sections.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\insrsid920401 The name Harding occurs on 48 holdings in Domesday Book, probably representing six or seven individuals. Peter Clarke has assigned all 33 }{\i\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\insrsid920401 holdings in Great Domesday to Harding son of Alnoth (Clarke, }{\i\insrsid920401 English Nobility}{\insrsid920401 , pp. 282-83), while Katharine Keats-Rohan has attributed 15 of the 17 1086 tenancies to the same man (}{\i\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{ \insrsid920401 , p. 244). Of the other two, Ann Williams (}{\i\insrsid920401 The English and the Norman Conquest}{\insrsid920401 , p. 120 note 125) has shown that the Berkshire holding was probably held by the individual who held in Dorset and Wiltshire in 1086, and seventeenth tenancy was held by a burgess of Oxford. The grounds for the majority o f these attributions have not been stated but are relatively easy to reconstruct. 29 of the 33 }{\i\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\insrsid920401 holdings in Great Domesday were connected in some way with Earl Aubrey of Coucy. Three of these (WIL 67,60-62) were held by Harding at both dates, as were three of the remaining four holdings without the Coucy link. As the survival of more than one Englishman with an uncommon name holding the same properties at both dates within a limited area is improbable, all six properties may have been held by the sam e individual. The final 1066 holding, at Winterslow (20,6) was connected indirectly to the other 32: Harding held another property in the same vill (WIL 23,3), one which also devolved upon Aubrey de Coucy. All 33 1066 holdings therefore probably belonged t o one man. Of the 1086 tenancies, Harding is named as the son of Alnoth in the Somerset holdings, which descended to the Merriott family through his eldest son Nicholas (SOM 47,3-8). The remaining properties in Berkshire, Dorset, Somerset, and Wiltshire ha v e been discussed above, leaving those in Buckinghamshire, Gloucestershire, Hampshire, and Warwickshire to be accounted for. Ann Williams has suggested that the Gloucestershire Harding is the son of Alnoth, on grounds of proximity to the family's Bristol b ase (}{\i\insrsid920401 The English and the Norman Conquest}{\insrsid920401 , p. 120); his connections with other royal manors and with Queen Edith offer a possible link with the Hampshire holding (HAM 6,1); and the Warwickshire holding lay between those held by Harding in the county in 1066 (WAR 17,30). The two modest, adjacent Buckinghamshire holdings have no discernible links to other Harding properties and may have belonged to another English survivor. Doubts have been raised about the identification of the 1066 landholder with Harding so n of Alnoth, however, principally on the grounds that William of Malmesbury reports him to have been active in the 1120s (}{\i\insrsid920401 Gesta Regum}{\insrsid920401 , p. 471), too old to have held land before the Conquest (Lewis, }{ \cf18\insrsid920401 'Formation of the Honour of Chester',}{\insrsid920401 pp. 67-68). But the t enurial history of Beechingstoke (WIL 12,1) tends to confirm the identification. Harding held this manor in 1066, and Harding son of Alnoth was litigating about it in the reign of Henry I. Moreover, the tenant-in-chief of Beechingstoke was Shaftesbury Abb ey, to which Harding son of Alnoth donated land when his daughter became a nun there: Williams, }{\i\insrsid920401 The English and the Norman Conquest}{\insrsid920401 , pp. 120-21 (JP).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 10,6\tab NORMAN . He is possibly the same Norman who held of Geoffrey Alselin (28,1-5):}{\insrsid920401 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\insrsid920401 , p.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 306, who also has a reference to folio 234a, which must be for the Norman who was Robert of Vessey's tenant in 16,2, though she does not mention this. These are the only occurrences of the name Norman in Leicestershire.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SHEARSBY. This was a chapelry and township of Knaptoft Ancient parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 8,2.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 10,7\tab CROFT . This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 13,37.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BROUGHTON [ASTLEY]. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a Guthlaxton wapentake head at 40,8. For a further part, see 13,38.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SUTTON[-IN-THE-ELMS]. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Broughton Astley. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: other parts are in groups of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 8,2 and 19,4.}{ \cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 10,8\tab [FENNY] DRAYTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 4 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 iiii car'}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , but the first minim was then erased, though imperfectly: it is still just visible in the Alecto facsimile (though not in the Ordnance Survey facsimile); a new dot was then inserted before }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 iii}{\cf1\insrsid920401 but below the line to avoid the erased patch. Farley printed }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 iiii}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in error.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 10,9\tab ROBERT . On this identification, see 29,7 Robert note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BITTESWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 29,7.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 10,10\tab HE ALSO. On Robert , see 29,7 Robert note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SWINFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a Guthlaxton wapentake head at 17,7.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 10,11\tab NORMAN }{\insrsid920401 . See 10,6 Norman note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab WALTON. This was a chapelry of Knaptoft Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 10,12\tab HE ALSO. On Norman , s}{\insrsid920401 ee 10,6 Norman note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab [IN GARTREE WAPENTAKE]. The restoration of this wapentake head depends on the apparent location of Theddingworth in that wapentake in 1086; see 10,12 Theddingworth note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab THEDDINGWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Gartree Wapentake at 40,31. Other pa rts appear at 27,2. 43,5. For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 316-17.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 10,13\tab HE ALSO. On Norman , s}{\insrsid920401 ee 10,6 Norman note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab THEDDINGWORTH. See 10,12 Theddingworth note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 10,14\tab [* IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE *]. The insertion of this heading depends on the identification and location of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Torp}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ; see 10,14 "Torp" note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab "TORP". The Phillimore printed edition identified this place as (Little) Thorpe, which now appears on maps (at SK5496) as Littlethorpe. The Alecto edition has Littlethorpe. Littlethorpe was a settlement in Narborough Ancient Parish and on geographical grounds it was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086. However, a place in Guthlaxton Wapentake disrupts the sequence of wapentakes here and a connection betwee n Littlethorpe and the Earls of Leicester has not been found. In }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Feudal Aids}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , iii. p. 101, Ralph of Thorpe holds }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Parva Thorpe}{\cf1\insrsid920401 from the heirs of Kyleby and they hold from Robert de Bruis of the honour of Huntingdon. The lands of this honour derive from those held by Countess Judith, which would imply that Littlethorpe was part of her fief (LEC 40); it is more likely that Littlethorpe was an unnamed part of Countess Judith's holding in Cosby (40,3) in 1086.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab What is needed is a 'Thorpe' in Gartree Wapentake o r 'Goscote' Wapentake, since Theddingworth (10,12-13) was almost certainly in Gartree Wapentake in 1086 as later and Wanlip (10,15) was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake. Places in Guthlaxton Wapentake, where Littlethorpe would have lain, have already been entered (10,1-11), and there is no apparent reason for a repetition of wapentake. It is tempting to see the two carucates of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Torp }{\cf1\insrsid920401 as reappearing, with the same assessment, as part of Keyham, held by the Earl of Leicester in 'Goscote' Wapentake (in Beeby Hun dred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 15). They are there regarded (p. 37) as either omitted from Domesday or possibly as representing Twyford (13,30). However, it appears that Twyford is already accounted for in Loddington Hundred in that Survey; see 13,30 Twyford note. The nearest 'Thorpe' to Keyham, however, is Barkby Thorpe, but that is situated much closer to Barkby than to Keyham and, as its name implies, appears to have been a dependency of Barkby; see the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 1 6, 38); and 41,3 Barkby note. It seems, therefore, that }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Torp}{\cf1\insrsid920401 was possibly in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 and possibly a lost or unidentified place in or near Keyham.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 10,15\tab [IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this wapentake head derives from the situation of Wanlip which was in that wapentake at the time of the Leicestershire Survey.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab RALPH OF CHARTRES. The Latin reads }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Radulf' carnot'}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . If }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 carnot}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ' is extended to }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 carnotensis}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (adjective) it could mean 'of Chartres'. This proposal by J.H. Round was reported in }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 313 note 20, and accepted by Tengvik, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Old English Bynames}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 133, but not mentioned by Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 328. The derivation is sound with the termination }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 \endash ensis}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , which frequently means 'from/of a place', suffixed to }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Carnot}{\cf1\insrsid920401 :}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Chartres is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Carnotum}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in the fourth century and }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 Carnotis}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in 863 (Dauzat and Rostaing, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Dictionnaire des Noms de Lieux en France}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 176). Ralph of Chartres o nly appears in these entries (10,15-17) in Domesday and nothing is known of him. Chartres (in the French d\'e9 partement of Eure-et-Loir) is some distance from the places of origin of others who settled in England, but compare Hervey of Bourges. However, Chartres could be the place where he trained as a cleric (if he was one) or his ultimate place of origin.}{ \insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab WANLIP. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 and was in that wapentake, in Ashby [Folville] Hundred, in the Leiceste rshire Survey (Slade, pp. 16, 41). There the Earl of Leicester holds 7 carucates, three more than Earl Aubrey does in Domesday.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 10,16\tab SHOBY. This was an Ancient Parish. This 11-carucate holding was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 and was certainly in that wapentake (in Dalby on the Wolds Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 17, 42) where the Earl of Leicester holds 6 carucates.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab It probably included 5 carucates of land entered at Saxelby, a neighbouring village, in the Leicestershire S urvey (Slade, pp. 17, 42) (PM). Another part of Saxelby was part of the royal multiple estate of Rothley (1,3) in 1086.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 10,17\tab WALTON[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. This was an Ancient Parish and probably lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab HARDING ... WITH HIS MEN. The Latin probably does not mean that Harding held each estate and that his men held from him, but that Harding had some estates and his men had others: it would be unusual (though not entirely unprecedented) for Domesday to mention an individual or groups ho lding from others among the 1066 holders. It is likely that the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 holder of each of Earl Aubrey's estates had been given in its respective entry in the circuit volume and that as part of his abbreviation of it the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote a sentence referring to all the earl's predecessors (something he did quite regularly where all the lands of a 1086 tenant-in-chief came from one person). He had probably forgotten that he had written at the end of 10,5 'Harding held these lands', referring to the preceding five lands. It is therefore possible that only Harding had held the lands that Earl Aubrey held in lordship and that both he and his men held those that were subinfeudated. \par \tab \tab On the identification of Harding, see 10,5 Harding note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab HELD ALL. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the order of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 tenuit om}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 ne}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 s}{\cf1\insrsid920401 by interlining }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 b}{\cf1\insrsid920401 above }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 tenuit}{\cf1\insrsid920401 and }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 a}{\cf1\insrsid920401 above }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 om}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 ne}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ]}{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 s}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . For other instances of his correcting word order or phrasing, see SUS 13,30. HAM 23,61 and NTH 1,17 (with }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 a}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 b}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ), HEF C9 and CAM L32-34 (with }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 a}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 b}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 c}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ) and compare CHS C11-13. He also used }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 A}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 B}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 C}{\cf1\insrsid920401 to link three }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 tenants in SOM 9,4-5;8 with their earlier occurrence in the column. The use of such suprascript letters is common in manuscripts of the period and was used by the main s cribe of Great Domesday in three of the ecclesiastical manuscripts in which he worked; see \{The Main Scribe of Great Domesday Book\}.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 11\tab LAND OF COUNTESS GODIVA. She was }{\insrsid920401 the wife of Earl Leofric of Mercia and mother of Earl Algar. With her husband Leofric she founded and endowed the monastery at Coventry and endowed St Mary\rquote s of Stow. They also made gifts to the abbeys of Leominster and Wenlock, to two abbeys in Chester (St John\rquote s and St Werburgh\rquote s) and to Evesham Abbey. They also gave lands to the church of Worcester. Leofric died in 1057, but Godiva survived into the Conqueror\rquote s reign. She was dead by 1086, but her lands had not yet all been re-granted; see Harmer, }{\i\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon}{\insrsid920401 }{\i\insrsid920401 Writs}{ \insrsid920401 , p. 561; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\insrsid920401 ,}{\i\insrsid920401 }{\insrsid920401 p. 218. \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Her fief in Leicestershire, as also her Warwickshire one (WAR 15), was apparently an entity in the king's hands and had not been split up or granted out.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab These three estates appear to have lain in a single wapentake (Guthlaxton); see 11,2 Appleby note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 11,1\tab [IN GUTHLAXTON WAPENTAKE]. A wapentake head is required at the beginning of a chapter, especially if it is a different one from the wapentake head that ended the previous chapter. The insertion for one for Guthlaxton Wapentake depends on the identity of Norton; see 11,1 Norton note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab COUNTESS GODIVA HELD. The tense indicates that she was no longer holding the lands. She died between 1066 and 1086.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab NORTON[-JUXTA-TWYCROSS]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 as later.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Between 1002 and 1004, by his will, Wulfric Spot gave land}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 aet Northtune}{\cf1\insrsid920401 to Ulfgeat 'in the hope that he may be a better friend and supporter of the monastery'. Wulfric Spot gave some lands directly to Burton Abbey, his foundation; others, like the present one, were intended for it. The gift was confirmed in 1004 by King Ethelred (Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , nos. 1536, 906; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. xxvi). Norton is a common name and it is not certain that the place intended lay in Leicestershire. It is probably the same estate as that granted as 8 }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 cassati }{\cf1\insrsid920401 by King Eadred to his minister Aelfheah, the charter for which (and presumably the land to which it referred) came into the possession of Burton Abbey: Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , no. 554 = }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , no. 12, pp. 18-21. Sawyer suggests the identification of this 'Norton' with Norton-juxta-Twycross, which is assessed at 6 carucates. If this is correct, it would have been adjacent to Burton Abbey's Derbyshire estate in Appleb y Magna (DBY 3,2). It is conceivable that all three of Countess Godiva's estates in Leicestershire were alienated from Burton Abbey; see 11,2 Appleby note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 11,2\tab APPLEBY [MAGNA]. Appleby was an Ancient Parish, containing Appleby Magna and Appleby Parva. Thi s entry, for the estate known as Appleby Magna, appears in Domesday to be sandwiched between two places probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake. Another part (Appleby Parva) is in a group of places in 'Goscote' Wapentake at 14,22 and reappears in the same wapent ake (in Seal Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 48). It would have been a detachment of that wapentake, severed from it by places that lay in Derbyshire.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The present estate is not in the Leicestershire Survey, which is extremely deficient for Guthlaxton Wapentake. The 'Goscote' wapentake heading inserted in the first edition of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday Explorer}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 is therefore probably not required nor the inserted one for Guthlaxton Wapentake at 11,3, since all three entries are governed by the inserted head at 11,1.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab A further part of Appleby Magna was in Derbyshire (DBY 3,2), the Ancient Parish being divided between the two counties. On the first edition Ordnance Survey one-inch map (sheet 63; reprinted 1970 as sheet 43) the boundary between the countie s passes through the settlement of Appleby Magna and there are two detached portions of Derbyshire in Appleby Parva. The situation was rationalized in 1889 when two separate Civil Parishes, Appleby Magna North in Derbyshire and Appleby Magna South in Leic estershire were created. At that stage no change to the county boundaries was involved. However, the two parishes were reunited and placed in Leicestershire in 1897 in the context of other nearby boundary changes; see \{Introduction: The County Boundary\} . Th e Derbyshire portion of Appleby Magna (5 carucates) belonged to Burton Abbey, having been given to it by Wulfric Spot, and of these it was said that Abbot Leofric had leased 1 carucate to Countess Goda, possibly a mistake for Countess Godiva (DBY 3,2 coun tess note). It is possible that both parts of Appleby Magna (11,2. DBY 3,2) had once belonged to Burton Abbey, but that Countess Godiva or a predecessor had alienated a portion and placed it in Leicestershire: see 11,1 Norton note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab It may be significant that although Leicestershire is more heavily assessed than Derbyshire (see \{Introduction: Hides and Virgates\} ), in the Leicestershire parts of Appleby the number of carucates to the number of ploughlands are the same in the case of 11,2 (the details are not given in 14,22, but there are 2 ploughs for 1 carucate). This might suggest that these parts of Appleby were rated according to the Derbyshire assessment and had therefore once been in that county.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab IN LORDSHIP 2 PLOUGHS. This was written by the main scribe of Great Domesday over an erasure. In the centre margin there is an erased note which can be made out as }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 r car'}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (= }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 require carucas}{\cf1\insrsid920401 : 'find out/ ask about the ploughs'). Presumably the scribe had written something but was not sure that it was correct, so erased it and made a note to himself to check it. Compare 1,4 meadow note and 28,1 margin note. On these longer marginal requests, which were not generally erased, see 43,1 value note, and Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 124-26 (= Erskine and Willi ams, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 The Story of Domesday Book}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , pp. 190-91).}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 11,3\tab BILSTONE. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Norton-juxta-Twycross and, like it, probably lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab In the manuscript this place-name is clearly }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 BILDESTONE}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile it resembles }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 BILBESTONE}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 ; see 2,6 Keythorpe note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 12\tab LAND OF COUNTESS AELFEVA. }{\insrsid920401 She was the wife of Earl Algar of Mercia and mother of Earl Edwin and Earl Morcar. She may have been daughter of another Morcar who married Ealdgyth, niece of Wulfric Spot. Ealdgyth was a cousin of Emma (Aelfgifu), King Cnut\rquote s first wife, the daughter of Richard I (the Fearless) Duke of the Normans; see Williams, }{\i\insrsid920401 English and the Norman Conquest}{ \insrsid920401 , p. 54 note 41. }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Aelfeva was dead by 1086, but her fief in Leicestershire was apparently an entity in the king's hands and had not been split up or granted out.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Her lands appear to have lain in two wapentakes and are entered in the standard sequence:}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Guthlaxton Wapentake]: 12,1}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab 'Goscote' Wapentake: 12,2}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 12,1\tab [* IN GUTHLAXTON WAPENTAKE *]. A wapentake heading is required here at the beginning of a new fief; the one for Guthlaxton is supplied from the location of Aylestone (12,1).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab COUNTESS AELFEVA HELD. The tense indicates that she was no longer holding the lands. She was dead by 1086.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab AYLESTONE. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: other parts are directly below Guthlaxton wapentake heads at 9,1 and 44,1-2.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 12,2\tab [CASTLE] DONINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 and was in the same wapentake (in Belton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 18, 46) where the holder is the Earl of Chester: his estate of 22 \'bd carucates is said to include 'appendages' (}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 appendiciis}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ).}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13\tab LAND OF HUGH OF GRANDMESNIL. In the Landholders' List on folio 230b the number }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 XIII}{\cf1\insrsid920401 had been allocated to Earl Hugh, but the main scribe of Great Domesday failed to enter his lands. Hugh of Grandmesnil's lands were intended to be chapte r 14. As a result, the numbers in the List and in the text are one adrift until chapter 18, after which they coincide because the scribe entered the fief of Robert of Bucy (LEC 17) but he is not in the List. During checking he found Earl Hugh's fief and t hen inserted it on a blank folio at the end of the quire, numbering it chapter 43.}{\insrsid920401 \par \tab \tab Hugh came from Grandmesnil in the French d\'e9partement of Calvados, arrondissement Lisieux, canton Sainte-Pierre-sur-Dives. He was the eldest of three sons of Robert de Grand mesnil and Hawise, daughter of Giroie. Robert's fief was divided between Hugh and one of his brothers. Between them they re-founded the monastery of Saint-Evroult, Robert becoming a monk there and later abbot. Robert and Hugh were accused of complicity in a rebellion of Robert son of Giroie, a brother of Hawise, and went into exile in 1061. Robert became an abbot in Sicily, but Hugh was recalled in 1064 and fought at Hastings. He was initially a trusted supporter of King William, was castellan of Wincheste r castle in the vital early period (1066-1069) when William was establishing his rule. By 1086 he was castellan of Leicester castle and probably sheriff of Leicestershire. He was married to Adeliza daughter of Ivo, Count of Beaumont-sur-Oise. The English l a nds she held are separately recorded in Domesday. Hugh supported Robert Curthose as successor to William the Conqueror against William II in 1087-1088, but was allowed to retain his offices. He died in England in 1098 and was buried at Saint-Evroult, wher e he had become a monk.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab His English estates went to his son Ivo, but were lost by him in 1102 after he had joined Robert of Bell\'ea me, Earl of Shrewsbury, in revolt. Ivo attempted to redeem himself by joining the first crusade. His lands were left in the custody of Robert, Count of Meulan, who joined them to his own lands (LEC 9) after Ivo\rquote s death on crusade. They became part of Robert\rquote s earldom of Leicester. See }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 291; Crouch, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 The Beaumont Twins}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ; }{\insrsid920401 Cain, \lquote Introduction\rquote , }{\i\insrsid920401 Leicestershire Domesday}{\insrsid920401 , pp. 17-18; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\insrsid920401 , p. 262. }{\cf1\insrsid920401 At the time of the Leicestershire Survey they were held by the Earl of Leicester; see the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 85-86).}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab In or before 1081 King William confirmed a number of grants made to the Abbey of Saint-Evroult. Hugh of Grandmesnil had given the tithes of various manors [in several counties], with the services of 16 peasants (}{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 rustici}{\cf1\insrsid920401 )}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 as collectors, and nine churches with small amounts of land: Orderic Vitalis, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Ecclesiastical History}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (Chibnall, iii. pp. 232-39); [}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. no. 140 (= Bates, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , no. 255 pp. 770-73);}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , iv. p. 425]. The Leicestershire grants are given here:}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts11\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2595\clshdrawnil \cellx2487\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth6153\clshdrawnil \cellx8640\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid4879481 {\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday Place\cell }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid4879481 { \cf1\insrsid920401 Granted to Saint-Evroult\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\cf1\insrsid920401 \trowd \irow0\irowband0 \ts11\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2595\clshdrawnil \cellx2487\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth6153\clshdrawnil \cellx8640\row }\trowd \irow1\irowband1\lastrow \ts11\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2595\clshdrawnil \cellx2487\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth6153\clshdrawnil \cellx8640\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid4879481 {\cf1\insrsid920401 13,4 Earl Shilton \par [13,10 Kirkby Mallory \par 13,17 Carlton Curlieu \par 13,18 Noseley \par 13,19 Thurcaston \par 13,20 Belgrave \par 13,23 Thurmaston \par [13,32 Peatling Parva \par 13,40 Glenfield \par 13,52 Stoughton \par 13,57 East Thorpe\cell 3 peasants \par 1 peasant] \par 1 peasant with the church and 5 virgates of land \par the church and 2 virgates of land}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 the church and 2 virgates of land \par 2 peasants with the church and 11 virgates of land \par 1 peasant \par the church and all that Leofric used to hold] \par 2 peasants with the church and 2 virgates of land \par 1 peasant \par 1 peasant \par }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid4879481 {\cf1\insrsid920401 \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\cf1\insrsid920401 \trowd \irow1\irowband1\lastrow \ts11\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2595\clshdrawnil \cellx2487\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth6153\clshdrawnil \cellx8640\row }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid4879481 {\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab The position of these tithe collectors is discussed by Lennard, 'Peasant Tithe Collectors'. See 29,3 Melton note and 43,2 Roger note (PM). \par \tab \tab Shilton is alternatively to be identified with Shilton in Warwickshire (WAR 16,45): Bates, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , no. 255 p. 770. The }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 rustici}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('peasants', 'countrymen') are called }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 villani}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('villagers') in the individual grants. \par \tab \tab In Domesday this fief is primarily divided between land held in lordship and land subinfeudated. Basically the standard order of wapentakes occurs in the lordship land and in Robert of Bucy's subtenancy and in the remaining subtenancies, except that two lordship holdings and three subinfeudated lands were initially briefy omitted and included at the end of their respective sections. \par \tab \tab The lordship land (13,1-26) is in three wapentakes in the standard sequence, except that the last two entries are out of sequence, probably briefly overlooked as they are not additions to the manuscript. The subinfeudations begin at 13,27, the main scribe of Great Domesday marking the transition by leaving a line's space; see \{Introduction: Layout and Content\} . He included the four estates hel d by Robert of Bucy (in two wapentakes, in the standard order) before beginning a sequence of subinfeudations (in all four wapentakes) at 13,31. The last three entries of the subtenanted land (13,72-74) are again out of sequence and this may likewise be b ecause the scribe at first missed them when he was working through Hugh's fief in the circuit volume separating the subinfeudated from the lordship holdings; they are not postscriptal. \par \tab \tab Guthlaxton Wapentake: 13,1-12 Lordship land \par \tab \tab Gartree Wapentake: 13,13-18 Lordship land \par \tab \tab 'Goscote' Wapentake: 13,19-24 Lordship land \par \tab \tab [Guthlaxton Wapentake]: 13,25-26 Lordship land (out of order) \par \tab \tab [Gartree Wapentake]: 13,27-29 Subinfeudation \endash Robert of Bucy}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab ['Goscote' Wapentake]: 13,30 Subinfeudation \endash Robert of Bucy \par \tab \tab [Guthlaxton Wapentake]: 13,31-49 Subinfeudations \par \tab \tab Gartree Wapentake: 13,50-59 Subinfeudations \par \tab \tab 'Goscote' Wapentake: 13,60-68 Subinfeudations}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Framland Wapentake]: 13,69-71 Subinfeudations}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Guthlaxton Wapentake]: 13,72-74 Subinfeudations (out of order)}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Among estates held at the time of the Leicestershire Survey by the Earl of Leicester (descent from Hugh of Grandmesnil, Robert of Meulan and Earl Aubrey: chapters 13, 9-10) are some that cannot be or cannot certainly be related to a Domesday holding:}{ \insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab 4 carucates in Cropston (SK5510) in Rearsby Hundred, 'Goscote' Wapentake, not mentioned in Domesday (the }{\insrsid920401 Leicestershire Survey: Slade, pp. 17, 41)}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . These form a 12-carucate unit with Thurcaston in that Survey, but Domesday only mentions Thurcaston (13,19) which it rates at 9 carucates.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab 3 carucates in Dalby-on-the-Wolds in the hundred of that name in 'Goscote' Wapentake (the }{\insrsid920401 Leicestershire Survey: Slade, pp. 17, 42); see 13,63 Wymeswold note. \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab 1 \'bd virgates in Ravenstone in Diseworth Hundred, 'Goscote' Wapentake (the Leicestershire Survey}{\insrsid920401 : Slade,}{\cf1\insrsid920401 pp. 19, 47).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,1\tab WIGSTON [MAGNA]. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 1 HIDE THERE AND THE THIRD PART OF 1 HIDE. Judging by the number of the ploughlands, this hide was the one c ontaining 18 carucates. A further part of Wigston Magna (40,25) is assessed in carucates. For 'hide' apparently used in error for 'carucate', see 39,2 hides note and 43,3 hide note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab THIRD PART OF 1 HIDE IN LORDSHIP. The main scribe of Great Domesday had originally written }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 i. hida}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , but then corrected it by interlining }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 t'cia pars}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 and turning the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 a}{\cf1\insrsid920401 of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 hida}{\cf1\insrsid920401 into a diphthong (= }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 hidae}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ) to show the genitive case. See 1,3 lordship note.} {\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab EARL RALPH. That is, Earl Ralph of Hereford. See 5,2 Ralph note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,2\tab SAPCOTE. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 10,2.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab FROLESWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 9,2.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,3\tab SHARNFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: other parts are in groups of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 3,4. 40,5.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For a grant of Sharnford to Burton Abbey, see 3,4 Sharnford note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab QUEEN'S HOLDING. The Conqueror's queen does not have a separate fief in Domesday, but her lands are normally included with those of the king. Her holding is mentioned here and at 13,11;45;72-73.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab See also Fleming, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday Book and the Law}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 189 no. 948.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SO HE SAYS. Thus Fleming, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday Book and the Law}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 1 89 no. 948. The Phillimore printed translation has 'as he states', the Alecto edition has 'as he says'. In this context the clause (which is colloquial rather than formal) seems to express some doubt as to the truth of the claim. Compare 13,21 says note.} {\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,4\tab [EARL] SHILTON. This was a chapelry of Kirkby Mallory. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 like Kirkby Mallory itself (6,7. 13,7;10;42).}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For a possible grant by Hugh of Grandmesnil to the Abbey of Saint-Evroult, see LEC 13 Hugh note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,5\tab RATBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 13,1). On the possibility that it was formerly an important Mercian royal vill, see Cain, 'Introduction', }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Leicestershire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , pp. 20-21.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab CONCERNING THE JURISDICTION OF THESE [CARUCATES]. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 De soca harum}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 314 note 26, takes }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 harum}{\cf1\insrsid920401 as referring to both Ratby and Groby (13,5-6) 'both of which had been held by Ulf with sac and soc'. It would however, be strange to have this n ote placed between the entries, rather than after them, without adopting the sort of formula used by the main scribe of Great Domesday at 29,1: 'this land and the following'. The sum of the carucates here (6) exceeds that of Ratby (6 carucates less 3 bova t es) by 3 bovates. However, the assessment of Ratby, or one of the figures for the jurisdiction, may be wrong: the 'less 3 bovates' for Ratby may have come from the '6 carucates less 3 bovates' of the succeeding entry (Groby: 13,6). The meaning appears to be 'concerning the jurisdiction of these [carucates]\'85' . }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 seems to have misunderstood the sense in which }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 soca}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is being used here. What appears to be being said is that all the carucates of Ratby are sokes or jurisdictions of four other places. Thus the sentence is parallel to, but more complicated than, 'The full jurisdiction belongs to Bottesford' (15,16).}{ \insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The Phillimore printed translation has '2 carucates of land of the jurisdiction of these'; the Alecto edition has 'Of the soke of these [lands]'.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 2 CARUCATES OF LAND ARE IN 'BROMKINSTHORPE'. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of St Mary de Castro in Leicester. It lay to the south-west of Leicester, beyond Westcotes. On 'Bromkinsthorpe', see 25,3 'Bromkinsthorpe' note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab DESFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. Hugh of Grandmesnil holds more land here at 13,8.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab GLENFIELD. This was an Ancient Parish. Hugh of Grandmesnil holds further land here at 13,40.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BRAUNSTONE. This was a chapelry of Glenfield Ancient Parish. Hugh of Grandmesnil holds land here at 13,41.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,6\tab 6 CARUCATES OF LAND LESS 3 BOVATES. See 13,5 jurisdiction note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab GROBY. This place lay in Ratby Ancient Parish, and was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 13,1).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab THESE TWO LANDS. They are Ratby and Groby (13,5-6).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,7\tab KIRBY [MUXLOE]?. This was a chapelry of Glenfield Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 25,4. For the identification, see 6,7 Kirkby note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,8\tab DESFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 13,1).}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,9\tab STAPLETON. This was a chapelry of Barwell Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086. For another part, see 7,1. This entry is probabl y the estate of 1 carucate at Stapleton mentioned in 6,4 as belonging to Barwell. If so, it is an alienation from St Mary's of Coventry.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,10\tab KIRKBY [MALLORY]?. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part appears to be in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 6,7. For the identification, see 6,7 Kirkby note.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For a grant by Hugh of Grandmesnil to the Abbey of Saint-Evroult, see LEC 13 Hugh note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,11\tab NEWBOLD [VERDON]. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxt on Wapentake in 1086: another part finishes a group of three places (13,72-74) initially passed over in the account of Guthlaxton Wapentake (LEC 13 Hugh note).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BRASCOTE. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Newbold Verdon. It was almost certainly in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like Newbold Verdon.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab THE QUEEN'S HOLDING. See 13,3 holding note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,12\tab PECKLETON. This was an Ancient Parish. The entry terminates a list of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake begun at 13,1.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,13\tab ILLSTON[-ON-THE-HILL]. This was a chapelry and township of Carlton Curlieu. It was in Gartree Wapentake in 1086 and was in the same wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 24, 34), where it }{\insrsid920401 is held by the Earl of Leicester (as 9 carucates). }{\cf1\insrsid920401 For its later history, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. }{\insrsid920401 164-65.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,14\tab THORPE [LANGTON]. The Ancient Parish of Church Langton lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086 and contained the township of East Langton and the townships and chapelries of West Langton, Thorpe Langton and Tur Langton. Domesd ay Book and the Leicestershire Survey distinguish Tur Langton from other places simply called Langton. Thorpe Langton is called }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Torp}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . Church Langton does not seem to have had a separate manorial existence: only East Langton and West Langton are distinguished in, for example, }{\i\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid920401 , p. 165. \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The present estate lay in Gartree Wapentake (in Langton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 14, 30).}{\insrsid920401 In that}{\i\insrsid920401 }{\insrsid920401 Survey the holding of the Earl of Leicester at}{ \i\insrsid920401 Langeton'}{\insrsid920401 , amounting to 11 carucates and 1 virgate, corresponds approximately to 11 \'bd carucates held by Hugh of Grandmesnil at }{\i\insrsid920401 Torp}{\insrsid920401 (Thorpe Langton: 13,14) and }{\i\insrsid920401 Langtone}{\insrsid920401 (East Langton: 13,57) . It appears that all the 'Langton' estates in Domesday, including }{\i\insrsid920401 Torp}{\insrsid920401 (2,1. 5,1. 13,14;57. 16, 6. 17,18) were a single assessment unit amounting originally to 36 carucates.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid920401 For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 205-208.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,15\tab STOCKERSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Gartree Wapentake at 40,21. It was in the same wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 23, 33). In that Surv}{ \insrsid920401 ey, which is partiallly defective at this point, an unknown number of carucates are held by Richard }{\i\insrsid920401 de Rollon[s]}{\insrsid920401 in Stockerston. }{\cf1\insrsid920401 For the later history of this estate, see }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 304-306.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Edwalton in Nottinghamshire (NTT 23,1), held in 1066 by Countess Goda (= Gytha: NTT 10,5 countess note) in 1066 and by Hugh of Grandmesnil in 1086, was attached to Stockerston.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 33 FREEMEN. The main scribe of Great Domesday altered the number of Freemen to }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 xxxiii}{\cf1\insrsid920401 and interlined }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 ta}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (for }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 triginta} {\cf1\insrsid920401 ) to clarify his correction.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,16\tab BURTON [OVERY]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086 and was in the same wapentake (in Kibworth Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 14, 31), where it}{\insrsid920401 is held by the Earl of Leicester. }{\cf1\insrsid920401 For its later history, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 70-73.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,17\tab THERE IS a series of four holes (two large and two tiny ones in between them) in the parchment of the manuscript in the top central part of folio 232; they are patched from the verso of the foli o. The first one did not impinge much on the writing space of the left-hand column of this folio (13,1), but in the right-hand column the second one here and the third (in 13,18) meant that the main scribe of Great Domesday had to write round them conside rably. Farley did not show this here, though he did sometimes.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab CARLTON [CURLIEU]. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Gartree Wapentake at 1,4. It was in the same wapentake (in K ibworth Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 14, 31_.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\insrsid920401 In the Leicestershire Survey 10 carucates of this estate are held by the Earl of Leicester and 5 virgates by the monks of Saint-Evroult, making 1 bovate more than the 11 carucates and 1 b ovate of Domesday (reckoning 2 bovates to a virgate). This grant was apparently made in 1081 but is not mentioned in Domesday; see LEC 13 Hugh note.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 77-78.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,18\tab IN THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday was forced to write round one of the patched holes in the parchment; see 13,17 there note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab NOSELEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086, like the previous entries (heading at 13,13).}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For a grant by Hugh of Grandmesnil to the Abbey of Saint-Evroult, see LEC 13 Hugh note.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 266-67.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab WATER-MEADOW. Old English }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Broc }{\cf1\insrsid920401 came to mean 'a brook', but originally the word (like its cognates Middle Dutch and Dutch }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 broek}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ,}{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Low German }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 brok}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Old High German }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 bruch}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{ \cf1\insrsid920401 Modern German}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 bruch}{\cf1\insrsid920401 )}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 meant 'marsh, bog', etc., a sense retained by }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 brook }{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('water-meadow') in Modern English dialects of Kent, Sussex, Surrey, and in medieval field names in Cambridgeshire and Essex. See }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 English Place-Name Elements}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 51, and }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Oxford English Dictionary}{\cf1\insrsid920401 under }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 brook }{\cf1\insrsid920401 (PM). }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Broce}{\cf1\insrsid920401 here is the genitive of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 broca}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , a first declension Latinization of the Old English word; see HEF 24,2 water-meadow note for other forms. Water-meadow is also recorded here in 44,2.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,19\tab THURCASTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 and was in the same wapentake (in Rearsby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 16, 41), where it is a fee of the Earl [of Lei cester] assessed at 8 carucates.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab It had been held }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 by Leofwin, then passed with other of his and his son Leofric's lands to Geoffrey of la Guerche (LEC 29). King William acquired Thurcaston by giving to Geoffrey }{\insrsid920401 Stanton-under-Bardon, East Norton, Cold Newton, Little Dalby and Withcote (29,1-2;15;19-20). It subsequently came into the hands of Hugh of Grandmesnil, presumably by royal gift: LEC 29 Geoffrey note; 29,1 Thurcaston note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For a grant by Hugh of Grandmesnil to the Abbey of Saint-Evroult, see LEC 13 Hugh note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab LEOFWIN. See LEC 29 Geoffrey note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,20\tab BELGRAVE. Only recently renamed, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Merthegrave quae nunc alio nomine Belegrava dicitur }{\cf1\insrsid920401 ['}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Merthegrave}{\cf1\insrsid920401 which is now called by another name } {\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Belegrava}{\cf1\insrsid920401 '] (Orderic Vitalis, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Ecclesiastical History}{\cf1\insrsid920401 : Chibnall, iii. p. 236), although the English name persisted: it appears as }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Mardegraue}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 16). }{\insrsid920401 Ekwall,}{\i\insrsid920401 Dictionary of English Placenames}{\cf1\insrsid920401 suggests that the first element of the original name, Old English }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 mearth}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('a marten'), would have resembled, to the Norman ear, French }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 merde}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('shit'); hence the subsitution of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 bel}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('fine') (PM); see now }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 Place-Names of Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , iii. p. 46. Marefield (}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Merdefelde}{\cf1\insrsid920401 and }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 alia Merdefelde}{\cf1\insrsid920401 : 1,3) escaped this beauty treatment.}{ \insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Belgrave was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 and was in the same wapentake (in Ashby [Folville] Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 16, 40), where the Earl of Leicester holds 12 carucates, which would more than account for the 7 carucates held in Belgrave by Hugh of Grandmesnil and for the 1 carucate held by his wife (41,1). The discrepancy of 4 carucates would be partially accounted for in the grant of 11 virgates (= 2 carucates and 3 virg ates) to Saint-Evroult. \par \tab \tab For a grant by Hugh of Grandmesnil to the Abbey of Saint-Evroult, see LEC 13 Hugh note. \par \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , iv. pp. 421-22.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,21\tab BIRSTALL. This was a chapelry of Belgrave Ancient Parish and like Belgrave (13,20) and another part of Birstall (13,61) no doubt lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086. It was in the same wapentake (in Ashby [Folville] Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 16. 40) where it }{\insrsid920401 is held by the Earl of Leicester. There he holds 9 carucates which is one carucate more than the combined total for Hugh of Grandmesnil's two holdings at Birstall (13,21;61).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 5 OUNCES OF GOLD. Here and in 13,61 the ounces of gold are the only payment/value in 1086; most of the other oc currences in Domesday, all but three of which also relate to 1086, are linked with a value or payment in pounds. The payment in ounces of gold was probably an ancient one; in Bedfordshire three royal manors paid varying amounts to the queen and to the she r iff as part of a series of renders that included half a day['s provisions], a packhorse and customary dog dues (BDF 1,1a;2a;3), while in KEN 4,2 one ounce of gold is linked with the payment of a porpoise. See HEF 1,2 gold note. Apparently there was little gold available so the payments would have been made in silver at 15s an ounce: Grierson, 'The Monetary System under William I', p. 75 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 The Story of Domesday Book}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 113). If so, the 1086 value would have been \'a33 15s.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab ALWIN BUXTON?. Thus Tengvik, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Old English Bynames}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 223, although 'Buckstone' would be better, but }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 pbochestan }{\cf1\insrsid920401 could be the result of a miscopied spelling for a place-name like Wroxton, Oxfordshire, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Werochestan }{\cf1\insrsid920401 (OXF 36,1), in which }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 w}{\cf1\insrsid920401 - has been represented by the runic letter }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 wynn}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (PM). In DEV 3,25;38 and SOM 8,1 the main scribe of Great Domesday misread the initial }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 P}{\cf1\insrsid920401 of the place-name in the corresponding entry in Exon in each case as the runic }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 wynn}{\cf1\insrsid920401 and wrote }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 W}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . Stenton in}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 315 note 28, suggested scribal carelessness and that }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 h}{\cf1\insrsid920401 or }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 l}{\cf1\insrsid920401 should be substituted for the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 b}{\cf1\insrsid920401 which would give }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 phochestan}{\cf1\insrsid920401 or }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 plocheston}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . As }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 ph}{\cf1\insrsid920401 often became }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 f}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (and occasionally vice versa) in place-names, Alwin could have come from a place called Foxton; there is a Foxton in 1,4 and 40,16, but these are lands of the king and Countess Judith respectively and not of Hugh of Grandmesnil.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SAYS THAT THE KING GAVE IT TO HIM. The Phillimore printed translation has 'states' for Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 dicit}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , which suggests a formality that the word will n ot bear. Compare 13,3 says note and 29,20 say note.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab See also Fleming, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday Book and the Law}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 189 no. 949.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab THAT.}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 The Latin is}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 quia}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , implying an indirect statement and in use in the Vulgate and the Fathers and not, as in }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 315, a scribal error for }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 quod }{\cf1\insrsid920401 (PM).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,22\tab ANSTEY. This was a chapelry of Thurcaston Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 like the surrounding entries and like Thurcaston itself (13,19). It was in the same wapentake (in Ash by [Folville] Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 16, 41), where it}{\insrsid920401 is held by the Earl of Leicester, but as 6 carucates. Domesday has 2 carucates, but 6 carucates is probably correct in view of the purported grant of 24 virgates (= 6 carucates) by the third Earl of Leicester to the monks of Leicester Abbey (}{ \i\insrsid920401 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid920401 , vi. p. 464).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab OTHER WOODLAND. The Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 alia silva}{\cf1\insrsid920401 simply means 'another wood'. The Phil limore printed translation has 'additional woodland'. It is rare for such a distinction to be made and it is assumed that the usual Domesday measurements of area by length and breadth include all the estate's woodland in single assessable rectangle, howev er dispersed the woodland may have been on the ground.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,23\tab THURMASTON. This was a chapelry of Belgrave Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 like the surrounding entries and like Belgrave itself (13,20) and another part of Thurmas ton (13,62). It was in the same wapentake, in Ashby [Folville] Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 16, 39-40), where no assessment figure is given for the Earl of Leicester's holding.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For a grant by Hugh of Grandmesnil to the Abbey of Saint-Evroult, see LEC 13 Hugh note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab HUGH HAS THIS AS A MANOR. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Hanc habet Hugo pro uno manerio}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . The Phillimore printed translation is: 'Hugh has this as one manor'. }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Hanc}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 (feminine) refers to }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 villam}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('village') which is understood. By using 'one' for }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 uno }{\cf1\insrsid920401 the}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Phillimore translation might suggest that the matter in dispute was how many manors there were. This was a common preoccupation of those involved in the Domesday Survey, and in the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Terrae Occupatae}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in the }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 Liber Exoniensis}{\cf1\insrsid920401 there are many accounts of two }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 manors having been merged into one, as here in 13,63. No }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 holders are given in the present entry, but if two men had held Thurmaston as two manors, some reference to this would have been expected. \par }{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid920401 If }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 uno}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is being used simply like the French indefinite article 'a' (as it is fairly often in Domesday), then Hugh is claiming this estate as a manor. However, Leicestershire is not a county where estates are systematically designated as manors, outliers or jurisdictions and the assumption i s that, in the absence of indications to the contrary, Hugh's estates are manors. It is possible that in the circuit volume, as in Exon, a manor was called a }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 mansio}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('manor') and that this information was a casualty of abbreviation. The present sentence cou ld have been carried over in its entirety from the circuit volume but its true significance lost by compression of the previous information. On the other hand, the main scribe of Great Domesday may have intended the reader to understand that Hugh's estate s were manors and this sentence corrects the assumption in a particular instance.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BUT THE SHIRE DENIES IT. That is, a meeting of the shire-court, probably the one at which the evidence gathered by the Domesday Enquiry was sworn to.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab See also Fleming, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday Book and the Law}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 189 no. 950.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,24\tab HUMBERSTONE. This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 like the surrounding entries and was in the same wapentake, in Ashby [Folville] Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slad e, pp. 16, 40).}{\insrsid920401 \par \tab \tab In the Leicestershire Survey, this estate (9 carucates in Domesday) appears to be held by Roger de Ramis (8 carucates) and Walter de Musters (1 carucate). \par \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid920401 For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 439-40.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab [EARL] SHILTON. That is, Hugh of Grandmesnil's estate there (13,4).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,25\tab [IN GUTHLAXTON WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading depends on the likely locaton of Swinford in 1086: 13,25 Swinford note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SWINFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a Guthlaxton Wapentake head at 17,7.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 1 VILLAGER HAS IT. Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 hanc}{\cf1\insrsid920401 refers back to the last-mentioned feminine word}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab which is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 car'}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('plough'). See also 3,16 and 13,33;72.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,26\tab BRUNTINGTHORPE. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 (heading supplied at 13,25). Another part is in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 44,6.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SMEETON [WESTERBY]. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Kibworth Beauchamp. It represents the merging of two separate settlements, Smeeton and Westerby, which were still separate in the fourteenth century: }{ \i\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid920401 , p. 165}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . Although Bruntingthorpe was in Guthlaxton Wapentake, Kibworth Beauchamp and Smeeton Westerby were probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086. This estate was in the same wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 23, 27, 34). For other parts of Smeeton Westerby, see 1,4. 13,29. 19,11.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 184-85.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab MEADOW, 8 ACRES. Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 ac}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 ra}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 s}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is accusative after }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 h}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [ }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 abe}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 nt}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('have'). The woodland is apparently not part of their holding but of Bruntingthorpe itself.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab IS AN ADJUNCT OF LEICESTER. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 iacet ad}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . This implies a dependent relationship, rather as }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 adiacet }{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('is attached to') does, and not a geographical proximity (which is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 iacet in}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ). The Phillimore printed translation has 'lies in'; the Alecto edition has 'belongs to'. The same phrase occurs at 19,9. 27,2. 29,18 and 44,11.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 13,27\tab [* IN GARTREE WAPENTAKE *]. }{\cf1\insrsid920401 The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 13,27 "Lestone" note. If this insertion is correct, it cancels the [in Gartree Wapentake] inserted at 13,29 in the Phillimore printed translation.}{ \insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab ROBERT OF BUCY. He is also a tenant-in-chief in Leicestershire (LEC 17); see LEC 17 Robert note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab "LESTONE}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ".}{\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 This was identified as Thurlaston }{\insrsid920401 (SP5099)}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in the Phillimore printed edition (as in }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire }{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 315, and the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday Gazetteer}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ) with the note: 'this was probably a detached portion of Gartree Wapentake under which heading it is entered in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 23)' (PM). Thurlaston was an Ancient parish.}{\insrsid920401 \par \tab \tab In the Leicestershire Survey }{\cf1\insrsid920401 (Slade,}{\insrsid920401 pp. 23, 33) this estate is a single one of 12 carucates (the combined total of 13,27-28), held by Richard Basset from the Earl of Leicester. However, its name-form is there given as }{\i\insrsid920401 Leyton}{\insrsid920401 . Generally the forms of that Survey are more reliable than those of Domesday, and, if this is the case here, }{\i\insrsid920401 Leyton}{\insrsid920401 cannot be an early form of Thurlaston. The place-name }{\i\insrsid920401 Letitone}{\insrsid920401 in the borough entry (C11) seems likely to be the same estate as }{\i\insrsid920401 Lestone}{\insrsid920401 (C11 }{\i\insrsid920401 Letitone}{\insrsid920401 note), but is formally closer to }{\i\insrsid920401 Leyton}{\insrsid920401 than it is to }{ \i\insrsid920401 Lestone}{\insrsid920401 . It seems probable therefore that }{\i\insrsid920401 Lestone, Letitone}{\insrsid920401 and }{\i\insrsid920401 Leyton}{\insrsid920401 all refer to the same estate. It is still possible that all are early forms of Thurlaston, but that the second and third are erratic. However, it seems more probable that it is the Domesday form }{\i\insrsid920401 Lestone}{\insrsid920401 that is erroneous and that this is a place, better represented by the form }{\i\insrsid920401 Leyton}{\insrsid920401 , that remains unidentified. The fact that identification with Thurlaston would mean that this estate would be a detached portion of Gartree Wapentake in the middle of Guth laxton Wapentake lends force to this doubt. The place has been left unidentified here. \par \tab \tab In }{\i\insrsid920401 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid920401 , iii. p. 97, Thurlaston, Normanton (SP4998) and Croft (13,37) are held from the Earl of Leicester. It is possible that in Domesday Croft alone stands for these three places. \par \tab \tab In the manuscript }{\i\insrsid920401 LESTONE}{\insrsid920401 can be read, but the final letter is unclear in the}{\cf1\insrsid920401 Ordnance Survey facsimile and}{\insrsid920401 it appears as }{\i\insrsid920401 LESTONS}{\insrsid920401 in th }{\cf1\insrsid920401 eAlecto facsimile; see 2,6 Keythorpe note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,28\tab "LESTONE". See 13,27 "Lestone" note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BALDWIN [* SON OF HERLEWIN *]. }{\insrsid920401 Baldwin's father, Herlewin, came to England even before the reign of Edward the Confessor. Baldwin himself had a substantial holding before the Conquest and survived to hold under the Conqueror. The bulk of his holdings can b e established from his distinctive pre-Conquest name and the links which this establishes. His holdings in 1086 were significantly different from those in 1066, only two being in his hands at both dates (BUK 17,15;24). Broadly speaking, his pre-Conquest l a nds were re-distributed to Hugh of Grandmesnil and William son of Ansculf, with Miles Crispin obtaining three holdings and several other tenants-in-chief a manor apiece. William son of Ansculf then re-endowed him with the bulk of his post-Conquest fee. Se e Chris Lewis, 'The French in England before the Norman Conquest', }{\i\insrsid920401 Anglo-Norman Studies}{\insrsid920401 , vol. 17 (1995), pp. 123-44; Clarke, }{\i\insrsid920401 English Nobility}{\insrsid920401 , pp. 257-58; both lists include only Baldwin's pre-Conquest holdings (JP).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 13,29\tab SMEETON [WESTERBY]. }{\cf1\insrsid920401 This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Kibworth Beauchamp. It represents the merging of two separate settlements, Smeeton and Westeby which were still separate in the fourteenth century: }{\i\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid920401 , p. 165}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . Kibworth Beauchamp and Smeeton Westerby were both probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086. Other parts (1,4. 19,11) appear among places in that wapentake. It was in the same wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 23, 34) where it }{\insrsid920401 is held by Richard Basset from the Earl of Leicester as 5 carucates, less 1 virgate (= 1 bovate more than in Domesday). }{\cf1\insrsid920401 For its later history, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. }{ \insrsid920401 184-85. \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The Phillimore printed edition supplied an 'In Gartree Wapentake' heading above this entry, but it seems rather that the inscribing of places in this wapentake began at 13,27; see 13,27 "Lestone" note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,30\tab [IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 13,30 Twyford note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab TWYFORD.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 and was in that wapentake (in Loddington Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 15, 36).}{\insrsid920401 \par \tab \tab In the Leicestershire Survey, this 2-carucate estate appears to be treated as one with the 4 \'bd-carucate estate held by the king (1,3). That Survey has the king holding 5 carucates of which Grimbald holds \'bd carucate and King David (of Scotland) 1 carucate. The editor of the Leicestershire Survey points out, however, that if these two small sub infeudations were additional to, rather than part of the 5 carucates, the total would be the same as in Domesday. In the Survey, these estates are said to lie at Thorpe Satchville (SK7311) and Twyford. Another, remoter, possibility is that these 2 carucat es are those appearing in Beeby Hundred in the Leicestershire Survey }{\cf1\insrsid920401 (Slade,}{\insrsid920401 pp. 15, 37). However, these 2 carucates seem too far from Twyford to be connected with it and may, rather, represent Domesday }{ \i\insrsid920401 Torp}{\insrsid920401 ; see 10,14 "Torp" note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,31\tab [IN GUTHLAXTON WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 13,31 Oadby note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab OADBY. }{\cf1\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a Guthlaxton wapentake head at 40,1. It was in the same wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 26, 59), where the Earl of Leicester holds an estate of the same size.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,32\tab ANOTHER PEATLING [PEATLING PARVA]. The Phillimore printed translation has 'the other Peatling' here and 'another Peatling' for the same phrase at 41,2. Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 alia}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is strictly 'another', }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 alter}{\cf1\insrsid920401 being 'the other'. This use of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 alia}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is essentially scribal and administrative. It is used in lists where an estate called Peatling (for example) is entered and the scribe encounters another place of the same name. Thus }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 alia}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is 'another estate called Peatling'. As such it gives no indication as to whether there were recognizable separate settlements called Peatling Magna and Peatling Parva in existence in 1086. If, however, the list concerns places or vills, rather than estates, then 'another (vill called) Peatling' probably implies the existence of a distinct and separate settlement. However, there are many examples of its use in Domesday and other doc uments where only one settlement has ever been evidenced. Moreover, the term does not apply to a particular estate, only to the one that is listed second. If the order is reversed, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 alia}{\cf1\insrsid920401 still applies to the second to be entered. Thus, in the present case }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 alia}{\cf1\insrsid920401 could equate with either Peatling Magna or Peatling Parva, depending which is listed first; see Thorn, 'Manorial Affixes'.}{ \cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab What is surprising in the present instance is that only one Peatling is mentioned in this fief, yet it is called }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 alia Petlinge}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . In fact this phrase must have been mechanically transferred through several stages of the Domesday process, as in the case of similar examples in Northamptonshire and Oxfordshire (NTH 18,8. OXF 9,10). In a text arranged like the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , a group of estates (8,1. 17,1. 40,2. 44,5) would have been listed in Guthlaxton Wapentake at }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Petlinge}{\cf1\insrsid920401 and immediately afterwards two more (13,32. 41,2) at }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 alia Petlinge}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . In these cases, later evidence shows which estates were at Peatling Magna and which at Peatling Parva.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Peatling Parva was an Ancient Parish. For another part, see 41,2.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For a grant by Hugh of Grandmesnil to the Abbey of Saint-Evroult, see LEC 13 Hugh note. From that it transpires that a former holder was called Leofric. It is unclear whether he held }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 or in William I's reign, or both. No 1066 holder is given in Domesday.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab ANOTHER [PLOUGH]. Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 alia}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 m}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ] refers to the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 car'}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in the plough estimate. The Phillimore printed translation has 'the other'.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,33\tab SHEARSBY. This was a chapelry and township of Knaptoft Ancient Parish, and like it (10,1), probably lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086. Other parts appear to be in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 8,2 and 10,6.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab FROM THE ALMS [LANDS] OF THE KING. The king's almslands form a small ch apter of their own (LEC 8) and 2 carucates in Shearsby are there held by Quentin's wife (8,2). It is not obvious why this entry is in Hugh of Grandmesnil's fief, and it may have been erroneously included in it because Huard, Hugh's tenant, held the previo usly entered estate (13,32).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab IN PLEDGE. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 in vadimonio}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . It appears that someone holding 1 carucate in Shearsby of the king's almsland had pledged (mortgaged) it to Huard, presumably in exchange for a loan of money. If he defaulted on the payment , the land could, in theory, have become Huard's, except that in this case, being almsland, it would probably have reverted to the king.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab See also Fleming, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday Book and the Law}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 189 no. 951. She has 'in mortgage'.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab IT. That is, the half-plough; see 13,25 villager note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,34\tab SAPCOTE. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 10,2.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab [1] \'bd PLOUGHS. No figure is given, but it is probably 1 (PM).}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 13,35\tab IVO [* OF GRANDMESNIL *]. Hugh de Grandmesnil had a son, Ivo, who died in the White Ship disaster (Orderic Vitalis, }{\i\insrsid920401 Ecclesiastical History}{\insrsid920401 : Chibnall, vi. pp. 304-305). He may be the Ivo recorded here and in 13,44;50-51;65), in Northamptonshire (NTH 23,9;12) and in Bedfordshire (BDF 54,4): the name Ivo is uncommon and the office of steward an honourable one, see Mason, 'Barons and their Officials', p. 256. He may also have held land from the Earl of Shrewsbury in Sussex: Keats-Rohan, }{ \i\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\insrsid920401 , p. 282 (JP).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab WILLOUGHBY [WATERLESS]. This was an Ancient Parish. Another part is in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 40,6 and it is mentioned in Hinckley Hundred in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 26, 58), though no holder or assessment figure are given (the text is defective).}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,36\tab WILLOUGHBY [WATERLESS]. See 13,35 Willoughby note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,37\tab ROBERT'S WIFE. Robert of Bucy holds from Hugh of Grandmesnil (13,27-30) and another Robert holds from him with Serlo (13,63). This woman could, in theory be the wife of either of these Roberts. However, }{\insrsid920401 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\insrsid920401 , p.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 442, probably rightly, identifies her with the wife of a different Robert, Robert Burdet. The wife of Robert Burdet holds land from Robert of Bucy (17,29) but his son hol ds from Hugh of Grandmesnil (13,41;53). Robert Burdet was presumably dead by 1086. He was alive in 1077 because he appears in the foundation charter of Monks Kirby (Warwickshire): }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , vii. p. 996; }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 292.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab CROFT. This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 like the surrounding entries. Another part is in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 10,7.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the possible constituents of Croft in 1086, see 13,27 "Lestone" note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,38\tab OSBERN [* OF NEUF-MARCHE *]. This man was probably the ancestor of the Neufmarch\'e9 family (}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 de Novo Mercato }{\cf1\insrsid920401 in Latin) who held Osbern's fees later. They were from Neuf-March\'e9 in the d\'e9partement of Seine-Maritime, arrondissement Dieppe, canton Gournay-en-Bray; see }{\insrsid920401 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\insrsid920401 , pp.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 314-15, referring to Hugh of Grandmesnil's tenant here and in 13,57, in NTH 23,5-7 and in WAR 18,14.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BROUGHTON [ASTLEY]. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 (heading supplied at 13,31). Another part is directly below a Guthlaxton Wapentake head at 40,8.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,39\tab ENDERBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 like the surrounding entries.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,40\tab GLENFIELD. This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 like the surrounding entries.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For a grant by Hugh of Grandmesnil to the Abbey of Saint-Evroult, see LEC 13 Hugh note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,41\tab ROBERT BURDET'S SON. Manuscript error 'Burdel' for 'Burdet', see 13,53 (PM). See 13,37 wife note. Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 258, suggests that he was Hugh Burdet who was a tenant of Countess Judith (40,12-14;24).}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BRAUNSTONE. This was a chapelry of Glenfield Ancient Parish. It was no doubt in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like Glenfield itself (13,40). For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 , iv. pp. 428-30.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,42\tab KIRBY [MUXLOE]?. If correctly identified, thi s was a chapelry of Glenfield Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 25,4. For the identification, see 6,7 Kirkby note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,43\tab ARNOLD . It is likely that He nry of Grandmesnil's subtenant here and elsewhere in his Leicestershire fief (13,45-46;64;66-67) was the same person: no other people with this name occur in this county. Arnold, the tenant of Hugh's wife in Bedfordshire (BDF 54,2), is probably also the s ame individual: he is also the only person with that name there. \par \tab \tab }{\insrsid920401 See also Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\insrsid920401 , p. 191 (JP).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SUTTON [CHENEY]. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Market Bosworth. Market Bosworth itself appears to be in Guthlaxton Wapenta ke at 9,5 and another part of Sutton Cheney is directly below a Guthlaxton wapentake head at 7,1.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 13,44\tab IVO [* OF GRANDMESNIL *]. See 13,35 Ivo note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab CADEBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It was most probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, as probably are 13,43 and 13,46 (13,45 being unidentified but probably in the same wapentake).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab LAND FOR 1 PLOUGH. IN LORDSHIP HOWEVER, 1 PLOUGH. The Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 tamen}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('however') may have been included because with the plough held by the 'villagers' the estate was overstocked , though there are many examples in Domesday Leicestershire of more ploughs recorded than in the estimate, but without }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 tamen}{\cf1\insrsid920401 .}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,45\tab ARNOLD . See 13,43 Arnold note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab "NEULEBI".}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Dr Barrie Cox suggests that this is possibly 'Nagli's }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 by}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ', with vocalization of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 g }{\cf1\insrsid920401 after a back-vowel to form a dipthong with the preceding vowel and Anglo-Norman substitution of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 e }{\cf1\insrsid920401 for }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 a. }{\cf1\insrsid920401 The Old Scandinavian personal name }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Nagli }{\cf1\insrsid920401 is an original byname 'nail, spike'. However, the place-name may be an early Scandinavianization of Old English }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Naeglestun }{\cf1\insrsid920401 (which is Nailstone in Sparkenhoe Hundred). The earliest securely dated form for the latter is otherwise }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Naylestone}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 1225. The Old English personal name }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 Naegl }{\cf1\insrsid920401 is unrecorded, but cf. }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Naegling }{\cf1\insrsid920401 in }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Beowulf }{\cf1\insrsid920401 line}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 2680; a byname directly parallel to Old Norse }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Nagli }{\cf1\insrsid920401 (PM).}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The order of estates at this point suggests that }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Neulebi}{\cf1\insrsid920401 lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab THE QUEEN'S HOLDING. See 13,3 holding note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,46\tab ARNOLD . See 13,43 Arnold note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab BARLESTONE. Thi s was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Market Bosworth. Market Bosworth itself appears to be in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 9,5 and another part of Barlestone is among places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 17,10. It was in the same wapentake (in Sparkenhoe Hun dred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 26, 59), where a holding of 3 carucates less 1 virgate (the same as in Domesday) is recorded but no holder is given. \par \tab \tab Between 1002 and 1004, by his will, Wulfric Spot gave land }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 aet Beorelfestune}{\cf1\insrsid920401 along with other lands to Burton Abbey and the gift was confirmed in 1004 by King Ethelred (Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , nos. 1536, 906 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Early Charters of Northern England}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 98 nos. 39-40; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. xxiv). This estate has been identified with Barlaston in Staffordshire (STS 11,24), but the name-form (}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Bernvlvestone}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ) makes the identification with the Leicestershire place (}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Bervlvestone}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ) more likely. There is, however, no trace of a holding of Burton Abbey here in Domesday.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,47\tab IN THIS ENTRY and the next (13,48) the main scribe of Great Domesday was forced to write round the topmost of three patched holes in the parchment; see 13,17 there note. Farley did not show this.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SHEEPY [PARVA]. This was an Ancient Parish and appears from the surrounding e ntries to have lain in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like Sheepy Magna (14,12). The Parva refers to its size (1 carucate) as opposed to Sheepy Magna's two.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,48\tab IN THIS ENTRY and the previous one (13,47) the main scribe of Great Domesday was forced to write round the topmost of three patched holes in the parchment; see 13,17 there note. Farley did not show this.}{ \cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab WULFBERT . }{\insrsid920401 Wulfbert is an uncommon name, occurring on fewer than twenty holdings in Domesday Book, none of them close enough, or wi th tenurial associations or other links, to be plausibly connected with this modest holding at Cotesbach (JP).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab COTESBACH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,49\tab IN THE SAME VILLAGE. That is, in Cotesbach; see 13,48 Cotesbach note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 13,50\tab IVO [* OF GRANDMESNIL *]. See 13,35 Ivo note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab EVINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. Both parts of Evington (13,50. 17,6) lie directly beneath Gartree wapentake heads in Domesday, and are likewise in that wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 23, 34). }{ \insrsid920401 In that Survey, this estate is held by the Earl of Leicester. }{\cf1\insrsid920401 For its later history, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , iv. pp. 434-36.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 5 \'bd PLOUGHS. The missing \'bd plough is probably that held in lordship on the other estate at Evington (17,6).}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,51\tab HE ALSO. See 13,35 Ivo note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab [OLD] INGARSBY. }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 In GERBERIE}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , written by the main scribe of Great Domesday, is a mistake}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 for }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 In INGERBERIE}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 ; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 317 note 30. The error may have occurred at any stage in the Domesday process. Compare KEN M14 Deal note. In C11 the form of this place-name is }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 Inuuaresbie}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , closer to the modern form. \par }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid920401 This was a settlement in Hungarton Ancient Parish and like the surrounding entries, it no doubt lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086. It became a grange of Leicester Abbey, was enclosed and depopulated. The site of the deserted medieval village is at SK688051; see Hoskins, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Essays in Leicestershire History}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 , pp. 75-79; }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Place-Names of Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , iii. pp. 152-53.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 5 PLOUGHS. These were probably shared by the villagers, smallholders, man-at-arms and the Frenchmen.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \'a34. Scribe B added }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 iiii lib'}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in a space left for it by the main scribe of Great Domesday. The pen and paler ink used suggest that it was done at the same time as scribe B's work on 14,3;6. 24,2. The fact that the 1086 value here was not available to the main scribe suggests that it was not in the circuit volume and that scribe B had to search elsewhere for it. He added the value in 17,20;31 and corrected the main scribe's work on the value in 17,15. For scribe B's other contributions to Leicestershire, see 3,7 carucates note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,52\tab STOUGHTON. This was a chapelry of Thurnby Ancient Parish. The adjacent entries suggest that it lay in Ga rtree Wapentake in 1086. Stoughton probably encompassed Thurnby (SK6503) and Bushby (SK6404) as well. For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 322-29. \par \tab \tab For a grant by Hugh of Grandmesnil to the Abbey of Saint-Evroult, see LEC 13 Hugh note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,53\tab ROBERT BURDET'S SON. See 13,37 wife note and 13,41 Robert note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab GAULBY. In the manuscript }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 GALBI}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is lined through in vermilion as usual, but this is not reproduced in the Alecto facsimile; see 2,6 Keythorpe note. Gaulby was an Ancient Parish, the name of the parish sometimes being spelt Galby. The estate probably lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086 like the surrounding entries.}{\insrsid920401 \par \tab \tab In the Leicestershire Survey, Gaulby does not appear, but in it the Earl of Leicester holds 10 \'bd carucates and Richard Basset 1 carucate in Kings Norton (pp. 24, 35). These must represent part of Hugh of Grandmesnil's estate at Gaulby of 13 carucates and 2 bovates. }{\cf1\insrsid920401 However, the combin ed total of the estates at Kings Norton and at Gaulby in Domesday (1,4. 13,53) is 17 carucates and 6 bovates whereas those listed under Kings Norton in the Survey total 16 carucates (or 16 carucates and 1 virgate if the readings of other entries in the Sl oane Roll are adopted). This discrepancy would then be eliminated if Domesday had included 1 \'bd carucates of Gaulby twice, once under the land of the king (1,4) and once in this estate of Hugh of Grandmesnil. Under this estate there is a subholding of 1 caru cate and 3 bovates held by 2 men-at-arms, but it is difficult to be certain that this is a duplicate of the royal estate of 1 \'bd carucates.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 97-98; Hoskins, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Essays in Leicestershire History}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , pp. 24-66.}{ \cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,54\tab FRISBY. This was a chapelry of Gaulby Ancient Parish. Both places were no doubt in the same wapentake (Gartree). Frisby was in the same wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey, pp. 24, 34. The present site of Frisby is not the original one: the medieval village was centred on SK708016.}{\insrsid920401 \par \tab \tab In the Leicestershire Survey, under Frisby, there are two holdings of the Earl of Leicester (6 carucates and 11 carucates, and 1 virgate respectively) and 3 carucates held by Richard Basset (whose lands normally descended from Robert of Bucy). Robert of Bucy holds nothing in Frisby in Domesday and Hugh of Grandmesnil holds only 2 carucates there. The details of the Domesday estate do not suggest that the 2-carucate assessment is erroneous. Slade (}{ \i\insrsid920401 Leicestershire Survey}{\insrsid920401 , p. 34) suggests that Richard Basset's 3 carucates might be an error for 3 virgates, in which case his and the Earl of Leicester's estate of 11 carucates and 1 virgate would form a unit of 12 carucates. He notes that Noseley (13,18), a nearby estate, is assessed at 12 carucates with the implication that it might be included under Frisby in that Survey. This still leaves 4 carucates unaccounted for. \par \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid920401 For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 98-99.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,55\tab HUGH [* OF GOUVILLE *]. On the possible identification of this Hugh, see C12 Hugh note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SHANGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 13,50) and was in that wapentake (in Langton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 14, 30). There}{\insrsid920401 the Earl of Leicester holds 10 carucates here which more than accounts for the 4 carucates of Hugh (13,55) and the 2 carucates held by the king (1,4). It seems that an estate of 4 carucates is missing from Domesday, or its figures are wrong. }{ \cf1\insrsid920401 For its later history, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. }{\insrsid920401 293-95. \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the possibility that Shangton is the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Scenctone}{\cf1\insrsid920401 of Wulfric Spot's will, see 10,5 Shenton note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,56\tab HUGH [* OF GOUVILLE *]. On the possible identification of this Hugh, see C12 Hugh note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab STONTON [WYVILLE]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086. Another part apparently begins a group of places in Gartree Wapentake at 40,28. It was in the same wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 23, 32), where it }{\insrsid920401 is held by Richard Basset. }{\cf1\insrsid920401 For its later history, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. }{\insrsid920401 309-11.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,57\tab OSBERN [* OF NEUF-MARCHE *]. See 13,38 Osbern note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab [EAST] LANGTON. The Ancient Parish of Church Langton lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086 and contained the township of East Langton and the townships and chapelries of West Langton, Thorpe Langton and Tur Langton. Domesday Book and the Leicestershire Survey distinguish Tur Langton from other places simply called Langton; Thorpe Langton is called }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Torp}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . Church Langton does not seem to have had a separate manorial existence: only East Langton and West Langton are distinguished in, for example, }{\i\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid920401 , p. 165. \par \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid920401 This estate was in Gartree Wapentake (in Langton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 14, 30), where the }{\insrsid920401 Earl of Leicester holds 11 carucates and 1 virgate in }{\i\insrsid920401 Langeton'}{ \insrsid920401 . This figure corresonds approximately to the 11 \'bd carucates which is the sum of two holdings of Hugh of Grandmesnil, one at }{\i\insrsid920401 Torp}{\insrsid920401 (Thorpe Langton: 13,14) and the present one at }{\i\insrsid920401 Langtone}{\insrsid920401 (Langton). It might appear, therefore, that this holding was actually at Thorpe Langton (}{\i\insrsid920401 Torp}{\insrsid920401 : 13,14), and it was so identified in the Phillimore printed edition. However, the honour of Leicester certainly held land in Langton as well, no doubt in East Langton which is adjacent to Thorpe Langton; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 196-97. }{\insrsid920401 It appears that all the 'Langton' estates in Domesday, including }{\i\insrsid920401 Torp}{\insrsid920401 (2,1. 5,1. 13,14;57. 16,6. 17,18) were a single assessment unit amou nting originally to 36 carucates.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid920401 For a grant by Hugh of Grandmesnil to the Abbey of Saint-Evroult, see LEC 13 Hugh note.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 205-208.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,58\tab [GREAT] GLEN. This was an Ancient Parish. The two entries for Great Glen seem to bring to an end a group of places in Gartree Wapentake begun at 13,50. For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 103-105. Glen Parva was a chapelry of Aylestone Ancient Parish) was some distance away and not to be sought in the present two estates of Glen.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 3 FEMALE SLAVES. This corrects '2' of the Phillimore printed translation.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,59\tab IN THE SAME VILLAGE. That is, in Great Glen (13,58).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,60\tab SYSTON. This was an Anci ent Parish. It lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 and in the same wapentake (in Rearsby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 16, 41) where it is held by the Earl of Leicester and assessed at 12 carucates.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,61\tab BIRSTALL. This was a chapelry of Belgrave Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 like the surrounding entries and like Belgrave itself (13,20. 41,1). Another part of Birstall (13,21) is in a group of places in 'Goscote' Wapentake. It was in the same wapentake (in Ashby [Folville] Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 16, 40).}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\insrsid920401 In the Leicestershire Survey, this estate is held by the Earl of Leicester. There he holds 9 carucates which is one carucate more than the combined total for Hugh of Grandmesnil' s two holdings at Birstall (13,21;61).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 3 OUNCES OF GOLD. That is, probably, 45s; see 13,21 gold note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,62\tab THURMASTON. This was a chapelry of Belgrave Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 like the surrounding entries and like Belgrave itself (13,20. 41,1) and another part of Thurmaston (13,23).}{ \insrsid920401 \par \tab \tab This estate of 3 \'bd carucates seems to be represented in the Leicestershire Survey, pp. 16, 39, by 3 carucates held in Barkby Hundred, 'Goscote' Wapentake, by 'the canons', that is the ca nons of St Mary de Castro in Leicester. They had been given this land by Robert, Count of Meulan, and the land was subsequently held by the Abbey of St Mary du Pr\'e9 (}{\i\insrsid920401 de Pratis}{\insrsid920401 ), founded by Robert, the second Earl of Leicester.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,63\tab WYMESWOLD. This was an A ncient Parish. It no doubt lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a 'Goscote' Wapentake head at 18,2. In the Leicestershire Survey, Wymeswold does not appear, but the Earl of Leicester held 3 carucates, otherwise unaccounted fo r in Domesday, in Dalby-on-the-Wolds (SK6622) which is adjacent to Wymeswold, though Wymeswold was assessed at 9 carucates and 5 bovates.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab FRENCHMEN WHO SERVE. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 francig}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 enis}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ] }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 seruientib}{\cf1\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 us}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 ]. The word }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 seruientes}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is the present participle of the verb }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 seruio }{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('to serve', 'to be a slave') which itself is derived from }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 seruus}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('a slave'); the present participle can be used as noun ('servants', 'serving men'). }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Francigena}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is usually translated as 'Frenchman', so the meaning here could be 'Frenchmen, servants', the two nouns being in apposition. The Phillimore printed translation has 'French servants' which would translate }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 francis seruientibus}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 , although the meaning is the same. There are also }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 francigenae servientes}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in SHR 3g,3. DOR 26,9 and WOR 8,11. As he re, they share ploughs with the other population. See SHR 3g,3 Frenchmen note. The fact that they are one of the subjects of the main verb }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 habent}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('have') shows that they were not part of the lordship, though the status of the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 seruientes }{\cf1\insrsid920401 in STS 12,17 is more ambiguous. The noun }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 seruientes}{\cf1\insrsid920401 gives the later 'serjeants', people holding land by serjeanty, and the final chapter in many Domesday counties contains the lands of the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Seruientes Regis}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('the King's Servants or Serjeants'), as here in 42,1-10 (chapters 4 3-44 are later additions), though there is no evidence that this Leicestershire group held by sergeanty; see LEC 42 servants note. In the present entry, however, the Frenchmen who serve were not holding by serjeanty.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 2 MANORS. Changes in the status of land and the making or undoing of manors greatly concerned those who were involved in compiling the material for Domesday Book; see 13,23 manor note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab ONE MANOR. Stenton in }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 291, asserts that this manor-making took place after the conquest. The Latin is certainly odd with its use of both }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 and the vague }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 postea}{\cf1\insrsid920401 as a means of dating.}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 It seems however, that the whole statement is governed by the }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 at its end. Thus, at some time after 1042 (King Edward's accession) the two brothe rs were holding a manor each. Later (but still before 1066) one bought the other out and made one manor. It does not seem possible that the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 unum manerium de duobus. T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 could mean 'one manor from the two that had existed }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 '. If that were the intended meaning, the scribe could easily have written }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 unum manerium de duobus quae ibi erant T.R.E.}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 The Alecto edition preserved the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH}{\cf1\insrsid920401 translation (}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 318) while adjusting it to their conventions, as '1 manor of the 2 [that were there] TRE'.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab See also Fleming, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday Book and the Law}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 189 no. 952. She has 'Later, but still in the time of King Edward' for the purchase of the brother.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 13,64\tab ARNOLD . See 13,43 Arnold note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab SILEBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt la y in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 like the surrounding entries and was in the same wapentake (in Beeby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 15, 24, 38). In that Survey, the Earl of Leicester holds 9 carucates and 6 \'bd bovates in Sileby. The excess over the Domesday figure (8 \'bd carucates) is probably accounted for by the addition of part of the holding in Sileby, a member of the royal manor of Rothley (1,3 Sileby note).}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab 6 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 v car'}{\cf1\insrsid920401 to}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 vi car'}{\cf1\insrsid920401 by t he addition of a minim. He had probably mistakenly repeated the number }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 v }{\cf1\insrsid920401 from the plough estimate.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 13,65\tab IVO [* OF GRANDMESNIL *]. See 13,35 Ivo note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\lang1036\langfe2057\langnp1036\insrsid920401 \tab ASHBY[-DE-LA-ZOUCH]. }{\cf1\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in 'Goscote' Wap entake in 1086 like the surrounding entries and was in the same wapentake (in Seal Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 48). The respective number of carucates are, however, wildly discrepant: 14 carucates in Domesday and 3 carucates in t hat Survey.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WOODLAND, 1 LEAGUE LONG AND 4 FURLONGS WIDE FOR 100 PIGS. In Domesday woodland is almost invariably either measured or described in terms of the pigs that it could feed; the combination of the two is very rare.}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 13,66\tab ARNOLD . See 13,43 Arnold note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ALTON. This appears to have lain in Ravenstone Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 like the surrounding entries and was in the same wapentake (in Diseworth Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 46 ), where the Earl of Leicester's holding is entered in three parts, amounting to 6 \'bd carucates, the Domesday assessment. \par \tab \tab It probably included Blackfordby and 'Kilwardby', entered separately in the Leicestershire Survey, p. 19 (PM). Blackfordby lies at SK3517, 'Kilwardby' lay at SK3516 in the western suburbs of Ashby-de-la-Zouch.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 13,67\tab HE ALSO. On Arnold , see 13,43 Arnold note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab STAUNTON [HAROLD]. This was a chapelry and township of Breedon-on-the-Hill Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in 'Goscot e' Wapentake in 1086 like the surrounding entries. It was in the same wapentake (in Belton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 18, 45), where it is held by Robert de Ferrers. \par \tab \tab On a possible connection with Peterborough Abbey, see LEC 5 Peterborough note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WOODLAND ELSEWHERE. The Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ex altera parte}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 strictly means 'on the other side', 'in the other direction' and could do so here. The settlement of Staunton Harold lies on a tributary of the River Trent in a valley. The western side is well w ooded, the eastern side less so. Indications of location concerning woodland are extremely rare in Domesday as the total woodland for an estate is usually described as a single square or rectangle, whatever the reality on the ground. Here it may have prov e d difficult to incorporate a mere 4 acres in a resource that had been assessed as 5 furlongs by 3 furlongs. It is not clear at what stage in the Domesday process all the woods on an estate were lumped together. It is possible that these 4 acres were disco vered after the circuit volume had been compiled. The Phillimore printed translation has 'from another part'; the Alecto edition has 'on the other side'.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab TWO LANDS. That is, Alton and Staunton Harold (13,66-67).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab FROM EARL W[***]'s HOLDING. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 de feodo .W. comitis}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 : the main scribe of Great Domesday or the scribe of the circuit volume obviously thought that }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 W.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 was sufficient identification. There are two possible contenders - Earl Waltheof and William son of Osbern, Earl of Hereford, both dead in 1086. The Phillimore printed translation has Earl Waltheof with a note by PM on the possible identifications. Stenton (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 318 note 33) remarked on the ambiguity of }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 comes W.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , but favoured Earl Waltheof as he held land in Leicestershi re and translated these words as Earl W(altheof), which was preserved in the Alecto translation. Both Stenton and PM referred to the appearance in Oxfordshire (OXF 59) of the phrase }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 de feudo Willelmi comitis}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab With one exception (SFK 4,15) the phrase }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 de feudo ... comitis}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in Domesday is used in connection with lands that had been forfeited, most of the references (in BRK, GLS, HAM, OXF, WAR) being to Earl Roger of Hereford and to his father Earl William; Earl William died in 1071 and his fief passed to his son Roger, who forfeited it for rebellion. The }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 feudum}{\cf1\insrsid920401 of Earl Ralph Wader of East Anglia is mentioned in Suffolk, and that of Earl Aubrey in BUK B12 (see LEC 10 Aubrey note). There is no reference to }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 feudum}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in connection with Earl Waltheof. In all these ca ses the forfeited land had not been fully re-granted by King William, though, as in OXF 59, this did not prevent the holders of individual estates being mentioned: they may have been Earl William's subtenants. The land of the Bishop Odo of Bayeux, who was in prison at the time of the Domesday Survey is also described as a }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 feudum}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , though some of the lands of other holders, who had done no wrong, are also so described (see 13,3 holding note). Although Earl Waltheof had also rebelled, his lands passed either t o his wife Countess Judith (LEC 40 Judith note) or to others: there was no block of his land unallocated, as there was of the other earls.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 13,68\tab HUGH [* OF GOUVILLE *]. On the possibility that this is Hugh of Gouville, see C12 Hugh note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WHITWICK. This wa s an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086, like the preceding entries, and was in the same wapentake (in Belton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 18, 46). There, however, the Earl of Leicester holds 1 \'bd carucates, 1 carucate more than the Domesday extent.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 13,69\tab [IN FRAMLAND WAPENTAKE]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 13,69 Waltham note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WALTHAM[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086; another part (24,2) is the second of three places in that wapentake. The present estate was in the same wapentake, in Waltham[-on-the-Wolds] Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 21, 54) where it is held by the Ear l of Leicester.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the evidence that places called Waltham are in origin royal estates close to a forest, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Place-Names of Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 271.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 13,70\tab THORPE [ARNOLD]. This was an Ancient Parish. It was no doubt in Framland Wapentake in 1086 as i t was (in [Nether] Broughton] Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 21, 53). There the Earl of Leicester holds an estate of 12 carucates in Thorpe Arnold and 6 carucates in Brentingby. These 18 carucates correspond exactly to the 15 carucates and 3 carucates in the two estates at Thorpe Arnold (13,70-71) in Domesday. Clearly Brentingby (SK7818) was an unnamed part of the 1086 estate.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 13,71\tab THORPE [ARNOLD]. See 13,70 Thorpe note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 13,72\tab [IN GUTHLAXTON WAPENTAKE]. For the insertion of this head, see 13,72 Bosworth note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab HUGH [* OF GOUVILLE *]. On the possibility that this is Hugh of Gouville, see C12 Hugh note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [MARKET] BOSWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. Another part (9,5) seems to have lain in Guthlaxton Wapentake (heading at 9,1) as it did later (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Rolls (1334)}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 160).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab A PRIEST WITH A DEACON. More than one priest on an estate can be taken as the sign of a 'minster' church: }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Blair, 'Secular Minster Churches'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . The deacon coul d have been the head of a collegiate establishment, but Domesday's treatment of churches in this county is very deficient, only six (all in Leicester) are mentioned; see \{Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\} and \{Introduction: Layout and Content \}.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab HAVE IT THERE. Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Hanc h}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 abe}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 nt ibi}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ; the }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 hanc}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 refers to the last-mentioned feminine word, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 car'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('plough'); compare 3,16. 13,25;33. The use of the plural is grammatically incorrect: it should be singular }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 h}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 abe}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 t}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('has') as in 13,69.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 13,73\tab HE ALSO. On the possibility that this is Hugh of Gouville, see C12 Hugh note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab BARTON[-IN-THE-BEANS]. This was a township of Nailstone Ancient Parish. It seems, like the surrounding entries, to have lain in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THE QUEEN'S HOLDING. See 13,3 holding note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 13,74\tab HUARD HOLDS. The main scribe of Great Domesday omitted 'from Hugh' after this, probably in error, as occasionally elsewhere in Great Domesday.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab NEWBOLD [VERDON]. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 13,11.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left blank a fifth of a column, a larger space than he had left after any of the other fiefs, perhaps because he thought he might find more subtenanted lands during checking (\{Introduction: Writing and Correction\}).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14\tab LAND OF HENRY OF FERRERS. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 He came from Ferri\'e8res-Saint-Hilaire, in the French d\'e9partement of Eure (arrondissement Bernay, canton Broglie). In Normandy he was lord of Longu eville. His father, Walkelin de Ferri\'e8 res, died before 1040. In England Henry held a large fief in more than a dozen counties. His principal English manor was at Tutbury (in Staffordshire) where, with his wife, he founded a priory dependent on Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives in Normandy. He died }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 c}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 .1101. His third son Robert inherited and became first Earl of Derby in 1138. His descendants held the honour of Tutbury and were earls of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. After Robert II of Ferrers lost the barony in 1266, it passed to Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, then to Thomas, likewise earl. Following his execution in 1322 the castle of Tutbury and the honour were granted to John, Earl of Cornwall, younger son of King Edward II. See }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 292;}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Loyd, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 42; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 247. \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab At the time of the Leicestershire Survey this fief is held by Robert de Ferrers, Henry's third son; see Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 87-88). Among estates that he held some that ca nnot be or cannot certainly be related to a Domesday holding:}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab 1 \'bd carucates in Whitwick in Belton Hundred, 'Goscote' Wapentake: the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 18, 46).}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab 6 carucates and 1 virgate in Diseworth in Diseworth Hundred, 'Goscote' Wapentake: the Leicestershire Survey}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (Slade, pp. 19, 46).}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab 1 carucate in 'Kilwardby' in Diseworth Hundred, 'Goscote' Wapentake: the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 46); see 13,66 Alton note. \par \tab \tab \'bd carucate in Buckminster and Sewstern in Sproxton Hundred, Framland Wapentake: the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 22, 55.) \par \tab \tab 2 carucates and 1 virgate in Ashby Parva in Gilmorton Hundred, Guthlaxton Wapentake: the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 26, 59).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab The estates in this fief are not arranged with the clarity that is normal in Leicestershire. It appears that the main scribe of Great Domesday intended to enter land held in lordship first, but the order of this first section (14,1-8) is confused, and the status of some of the lands uncertain, although some of them appear in the Leicestershire Survey held by Robert de Ferrers so they were apparently entered in the correct fief in Domesday. It may be that the scribe promoted Henry's principal estate at Stap l eford out of normal wapentakal order. A new sequence begins at 14,9 with lands in Guthlaxton Wapentake which would normally have been entered first in the fief. After one lordship estate, the scribe left a line's space, then began the subinfeudated lands ( still in Guthlaxton Wapentake), but included one lordship holding that he had omitted in error (14,12; see 14,12 Sheepy note). These subinfeudations are entered in the standard order, except that an estate in 'Goscote' Wapentake interrupts the sequence at 14,30, and another estate in the same wapentake seems appended at 14,34: \par \tab \tab [Framland Wapentake]: 14,1 Lordship land (possibly his principal estate entered out}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 of sequence) \par \tab \tab ['Goscote' Wapentake]: 14,2-3 (14,2 is lordship land; no holder is given for 14,3,}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 though it is probably Henry of Ferrers himself) \par \tab \tab [Framland Wapentake]: 14,4-6 (no holder is given for 14,4, though it is probably}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Henry of Ferrers himself as the land belongs to Stapleford (14,1). 14,5-6 are}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 lordship lands) \par \tab \tab ['Goscote' Wapentake]: 14,7 (no holder is given for this estate and it is entered out of}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 sequence, unless 14,4-6 are regarded as interrupting a group of estates in 'Goscote'}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wapentake begun at 14,2) \par \tab \tab [Framland Wapentake]: 14,8 (no holder is given, though it can be assumed to be}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Henry of Ferrers himself). It is entered out of sequence.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Guthlaxton Wapentake]; 14,9-15. This is a mixture of lordship land (14,9;12) and}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 subinfeudations (14,10-11;13-15). After 14,12, no further lordship land is entered}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in the fief. \par \tab \tab Gartree Wapentake: 14,16 Subinfeudation}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab ['Goscote' Wapentake]: 14,17-28 Subinfeudations}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Framland Wapentake]: 14,29 Subinfeudation}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab ['Goscote' Wapentake]: 14,30 Subinfeudation. This appears to interrupt the group of}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 places in Framland Wapentake (14,30 "Windeshers" note)}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Framland Wapentake]: 14,31 Subinfeudation}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab ['Goscote' Wapentake]: 14,34. Subinfeudation, entered out of sequence.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,1\tab [IN FRAMLAND WAPENTAKE].}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 14,1 Stapleford note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab STAPLEFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086. The same land was in the same wapentake (in Stapleford Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 22, 56), held by Robert de F errers, though only assessed at 10 carucates.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Two-thirds of the lordship tithes together with 1 villager were given by Henry of Ferrers to Tutbury Priory (Staffordshire), his foundation (1087 x 1100): according to the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, no. 51 p. 63).}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 4 CARUCATES IN LORDSHIP. See 1,3 lordship note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,2\tab [IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 14,2 Tonge note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab TONGE. This lay in the Ancient Parish of Breedon-o n-the-Hill. It was no doubt in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086, as it was (in Tonge Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 18, 44). There Robert de Ferrers holds 12 carucates with appendages, in contrast to the Domesday figure of 21 \'bd carucates for Tonge with its dependencies; on these figures, see 14,3 Worthington note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Between 1002 and 1004, by his will, Wulfric Spot gave an estate }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 aet Twongan}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 along with other lands with reversion to Burton Abbey and the gift was confirmed in 1004 by King Ethelred (Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , nos. 1536, 906 = }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Early Charters of Northern England}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 71 nos. 39-40; see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. xvii, and no. 22 pp. 35-36). }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Twongan }{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 has been identified with Tong in Shropshire, but it seems more likely to be the place in Leicestershire. Moreover, it is possible that the Domesday estate at Tonge at 21 \'bd carucates included the 13 }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 cassati}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 at Breedon-on-the-Hill, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Aetheres dune}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (Atterton?) and Diseworth (see 27,1), granted by King Edgar (967 for 972) to Bishop Aethelwold for the church at Breedon but apparently not used for that purpose (LEC 5 Peterborough note), and later obtained by Wulfric Spot and earmarked for Burton Abbey. There is, however, no trace of a holding of Burton Abbey here in Domesday.}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ALL ITS DEPENDENCIES. These have not been identified, but could have included Breedon-on-the-Hill.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 3 CARUCATES IN LORDSHIP. See 1,3 lordship note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [***]. This space, suitable for about ten letters and left by the main scribe of Great Domesday after the lordship carucates, was probably for the later inclusion of the lordship ploughs and/or the slaves.}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,3\tab WORTHINGTON. This was a chapelry of Breedon-on-the-Hill Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086, as it did in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 18, 44).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab In that Survey, Robert de Ferrers holds 12 carucates in Tonge and 12 in Worthington. The Domesday figures (14,2-3) are respectively 21 \'bd carucates and 4 carucates. It is possible that the Domesday figures are out of balance because all the dependencies of both Tonge and Worthington have been attributed to Tonge. Even so, there is a difference of 1 \'bd carucates between the Domesday total (25 \'bd carucates) and that of the Survey (24 carucates). While such discrepancies are quite common, two-thirds o f the present one (1 carucate) can be accounted for. Domesday says that an Alwin is claiming that 1 carucate of Worthington belongs to the king's manor of Shepshed (1,10). In the Leicestershire Survey}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (Slade, p. 18) the assessment is given as follows: }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 In Wrdintona iii car' secundum cartam Regis et secundum dictum hominum hundredi xii car}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ' ('In Worthington 3 carucates according to the king's 'charter', 12 carucates according to the word of the men of the hundred'). The men's word, or the report of it, is not pellucid in sense, but it appears that they are reporting on the issue of the carucate that might belong to Shepshed: the king's 'charter' (really a writ) has resolved the issue by confiming that the assessment of Worthington is three carucates, not four . Presumably the king did not comment on the overall assessment of Tonge and Worthington, but the men conclude that if the 1 carucate is deducted and the resulting figure (ignoring a \'bd carucate discrepancy) is applied to the total of Tonge and Worthington a nd, furthermore, an equal division is made between them, there are 12 carucates in each. The carucate that has been removed from Worthington by the king's writ duly appears held by Richard Basset in Belton Hundred in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 18, 25, 28, 45). For a discussion, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicesteshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 349; Slade, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Leicestershire Survey}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 44; see also 14,3 claims note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab On a possible connection with Peterborough Abbey, see LEC 5 note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ALWIN CLAIMS. The dispute was settled soon after: 'In Worthington 3 carucates}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 according to the king's charter': the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 18). The disputed 1 carucate was returned to}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Shepshed: 'In Worthington 1 carucate of the holding of Shepshed' (the Leicestershire Survey}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 : Slade,}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 p. 28) (PM). Alwin's interest in the estate is unclear. See 14,3 Worthington note; see also Fleming, }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday Book and the Law}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 18 no. 953.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THE KING'S [MANOR OF] SHEPSHED. Scribe B interlined }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 regis}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 r}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 extending downwards to act as an insertion mark, probably at the same time as three other pieces of work in Leicestershire; see 13,51 \'a34 note. The meaning would have been clearer if he had also interlined }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 manerium}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('manor') before }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 regis}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . For other contributions in this county, see 3,7 carucates note. For Shepshed, see 1,10.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,4\tab [* IN FRAMLAND WAPENTAKE *]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 14,4 Saxby note. It makes redundant the insertion of [In Framland Wapentake] above 14,5 in the Phillimore printed translation.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab SAXBY.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a Framland wapentake head at 40,40. It was in the same wapentake (in Sproxton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 22, 55), where it is held by Robert de Ferrers, but as 3 carucates.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WHICH BELONG TO STAPLEFORD. That is, to Henry of Ferrers' estate there (14,1). This corrects the Phillimore printed translation which has 'belongs'.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab A MILL AT 2s; MEADOW, 60 ACRES. Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ac}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ra}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 s}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is accusative after }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 h[abe}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 nt}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 earlier in the line; although the case of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 molin'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is unclear, the villagers appear to have had it as well as the meadow (unless this is a scribal error: 14,24 meadow note). 2 mills and 130 acres of meadow are recorded in the main holding of Stapleford (14,1). Compare 15,7 mill note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab VALUE. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 precium}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (= }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 pretium}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ), meaning 'price' or 'value'. The Phillimore printed translation has 'assessment', but i t is preferable to reserve that word for 'assessment for tax', as in 'it paid tax for 3 hides' or 'it answered for 1 virgate'. This sentence replaces the usual value clause; the 'assessment' is given in the entry as 5 carucates. Compare 43,1 value note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,5\tab COSTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries and was in the same wapentake, in Waltham[-on-the-Wolds] Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 21, 54), where it is held by Rober t de Ferrers.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Two-thirds of the lordship tithes together with 1 villager were given by Henry of Ferrers to Tutbury Priory (Staffordshire), his foundation (1087 x 1100) according to the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, no. 51 p. 63).}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,6\tab EDMONDSTHORPE AND WYM ONDHAM. Both places were separate Ancient Parishes and both were probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086. Edmondsthorpe makes its only appearance here in the Leicestershire folios, but Wymondham is in a group of places in Framland Wapentake at 17,32. Both are in the same wapentake (in Stapleford Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade,}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 pp. 22, 56) and similarly under a joint heading; Robert de Ferrers holds them.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 2 CARUCATES IN LORDSHIP; 7 PLOUGHS THERE. The main scribe of Great Domesday had originally written }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 est i car'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and then later corrected the }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 i}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 to }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ii}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , but failed to correct the singular verb }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 est}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 to the plural }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 sunt}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . Scribe B noticed this error and converted the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \'e7}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 to }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 st'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , at the same time as he interlined }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in dominio}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 which had been omitted by the main scribe. The words }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 7 ibi}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 before the '7 ploughs' were also corrected over erasure by the main scribe. The entry had obviously caused him some problems and his use of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 De hac t}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 er}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ra}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 before this lordship statement is very unusual. Scribe B's work here was probably done at the same time as three other pieces of his work; see 13,51 \'a3 4 note. For his other contributions in Leicestershire, see 3,7 carucates note. On the rare inclusion in Domesday Leicestershire of lordship land, see 1,3 lordship note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,7\tab [IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE]. For the insertion of this head, see 14,7 Seagrave note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab SEAGRAVE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in 'Goscote' Wapentake at 17,23.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,8\tab [IN FRAMLAND WAPENTAKE].}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The insertion of this heading is based on a deduction of where Wyfordby probably lay in 1086; see 14,8 Wyfordby note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WYFORDBY.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086: other parts are in groups of places in Framlan d Wapentake at 18,4 (heading at 18,3) and at 29,3. These two parts of Wyfordby appear in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 21, 53) in [Nether] Broughton Hundred, Framland Wapentake, but the present estate is missing.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,9\tab [IN GUTHLAXTON WAPENTAKE]. For the insertion of this head, see 14,9 Orton note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ORTON[-ON-THE-HILL]. This was an Ancient Parish. On geographical grounds it probably lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086; it is in that wapentake in }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 159.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Two-thirds of the lordship tithes together with 1 villager were given by Henry of Ferrers to Tutbury Priory (Staffordshire), his foundation (1087 x 1100) according to the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, no. 51 p. 63).}{ \insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [***]. The rest of the line, left blank after }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 WORTONE}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 by the main scribe of Great Domesday, was probably for the later insertion of a wapentake head.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,10\tab NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. That this is Nigel of Stafford is shown by the fact that his son, William de Gresley, is found holding two estates i n the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 46) that Nigel held in Domesday (14,30;34). The account of Guthlaxton Wapentake is very defective in the Leicestershire Survey, hence the omission of this holding in the extant version.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The origin and the source of Nigel's title are unknown. He is not attested as a son of Robert of Stafford nor was he sheriff of Staffordshire. He was ancestor of the de Gresley family (named from Gresley, Derbyshire). }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 See }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Derbyshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 306; Round, 'Origin of the Shirleys and of the Gresleys'; }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 302.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab TWYCROSS. This was a chapelry of Orton-on-the-Hill, an Ancient Parish, and like it (14,9) probably lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,11\tab GOPSALL. This appears to have been an extra-parochial place in the Middle Ages. In 1086 it no doubt lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake like the surrounding entries.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,12\tab SHEEPY [MAGNA]. This was an Ancient Parish and appears from the surrounding entries to have lain in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like Sheepy Parva (1 3,47). The Parva refers to its size (1 carucate) as opposed to Sheepy Magna's two. The Ferrers holding was }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Magna Shepeye}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Feudal Aids}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , iii. p. 102; see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 239. \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday had probably briefly omitted this e ntry, which belonged with that of Orton-on-the-Hill (14,9), the only other lordship holding in Guthlaxton Wapentake, hence its appearance in the account of subinfeudated lands.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,13\tab ROGER [* OF LIVET *]. This Roger is probably Roger of Livet, identifiable from his benefactions to Tutbury Priory; see 14,31 Roger note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab CONGERSTONE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries. Another part is in a run of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 19,7.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,14\tab WAZELIN . A man of this name is also a tenant of Henry of Ferrers in Sutton-on-the-Hill in Derbyshire (DBY 6,39) and Warwickshire (WAR 19,3;5). As this name only occurs in eight entries in Domesday Book, it is unlikely that there were two dif ferent tenants of Henry bearing it. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 445 (under Walchelin, though that is a different name to Wazelin: Forssner, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 239), identifies him with the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Vasolinus }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 who was a benefactor of Tutbury Priory (the Tutbury Cartulary: Saltman,}{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 p. 65) and as a possible relative of Henry of Ferrers and ancestor of the (de) Boscherville family.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab SMOCKINGTON. This was in the Ancient Parish of Aston Flamville, lying within Burbage which was a chapelry. It probably lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,15\tab ROGER [* OF LIVET *]. See 14,31 Roger note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab SHENTON. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Market Bosworth. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: other parts are in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 10,5 and 16,2.}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the possibility that Shenton is the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Scenctune}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 of Wulfric Spot's will, see 10,5 Shenton note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,16\tab HOUGHTON[-ON-THE-HILL]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the preceding entries.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 158-60.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab EARL WALTHEOF. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 He was the son of Earl Siward. H is father was Earl of Northumbria and Earl of the Middle Angles, and so of Huntingdonshire and of some neighbouring counties, probably including Northamptonshire. On Siward's death in 1055, Waltheof was too young, so Northumbria, Huntingdonshire and North amptonshire went to his Tosti brother of Earl (later King) Harold..The northern revolt against Tosti's harsh rule in 1065 led to Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire being given to Waltheof, while Northumbria went to Morcar, }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 the son of Earl Algar }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and his wife Aelfeva, grandson of Earl Leofric and Countess (Lady) Godiva and brother of Earl Edwin}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Waltheof married Countess Judith, William the Conqueror's niece. In 1075 he plotted with Earl Ralph (of Ga\'ebl, also known as Earl Ralph Wader) of Norfolk and Suffolk, who was married to the daughter of Earl William (son of Osbern) and with Earl Roger of Breteuil and Hereford (the son of Earl William). After the capture of Earl Roger by King William, Earl Waltheof went abroad and admitted his treason, returning to Engl and when King William seemed to regard it lightly. However he was imprisoned and subsequently beheaded (on May 31st 1075). He was buried at Crowland Abbey.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab COUNTESS JUDITH CLAIMS IT. On Countess Judith, see LEC 40 Judith note. On the claim, see Fleming, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday Book and the Law}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 189 no. 954.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,17\tab [IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 14,17 Ashby note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ASHBY [FOLVILLE]. This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake; another part (40,32) appears to begin a group of estates in 'Goscote' Wapentake. It was in the same wapentake (in Ashby [Folville] Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey ( Slade, pp. 16, 40), if this one-carucate holding is represented by the 1 carucate held by Hugh of Leicester, or by one of the 5 carucates held by King David (of Scotland) which is additional to the 4 carucates held in 1086 by Countess Judith (40,32 Ashby note).}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab There was another Ashby in 'Goscote' Wapentake, Ashby-de-la-Zouch, and two other Ashbys (Ashby Magna and Ashby Parva) in Guthlaxton Wapentake.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab IT BELONGS TO 'NEWBOLD FOLVILLE'. See 40,33. The phrase }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 pertinet ad}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 implies that Ashby Folville was a me mber of 'Newbold Folville' rather than in a jurisdictional relationship. It is possible, therefore, that this estate rightly belonged to Countess Judith.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,18\tab MEGINTA. The Domesday form is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Mechenta }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 through Anglo-Norman substitution of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ch}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 for}{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 g}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 :}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 von Feilitzen, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , \'a7\'a7 128, 157. This is the continental German feminine personal name }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Maganza }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 derived from}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Meginta}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ,}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Meginza }{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (tenth and eleventh}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 century): F\'f6rstemann, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Personennamen}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 1072 (PM).}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab COLEORTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in 'Goscote' Wapentake at 17,28. It was in the same wapentake (in Belton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 18, 45), where Henry of Ferrers' two holdings of 1 carucate (14,18;28) at Coleorton are represented by a single 2-carucate unit held by Robert de Ferrers at }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 alia Ouerton'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (the preceding entry is for }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Ouerton'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 held by Richard Basset and representing Robert of Bucy's holding in Coleorton at 17,28). This use of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 alia}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is a scribal device meaning 'another estate at Coleorton and does not necessarily imply the existence of a separate 'village'; see Thorn, 'Manorial Affixes'.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,19\tab ROBERT [* SON OF WIDELIN *]. Robert here and in 14,20-22 can be identified as Robert son of Widelin from his grant of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Steyle}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (Overseal or Netherseal) to Tutbury Priory (Staffordshire), founded by Henry of Ferrers: }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , iii. p. 392; the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, no. 52, p. 65);}{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 292; }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 387. For another subtenant of Henry of Ferrers called Robert, see 14,29 Robert note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab SEAL. The various estates called 'Seal' in Domesday Leicestershire are represen ted by Netherseal, an Ancient Parish, which included the settlement of Overseal. They were no doubt in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086. Another part of one of these places called 'Seal' is directly below a 'Goscote' wapentake heading at 39,1. Both the estates held by Henry of Ferrers (14,19-20) are in the same wapentake (in Seal Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 47), where they are held by Robert de Ferrers. In that Survey the second estate is called }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 alia Seyla}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . On this use of Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 alia}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 to emphasize that two places of the same name refer to different holdings (but not necessarily to separate settlements or 'villages'), see Thorn, 'Manorial Affixes'.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Netherseal and Overseal are now distinct settlements, but it is not certain that they were so in 1086 or when the separate naming occurred. The two estates held by Henry of Ferrers were of approximately the same size and had the same 1086 subtenant. It seems impossible to distinguish between them here, even though }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p 320, and }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday Gazetteeer}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , followed by the Phillimore printed edition called them (Nether) Seal and (Over) Seal respectively.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Netherseal and Overseal were transferred to Derbyshire in 1897 (PM). They had previously been at the western end of a peninsula of Leicestershire which also contained Boothorpe and Donisthorpe; see \{ Introduction: The County Boundary\}.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,20\tab HE ALSO. Robert son of Widelin; see 14,19 Robert note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ANOTHER [ESTATE CALLED] SEAL. See 14,19 Netherseal note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 21 VILLAGERS. Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 uill}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 anu}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 s}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , nominative singular; see 7,2 villagers note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,21\tab HE ALSO. Robert son of Widelin; see 14,19 Robert note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab BOOTHORPE. This was in Ashby-de-la-Zouch Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in 'Goscote Wapentake in 1086 and was in the same wapentake (in Seal Hundr ed) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 48), where it is held by Robert de Ferrers.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,22\tab HE ALSO. Robert son of Widelin; see 14,19 Robert note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab APPLEBY [PARVA]. Appleby was an Ancient Parish containing the settlements of Appleby Magna and Appleb y Parva. From the order of entries in this chapter it appears that it lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake and this estate reappears in the same wapentake (in Seal Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 48). Another portion (11,2) appears to have bee n in the adjacent wapentake of Guthlaxton. It seems likely that 'Appleby' was in 1086 and at the time of that Survey}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 divided between wapentakes with Appleby Magna (3 carucates: 11,2) in Guthlaxton Wapentake and Appleby Parva (1 carucate) an outlier of 'Goscote' Wapentake.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab In the Leicestershire Survey, Robert de Ferrers holds this estate, though it is there rated as 1 carucate and 1 bovate. }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Parva Appelby}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is a Ferrers fee in }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Feudal Aids}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , iii. p. 102 and is included in Guthlaxton Wapentake in }{\i\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid920401 , p. 158; see }{\i\insrsid920401 Book of Fees}{\insrsid920401 , pp. 946, 948. \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab A further part of Appleby (Appleby Magna) was in Derbyshire (DBY 3,2), the Ancient Parish being divided between the t wo counties. On the first edition Ordnance Survey one-inch map (sheet 63; reprinted 1970 as sheet 43) the boundary between the counties passes through the settlement of Appleby Magna and there are two detached portions of Derbyshire in Appleby Parva. The s ituation was rationalized in 1889 when two separate Civil Parishes, Appleby Magna North in Derbyshire and Appleby Magna South in Leicestershire were created. At that stage no change to the county boundaries was involved. However, the two parishes were reu nited and placed in Leicestershire in 1897 in the context of other nearby boundary changes; see \{Introduction: The County Boundary\}.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab MEADOW, 3 ACRES. These were presumably part of the Freemen's holding, as }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ac}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ra}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 s}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is accusative after }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 h}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 abe}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 nt}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,23\tab NIGEL. Possibly Nigel of Stafford or Nigel of Aubigny: 14,10 Nigel note and 14,23 carucates note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab SWEPSTONE. This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 like the surrounding entries and was in the same wapentake (in Seal Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 48).}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab In the Alecto facsimile the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 SCOPESTONE}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 of the manuscript can be misread as }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 SCOPEBTONE}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ; see 2,6 Keythorpe note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ESBIORN . }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The holdings of Esbiorn in Leicestershire are likely to have been held b y one man, the property at Swepstone which devolved upon Henry of Ferrers being adjacent to that in Heather, acquired by Countess Judith. The nearest other holding was a tiny property at Willoughby-on-the-Wolds in Nottinghamshire (NTT 30,35), without disc ernible links and unlikely to be connected to the Leicestershire holdings (JP).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 2 CARUCATES. An entry in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 19) relating to }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Sela}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (Netherseal or Overseal: 39,1) records that Henry de }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Alben'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (Aubigny) has 2 carucates 'which belong to the assessment of (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ad defencionem de}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 )}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Swepstone'. It is tempting to see the present 2 carucates as duplicated in that entry for 'Seal' (39,1). Partially in favour of this is that the overall assessment of Swepstone in Domesday is 10 carucates, wh ereas in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 48) it is 6 carucates, held by Robert de Ferrers. Deducting 2 carucates for the duplication would bring the discrepancy down to 2 carucates. However, there are several other differences between the caruca g e in Domesday and the Survey in Seal Hundred and it is possible that some members or fiscal obligations had been transferred from estate to estate; for a tabulation, see the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 48). If these estates are duplicates, then the p resent Nigel is probably not Nigel of Stafford (14,10 Nigel note) but Nigel of Aubigny (LEC 39).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LEOFRIC. The main scribe of Great Domesday began to write }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Leuricus}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 but stopped after the second }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 u}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and then erased it, though he used both }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Leuric}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Leuricus}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 for Old English }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Leofric}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , sometimes for the same person as in 15,15-16.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WHOSE LAND BISHOP OSMUND HOLDS FROM THE KING. Osmund was Bishop of Salisbury, 1078-1099 (PM).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The Phillimore printed translation reads 'Leofric, whose land Bishop Osmund holds from the king, held the rest of the land'. This could be taken as a general statement, implying that Leofric was Bishop Osmund's }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 antecessor}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 here and elsewhere. In fact, there appear to be no other cases in Domesday where a Leofric held land that was later in th e hands of Bishop Osmund. If, as seems likely, the reference is only to this present estate, it appears to contradict or correct what is said above, that Nigel holds the 10 carucates of Swepstone. If in fact he only holds 2 carucates (possibly at 'Seal': 14,23 carucates note), and Bishop Osmund holds 8 carucates from the king, then these latter should have been included in the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Terra Regis}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (LEC 1) or Bishop Osmund should have had a separate fief. He holds land from the king in Berkshire (BRK 1,34). \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab See also Fleming, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday Book and the Law}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 189 no. 955.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,24\tab GLADWIN . }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The tiny holding at Newton has the characteristics of a peasant holding and was over 20 miles from any other Gladwin, without tenurial associations with any of them. It was probably the sole property of this man (JP).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab NEWTON [BURGOLAND]. This was in Swepstone Ancient Parish. The order of entries suggests that this place, containing two successive estates (14,24-25) was in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086; It was in the same wapenta ke (in Seal Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 48), where a single estate is held (as 2 carucates) by Robert de Ferrers, corresponding approximately to the total of 1 \'bd carucates for the two Domesday estates.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The fact that it is the Newton close to 'Seal' distinguises this holding in Newton Burgoland from Cold Newton ( 29,15. 42,2-3) in the same wapentake, though in a different hundred (29,15 Newton note).}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab MEADOW, 2 ACRES [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday mistakenly wrote }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ac}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ra}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 s}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , accusative, for }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ac'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (= }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 acrae}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , nominative) as there is no verb 'to have' or 'to hold' in the sentence. Compare 14,29 villager note and 17,21 mill note. He left the remaining third of the line blank after }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 p}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ra}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ti}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , presumably for the value.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,25\tab IN THE SAME VILLAGE. On Newton Burgoland, see 14,24 Newton note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ROGER [* OF LIVET *]. See 14,31 Roger note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,26\tab JOHN . He is probably the same as Henry of Ferrers' subtenant in Derbyshire (DBY 6,62-63). He gave two-thirds of the tithes of }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Suberia}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ( possibly Sudbury, DBY 6,30), }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Eston'}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (possibly Aston, DBY 6,28) and }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Oslaweston' }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (Osleston: DBY 6,63) to Tutbury Priory, Henry of Ferrers' foundation: the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, pp. 64-65 no. 52 = }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , iii. p. 392 no. II). However, an Alchere, not a John, is recorded as a subtenant of Sudbury and of Aston in Domesday Derbyshire. See Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 284.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WOODCOTE. This was in Ashby-de-la Zouch Ancient Parish. The order of entries suggests that this place was in 'Goscote ' Wapentake in 1086 and it was in the same wapentake (in Diseworth Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 47), where Robert de Ferrers holds 1 \'bd carucates, \'bd carucate less than the size of the Domesday holding.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab No population is recorded for this estate and no space left in the text, perhaps in error; compare 8,1.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,27\tab OSGATHORPE. This was an Ancient Parish. Like the surrounding entries it appears to have been in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 and was in the same wapentake (in Seal Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 28, 48), where it is held by Hugh the sheriff as \'bd carucate, rather than the 1 carucate of Domesday; see 14,28 Donisthorpe note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,28\tab ROGER [* OF LIVET *]. See 14,31 Roger note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab STRETTON[-EN-LE-FIELD]. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086, the place was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake like the preceding entries and like the other places in this entry. It was in the same wapentake (in Seal Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Sla de,}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 pp. 19, 48), where it is held (as 1 \'bd carucates) by Robert de Ferrers.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab A further part of Stretton-en-le-Field was in Derbyshire in 1086 (DBY 6,16). The two parts were incorporated into Leicestershire by a boundary change in 1897.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab DONISTHORPE. This wa s a hamlet, divided, at least in later times, between the Ancient Parish of Church Gresley (Derbyshire), Measham Ancient Parish (Derbyshire) and the Ancient Parishes of Seal and Ashby-de-la-Zouch, both in Leicestershire. It no doubt lay in 'Goscote' Wapen take in 1086 and was in the same wapentake (in Seal Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 48), where it is held as 2 carucates by Walkelin from Robert de Ferrers.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab In the Leicestershire Survey, in Seal Hundred, Robert de Ferrers holds \'bd car ucate in Oakthorpe (SK3212) which is adjacent to Donisthorpe and now in the same Civil Parish. It was possibly an unnamed part of Donisthorpe in 1086, though the combined total for Oakthorpe and Donisthorpe in that Survey is 2 \'bd carucates, as against Domesday's 1 carucate. However, Osgathorpe is rated at \'bd carucate in the}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Survey and 1 carucate in Domesday (14,27) and taking this into account would reduce the discrepancy over Donisthorpe and Oakthorpe. For other adjustments which seem to have been made to this group of Ferrers estates, see 14,23 carucates note. \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Other parts of Donisthorpe and Oakthorpe were in Derbyshire in 1086 (DBY 14,9-10), held by Nigel of Stafford. These parts were incorporated into Leicestershire by a boundary change in 1897.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab COLEORTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086: other parts are in groups of places in 'Goscote' Wapentake at 14,18 and 17,28. It was in the same wapentake (in Belton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 18, 45), where the 2 carucates held by Robert de Ferrers are the combination of two holdings of 1 carucate in Domesday (14,18;28); see 14,18 Coleorton note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab BUT COULD NOT LEAVE WITH IT. That is, he could not commend himself with his land to another lord.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,29\tab [IN FRAMLAND WAPENTAKE]. This heading is supplied from the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey relating to Burton Lazars: 14,29 Burton note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ROBERT [* THE HUNTER *]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Robert can be identified as Robert the hunter (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 venator}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ) from his grant of this es tate at Burton Lazars to Tutbury Priory (Staffordshire), founded by Henry of Ferrers: the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, no. 52 p. 65 =}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , iii. p. 392); see }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 292; }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 392. For another s ubtenant of Henry of Ferrers called Robert, see 14,19 Robert note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab BURTON [LAZARS]. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Melton Mowbray. It no doubt lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086: another part concludes a group of places in Framland Wapentake at 18,5. It was in the same wapentake (in Melton [Mowbray] Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade,}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 pp. 20, 52), where it is held by Robert de Ferrers.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 1 VILLAGER. The main scribe of Great Domesday mistakenly wrote }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 un}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 um}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 uill}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 anu}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 m}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , which is accusat ive, although there is no verb 'to have' or 'to hold' in the sentence; compare 14,24 meadow note and 17,21 mill note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,30\tab [* IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE *]. The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 14,30 "Windeshers" note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. See 14,10 Nigel note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab "WINDESHERS". This same place occurs as }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Widesers }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in the}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 19). Dr Barrie Cox suggests a location in Long Whatton parish, 'Goscote' Wapentake. The valley in which Whatton and Diseworth lie has an east-west axis and would thus be a trap for the winds bringing the poorest weather in this part of the country. "Windeshers" would be from Old English }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 wind}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ears}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ,}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('the wind's arse'), referring to a conformation of land which funnelled the wind (PM). \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The place undoubtedly lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake and Diseworth Hundred: Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 46), where it is held by William de Gresley.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,31\tab [* IN FRAMLAND WAPENTAKE *].}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The insertion of this h eading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 14,31 Somerby note. It has also been necessary to insert a Framland wapentake heading at 14,29, but "Windeshers" (14,30) seems to have lain in 'Goscote' Wapentake.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ROGER [* OF LIVET *]. Roger is identifiable from his grant of Somerby and [Little] Dalby to Tutbury Priory (Staffordshire), founded by Henry of Ferrers: the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, no. 52 p. 65 =}{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , iii. p. 392). He came from Livet-en-Ouche in the French }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 d\'e9partement of Eure (arrondissement Bernay, canton Beaumesnil, commune Landep\'e9reuse); see }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 292; }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Loyd, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 55; Keats-Rohan, }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 404, with folio references corresponding to LEC 14,13;15;25;28;31-32 and DBY 6,14;16;29;55 (but not folio 276a = DBY 6,96, possibly an omission).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab SOMERBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly belo w a Framland wapentake head at 19,19. It was in the same wapentake (in Cold Overton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 49). There Robert de Ferrers holds 5 carucates, as against 3 carucates 2 bovates in Domesday. However, the holdings o f Henry of Ferrers in Domesday at Somerby and Burrough-on-the-Hill (14,31-32) and that of Robert the bursar at Somerby (19,19) amount to 11 carucates as do the corresponding Ferrers and Marmiun holdings in that Survey, though the individual carucages diffe r: for a tabulation and discussion, see Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 49).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [LITTLE] DALBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was also an Ancient Parish. It lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a Framland wapentake head at 29,19. It was in the same wapen take (similarly in Cold Overton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 20, 50), where it is held by Robert de Ferrers. Little Dalby was a Ferrers fee in }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Book of Feees}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 947.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Great Dalby (3,12. 17,25. 32,1) was in 'Goscote' Wapentake.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,32\tab ROGER [* OF LIVET *]. See 14,31 Roger note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab BURROUGH [-ON-THE-HILL]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086; another part is the second of two places (29,12), the first of which is directly below a Framland wapentake head . It was in the same wapentake (in Cold Overton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 49), where it is included under Somerby, held by Robert de Ferrers as 5 carucates. In Domesday Burrough-on-the Hill is rated at 2 carucates and 3 bovates and Somerby (14,31) as 3 carucates and 2 bovates. However, the holdings of Henry of Ferrers in Domesday at Somerby and Burrough-on-the-Hill (14,31-32) and that of Robert the bursar at Somerby (19,19) amount to 11 carucates as do the corresponding Ferrers and Marmiun holdings in the Survey, though the individual carucages differ: for a tabulation and discussion, see Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 49).}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 64-66.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,33\tab NEWBOLD. This was a township and chapelry of Owston Ancient Parish, formerly known as Newbold Saucey (and identified as such in the Phillimore printed translation), but now represented by Newbold Farm and Newbold Grange Farm; see Hoskins, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Essays in Leicestershire History}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 72. Owst on itself (40,26) lay in Gartree Wapentake, but Newbold here is in a group of places that were in Framland Wapentake. However, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 14, 20, 31, 50) the 3 carucates are equally divided with 1 \'bd carucates being in Gartree Wapentake (Knossington Hundred) and 1 \'bd carucates being in Framland Wapentake (Cold Overton Hundred), all held by Robert de Ferrers. This may well have been the situation in 1086, since Domesday rarely concerns itself with such details. If part lay in Gart ree Wapentake in 1086, it would be a detachment. Newbold lay on the boundary between Framland and 'Goscote' Wapentakes.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 2 PLOUGHS. In the manuscript }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 iii}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is corrected to }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ii}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 by the erasure of the third minim; Farley printed }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 iii}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in error. Neither the Ordnance Survey facsimile nor the Alecto facsimile reproduce this erased minim, but it is still faintly visible in the manuscript.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab GAMAL HELD IT FREELY. This was omitted in error in the Phillimore printed translation, although Gamal (spelt Gamel) appears in the Index of Persons there with a reference to 14,33. On the loss of }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 l}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in the Domesday form }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Game}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 here and in Domesday Yorkshire, see von Feilitzen}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , Pre-Conquest Personal Names in Domesday Book}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , pp. 257-58, under Old Norse }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Gamall}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , Old Swedish }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Gamal}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab It is probable that Gamal is the same person as Henry of Ferrers' predecessor in Derbyshire, including his holding in Shottle (DBY 6,12); see DBY 6,7 Gamal note. However, Newbold is on the other side of Leicestershire from the Derbyshire-Leicestershire border. Gamal's holding in Shottle is at 6,12. \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Despite the distance, however, this might be the same man. Outside Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, only six other tenants-in-chief had a predecessor of this name so having two is against the odds; and the holdi ngs of the Staffordshire Gamals were closer to their Leicestershire namesake than to any others (JP).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 14,34\tab [IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 14,34 Linton note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. See 14,10 Nigel note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LINTON. This was a township of }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 the Ancient Parish of}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Church Gresley. Church Gresley was itself in Derbyshire in 1086, as was another portion of Linton (DBY 6,19): both parts were held by Henry of Ferrers. In 1086 the present portion probably lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake, }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 where it certainly was (in Diseworth Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 46). There the holder is William de Gresley.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab This portion of Linton appears to have been transferred to Debyshire at an early date: \{Introduction: The County Boundary\}.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 15\tab LAND OF ROBERT OF TOSNY. Robert was a Norman from Tosny in the French d\'e9partement of Eure (arrondissement Les Andelys, canton Gaillon-Campagne). He was related to Ralph of Tosny and anot her Robert of Tosny, known in Domesday as Robert of Stafford. He was married to Adelais; they jointly founded Belvoir Priory (in Leicestershire) as a cell of St Albans Abbey, and probably constructed Belvoir castle, though it is not mentioned in Domesday. Their son Berengar was Robert's tenant in Domesday, but also a tenant-in-chief. Robert\rquote s heir to his English lands was another son, William. His three sons died without issue and his daughters were his eventual heirs. Berengar\rquote s lands and the lands of Belvoir held by the younger sons first went to Albreda, Robert\rquote s eldest daughter, married to Robert de Insula. After her death the lordship of Belvoir went to her younger sister Adelisa, while Berengar\rquote s lands went to her son Hugh Bigod. The Belvoir lands subsequently passed to Adelisa\rquote s youngest daughter, Cecilia Bigod, wife of William de Albini Brito. See }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , iii. p. 288; }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 i. p. 293; Round, 'Origin of Belvoir Castle'; Loyd, Some }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Anglo-Norman Families}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 104; Sanders, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Engl ish Baronies}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 12; }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 88-90); }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 380. \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Among estates held at the time of the Leicestershire Survey by William de Albini is one that cannot be or cannot certainly be related to a Domesday holding:}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab An estate, probably of 12 carucates, in Bottesford Hundred: Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 22, 57); see 15,5 Bottesford note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab In 1086 this fief was divided into lordship land, entered first, and then, after a line's space, land that was subinfeudated. Each of these groups is entered in the standard order of wapentakes:}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Gartree Wapentake: 15,1-2 Lordship land}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Framland Wapentake]: 15,3-7 Lordship land}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Gartree Wapentake]: 15,8-9 Subinfeudations}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [`Goscote' Wapentake]: 15,10-11 Subinfeudations}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Framland Wapentake: 15,12-16 Subinfeudations}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 15,1\tab HORNINGHOLD. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish and according to the heading lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Domesday omits the information that it had been granted by Robert of Tosny to his newly-founded priory at Belvoir in 1076: }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Lincolnshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 126 (PM).}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 154-55.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 15,2\tab MEDBOURNE. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Gartree Wapentake among the members of the royal multiple estate at Great Bowden (1,4).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab BLASTON. This was a free chapel}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in Medbourne Ancient Parish. It was probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086. Other parts, both conneced to this one, are in groups of places in Gartree Wapentake at 1,4 and 40,20. At the latter it is said that the jurisdiction of the 1 carucate, of which that part of Blaston consists, belongs to Robert of Tosny. As to the portion of Blaston that is entered at 1,4, it is said that 'the king has the jurisdiction of 2 carucates in Blaston. It belongs to Great Bowden. Robert of To sny holds this land'. Those 2 carucates appear to be the same as the present two; see 1,4 Robert note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab HAVE 3 PLOUGHS. This was omitted in the Phillimore printed translation, possibly because it was written by the main scribe of Great Domesday in a space a t the end of the previous line, from which it was separated by a gallows sign. It was also omitted in the first version of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday Explorer}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab IN THE MANOR. The reference to Blaston interrupted the listing of the manorial resources, so the main scribe of Great Domesday decided to clarify it.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 6 SMALLHOLDERS ... 4 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected both }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 vi bord'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 iiii car'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 over erasure.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 15,3\tab [IN FRAMLAND WAPENTAKE].}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 15,3 Harby note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab HARBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Framland Wapentake at 17,31. It was in that same wapentake (in Harby Hundred) in the Le icestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 22, 26, 57), where William de Albini, the successor of Robert of Tosny, holds 17 carucates in Harby and Plungar (SK7633).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 15,4\tab BARKESTONE[-LE-VALE].}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish, known as Barkestone. It was probably in Framlan d Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries. It was in that wapentake (in Barkestone Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 21, 54). In that Survey, William de Albini, the successor of Robert of Tosny, holds 23 carucates, well in excess o f the 15 carucates given in Domesday.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 15,5\tab BOTTESFORD.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Framland Wapentake at 15,15, and it was in that wapentake (in Bottesford Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 22, 57).}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab In Domesday, Robert of Tosny holds two estates in Bottesford (15,5;15) and one at Redmile (15,6) totalling 24 carucates. In that Survey, William de Albini (representing Robert of Tosny) holds 32 carucates in B ottesford, Muston (SK8237) and Normanton (SK8140), Agnes de Gaunt holds 2 carucates }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ibidem }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('there', 'in the same place(s)') and}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Robert de Lisle holds 1 \'bd carucates in Muston. Neither Muston nor Normanton appears in Domesday. It is possible that these estates were carved out of Bottesford and Redmile after 1086, but even so, the discrepancy between Domesday and the Survey is 11 \'bd carucates: a 12-carucate unit in Bottesford Hundred appears to have been omitted unless the Domesday figures are wrong.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 15,6\tab REDMILE.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries. Although not actually mentioned in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 22, 57) it apparently was in the Framland Wapentake (in Bottesford Hundre d). On the relation of this estate to carucage given in the Leicestershire Survey, see 15,5 Bottesford note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 15,7\tab TO THE SAME MANOR OF BOTTESFORD. That is, to Bottesford (15,5).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab KNIPTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Fra mland Wapentake in 1086, like the previous entries and like another part (1,1b). It was in that wapentake (in Scalford Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp.}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 21, 54), where it is held by William de Albini..}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab MILL AT 5s; MEADOW, 4 ACRES. Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ac}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ra}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 s}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is accusative after }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 h}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 abe}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 nt}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in the previous line. Although the case of }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 molin'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is unclear, the Freemen appear to have had it as well as the meadow (unless this is a scribal error: 14,24 meadow note). 4 mills are recorded in the main holding of Bottes ford (15,5). Compare 14,4 mill note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 4 THANES ... THESE LANDS ... WOULD. This sentence apparently refers to the whole of chapter 15 up to this point (15,1-7), as no }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 holders are given for these lands. The main scribe of Great Domesday often wrote such sentences referring to previous holdings and would have indicated if he intended only the previous four holdings (15,4-7); see 36,2 held note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab OSWULF [* SON OF FRANI *]. A man of this name was the predecessor of Robert of Tosny in three Northamptonsh ire manors (NTH 26,1;6;8); in the first two he is said to have held 'freely', which has the same meaning as the clause 'could go where he would' of the present entry. An Oswulf, a thane of King Edward, was also Robert's predecessor in a manor in Buckingha m shire (BUK 18,3) 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 whi ch he 'could sell to whom he would'. It is thus likely that Oswulf here, in Northamptonshire and BUK 18,3 is the son of Frani. This Frani might be the same person as Frani of Rockingham (Northamptonshire); see 5,1 Langton note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab See also Clarke, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 English Nobility}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , pp. 331-32, who omits the LEC holdings (JP).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 15,8\tab [IN GARTREE WAPENTAKE]. A Gartree wapentake head is certainly required above Lubenham (15,9 Lubenham note), and probably above Laughton, in view of its situation in that wapentake evidenced later: 15,8 Laughton note.}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LAUGHTON.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086, like the next entry (15,9), as it was later: }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Feudal Aids}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , iii. p. 112.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 214-17.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 15,9\tab LUBENHAM. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a Gartree wapentake head at 40,15.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 222-24.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 15,10\tab [IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 15,10 Barkby note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab BARKBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086: another part appears to be in 'Goscote' Wap entake at 41,3. It was in that wapentake (in Barkby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 16, 38-39), where the 12 carucates of Domesday (18 carucates less the 6 carucates of Hungarton) appear as 11 carucates held of the fee of Belvoir (5 caru c ates in Barkby and 6 carucates in Hamilton and Barkby Thorpe). The Survey figure is deficient by 1 carucate, which may, however be included in it (pp. 16, 39-40) under South Croxton and Barsby. Barkby Thorpe and Hamilton are adjacent to Barkby, at SK6309 and SK6407 respectively.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par \tab \tab On this estate, see Postles, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Barkby}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab HUNGARTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 like Barkby and it was in that wapentake (in Beeby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 15, 38). }{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 In that Survey, this estate reappears rated at 9 carucates. No holder is given, but it was no doubt held of the fee of Belvoir.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab AND 2 SLAVES; 7 FREEMEN. Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 seruos}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is accusative after }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 h}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 abe}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 nt}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 earlier in the line. The case of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 soch'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is unclear and might be accusative, though, if so, it is very unlikely that the main scribe of Great Domesday was implying that they were in lordship too. The punctuation here preserves the ambiguity of the Latin and corrects that of the Phillimore printed translation.} {\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 15,11\tab ROGER HOLDS ... FROM WILLIAM. This is a surprise. The tenant-in-chief is Robert of Tosny, and the lands in this chapter are otherwise held by Robert or from him. William could therefore be a mistake for Robert, an error induced by the fact that a Will iam holds from Robert in the previous entry (15,10) for Barkby. On the other hand, this could be a rare example of a third layer of tenancy, Roger holding from William who holds from Robert; see 2,2 Herbert note. However, William [* of Bosc-le-Hard *] and Roger (probably his brother) appear together holding both parts of Stathern (15,16. 29,18); see 15,16 William note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [SOUTH] CROXTON.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 as another part appears to have been in 'Goscot e' Wapentake at 3,13, also subtenanted by a Roger. It appears to have been omitted from the Leicestershire Survey (see Slade, p. 39), though there was still a Belvoir holding here later: }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Book of Fees}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 518.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab QUENBY. This was in Hungarton Ancient Parish. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086, like South Croxton. It was in that wapentake (in Rearsby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 16, 41), where it is a Belvoir fee, though assessed at 6 carucates.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The site of the deserted medieval village is at SK698062.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab AND 4 SLAVES; 7 VILLAGERS. Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 seruos}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is accusative after }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 h}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 abe}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 nt}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in the previous line. Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 uill}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ano}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 s}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is also accusative, though the main scribe of Great Domesday probably did not intend the meaning to be that they were part of the lordship.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WHO HAVE. Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 h}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 abe}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ntes}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , present participle, translated as a relative clause by JRM. The Phillimore printed translation has only 'have', as if the verb was a main one (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 h}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 abe}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 nt}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ). See also 15,1 have note; 17,10 have note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 15,12\tab IVO [* OF THIERCEVILLE *]. This is probably the same Ivo, Robert's man, who holds of Robert of Tosny in Lincolnshire (LIN18,15;24;32), who is identified as Ivo of Thierceville (in the French d\'e9 partement of Eure, arrondissement Les Andelys, canton Gisors): }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Loyd, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 103; }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 293;}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 282.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [LONG] CLAWSON.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086 and it was in that wapentake, in [Long] Clawson Hundred, in the Leic estershire Survey (Slade, pp. 22, 56). In that Survey these 16 carucates and 4 \'bd bovates reappear but are not assigned a holder, though there is little doubt that this was a Belvoir fee. Even so, there is a suspicion that both the Domesday and the Survey f igures are slightly inaccurate and that Long Clawson was probably 16 plus 8 carucates and Hose 12 carucates (see 15,13 Hose note), making a unit of 36 carucates.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 15,13\tab HOSE. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. Other parts appear to have been in Framland Wapentake at 20,1-2. It was in that wapentake (in [Long] Clawson Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp.} {\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 22, 56), where the two Tosny estates of Domesday (6 carucates and 4 carucates: 15,13-14) appear as a single sum of 7 \'bd carucates in Hose of the fee of Belvoir. It therefore seems likely that the unnamed estate of 15,14 was also at Hose. There appears to have been some transfer of land or adjustment of the tax burden between the holders in Long Clawson Hundred: this is tabulated in the Leicestershire Sur vey, p. 56. Both the Domesday and Survey figures seem to be slightly wrong; compare 15,12 Clawson note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 15,14\tab 4 CARUCATES OF LAND. [***]. The }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the remainder of the first line of this entry after the 4 carucates of lan d, probably for the later insertion of their location. They}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 probably lay at Hose: 15,13 Hose note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 3 SMALLHOLDERS. The }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday altered the number of smallholders from an original }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ii}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 to }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 iii}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and interlined }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 b'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (for }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 tribus}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ) to clarify this correction.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 15,15\tab ODARD [* OF HOTOT *]. He probably came from Hotot-en-Auge (d\'e9partement Calvados, arrondissement Lisieux, canton Cambremer), rather than from Hottot-les-Bagues, (d\'e9 partement Calvados, arrondissement Bayeux, canton Caumont-l'Event\'e9): }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 293; }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 307 (her arrondissement and cantons for both places are inaccurate).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\insrsid920401 The name Odard occurs on eleven holdings in Domesday Book, probably representing six individuals. The modest Leicestershire holding is remote from all others and has no tenurial or other links either before or after the Conquest (JP).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab BOTTESFORD. In the Alecto facsimile the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 BOTHESFORD}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 of the manuscript can be misread as }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 BOTbESFORD}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ; }{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 see 2,6 Keythorpe note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Bottesford was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Framland Wapentake at 15,5. It was in that wapentake (in Bottesford Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 22, 57), where William de Albini (Robert's successor) holds 32 carucates in Bottesford, Muston and Normanton. On the relation of this estate to carucage given in the L eicestershire Survey, see 15,5 Bottesford note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab CLAREBALD. On this individual, see}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 173.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab HILDWIN . A man called Hildwin holds from Robert of Tosny in Northamptonshire (NTH 26,8 (Brampton Ash) and 26,9), probabl y the same man; the only other occurrence of this name is as a tenant of William of Poilley in Devon (DEV 21,11). By the time of the twelfth-century Northamptonshire Survey, Hildwin had been succeeded by his son Ralph: Keats-Rohan, }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 279, under Ilduin, with an incorrect folio reference for NTH 26,9. The Phillimore printed translation has Heldwin, which has been standardized as Hildwin here.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 4 SLAVES. The }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday altered the number of slaves from }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 iii}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 to }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 iiii}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and interlined }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 or}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (for }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 quattuor}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ) to clarify the correction.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WHO HAVE. Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 h}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 abe}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ntes}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , present participle, translated as a relative clause by JRM. The Phillimore printed translation has only 'have', as if the verb was a main one (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 h}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 abe}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 nt}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ). See also 15,1 have note; 17,10 have note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab BETWEEN THEM ALL. SOME [OF THEM] HAVE NOTHING. That is, they have no plough or share of one; they are not totally indigent. The }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday either did not know which of the Freemen, villagers and smallholders shared the 2 ploughs, or he did not feel it necessary to indicate.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 15,16\tab STATHERN. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086. Another part is in a group of places in Framland Wapentake at 29,18 where that part is said to belong to Me lton Mowbray. It was in the same wapentake (in Harby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 22, 57). In Domesday the two parts of Stathern held by Roger of Tosny (4 \'bd carucates and 3 bovates, and 4 carucates and 7 bovates) coupled with the estat e of 8 carucates and 2 bovates of Geoffrey of la Guerche (29,18) make a unit of 18 carucates. The total size of Stathern is the same in the Survey, but William de Albini (representing Robert of Tosny) holds 8 \'bd carucates and Roger de Mowbray (representing Geoffrey of la Guerche) holds 8 carucates. The remainder (1 \'bd carucates) is a new estate, apparently carved out of the Domesday holdings, and held by Robert de Lisle there.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WILLIAM [* OF BOSC-LE-HARD *]. William of Bosc-le-Hard and his brother Roger were tenants of Robert of Tosny in Buckinghamshire (BUK 18,3) and a William and Roger also held from him in Lincolnshire (LIN 18,12), while a Roger was his tenant in NTH 26,7. A William and a Roger also hold another part of Stathern (29,18) from Geoffrey of la Guerche.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par \tab \tab If this is the same William, the form }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 de Boscroard }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 found elsewhere in Domesday}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 probably relates to Bosc-le-Hard, in the French d\'e9 partement of Seine-Maritime, (arrondissement Dieppe, canton Bellencombre). A Ralph }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 de Bosco Rohardi}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 occurs in }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , ii. no. 1152, p. 137, and the same man is said to be Ralph de Rehart in }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , ii. no.1153, p. 137. If the identification with Bosc-le-Hard is correct, the modern form will be a result of the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 r}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 /}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 l}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 interch ange: the element Le Hard is otherwise unexplained; see Dauzat and Rostaing, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Dictionnaire des Noms de Lieux en France}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , under Bosc. With his wife, William gave Tallington in Lincolnshire to St Albans Abbey. See }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 220; }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 293; }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Loyd, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 18; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 471.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab CARUCATES. The estate is divided into equal halves, 4 \'bd carucates and 3 bovates being equivalent to 4 carucates and 7 bovates at 8 bovates to the carucate. For the reason for the different phrases, see 15,16 bovates note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab AND 3 BOVATES. Scribe B added }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 7 iii. bo'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 at the end of the first line of this entry, in the centre margin. For his other contributions on carucage and other aspects of an entry, see 3,7 carucates note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THE FULL JURISDICTION. The Latin is }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 soca et saca}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 which normally applies only to the relationship between persons or between a person and a place. It is possible that it is an error for plain }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 soca}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , the normal term in this context.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab BOTTESFORD. }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 HOLESFORD }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is a mistake for }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 BOTESFORD }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (PM). }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This is Robert of Tosny's manor: 15,5;15.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 16\tab LAND OF ROBERT OF VESSEY. He perhaps came from Vessey in the French d\'e9partement of Manche (arrondissement Avranches, canton Pontorson). He held land in Domesday both }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 as a tenant-in-chief and as a subtenant. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Most of his tenancy in chief was incorporated in the Earldom of Warwick at its creation }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 c}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . 1088. See }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Tengvik, }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Old English Bynames}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , pp. 117-18; Lewis, \lquote Introduction\rquote , }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Shropshire Domesday}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 18; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 p. 382.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\insrsid920401 Although this fief, like others in Leicestershire, is divided between land held in lordship and land subinfeudated, it is unusual in that the subinfeudated holdings precede the lordship ones. The }{ \cf1\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday did not leave a line's space between the two sections, as he often did; see \{Introduction: Layout and Content\}. }{\insrsid920401 The subinfeudations lie in two wapentakes which are entered in the standard order. However, after he had entered the subinfeudated land in the second wapentake (Gartree Wapentake) the s}{\cf1\insrsid920401 cribe,}{\insrsid920401 rather than keeping to sequence and entering the lordship land in Guthlaxton Wapentake next, entered that in Gartree Wapentake, following it with the lordship in Guthlaxton Wapentake and thus upsetting the nor mal sequence. It is likely that he had initially assumed that none of the land in this fief was held in lordship, and when he realized his mistake, he simply appended the lordship land as it came to hand: \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Guthlaxton Wapentake: 16,1-3 Subinfeudations}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Gartree Wapentake: 16,4-8 (Subinfeudations: 16,4-7; Lordship land: 16,8).}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par \tab \tab [Guthlaxton Wapentake]: 16,9 Lordship land}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 16,1\tab GILMORTON. This was an Ancient Parish. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 It was in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab AELRIC SON OF MERGEAT. See 16,9 Aelric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 16,2\tab NORMAN . }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 He is possibly the same Norman who held from Aubrey of Coucy (10,6;11-13) and from Geoffrey Alselin (28,1-5):}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Keats-Rohan, }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 306, who also has a reference to folio 234a, which must be for the present Norman, though she d oes not mention this. These are the only occurrences of the name Norman in Leicestershire. Shearsby is his holding at 10,6.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab SHENTON.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 In the manuscript SCENTONE is clearly visible. In the Alecto facsimile it is reproduced as SCENTOSTE; see 2,6 Keythorpe note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Shenton was a township of the Ancient Parish of Market Bosworth. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: other parts are in groups of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 10,5 and 16,2.}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the possibility that this is the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Scenctune}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 of Wulfric Spot's will, see 10,5 Shenton note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 2 BOVATES. The }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 iiii bouat'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , but the first and last minims have been erased.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab AELRIC SON OF MERGEAT. See 16,9 Aelric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 16,3\tab KILWORTH. There were two separate Ancient Parishes called }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 North Kilworth and South Kilworth. It is not certain when the separation occurred and how the four Domesday estates (16,3. 23,5. 44,12-13) are to be allocated between the two units. The present esta te was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 16,1), although the wapentake in which another part lies at 23,5 is equivocal. Further parts of 'Kilworth' appear to have been in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 44,12-13. The Phillimore printed translat ion has (South) Kilworth for 16,3, Kilworth for 23,5 and (North) Kilworth for 44,12[-13]. The Alecto edition has [North or South] Kilworth for every occurrence.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab AELRIC SON OF MERGEAT. See 16,9 Aelric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 16,4\tab GUMLEY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086. There may once have been a Mercian royal manor here as there were assemblies held in 749, 772 and ?779: Sawyer, }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , nos. 92, 109, 114.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 117-19.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab AELRIC SON OF MERGEAT. See 16,9 Aelric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 16,5\tab SHANGTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Gartree Wapentake at 13,55. It was in th e same wapentake (in Langton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 14, 30), where }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 these 2 carucates are held by Ansketil. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 For the later history of this estate, see }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 293-95.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the possibility that Shangton is the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Scenctone}{\cf1\insrsid920401 of Wulfric Spot's will, see 10,5 Shenton note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab AELRIC SON OF MERGEAT. See 16,9 Aelric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 16,6\tab MORILAND. This is the only occurrence of this personal name in Domesday Book.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THORPE [LANGTON]. The }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Ancient Parish of Church Langton lay in Gartree W apentake in 1086 and contained the township of East Langton and the townships and chapelries of West Langton, Thorpe Langton and Tur Langton. Domesday Book and the Leicestershire Survey distinguish Tur Langton from other places simply called Langton. Thor pe Langton is called }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Torp}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . Church Langton does not seem to have had a separate manorial existence: only East Langton and West Langton are distinguished in, for example, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 165.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab This estate was in Gartree Wapentake (in Langton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (pp. 14, 30) where it }{\insrsid920401 is held by Eustace as 3 carucates and 3 virgates (the same as the 3 carucates and 6 bovates of Domesday). It appears that all the 'Langton' estates in Domesday (2,1. 5,1. 13,14;57. 16,6. 17,18) were a single assessment unit amounting originally to 36 carucates.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 205-208.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab AELRIC SON OF MERGEAT. See 16,9 Aelric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 16,7\tab [HUSBANDS] BOSWORTH. In the Alecto facsimile there is a mark obscuring the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 AS}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 of }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 BASVRDE}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ; there is no mark in the manuscript and the place-name is clearly visible there and in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 See 2,6 Keythorpe note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Husbands Bosworth}{\cf1\insrsid920401 was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086: other parts are directly below a Gartree wapentake head at 23,4. 33,1. It was in the same wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 23, 33).}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 In the Leicestershire Survey, this estate of 4 carucates was part of the 14 \'bd carucates held in Husbands Bosworth (though erroneously given as }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Stanton'}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 , a name transferred down from the previous entry) held by Ansketil. His land also included the estate of 11 \'bd carucates of Guy of Raimbeaucourt (23,6). \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid920401 For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 30-33.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LAURENCE . }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This is the only occurrence of the name Laurence in Domesday Leicestershire. There are only two other occurrences of it in Domesday, as a subtenant of Robert of Stafford in Berkshire (BRK 42,1: S outh Denchworth) and Staffordshire (STS 11,54), probably the same person (though the estates are far apart). It is less likely that the Laurence in the present entry is the same individual.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab MEADOW, 20 ACRES. Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ac}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ra}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 s}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is accusative after }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 h}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 abe}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 nt}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 earl ier in the line; the meadow in the main holding in [Husbands] Bosworth has already been recorded in the previous line.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab AELRIC SON OF MERGEAT. See 16,9 Aelric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 16,8\tab KIBWORTH [HARCOURT]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Kibworth Beauchamp. It was probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 16,4). It was in that wapentake (in Kibworth Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 14, 30) where it is}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 held by Ansketil. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 179-81.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab AELRIC SON OF MERGEAT. See 16,9 Aelric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 16,9\tab [* IN GUTHLAXTON WAPENTAKE? *]. On this possible restoration, see 16,9 Newton note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab NEWTON [HARCOURT]. This was a chapelry of Wistow Ancient parish. Wistow itself lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086 and later (19,13;16); Newton Harcourt was in Guthlaxton Wapentake in the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 160. It does not appear in the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Leicestershire Survey, nor does Wistow. It might be assumed that it lay in Gartree Wapentake, like the previous entries. However, the main scribe of Great Domesday may have intended to insert a wapentake heading here (16,9 [***] note) and although lands in Guthlaxton Wapentake had already been entered (16,1-3), they were subinfeudations, the scribe having failed to put the l ordship land first (as generally elsewhere in Leicestershire) perhaps because he missed it in his exemplar; see LEC 16 Robert note. It is therefore quite possible that he initially passed over the lordship land in Guthlaxton Wapentake and entered it here, last instead of first, although the omission of the wapentake head is odd if he found the entry in a text arranged by wapentakes.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 342-44.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [***]. The }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the remainder of the first line of this entry, but the reason is unclear. He may have had problems with his source, judging by the corrections to the population (16,9 villagers note), possibly something he could not read. Or he may have thought that the land was subinfeudated: in 16,7 he had begun as if the estate was lordship land and then included the subtenant Lawrence. Or he could have left the space for the later insertion of a wapentake head; see 16,9 Newton note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 11 VILLAGERS ... A PRIEST ... 6 SLAVES. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote '10 villagers ... 5 slaves' and omitted the priest altogether, which he then interlined at the same time as making the figure corrections. He also wrote }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 7}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 at the beginning of the third line of the entry, but erased it at once and wrote }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 h'nt}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 over it. These corrections suggest either carelessness or that he had problems with his source; see 16,9 [***] note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab AELRIC SON OF MERGEAT. The same man confirmed Doddington (Lincolnshire) with its jurisdiction of Thorpe-on-the-Hill on Westminster Abbey (LIN 9,1-2. CK27): Bates, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Regesta}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , no. 315 pp. 928-29, no. 324 pp. 945-55; see Harvey, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Westminster Abbey Estates}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 348.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Aelric son of Mergeat was Robert's predecessor in Warwickshire (WAR 24,1 and, as Aelric, in 24,2; in 24,1 the Domesday form is }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Alric'}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ). }{\insrsid920401 He is probably the plain Aelric who preceded Robert of Vessey in Lincolnshire (LIN 37,1-2;6) and Northamptonshire (NTH 29,1): }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 293.}{\insrsid920401 \par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\insrsid920401 Ailric}{\insrsid920401 , }{\i\insrsid920401 Ailricus}{\insrsid920401 , }{\i\insrsid920401 Aeilric}{\insrsid920401 , }{\i\insrsid920401 Aelric}{\insrsid920401 [}{\i\insrsid920401 us}{ \insrsid920401 ], }{\i\insrsid920401 Eilric}{\insrsid920401 , }{\i\insrsid920401 Alricus}{\insrsid920401 , }{\i\insrsid920401 Aeilric}{\insrsid920401 , }{\i\insrsid920401 Eilricus}{\insrsid920401 etc. - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid920401 \'c6 thelric}{\insrsid920401 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid920401 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid920401 , pp. 186-87. As these forms did not include the medial }{\i\insrsid920401 -d- }{\insrsid920401 or }{\i\insrsid920401 -g-}{ \insrsid920401 , JRM did not accept them as representing this name. In several counties in the Phillimore printed edition they appear as Alric and in others as Aelfric. The Alecto edition has \'c6thelric here.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THESE LANDS. That is, all of chapter 16.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17\tab ROBERT OF BUCY. He probably came from Boucey in the canton and commune of Pontorson (arrondissement Avranches) in the French d\'e9partement of Manche. He was lord of Great Weldon in Northamptonshire and a subtena nt of Countess Judith in that county (56,25;59 as plain Robert) and in Leicestershire (40,15-21 and, as plain Robert, 40,23;25). His lands came into the hands of Henry I by forfeiture or escheat and then went to Geva, daughter of Hugh of Avranches (Earl o f Chester) then to her husband Geoffrey Ridel, and to her son-in-law, Richard Basset. Robert\rquote s holdings as a subtenant went to Robert son of Vitalis (Viel), the father of Simon de Foxton, probably by gift of Simon I de Senlis who married Matilda (Maud), daughter of Countess Judith and Earl Waltheof; see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 293; }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Rutland}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 175; the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 92); }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Keats-Rohan, }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 375.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab At the time of the Leicestershire Survey these lands are held by Richard Basset and formed the nucleus of the honour of Weldon (Northamptonshire); see the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 92).}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Among estates held at the time of the Leicestershire Survey by Richard Basset are some that cannot be or cannot certainly be related to a Domesday holding:}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab \'bd carucate in Gaddesby in 'Goscote' Wapentake:}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 the Leicestershire Survey }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (Slade,}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 pp. 16, 25, 40). \par \tab \tab }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 6 carucates in Ratcliffe Culey in Hinckley Hundred, Guthlaxton Wapentake, held of the Ridel Fee by Richard Basset: the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 26, 58).}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab \'bd carucate in }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Torp iuxta Cosseby}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (Thorpe-by-Cosby) in Guthlaxton Wapentake, held of the fee of Matilda Ridel: the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 28, 60). }{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab In Domesday this fief is divided between lordship land and subi nfeudations, the main scribe of Great Domesday leaving a line's space between the two sections. Within each group, the wapentakes are entered in the standard order:}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Guthlaxton Wapentake: 17,1-5 Lordship land}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Gartree Wapentake: 17,6 Lordship land}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Guthlaxton Wapentake: 17,7-14 Subinfeudations}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Gartree Wapentake]: 17,15-20 Subinfeudations}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab 'Goscote' Wapentake: 17,21-29 Subinfeudations}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Framland Wapentake: 17,30-33 Subinfeudations}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab IN THE MANUSCRIPT there is a hole in the parchment at the top centre of folio 234, patched on the verso. This forced the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday to compress the chapter heading and write }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 WAPENT'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in the top margin, preceded by a gallows sign, and to write round the hole in the first entry. As usual Farley did not show this, but see 17,21 hole note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,1\tab PEATLING [MAGNA]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086. Domesday appears to distinguish the two estates called Peatling by the use of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 alia }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('another') at 13,32 and 41,2, which are at Peatling Parva. Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 alia}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 does not normally mean this (it usually refers to the second occurrence of the same name in a list), but the peculiar circumstances of its use in Leicestershire suggest that there were already two distinct settlements in 1086; see 13,32 Peatling note. However, part of this present land at least lay in Peatling Parva where it is held from Ralph Bassettof Weldon in }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Book of Fees}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 949.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,2\tab LEIRE.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt l ay in GuthlaxtonWapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a Guthlaxton wapentake head at 19,1. It was in the same wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 28, 60), where it is a Basset holding (fee of Matilda Ridel), though assessed at 2 \'bd carucates.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,3\tab FROLESWORTH. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: other parts are in groups of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 9,2 and 40,4. It was in the same wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 2 8, 60), where it is a Basset holding (fee of Matilda Ridel).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THESE LANDS. That is, 17,1-3.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,4\tab DUNTON [BASSETT]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries. It was in the same wapentake (in G ilmorton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 26, 59), where Richard Basset holds an estate assessed at 8 carucates, \'bd carucate more than in Domesday.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,5\tab ASHBY PARVA.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The Latin is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 parva Essebi}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . It is most unusual for Domesday to use an affix to distinguish adjacent settlements of the same name, although it is common practice by the thirteenth century. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries. It was in that wapentake (in Gilmor ton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 26, 59), where Richard Basset holds an estate of the same size (2 carucates). He also holds \u8531\'3f virgate separately in }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Ashby Parva}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 which is not accounted for as such in Domesday, but may be part of Ashby Magna (25,5 Ashby note); see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Book of Fees}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , pp. 946, 949; }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Rotuli Hundredorum}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 239.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,6\tab EVINGTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. Both parts of Evington (13,50. 17,6) lie directly beneath Gartree wapentake heads in Domesday, and are likewise in that wapenta ke in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 22, 34), where th}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is estate is held by Richard Basset. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 For its later history, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , iv. pp. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 434-36.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \'bd PLOUGH. This probably complements the 5 \'bd ploughs at work on the other estate at Evington (13,50).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,7\tab SWINFORD. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab OSLAC . See 17,8 Oslac note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,8\tab WALCOTE. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This lay in Misterton Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding e ntries (heading at 17,7). It is missing from the Leicestershire Survey; see p. 58.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 2 PLOUGHS. The plough estimate figure was corrected from }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 i}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 to }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ii}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 by the main scribe of Great Domesday.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ULF WITH HIS MEN. Because of the imprecise use of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 suus}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in Medieval Latin, this phrase is partially ambiguous. If it were employed as in Classical Latin it would refer to the subject of the sentence; however, it is unlikely here to refer to Ulf. It is probable that the men belong to Hugh and that Ulf is one o f them. Compare 25,2 where '2 of William's men' together with the villagers and smallholders have 7 ploughs, although there William is the tenant-in-chief as there is no subtenant. In 17,11 '2 of his men' the possessive adjective is }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 eius}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (referring to the subtenant Warin). 'Men' are also mentioned in 13,14.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab OSLAC . 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 (NTH 1,21) since all of the properties lay within a radius of some 15 miles from the centre of the group and n o 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 (NTH 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 (JP).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,9\tab COSBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086. Other parts are in groups of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 9,4 (which i s part of Huncote 9,3) and 40,3. It was in the same wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 28, 60), where it is a Basset holding (fee of Matilda Ridel).}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 COSSEBI}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is lined through in vermilion in the manuscript and in the Ordnance Survey facsim ile. This is not reproduced in the Alecto facsimile; see 2,6 Keythorpe note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,10\tab BARLESTONE. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Market Bosworth. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 13,46. In the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 26, 59), after other entries for Barlestone in Sparkenhoe Hundred, the roll is damaged and it is not possible to determine if there was an entry for this estate.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The whole of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 BERVLVESTONE}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , spl it over two lines, is lined through in vermilion in the manuscript, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. The Alecto facsimile does not reproduce the red-lining on the last two letters; see 2,6 Keythorpe note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WHO HAVE. Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 h}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 abe}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ntes}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , present part iciple, translated as a relative clause by JRM. The Phillimore printed translation has only 'have', as if the verb was a main one (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 h}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 abe}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 nt}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ). See also 15,11 have note; 15,15 have note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,11\tab SWINFORD. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a Guthlaxton wapentake head at 17,7.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,12\tab 3\'bd CARUCATES OF LAND LESS 1 VIRGATE. No place-name is given, perhaps in error as the unnamed land at 17,13 is said to be 'in the same village'. However, 17,13 and 17,14 relate to each other by their odd \'bc virgate. It is possible that all three entries are part of Swinford (17,11); see 17,14 carucates note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,13\tab 3 CARUCATES OF LAND AND THE FOURTH PART OF 1 VIRGATE. See 17,12 carucates note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab IN THE SAME VILLAGE. No village has been mentioned in the previous entry (17,12), but both may refer to Swinford (17,11); see 17,14 carucates note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,14\tab OF THE SAID 8 CARUCATES. In previous entries, 8 carucates have not been 'said'. Although Dunton Basset (17,4) was assessed at 7 \'bd carucates, it is probably too far away in the schedule (and in another wapentake, on the ground) to be related to the present entry: a phrase such as 'of the said 8 carucates' would normally ref er to an entry or entries that had immediately preceded. The problem of identifying these 8 carucates also involves the identity of the unnamed 17,12-14 and their relation to each other and possibly to Swinford (17,11). The entry at 17,13 is said to be 'i n the same village', although no village is mentioned at 17,12. The entries 17,13-14 seem related to each other by the odd \'bc virgate that each has. The total for the three entries (17,12-14) is 8 carucates less \'bd virgate, probably near enough to 8 carucates to have been rounded up for the purpose of summary. Alternatively there may be a deficiency in one or more of the individual figures. \par \tab \tab The interrelated problems are insoluble from the evidence of Great Domesday alone. However, the difficulty could well h ave arisen if an entry or entries were badly abbreviated from the circuit volume, or from an earlier schedule arranged territorially in the manner of the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . If all these entries relate to Swinford (17,11), it is possible that in a previous compilation the material was laid out thus:}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab (17,11). In Swinford are 3 \'bd carucates of land which Warin holds from Robert of Bucy. [To this manor are attached 8 carucates]}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab (17,12). [Of the said 8 carucates] Hugh holds 3 \'bd carucates of land less 1 virgate [in the same village] from Robert of Bucy.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab (17,13). [Of the said 8 carucates] Lambert holds 3 carucates and \'bc virgate in the same village from Robert of Bucy. ...}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab (17,14). Of the said 8 carucates Alfsi holds 1 \'bd carucates of land and \'bc virgate [in the same village] from Robert of Bucy.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab The phrases in square brackets indicate what could have fallen out or been removed in abbreviation, thus causing the apparent confusion in the Great Domesday entries.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,15\tab [IN GARTREE WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based on the evidence of Domesday and of the Leicestershire Survey; see 17,15 Bosworth note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [HUSBANDS] BOSWORTH. In the manuscript }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 BARESWERDE}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is clear, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile, but in the Alecto facsimile the second }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 R}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 resembles a }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 B}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ; see 2,6 Keythorpe note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Husbands Bosworth was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086: other parts are directly below a Gartree wapentake head at 23,4. 33,1. It was in the same wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 23, 33), where it}{ \insrsid920401 is held by Richard Basset as 1 carucate and 1 virgate, which is less than the Domesday figure. }{\cf1\insrsid920401 For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 30-33.}{ \insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THE VALUE WAS. The main scribe of Great Domesday had originally written the present tense }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Val'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (= }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Valet}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ) here, in error. Scribe B corrected it to }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Valuit}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 by erasing }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Val'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and writing }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Valu}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in its place, but had to interline the last two letters, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 it}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . He used a darker, glossy ink and a fine pen, as he al so used for his next piece of work in Leicestershire, the addition of the whole of the value statement in 17,20. For his other contributions on value in this county, see 13,51 \'a34 note, and for those on other aspects of an entry, see 3,7 carucates note. }{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,16\tab ILLSTON[-ON-THE-HILL]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a chapelry and township of the Ancient Parish of Carlton Curlieu. It no doubt lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a Gartree wapentake head at 13,13). It was in the same wapentake in the Leices tershire Survey (Slade, pp. 23-24, 34), where it is}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 held by Richard Basset as 3 virgates. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 For its later history, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. } {\cgrid0\insrsid920401 164-65.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,17\tab SLAWSTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086, like the surro unding entries. Another part of Slawston ends this group of places in Gartree Wapentake at 17,20. It was in the same wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 24, 27, 35), where}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 this estate (1 virgate) appears to be combined with that of 17,20 (2 \'bd carucates) to form the 3 carucates held in Slawston by Richard Basset. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 For its later history, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 297-300.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,18\tab THORPE [LANGTON].}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The Ancient Parish of Church Langton lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086 and contained the township of East Langton and the townships and chapelries of West Langton, Thorpe Langton and Tur Langton. Domesday Book and the Leicestershire Survey distinguish Tur Langton from other places simply called Langton. Thorpe Langton is called }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Torp}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . Church Langton does not seem to have had a separate manorial existence: only East Langton and West Langton are distinguished in, for example, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 165.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab This estate was no doubt in Gartree Wapentake in 1086: another part was in a group of places in Gartree Wapentake at 13,14. It was in the same wapentake (in Langton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 14, 27, 30), where it }{\insrsid920401 is held by Richard Basset. It appears that all the 'Langton' estates in Domesday (2,1. 5,1. 13,14;57. 16,6. 17,18) were a single assessment unit amounting originally to 36 carucates.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 205-208.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,19\tab WELHAM. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086: other parts are in g roups of places in Gartree Wapentake at 2,5 and 40,30. It was in the same wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 24, 35), where it }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is held (as 6 \'bd carucates) by Richard Basset.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 For its later history, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 332-34.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab EARL RALPH. For }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Earl Ralph of Hereford, see 5,2 Ralph note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,20\tab SLAWSTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086: another part is in this same group of places in Gartree Wapentake at 17,17. It was in the same wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 24, 27, 35), where t}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 his estate (2 \'bd carucates) appears to be combined with that of 17,17 (1 virgate) to form the 3 carucates held in Slawston by Richard Basset. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 For its later history, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 297-300.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THE VALUE WAS 3s; NOW 16[s]. Scribe B added all of this value statement in the foot margin of folio 234b at the same time as his correction to the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 T.R.E. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 value in 17,15. The }{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday had written }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 h}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 abe}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 nt}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 .i. car', the villagers' plough, in a part-line in the same foot margin and preceded by a 'gallows' sign. Scribe B began by writing }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Val'}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 after this, but immediately corrected it to the past tense }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Valuit}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , though he failed to erase the abbreviation line through the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 l}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (as he did on a few other occasions). He then wrote the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 m'. \'b4xvi}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 on a second part-line, but did not feel it necessary to include }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 sol'}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (= }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 solidos}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ) after it. It is possible that the main scribe had noticed the absence of resources for this holding and intended to check on th is and add them later, together with the value. As the source of the majority of scribe B's work was probably the circuit volume that preceded Great Domesday, he was presumably either unable to find any resources or did not check for them. }{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 For his other contributions on value in this county, see 13,51 \'a34 note, and for those on other aspects of an entry, see 3,7 carucates note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,21\tab BECAUSE OF A LARGE HOLE in the parchment the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday was forced to write the wapentake head in the middl e of a line rather than at the right-hand end and to shorten the length of his lines in this entry}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ; this was shown by Farley. See LEC 17 manuscript note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab REARSBY.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 and it was in that wapentake (in Rearsby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 16-17, 41), where it i}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 s held by Richard Basset, but assessed at 5 carucates.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \'bd MILL. The main scribe of Great Domesday mistakenly wrote the accusative }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 dimid}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 iam}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 parte}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 m}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ], although there is no verb 'to have' or 'to hold' in the sentence; compare 14,24 meadow note and 14,29 villager note. There is no significance in his use of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 dimidiam partem molini}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 instead of the usual }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 dimidium molinum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and so it has been translated as the latter; see also 40,35. The Phillimore printed translation has ' \'bd part of a mill' for both.}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 In C17 he used }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 de medietatem molini}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('from half a mill') in its render.}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The other half of this mill does not appear in Domesday Leicestershire.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,22\tab GRIMSTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a chapelry and peculiar ecclesiastical jursdiction of Rothley Ancient Parish: Youngs, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Local Administrative Units}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 240. For another part, see 1,3. It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 17,21) and it was in that wapentake ( in Dalby-on-the-Wolds Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 17, 25, 27, 42), where Richard Basset holds it.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,23\tab SEAGRAVE. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries; see also 1,3. 14,7. It does not appear under its own name }{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 in the Leicestershire Survey, but is probably represented by the 2 carucates held by Richard Basset in the nearby Sileby (pp. 15, 24, 38).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,24\tab LODDINGTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Goscote ' Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries. It was in that same wapentake (in Loddington Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 15, 36), where it }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is held by Richard Basset. It appears to have included the land that became known as Launde (SK7904) where Richard Basset founded a priory for Augustinian canons between 1119 and 1125 on land that was extra-parochial; see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , ii. no. 1390 p. 185}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab OF THIS LAND GERARD HOLDS HALF. This partially corrects the opening statement ('He also [Robert] holds 12 carucates of land') because in fact he appears to hold only 6 carucates unless Gerard is his tenant and }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 de Roberto}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('from Robert') has been omitted.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,25\tab [GREAT] DALBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in 'Gos cote' Wapentake in 1086: other parts are directly below a 'Goscote' wapentake head at 3,12. 32,1). It was in that wapentake (in Great Dalby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 17, 25, 27, 42). In that Survey, Richard Basset (Ralph Basset on p. 17, perhaps in error) holds 1 carucate and 3 bovates in }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Magna Dalbia}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . Little Dalby (C14. 14,31. 29,19;21) was in Framland Wapentake.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,26\tab 6 CARUCATES. According to 17,33, Saeric held 3 of these carucates of land but could not withdraw elsewhere with it. In the manuscript the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 vi}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is clear, but in the Alecto facsimile there is a reddish-brown mark at the base of the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 vi}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 .}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab RAGDALE.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries, and it was in that wape ntake (in Thrussington Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 18, 43), where it is held 'of the same fee', presumably that of Roger de Mowbray who held the entry two before this.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,27\tab 'WILLOWES'. This lay in Ragdale Ancient Parish, at SK660180, between Ragdale and Hoby; }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Hoskins, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Essays in Leicestershire History}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 100; }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Deserted Medieval Village Research Group, 'Deserted Medieval Villages in Leicestershire', p. 26; }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Place-Names of Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , iii. p. 127}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentak e in 1086, like the surrounding entries, and it was in that wapentake (in Thrussington Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 18, 43), where it is held 'of the same fee', presumably that of Roger de Mowbray who held the preceding entry. The Phi llimore printed translation has 'Willows'.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,28\tab COLEORTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in 'Goscote' Wapentake at 14,18. It was in the same wapentake (in Belton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 18, 25, 45), where it is held by Richard Basset.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,29\tab ROBERT BURDET'S WIFE. See 13,37 wife note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab RATCLIFFE[-ON-THE-WREAKE].}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It is probably the last of a group of entries for places that lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab This two-carucate estate may appear in the Leicestershire Survey as a part of Thrussington; see 23,1 Thrussington note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,30\tab HOLWELL. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Ab Kettleby. It lay in Framland Wapenta ke in 1086 and it was in that wapentake (apparently in [Nether] Broughton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 21, 25, 28, 53). In that Survey (Slade, pp. 21, 25), the Domesday estates at Holwell and Ab Kettleby (11 carucates in total) are re presented by a single estate of 9 carucates held by Richard Basset of the Ridel fee, but it seems probable that this is a case of the figure }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ix}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 being written instead of }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 xi}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ; see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 353. However, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 28: Text C), the figure is given as 12 carucates, which could be the sum of the 11 carucates of 17,30 and (in error) the 1 carucate of 3,16; see the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 53).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [AB] KETTLEBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This also was an Ancient Parish and, like Holwell, its chapelry, no doubt lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086. It was in that wapentake (apparently in [Nether] Broughton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 21, 25, 28, 53), where there is a joint total for Holw ell and Ab Kettleby: 17,30 Holwell note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,31\tab HARBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 17,30): another part appears to begin a group of Wapentake places at 15,3. It was in that wapentake (in Harby Hundred ) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 22, 26, 28, 57). In that Survey it is held by Richard Bassset and like the other part of Harby (15,3) is said to lie in Harby and Plungar (SK7633). In Text A of the}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Survey (Slade, p. 22) Richard Basset holds 1 car ucate (the same as the Domesday extent). However, in Text B (Slade, p. 26) he holds 1 carucate of the Ridel fee in Harby and Plungar, succeeded by a further 1 carucate 'of the Ridel fee' in Harby on its own. In Text C (Slade, p. 28) this duplication seems to have increased further with two entries for 1 carucate in Harby and one entry for 1 carucate in Plungar, all three 'of the fee of Matilda Ridel'.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab VALUE 5s. Scribe B added this value in a space at the end of this entry; for other contributions by him in Leicestershire, see 3,7 carucates note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,32\tab WYMONDHAM. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries. Another part, coupled with Edmondthorpe ends a small group of entries for places in Framland Wapentake at 14,6). It was in that wapentake (in Stapleford Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 22, 25, 56), where it is held by Richard Basset.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 17,33\tab RALPH PIPPIN. Nothing is known of this individual, who only appears once in Domesday with this byname. Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 343, has three references for him on folio 234c, presumably in error as there is only one occurrence and none of a plain Ralph on this folio.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab GOADBY [MARWOOD]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It appears to be the l ast in a list of places in Framland Wapentake and it was in that wapentake (in Scalford Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 21, 25, 54), where it is held by Richard Basset.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab SCALFORD.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086: another part (40,23) was also probably in Framland Wapentake. This part of Scalford reappears in that wapentake (in Scalford Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 21, 25, 5 4), where it is held by Richard Basset.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab MEADOW. The }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday briefly omitted this detail, placing it after, rather than before, the value statement.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THE HOLDERS OF THESE LANDS. As the last sentence in the fief and without any qualifyi ng adjective before 'lands', the implication of it is that the holders of all the lands in this fief (except for Saeric) could go where they would. That the main scribe of Great Domesday included the names of several of the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 tenants and that some of them held 'freely' (in 17,3, referring to 17,1-3; in 17,4-5; in 17,8, referring to 17,7-8; and in 17,11;19;21) does not contradict this statement. His source probably gave this information for each entry and he abbreviated it to a single final sentence, w hile retaining some of the detail for some entries. When he edited Exon to produce the south-west counties of circuit II, he acted similarly.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab RAGDALE. The 3 carucates that Saeric held in Ragdale are half its total (17,26).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WITH IT. The Latin }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 cum ea}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 refers to the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 terra}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in '3 carucates of land'; the}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Phillimore printed translation has 'with them' in error, though the meaning is the same.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 18\tab LAND OF ROGER OF BULLY. He probably originated from Bully in the French d\'e9partement of Seine-Maritime, arrondissement and canton Neufch\'e2 tel. His lands ultimately became the honour of Tickhill named from his castle there (in Yorkshire). Both the honour and the castle are sometimes referred to as those of Blyth. Roger and his wife Muriel founded Blyth Priory (Nottinghamshire) shortly after 1086. After Roger\rquote s death his lands were seized by Robert of Bell\'ea me, son of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury. Roger and Robert may have been related. Robert lost his lands in 1102 for rebellion and the honour was in royal hands until King Stephen g ave it to Henry, Count of Eu, son of William (the Domesday holder) and Beatrice, Roger of Bully's daughter. In the fourteenth century Roger's lands were held of the honour of Lancaster. See }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Nottinghamshire}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. pp. 223-28; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , pp. 401. \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab In this small fief, unusually in Leicestershire, it appears that the lordship land is not separated from the subinfeudations, but the estates are entered in the standard order of wapentakes. Although the fief begins with lordship land, the first wapentake, Gartree, contains only this, while the second wapentake, 'Goscote', contains only one subtenanted estate. The third wapentake, Framland, contains both lordship and subinfeudated lands. \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Gartree Wapentake: 18,1 Lordship}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab 'Goscote' Wapentake: 18,2 Subinfeudation}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Framland Wapentake: 18,3-5 (Lordship land: 18,3; Subinfeudations 18,4-5)}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 18,1\tab IN THE OUTER MARGIN of folio 234c, next to the first line of this entry, is written an }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 f}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ; see 2,1 margin note, and compare LEC 24 margin note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab KNOSSINGTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086 and it was in that wapentake (in Knossington Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 14, 31), where it}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 is held of the honour of Blyth. Together with the two Marefields (1,3) and Owston (40,26), Knossington formed a detached part of Gartree Wapentake within the area of 'Goscote' Wapentake. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 For its later history, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 188-90.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THE FOURTH PART OF THIS WOODLAND. In the entry for Knossington in 1,11 the woodland is 1 furlong long by \'bd furlong wide, which is exactly a quarter of the present 2 furlongs long by 1 furlong wide. 17 Freemen are mentioned in that entry, but there is nothing on one of them holding the woodland.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 18,2\tab ROGER HOLDS ... FROM ROGER. This may be the Roger, Roger of Bully's man, who occurs several times in his Nottinghamshire fief and may perhaps be further identified with Roger of Louvetot; see NTT 9,3 Roger's note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WYMESWOLD.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 18,3\tab SALTBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086 and it was in that wapentake (in Barkestone Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 21, 54).}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab In that Survey}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 the Fee of Peverel holds 20 carucates in Saltby and Bescaby ( SK8226) and William Meschin holds 8 carucates in Garthorpe (SK8320). If the Domesday hide here is the same as at Melton Mowbray (14 \'bd carucates: 29,3 hides note), then the Domesday estate contained 32 carucates; the figure would be 39 caucates if the equation is 1 hide = 18 carucates: \{Introduction: Hides and Virgates\}. On the discrepant assessments, see }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 353; Leicestershire Survey, pp. 54-55.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Certain tithes in Saltby, Bescaby and Garthorpe were confirmed on Blyth Priory by its founder, Roger of Bully, according to the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); see NTT 9,49 Blyth note.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [* EARL *] MORCAR. See 1,2 Morcar note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 18,4\tab RICHARD HOLDS. This man may be Richard the priest, a witness to Roger of Bully's charter that founded Blyth Priory; see NTT 9,49 Blyth note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WYFORDBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries. Th is estate reappears in Framland Wapentake, in [Nether] Broughton Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 21, 53), where it is held [of the honour] of Blyth, though as 4 \'bd carucates. For other parts of Wyfordby, see 14,8 and 29,3.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 18,5\tab BURTON [LAZARS]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a township in the Ancient Parish of Melton Mowbray. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086 (this entry terminating a group). Another part seems to begin a group of places in the same wapentake at 14,29. This estate was in that wapenta ke (in Melton [Mowbray] Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 20, 52), where it is held of the honour of Blyth.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 19\tab LAND OF ROBERT THE BURSAR. He was a Norman and brother of Urso d\rquote Abbetot, sheriff of Worcestershire, who was his heir. He held in Domesday both as a tenant-in-chief and as a subtenant. On the descent of his lands, see Round, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Feudal England}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , pp. 175-76, 190-95; the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 90); Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 p. 383. A different Robert the bursar appears in Dom esday Nottinghamshire as the tenant of Roger of Bully.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab At the time of the Leicestershire Survey this fief is found divided between Robert Marmiun and Walter de Beauchamp; see the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 90).}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab In 1086 the whole of this fief was held in lordship and entered in the standard order of wapentakes. The scribe entered a Gartree wapentake head at 19,12 instead of at 19,10 (19,10 Gartree note):}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Guthlaxton Wapentake: 19,1-9 Lordship land}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Gartree Wapentake]: 19,10-11 Lordship land}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Gartree Wapentake: 19,12-16 Lordship land}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab ['Goscote' Wapentake]: 19,17-18 Lordship land}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Framland Wapentake: 19,19-20 Lordship land}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 19,1\tab LEIRE. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086. For other parts, see 3,3. 17,2.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 19,2\tab [STONEY] STANTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It seems that it was in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 like the other places in 19,1-9 (head at 19,1).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LAND [FOR *** PLOUGHS].}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday left a space suitable for six or so letters after }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 T'ra \'e7}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 which has no }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 punctus}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 after it. He left similar spaces in 19,4-6;9;11-12. In circuit I he left over 150 spaces for the completion of the plough estimate, ninety or so in Kent alone. Obviously this information was missing in the circuit volume and the scr ibe thought it important enough to leave a space for it, but he was very inconsistent and the plough estimate is completely missing in a large number of entries in Great Domesday. Sometimes the information was found to complete the estimate, though not in Leicestershire.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 19,3\tab PRIMETHORPE. This was in }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 the Ancient Parish of }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Broughton Astley. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 19,4\tab SUTTON[-IN-THE-ELMS]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Broughton Astley.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries. Another part is in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 8,2.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LAND [FOR *** PLOUGHS]. See 19,2 land note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 19,5\tab RATCLIFFE [CULEY]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a chapelry of the Ancient Par ish of Sheepy Magna. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries. It was in that wapentake (in Hinckley Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 26, 58). There Robert Marmiun (representing Robert the bursar) hold s an estate of 9 carucates, a major increase on the 2 carucates of Domesday.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LAND [FOR *** PLOUGHS]. See 19,2 land note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 19,6\tab SHACKERSTONE. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LAND [FOR *** PLOUGHS]. See 19,2 land note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [***]. There is an erasure after the villagers' ploughs. There is also an erasure in the centre margin, perhaps of a note to check whatever was written here; see 11,2 lordship note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ROBERT TOOK POSSESSION. The Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 saisiuit}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in the active voice in such a context suggests illegality ('seized') whereas the passive voice (}{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 saisitus est}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ) means 'was put in possession of'.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab HENRY OF FERRERS CLAIMS THEM AGAINST HIM. Henry of Ferrers held the adjacent Gopsall (14,11). }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 See also Fleming, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday Book and the Law}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 189 no. 956. She translates the Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 saisiuit}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 as the passive }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 saisitus est }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('was seised'); see 19,6 possession note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 19,7\tab CONGERSTONE.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries. Another part is among places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 14,13.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 19,8\tab SNARESTONE. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a chapelry of Swepstone Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 19,9\tab ODSTONE. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a chapelry of Shackerstone Ancient Parish. It probably brings to an end a list of entries in Guthlaxton Wapentake.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LAND [FOR *** PLOUGHS]. See 19,2 land note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab HENRY OF FERRERS CLAIMS THIS LAND. As with Shackerstone (19,6) Henry of Ferrers held the adjacent Gopsall (14,11). \par \tab \tab }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 See also Fleming, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday Book and the Law}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 189 no. 957.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THE JURISDICTION OF 2 CARUCATES OF THESE. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Soca .ii. car}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ucatarum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 har}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 um}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ].}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The position of the Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 harum}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , at the end of the phrase, suggests that it is a genitive pronoun dependent on the genitive }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 duarum carucatarum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 which itself depends on }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 soca} {\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('the jurisdiction of 2 carucates of these'). However, if }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 harum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 were before }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 duarum carucatarum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 it would be an adjective, the meaning then being 'the jurisdicti on of these 2 carucates'. If this were so, Congerstone (19,7) would have to be the village intended because the 2 carucates would be the present one and the one in 19,8. If, however, the meaning is 'the jurisdiction of 2 carucates of these' (i.e. 'of two of these carucates') then the 2 carucates must be part of a larger number, that is of a sum of 2 \'bd carucates which include the \'bd carucate at Congerstone. In that case the village designated is Shackerstone (19,6), which is more probable in view of the claim by Henry of Ferrers mentioned there and here. Moreover, Congerstone is probably too far from the Odstone-Shackerstone-Snarestone group to be related jurisdictionally to them.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The Alecto edition has 'the soke of these two carucates belongs to the above-mentioned vill.'}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab IS AN ADJUNCT OF. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 iacet ad}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . This implies a dependent relationship and not a geographical proximity (which is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 iacet in}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ). The Phillimore printed translation has 'lies with'; the Alecto edition has 'belongs to'; see 13,26 adjunct note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THE ABOVE-WRITTEN VILLAGE. That is, probably Shackerstone 19,6; see 19,9 jurisdiction note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 19,10\tab [IN GARTREE WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based on the evidence of Domesday and of the Leicestershire Survey; see 19,10 Fleckney note}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab FLECKNEY.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was originally a chapelry of Wistow Ancient Parish. There is another part at 19,12, directly below a Gartree wapentake head, so Fleckney probably lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086 as it did in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 23, 33).}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par \tab \tab In that Survey, Robert the bursar's two estates in Fleckney (19,10;12) are combined into a single one of 4 carucates and 1 bovate held by Robert Marmiun. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 For the later history of this estate, see }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 85-88.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 19,11\tab SMEETON [WESTERBY]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Kibworth Beauchamp. It represents the merger of two adjacent settlements, Smeeton and Westerby, which were still separate in the fourteenth century: }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 165}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . It probably lay in Gartree W apentake in 1086. For other parts, see 1,4. 13,26;29. It was in Gartree Wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 23, 27, 34). There this 3-carucate estate must be part of the 1 carucate and the 4 carucates (less 1 bovate?) }{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 held by Walter de Beauchamp and of the 1 carucate and 1 bovate held by Richard de Rollos. \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 184-85.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LAND [FOR *** PLOUGHS]. See 19,2 land note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 19,12\tab IN GARTREE WAPENTAKE. It appears that the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote this heading above the wrong entry for Fleckney. The lands in this wapentake begin with Fleckney (19,10); see 19,10 Gartree note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab FLECKNEY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was originally a chapelry of Wistow Ancient Parish. There is another part at 19,10. Fleckney lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086 as it did in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 23, 33), where}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Robert the bursar's two estates in Fleckney (19,10;12) are combined into a single one of 4 carucates and 1 bovate held by Robert Marmiun. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 85-88.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LAND [FOR *** PLOUGHS]. See 19,2 land note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 19,13\tab WISTOW. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries. There is ano ther part at 19,16. The site of the desrted medieval village is at SP643960.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 337-39.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 19,14\tab KIBWORTH [BEAUCHAMP]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086 , like the surrounding entries. It was in that wapentake (in Kibworth Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 14, 24, 27, 31).}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 In the Leicestershire Survey these two holdings (19,14-15) appear as 11 carucates held by Walter de Beauchamp. They are said to lie in }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 alia Chiburd'}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 (p. 14) but simply in }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Kibwrd'}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 / }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Kibwrth(e) }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 on pp. 24, 27. In such cases }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 alia}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is a scribal device meaning 'another estate called Kibworth' and does not in itself prove the existence of separate 'villages'; see Thorn, 'Manorial Affixes'. The preceding entry on p. 14 is for Kibworth Harcourt (= 16,8). \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid920401 For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 168-71.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab EDWIN ALFRITH. See Tengvik, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Old English Bynames}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 213 (PM).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THESE 3 LANDS. They are Fleckney, Wistow and Kibworth Beauchamp (19,12-14).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 19,15\tab KIBWORTH [BEAUCHAMP]. See 19,14 Kibworth note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 19,16\tab WISTOW. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries. There is another part at 19,13. The site of th e deserted medieval village is at SP643960.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 337-39.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 19,17\tab [IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE]. This heading is supplied from the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey relating to Tilton-on-the-Hill; see 19,17 Tilton note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab TILTON[-ON-THE-HILL]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086, as it was in that wapentake, in Tilton[-on-the-Hill] Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 15, 37), held by Walter de Beauchamp. For other parts, see 1,3. 2,7.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 19,18\tab [EAST] NORTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a chapelry of Tugby Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086; for another part, see 29,2. This estate appears in 'Goscote' Wapentake (in Loddington Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 15, 36), where it}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 is held by Walter de Beauchamp, though rated at 6 carucates. \par \tab \tab East Norton is so called to distinguish it from Kings Norton (1,4).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 19,19\tab SOMERBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086. It was in that wapentake (in Cold Overton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 20, 49). According to that Survey, Robert Marmiun (who later held this estate) held 3 carucates in Somerby and 3 carucates in Burrough-on-the-Hill, to t alling 5 bovates more than this Domesday entry. However, the holdings of Henry of Ferrers in Domesday at Somerby and Burrough-on-the-Hill (14,31-32) and that of Robert the bursar at Somerby (19,19) amount to 11 carucates as do the corresponding Ferrers an d Marmiun holdings in the Survey, though the individual carucages differ: for a tabulation and discussion, see Leicestershire Survey, p. 49.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 In the Leicestershire Survey }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (Slade,}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 pp. 14, 31), in Knossington Hundred, Gar tree Wapentake, [Robert] Marmiun is also credited with 3 carucates at Burrough[-on-the-Hill]. It is assumed that those are a duplicate of the three which that Survey}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 allots him in Cold Overton Hundred, Framland Wapentake (pp. 19, 49).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 19,20\tab WITHCOTE.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Framland Wapentake at 29,20. It was in that wapentake (in Cold Overton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 20, 50), held by Walter de Beauchamp. It formed a detached part of that wapentake.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 20\tab THIS FIEF is duplicated in the addition made by the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday on folio 237a after Leicestershire had been rubricated; see 43,9 entry note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LAND OF ROBERT THE USHER. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 In the du plicate of this fief (43,9 entry note) Robert (the usher) is said to be Robert son of William the usher. A Robert occurs in Cambridgeshire (CAM 39,3) and is identified in the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Inquisitio Eliensis}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (Hamilton, p. 115) as Robert the usher, but he is not necessa rily the same man. However, it is possible that the Robert son of William who holds in Derbyshire (DBY 15) and also holds the adjacent fief to William the usher in the Nottinghamshire folios (NTT 28-29) is the same as this Leicestershire Robert. A William , identified as William the usher in Exon, also occurs in Devon: DEV 5,9. 51,2-12 (DEV 51,3 William note). See }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , pp.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 389, 492.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab This small fief contains land in only one wapentake, where the lordship estate is entered first:}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Framland Wapentake]: 20,1-4 (Lordship land: 20,1; Subinfeudations: 20,2-4)}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 20,1\tab [* IN FRAMLAND WAPENTAKE *]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 20,1 Hose note}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . \par \tab \tab In some otherwise well-rubricated counties, the}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 did not appear to feel it necessary to include a hundred or wapentake heading at the beginning of a chapter when the heading that he would have inserted was the last in the previous chapter. In the present case, a Framland wapentake heading is needed, but the scribe had written one at 19,19. However, he wrote a Guthlaxton wapentake heading at 10,1, even though the previous head (at 9,1) was for the same wapentake. He similarly wrote a heading for 'Goscote' Wapentake at 23,1 when the previous heading was for the same wapentake at 22,1, and he wrote a Framland wapentake heading at 30,1, although the previous head (at 29,19) was for that wapentake. It thus appears that he would have inserted one in the present instance.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THE MAIN SCRIBE of Great Domesday did not write on the rest of the first line of this entry (after the tenant's name) because of a fold in the parchment.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab HOSE. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. Another part seems to have been in Framland Wapentake at 15,13. This estate appears in Framland Wapentake (in [Long] Clawson Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp.}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 22, 56), where all the estates held by Robert the usher in Hose and [Long] Clawson (20,1-4) form a single unit of 11 carucates less 1 bovate held by Henry Tuchet in [Long] Clawson. This is slightly different to the Domesday total (10 \'bd carucates) but there is a suspicion that both the Domesday and the Survey figures are slightly inaccurate and that Long Clawson was probably 16 plus 8 caruca tes and Hose 12 carucates, making a unit of 36 carucates. All the holdings in these two villages are tabulated in the Leicestershire Survey, p. 56.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 20,2\tab HOSE. See 20,1 Hose note. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This estate likewise appears in Framland Wapentake (in [Long] Clawson Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp.}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 22, 56), where it is included in the 11 carucates less 1 bovate held by Henry Tuchet in [Long] Clawson.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 20,3\tab [LONG] CLAWSON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a Framland wapentake head at 15,12. It was in the same wapentake (in [Long] Clawson Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 22, 56), where it is included in the 11 carucates less 1 bovate held by Henry Tuchet in [Long] Clawson. See 20,1 Hose note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 20,4\tab [LONG] CLAWSON. See 20,3 Clawson note. This estate }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 reappears in Framland Wapentake (in [Long] Clawson Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 22, 56), where it is included in the 11 carucates less 1 bovate held by Henry Tuchet in [Long] Clawson. See 20,1 Hose note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 21\tab LAND OF RALPH OF MORTIMER. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 He was the son of Roger of Mortimer (from Mortemer in the d\'e9partement of Seine-Maritime, France, arrondissement Dieppe, }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 canton Neufch\'e2 tel-en-Bray)}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and was probably the steward of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury (see Mason \lquote Officers and Clerks\rquote , p. 248). His father Roger had held the fief before him and Roger or Ralph received a number of estates forfeited by Roger son of Earl William (of Hereford), Ralph's cousin, on his rebellion in 1074.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 He became a supporter of William II and fought in Normandy in 1089-1090 against Robert Curthose, and he similarly supported Henry I against Robert in 1104; see }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Tengvik, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Old English Bynames}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , pp. 101-102; }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Loyd, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 70; Sanders, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 English Baronies}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 98; Keats-Rohan, }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 335.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The two lands in this small fief are both subinfeudated and lie in the same wapentake, Guthlaxton.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 21,1\tab [IN GUTHLAXTON WAPENTAKE]. For the insertion of this head, see 21,1 Osbaston note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab OSBASTON. This was a township of Cadeby Ancient Parish. Like Cadeby itself (13,44) it will probably have lain in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, as it did later (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 158).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 21,2\tab 'WESTON'. This is a deserted village at SK303027 (PM). It lay in the Ancient Parish of Sheepy Magna and was no doubt in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the previous entry.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab EDRIC ... FREELY. This sentence, referring also to Ralph's other holding (21,1), was a later addition to Leicestershire made by a scribe who wr ote nowhere else in Great Domesday, but was contemporary with it. The ink used seems to be the same as that used by scribe B on folio 235c (27,4), but the pen is quite different. }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Edged}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is a form not found elsewhere in Great Domesday: von Feilitzen, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 231, under Old English }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Eadgyth}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . There is no other mention in Domesday Leicestershire of either an Edric nor an Edith (other than the queen in 1,9). However, in Hampshire, Herefordshire, Shropshire and Warwickshire an Edric had held land }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 that passed to Ralph of Mortimer, while in Herefordshire and Shropshire an Edith was likewise Ralph's predecessor, but they never held land together. The Edric in HEF 9,5;11;15-16 is probably Edric the wild (HEF 9,3 Edr ic note), as are those in SHR 4,11,5;12;16, while Ralph's predecessor in Shropshire may have been Queen Edith (SHR 6,2 Edith note), though the Edith here is unlikely to have been the queen in view of her holding with someone else and 'freely'.}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab It is likely that this record of the }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid920401 tenure was missing in the circuit volume.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 22\tab LAND OF RALPH SON OF HUBERT.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 He was the son of Hubert de Ryes (in the French d\'e9partement of Calvados, arrondissement Bayeux) and his brothers were Adam son of Hubert and Eudo Da pifer. The four had saved the life of Duke William in 1047 and were rewarded when William acquired the throne of England. Ralph was lord of Crich (Derbyshire) which became a barony under his successors, the first being his son Odo. Ralph was also probably the father of Matilda who was the second wife of Edward of Salisbury. The barony was divided }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 c}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . 1187 between Henry de Stutteville and Hubert Fitz Ralph; see }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Eyton, }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 54; }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Sanders, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 English Baronies}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 37; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domes day People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 340.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab This fief consists of a single estate that is subinfeudated.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 22,1\tab [OLD] DALBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 and was in that wapentake (in Dalby-on-the-Wolds [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Dalbia super Wald'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ] Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 17, 42), where it is held of the fee of Edward of Salisbury.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab SPINNEY. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 spinetum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 : 'a wood of thorns'; compare }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 silua spineti}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('woodland - a spinney') in LIN 30,23. Despite the importance of thorns (for example, for making stock-proof fencing), there are only 22 occurrences in Domesday. Seventeen of these are in counties of circuit IV, in which Leicestershire lay, suggesting that this rare particularization is related to decisions made by the Commissioners or clerks of this circuit. It is probable that in other counties and circuits many spinneys are concealed under the generic }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 silua minuta}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('underwood'). See also 40,32. In WIL 8,12 and NTH 1,2g. 26,10 spinney is mentioned in entries that contain references to woodland as well, in the last of these there are two separate amounts.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 23\tab LAND OF GUY OF RAIMBEAUCOURT. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 He apparently came from Raimbeaucourt in the French d\'e9partement of Nord (arrondissement Douai, canton Douai-Nord-Est), although Tengvik, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Old English Bynames}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , 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\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Recherches Historiques et Topographiques}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 108, but here the problem is regarded by Tengvik as being a lack of early forms. Dauzat and Rostaing, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Dictionnaire des Noms de Lieux en France}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , under Raimbeaucourt, regard the two place-names as having the same origin. \par }{\insrsid4879481 \tab \tab }{\insrsid920401 Guy's son Ingelrann held land in Domesday Book in his own right, but Guy\rquote s successor was another son, Richard; ee Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\insrsid920401 , pp. 464-65.}{ \cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The bulk of his Leicestershire fief had been granted (or sold) by Guy to the Abbot of Selby together with the adjacent Stanford-on-Avon (NTH 41,3) of which 23,2;5-6 are expressly said to belong.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab This small fief is divided between land held in lordship and land subinfeudated. The former contains a single estate; the standard order is not entirely respected in the latter:}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab 'Goscote' Wapentake: 23,1 Lordship land}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Guthlaxton Wapentake: 23,2-3 Subinfeudations \par \tab \tab Gartree Wapentake: 23,4 Subinfeudation}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Guthlaxton Wapentake]: 23,5 Subinfeudation \par \tab \tab [Gartree Wapentake]: 23,6 Subinfeudation \par \tab On this dislocated order, which is probably the result of the main scribe of Great Domesday entering the estates by holder rather than by wapentake, see 23,5 Guthlaxton note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 23,1\tab THRUSSINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 and was in that wapentake (in Thrussington Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 17, 25, 43). \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab In the Leicestershire Survey Thomas holds 10 carucates and 4 virgates in Thrussington and Roger de Mowbray holds 14 bovates in the same place. I n Hoby 7 carucates and 1 virgate are held of Thomas' fee and 4 carucates and 3 virgates of the fee of Albemarle. If '4 bovates' are substituted for '4 virgates' in Thomas' holding at Thrussington (a very likely emendation, since 4 virgates make a carucate ) , the total for these adjacent estates in the Survey is 24 carucates and 2 bovates, which is 2 carucates more than the Domesday total for Thrussington (23,1) and Hoby (36,2). However, Roger de Mowbray succeeded Robert of Bucy at Ragdale and 'Willowes' in t his hundred (17,26-27) and it is possible that the 2 carucates in Ratcliffe-on-the-Wreake (17,29), held by Robert of Bucy in 1086, should be counted with Thrussington and Hoby: they are otherwise unmentioned in the Survey and the three estates of Thrussin g ton, Hoby and Ratcliffe-on-the-Wreake together make the total of Domesday and the Survey the same (if '4 bovates' are read for '4 virgates'). If this is so, Guy of Raimbeaucourt's 18-carucate estate at Thrussington in 1086, represented by the holdings of Thomas in the Survey, will have included a substantial portion at Hoby.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 23,2\tab ABBOT BENEDICT [* OF SELBY *]. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Selby was a Benedictine Abbey dedicated to Our Lord Jesus Christ, St Mary the Virgin and St German. It was founded by William I possibly for Benedict, a monk of Auxerre, its first abbot, who was in England before 1069 apparently carrying a relic of St Germanus and intending to found a monastery and who came to the king\rquote s attention. Benedict retired to Rochester in 1096/1097 and was succeeded by Hugh of Lacy who began building the abbey church; see Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Medieval Religious Houses}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , pp. 57, 76; Knowles, Brooke and London, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Heads of Religious Houses}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 69; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 163.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 'STORMESWORTH'. This lay in Swinford Ancient Parish. It was adjacent to another lost place, 'Westrill'; see Hoskins, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Essays in Leicestershire History}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 89; }{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 Deserted Medieval Village Research Group, 'Deserted Medieval Villages in Leicestershire', p. 26.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . It was still mar ked on the nineteenth-century Ordnance Survey six-inch map (sheet 53NW) at SK583806, but is now much built over. It was in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086. For another part, see 29,8.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab STANFORD[-ON-AVON] IN NORTHAMPTONSHIRE. Guy of Raimbeaucourt had granted Stanford-on-Avon (NTH 41,3) with its outliers to Selby Abbey, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 pro amore Dei}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ,}{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 et anima domini mei Willielmi}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('for the love of God and for the soul of my lord William') (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , iii. p. 499), although reported in Domesday Book (NTH 41,3) as a straightforward purchase (PM), as are the 'grants' of land belonging to Stanford-on-Avon in Leicestershire (23,4, referring to 23,2-4).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The 'charter' granting }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Stanfort que est vicecomitatus Hantonie}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('Stanford which is [part] of the sheriffdom of Northamp ton') is a confirmation of various gifts by William I, most recently edited in Bates, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , no. 272 pp. 818-21. It is probably a twelfth-century forgery, but much of its information, though simplified, may be authentic. Only Stan ford-on-Avon is mentioned as Guy's gift, but it seems probable that that name encompasses members of that multiple estate ('Stormesworth', Misterton and Husbands Bosworth: 23,2-4) since these are all held by the Abbot of Selby in 1086 from Guy, but are sa i d to have been bought by the abbot from him, like Stanford-on-Avon itself (NTH 41,3). Of these, 'Stormesworth' is specifically said to belong to Stanford-on-Avon, as is another part of Husbands Bosworth (23,6). [North or South] Kilworth (23,5) is also sai d to belong to Stanford-on-Avon, but, like this other part of Husbands Bosworth (23,6), was not held by the Abbot of Selby. \par \tab \tab See }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , iii. p. 499; }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 294.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LEOFRIC . A Leofric, almost certainly the same person, had held Stanford-on-Avon and land in Sulby, whose jurisdiction belonged to Stanford-on-Avon (NTH 41,3;7); he had also held land in Kilworth and Husbands Bosworth which belonged to Stanford-on-Avon (23,6, referring to 23,5-6).}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 23,3\tab MISTERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the previous entry. There are other parts at 3,7 and 37,2, both falling in groups of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake. It was in that wapentake (in Misterton Hundred) in the Leice s tershire Survey (Slade, pp. 26, 58). There no extent is given (the manuscript is defective), but it is held by the Abbot of Selby, Guy of Raimbeaucourt's undertenant in 1086. It was no doubt acquired by the abbey from Guy along with Stanford-on-Avon: 23,2 Stanford note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 23,4\tab [HUSBANDS] BOSWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086 and was in the same wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 23, 33), where it is also }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 held by the Abbot of Selby. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 30-33.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab BOUGHT THESE LANDS FROM GUY. That is, the estates of 'Stormesworth', Misterton and Husbands Bosworth (23,2-4), which were probably all members of the multiple estate of Stanford-on-Avon (NTH 41,3), which w as given to Selby Abbey by charter (though the extant version is a forgery): 23,2 Stanford note. Domesday, however, makes it clear that the 'gift' was in fact a sale, here and in NTH 41,3. Although the abbot had bought these lands from Guy he was still Gu y's tenant. It is conceivable, however, that the Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 emit}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 means 'is buying', since the present and perfect tenses of this verb are the same (in the third person singular). It is possible that at the time of the Domesday Inquest the arrangements for the pu rchase had not been finalized and had not yet been confirmed by the king and that at the last moment the purchase was converted to a gift. It is perhaps more likely that the forged charter confused or simplified the real situation.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab See also Fleming, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday Book and the Law}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 190 no. 958.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 23,5\tab [* IN GUTHLAXTON WAPENTAKE *]. It seems that this wapentake head should be supplied, even though Husbands Bosworth (23,4) is firmly evidenced in Gartree Wapentake as is another part of the same place at 23,6. Oth er parts of Kilworth (16,3. 44,12-13) seem also to have lain in Guthlaxton Wapentake. There is no reason to think that the link with Stanford-on-Avon (Northamptonshire) mentioned in 23,6, must require that Kilworth and that part of Husbands Bosworth shoul d lie in the same wapentake. It is more probable that the main scribe of Great Domesday initially missed the second part of Husbands Bosworth (23,6) and entered it out of sequence, or, even more likely that he was in fact entering the lands according to th eir 1086 holders: Guy (23,1); the Abbot of Selby (23,2-4); Robert (23,5-6). This is a procedure that frequently leads to the repetition of wapentake heads.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab KILWORTH.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 There were two separate Ancient Parishes called }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 North Kilworth and South Kilworth. It is n ot certain when the separation occurred and how the four Domesday estates (16,3. 23,5. 44,12-13) are to be allocated between the two units. The present estate was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 like the other parts: 23,5 Guthlaxton note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 23,6\tab [* IN GARTREE WAPENTAKE *]. For the insertion of this heading, see 23,6 Bosworth note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [HUSBANDS] BOSWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086 (another part is directly beneath a Gartree wapentake head at 23,4) and was i n the same wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 23, 33). For the dislocation of order, see 23,5 Guthlaxton note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 In the Leicestershire Survey this estate of 11 \'bd carucates was part of the 14 \'bd carucates in Husbands Bosworth (erroneously given as }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Stanton'}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 , a name transferred down from the previous entry) held by Ansketil. His land also included the 4-carucate estate of Robert of Vessey (16,7). \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 30-33.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THESE 2 LANDS BELONG TO STANFORD[-ON-AVON]. The two lands are 23,5-6. 'Stormesworth' (23,2) is also said to belong to Stanford-on-Avon (NTH 41,3).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LEOFRIC . See 23,2 Leofric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 24\tab LAND OF GUY OF CRAON. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 He was a Breton, the son of Robert of Vitr\'e9 (in the French d\'e9partement of Ille-et-Vilaine, arrondissement Rennes) and Berthe of Craon (in the French d\'e9 partement of Mayenne, arrondissement Ch\'e2teau-Gontier, in the Anjou). In England he held some land from the Breton Ralph de Ga\'ebl, Earl of East Anglia, but acquired more land after the latter\rquote s revolt and exile in 1074. The lands he held as tenant-in-chief became the barony of Freiston (Lincolnshire). His wife was daughter of Hugh son of Baldric. See Sanders, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 English Baronies}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 47; Keats-Rohan }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 464.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab The three estates in this fief are all in Framland Wapentake. Lordship land is entered before the subinfeudation:}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Framland Wapentake: 24,1-3 (24,1-2: Lordship land; 24,3: Subinfeudation)}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 24,1\tab STONESBY. In the manuscript }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 STOVENEBI}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , spli t over two lines, is lined through in vermilion, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. The Alecto facsimile does not reproduce this red-lining; see 2,6 Keythorpe note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Stonesby was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086 and was in that wapentake (in Waltham[-on-the-Wolds] Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 21, 54), where it is held by Alan de Craon.}{ \cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 24,2\tab 2 \'bd CARUCATES. Scribe B interlined }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 7 dimid'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , the tail of the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 7}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 extending downwards after }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 t'r\'ea}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 to form an insertion mark. He probably made this correction at the same time as three others; see 13,51 \'a34 note. For his other contributions to Leicestershire, see 3,7 carucates note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WALTHAM[-ON- THE-WOLDS]. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086: another part (13,69) appears to begin a group of three places in that Wapentake. The present estate was in the same wapentake, in Waltham[-on-the-Wolds] Hundred, in the Leiceste rshire Survey (Slade, pp. 21, 54), where it is held by Alan de Craon.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WITHOUT FULL JURISDICTION. This does not imply that he only has partial jurisdiction (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 sac}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 or }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 soc}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , not }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 sac}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 soc}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ), but that he has no jurisdiction over this \'bd carucate.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab RESOURCES. Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 pecunia}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in Domesday often means livestock, a reversion to its origin in Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 pecus}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('flock', 'herd'). Here the more general sense of resources (as in the Alecto edition) is needed: the clause means that the resources of Waltham-on-the-Wolds in men and l and have already been included in the entry for Stonesby (24,1). The usual meaning of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 pecunia}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is 'money' and the sense of 'valuation' is never far away from the Domesday use. Compare 6,4 resources note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ENUMERATED ABOVE. That is, in the entry for Stonesby: 24,1}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 24,3\tab SPROXTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a Framland wapentake head at 30,1. It was in that wapentake (in Sproxton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 21, 5 5), where it is held by Alan de Craon as a 2-carucate estate.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 25\tab LAND OF WILLIAM PEVEREL. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 William came to England early, possibly with the Conqueror in 1066, and was given charge of the castle that William erected in Nottingham in 1068 on his way to suppre ss the first northern revolt. William held land in Normandy, possibly near Barfleur in the French d\'e9 partement of Manche. The similarity of their names suggests that he may have been related to Ranulf Peverel, the Domesday holder. William Peverel had a cast le at Castleton in the Peak district which became the centre of the barony or honour of the Peak. He founded the Priory of St James in Northampton and Lenton Priory in Nottinghamshire as a cell of the Abbey of Cluny. He had a daughter Adeliza who married R ichard de Redvers. On William's death in 1114 his son, William II, succeeded him, but his lands were seized 1153-1154 by Henry of Anjou (King Henry II). William was accused of poisoning and he retired to a monastery. Some of his lands were given to Robert of Ferrers, Earl of Derby, who was married to Margaret the daughter of William II of Peverel, but other lands, still forming the honour of Peverel, were retained by the Crown. Richard I granted the castle and honour of the Peak to his brother John. \par \tab \tab Peverel is from Old French }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 peurel}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , Latin }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 piperellus}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , diminutive of }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 piper}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('pepper'). The diminutive suffix -}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ellus}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 could mean 'small' or be affectionate 'sweet little'. If peppercorn is meant, the reference could be to William's rotundity or his dark hair or fea tures; see Tengvik, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Old English Bynames}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 326. Reaney, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , under Peverall, suggests that the reference might also be to a character trait: 'a small man with a fiery, peppery temper'. See also }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p 228; Sanders, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 English Baronies}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 136; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 494.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab The five estates in this fief are all in Guthlaxton Wapentake. Lordship land is entered before the subinfeudations: \par \tab \tab Guthlaxton Wapentake 25,1-5 (Lordship land: 25,1-2; Subinfeudations: 24,3-5)}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 25,1\tab FOSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 25,2\tab ARNESBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a Guthlaxton wapentake head at 4,1.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 2 OF WILLIAM'S MEN. See 25,3 Payne note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab IN LEICESTER, A BURGESS. There is no reference to this in any of the entries in the section on the city of Leicester which list the houses and burgesses (C6-17).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 25,3\tab PAYNE . He is probably the same p erson as the Payne who holds under William Peverel in Northamptonshire (NTH 35,8), 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 h e re in 25,5 and also in NTT 10,22 and NTH 35,9-11. In NTT 10,51 Payne and Saxfrith are called William's men and Saxfrith in NTT 10,22 is also so described. It is possible that they are the two unnamed men of William who shared ploughs the villagers and sma llholders here in 25,2.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 'LUBBESTHORPE'. This was a chapelry of Aylestone Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries and like 'Bromkinsthorpe'. Its approximate centre is at Abbey Farm, near where the site o f Lubbesthorpe Abbey was marked on the first edition Ordnance Survey one-inch map and on the nineteenth-century six-inch map at SK541011. It survives only as the name of a Civil Parish; see}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Deserted Medieval Village Research Group, 'Deserted Medieval Villages in Leicestershire', p. 25.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab RESIDING. See 34,1 reside note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 'BROMKINSTHORPE'. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of St Mary in Castro. It lay to the south-west of Leicester, beyond Westcotes. The reason for the intimate connection with the bo rough of Leicester is uncertain: }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , iv. pp. 381-83, suggests that it had been associated with one of the borough's open fields, but that the burgesses had been deprived of its use. 'Bromkinsthorpe' descended in the earldom of Leicester and included Westcotes (SK5704) which was granted to Leicester Abbey. The jurisdiction of 2 carucates of Ratby (13,5) lay in 'Bromkinsthorpe'.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 2 PLOUGHS. This corrects the Phillimore printed translation which has '2 c.' (= carucates). The main scribe of Great Domesday was aware of the possible confusion over the extension of }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 car'}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 (to }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 caruca}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , 'plough', and to }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 carucata}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , 'carucate') and so included }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 terrae}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('of land') after it when 'carucate' was meant (1,1b land note). Although the land held by the inhabitants o f a vill may have been given in the circuit volume, this was not included in Domesday Leicestershire, in common with many counties, and the holding of the Freemen is specifically given next. The mistranslation may have arisen if the next phrase ('5 oxen p loughing') was regarded as supplying all of the plough information for the villagers, smallholders and Freemen, rather than being part of it. The scribe could have written '2 \'bd ploughs and 1 ox' (assuming 8 oxen to a plough team: 25,3 oxen note), and perhaps did not do so because the 5 oxen had been recorded separately at some stage.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 5 OXEN PLOUGHING. This phrase is a variation on \lquote 5 oxen there\rquote . }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 There were normally reckoned to be 8 oxen to a plough team, but there is evidence for smaller teams in the south -west; see Lennard, \lquote Domesday Plough-Teams\rquote ; Finberg, \lquote Domesday Plough-Team\rquote ; Lennard, \lquote Domesday }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 caruca}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \rquote . In Herefordshire there is evidence that, at least on the king\rquote s lordship land, a plough team of 6 oxen was the norm; see HEF 1,50 oxen note. See also CON 5,2,19 plough note. Oxen are not mentioned elsewhere in Domesday Leicestershire, but 6 cattle (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 animalia}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ) are recorded in Sharnford, which might have been oxen (42,10 cattle note). The only place near 'Bromkinsthorpe' with a part of a plough which might have formed a full team with these 5 oxen is Oadby (40,25), where there were 1 \'bd ploughs (none recorded in 1086, however). There is land for \'bd plough in Kirby [Muxloe]? (13,42), also nearby, but the number of ploughs actually at work is not given.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab UNPRODUCTIVE WOODLAND. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 silua infructuosa}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (strictly 'that does not bear fruit'), meaning there were no oaks or beech to produce beechmast or acorns to feed pigs; see also DOR 11,16 and DOR 11,16 woodland note. In KEN C1 a thousand acres of unproducti ve woodland in Canterbury provided an income of 24s; the corresponding entry in the satellite text, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Excerpta }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (KEN C1 woodland note), has }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 silua minuta}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('underwood') for Domesday's }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 silua infructuosa}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , which might suggest that any oak and beech in it were stil l saplings, which when fully grown would provide feed for swine. The Phillimore printed translation has 'barren woodland'. A similar negative phrase }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 silua non pastilis}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('unpasturable woodland': DBY 5,5) refers to the fact that the wood will not support grazing for sheep and cattle (compare the common phrases }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 silua pastilis}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 silua pastilis per loca}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ). The sheep themselves (like the pigs) have been eliminated in abbreviation but will have been included, for estates that could support them, in the circuit vo lume if it had the same information as Exon. A more precise phrase }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 silua sine pasnagio}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('woodland without pannage') occurs several times in Hampshire (HAM 1,40. 1W3. 21,3. 29,15. 69,35. IoW 6,11. IoW 9,5).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 25,4\tab KIRBY [MUXLOE]. This was a chapelry of Glenfield Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries. For the identification, see 6,7 Kirkby note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THEY BELONG TO 'LUBBESTHORPE'. That is, to 25,3.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 25,5\tab SAXFRITH . }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 William Peverel also had a tenant called Saxfrith in NTT 10,22;51 (Old Basford), the only occurrences of this name there, and in NTH 35,9[-11] (again the only occurrence), who is likely to be the same as his tenant here (no other men of this name appear in the county); there are only a do zen other people with this name in Domesday. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 In NTT 10,51 he has a co-tenant, one Payne, who is probably the same individual who holds from William Peverel in 25,3; see 25,3 Payne note. In NTT 10,51 Saxfrith and Payne are called William's men, as is Saxfrith in NTT 10,22.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 According to Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 417, Saxfrith was the father of Philip of Essebi.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ASHBY [MAGNA]. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly beneath a Guthlaxton wapen take head at 34,1. The size of the estate (16 carucates less 2 bovates) makes it certain that it was principally at Ashby Magna. However, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 26, 59) William Peverel holds 1 \'bd carucates in Ashby Parva in Gilmorton Hundred, Guthlaxton Wapentake. This will certainly have been part of his holding at Ashby Magna, but the major part is missing from that Survey, unless further parts of Ashby Parva (\u8531\'3f virgate held by Richard Basset and 2 carucates and 1 virgate held by Robert de Ferrers) were regarded as part of the Domesday holding. In }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Feudal Aids}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , iii. p. 98, the Peverel holding is at both Ashby Magna and Ashby Parva. Domesday also specifically locates another estate at Ashby Parva (17,5).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 26\tab LAND OF WILLIAM BONVALLET. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 His name is Old French }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 bon vaslet}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('good valet'), not a toponym; see Tengvik, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Old English Bynames}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 342. He was also a subtenant of the Bishop of Coutances in Buckinghamshire. Nothing more is known of him; see Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 468.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab This fief consists of a single estate in 'Goscote' Wapentake, held in lordship.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 26,1\tab RAVENSTONE. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 and it was in that same wapentake (in Diseworth Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade,}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 pp. 19, 47), if the 2 carucates here held by William Bonvallet can be equated with the two held in that Survey by the Earl of Warwick.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab A further part of Ravenstone was in Derbyshire in 1086 (DBY 14,8). That part was incorporated into Leicestershire by a boundary change in 1884.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 27\tab LAND OF WILLIAM LOVET. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The byname is Old French }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 louet}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 leuet}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , ('wolf-cub') diminutive of Old French }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 lou}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 leu}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , Modern French }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 loup}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 from Latin }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 lupus}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('wolf'). The significance is unexplained. William may have been a member of the Luvet family which held land at Cond\'e9-sur-Risle (in the French d\'e9 partement of Eure, arrondissement Bernay, canton Montfort-sur-Risle). See Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 492}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 .}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab This chapter contains only land held in lordship; the order of wapentakes is not standard:}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab ['Goscote' Wapentake]: 27,1}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Gartree Wapentake]: 27,2}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Framland Wapentake]: 27,3}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 27,1\tab [* IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE *]. Diseworth is placed in 'Goscote' Wapentake by the Leicestershire Survey: 27,1 Diseworth note. The main scribe of Great Do mesday might have felt no need to insert a heading as he had already entered one for 'Goscote' Wapentake at 26,1, but see 20,1 Framland note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid15159909 \tab }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 DISEWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086. A total of 17 carucates i n Diseworth is included in Diseworth Hundred, 'Goscote' Wapentake, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 46), though these particular 3 carucates cannot be precisely identified there. \par \tab \tab Land here (4 }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 cassati}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ) was granted to the church at Breedon-on-the Hill in the latter half of the tenth century; see LEC 5 Peterborough note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 27,2\tab [IN GARTREE WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 27,2 Theddingworth note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THEDDINGWORTH. This wa s an Ancient Parish. There were several other parts of this vill (10,12-13. 40,31. 43,5) which all seem to have lain in Gartree Wapentake in 1086. In the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 27, 35), in text C only, 2 carucates are held of the Ridel fee by H u gh the sheriff in Gartree Wapentake. No assessment is given for the present estate in Domesday and it is not obvious with which, if any, of the estates in Theddingworth the land in that Survey should be identified. The Ridel fee normally comprises lands h eld by Robert of Bucy in Domesday (LEC 17), but Robert holds no estate in Theddingworth.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 316-17.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab IS AN ADJUNCT OF. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 iacet ad}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . This implies a dependent relationship and not a geographical proximity (which is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 iacet in}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ). The Phillimore printed translation has 'lies with'; the Alecto edition has 'belongs to'. See 13,26 adjunct note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THE KING'S MANOR OF [GREAT] BOWDEN. That is 1,4. The Phillimore printed translation has plain Bowden.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 27,3\tab [IN FRAMLAND WAPENTAKE]. This heading is supplied here for ease of reference from the body of the entry.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab SEWSTERN. This was a chapelry of Buckminster Ancient Parish. It lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086 and it was in that wapentake (in Sproxton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 22, 55), where this estate is held by William Meschin. In that Survey, this holding and that of the Bishop of Lincoln at Buckminster (3,15) are combined under a single joint heading: Buckminster and Sewste rn.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 6 VILLAGERS WITH 1 FREEMAN. The main scribe of Great Domesday seems to have written }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 vi soch'i c\'fb .i. soch'i}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 here, the second }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 soch'i }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 being in the wrong case (it should be in the ablative, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 soch}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 emann}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 o}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ). Scribe B erased the first }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 soch'i}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and inserted }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 uill'i}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in its place, but failed to correct the second }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 soch'i}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 to }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 soch'o}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . For his other contributions in Leicestershire, see 3,7 carucates note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 27,4\tab SCRIBE B wrote }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 STOFALDE .iii. p' .i. v'. W.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in the outer margin of folio 235c, level with the last line of the last entry in William Lovett's fief; he used a different pen and ink to his correction in 27,3. Farley did not print it. It was probably a reminder to himself or to the main scribe of Gre a t Domesday to insert later a fuller version of this holding. However, the main scribe had already included virtually the same details in only a slightly fuller form in NTH 37,1 (though still without a place-name), as the only holding of William Lovett in 'Stotfold' Hundred: 'William Lovett holds the third part of 1 virgate of land from the king. It was and is waste'. In view of the mention of 'waste' in this duplicate entry, the present editors do not accept the suggestion by PM that the }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 W.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 here might represent }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 W}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 illielmus}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]. Scribe B wrote }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \'e2}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 above }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 iii}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (= }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 terciam}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ) to indicate that the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 iii}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 was an ordinal, not a cardinal, number ('third' not '3'); the Phillimore printed translation has '3 parts' in error. The number is in the accusative case, presumably because the reading in the original, fuller, version of this note was probably 'William holds the third part... '.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab All William Lovett's lands may have been detailed together in the circuit volume, possibly without the counties in which they lay being distinguis hed; this was the cause of the omission of several holdings in Great Domesday which were later inserted. During his check of the circuit volume Scribe B presumably found this information: it may have been written immediately after Sewstern there (27,3). T he fact that he only jotted it down in the margin rather than adding it in the small space left after Sewstern suggests that he was unsure where it belonged or whether more details would be discovered. On other }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 aides-m\'e9moire}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 written by both the main scribe and Scribe B, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 126-28 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 The Story of Domesday Book}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , pp. 191-93), and compare 43,1 value note. For Scribe B's other contributions in Leicestershire, see 3,7 carucates note.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Stofalde}{\cf1\insrsid920401 is thus not a place-name but the name of a hundred. It seems probable that this nameless piece of land was attached to Theddingworth (27,2), the only manor held by William in Gartree Wapentake (Leicestershire) which is the only wapentake to touch the small Northa mptonshire hundred of 'Stotfold'. It no doubt lay in Northamptonshire just across the River Welland.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 28\tab LAND OF GEOFFREY ALSELIN. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 His principal estate was at Laxton (NTT 12,1). By the thirteenth century his lands formed the barony of Shelford (named from th e Domesday estate, NTT 12,19) divided between the families of Everingham and Bardolf; the portion of the barony held by the Everingham family was sometimes known as the barony of Everingham. This division appears to date from the reign of King Henry I whe n the lands were split between Ralph }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Hanselin}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , presumably his son, and Robert }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 de Caux }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (or}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Calz}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ) (probably from La Chaux in the French d\'e9partement of Orne, arrondissement Alen\'e7on, canton Carrouges); see Sanders, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 English Baronies}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 76. According to Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 224, Ralph }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 de Caux }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 was the son of Geoffrey's brother. Some of Geoffrey's successors, who took the surname }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Halselin}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 us}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ) or }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Hanselin}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 us}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ) occasionally appear in documents as }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 de Halselin}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 de Hanselin}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , but this is presumably because the name looks like that of a place; it seems that }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Alselin}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Alselinus}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is not a toponym, but a patronymic: Old German and Old French }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Alselin}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (Tengvik, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Old English Bynames}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 213). See }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 231.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab This fief contains lands in a single wapentake, Gartree Wapentake; all were subinfeudated.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 28,1\tab IN THE MARGIN next to the first line of this entry the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote an }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 r}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (for }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 require}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , 'enquire'). There is nothing obviously missing or inaccurate in this entry, but, as with the nine other instances of this, his source may have ben unclear and he guessed the reading, but decided to check it and it turned out to be correct. On these marg inal requests for information, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 124-26 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The Story of Domesday Book}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , pp. 190-91), and compare 1,4 meadow note, 11,2 lordship note and 43,1 value note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab GEOFFREY ALSELIN. This corrects the Phillimore printed translation which has 'Geoffrey of Alselin' (as also in DBY 9 chapter heading). Alselin is not a toponym, but the patronymic Old German and Old French }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Alselin}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ; see Tengvik, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Old English Bymanes}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 213; and LEC 28 Geoffrey note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab HALLATON. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Gartree }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wapentake in 1086. For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 123-27.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab NORMAN .}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 He is possibly the same Norman who held of Aubrey of Coucy (10,6;11-13):}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 306, who also has a reference to folio 234a, which must be for the Norman who was Robert of Vessey's tenant in 16,2, though she does not mention this. These are the only occurrences of the name Norman in Leicestershire. Shearsby is his holding at 10,6.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 28,2\tab NORMAN . See 28,1 Norman note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab GOADBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a chapelry and township of Billesdon Ancient Parish. It was probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086 like the surrounding entries. For Billesdon itself, see 28,4.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 16-17.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 28,3\tab NORMAN . See 28,1 Norman note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab KEYTHORPE. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a part of Tugby Ancient Parish}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 It was probably in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Gartree }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wapentake in 1086: another part ends a group of places in Gartree Wapentake at 2,6.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 28,4\tab NORMAN . See 28,1 Norman note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab BILLESDON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086 like the surrounding entries. For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 7-11.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 28,5\tab NORMAN . See 28,1 Norman note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ROLLESTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a chapelry and township of Billesdon Ancient Parish. It was probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086 like the previous entries. For Billesdon itself, see 28,4.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 19-20.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *] HELD THE WHOLE OF THIS LAND. That is, all the lands held by Geoffrey Alselin (28,1-5). }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Toki was }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Geoffrey Alselin's only predecessor in Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire, and his chief predecessor in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire. He is apparently Toki son of Auti: von Feilitzen, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 385 note 5, with reference to }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 295; see also Foster and Longley, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Lincolnshire Domesday}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. xxx; }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Derbyshire}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 305}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . Only in LIN C4. T5 is there actually a mention of a Toki son of Auti (}{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Outi}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ), who held property in Lincoln and had full jurisdiction and market rights in Lincolnshire, though the Toki son of Otti (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Otta}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ) in YKS C36 is almost certainly the same man as he had identical rights in York.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 O}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 n the forms of the names Toki and Auti in Domesday Book, see DBY 6,27 Toki note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab See Clarke, }{\i\insrsid920401 English Nobility}{\insrsid920401 , pp. 347-48, who does not include DBY 6,48 and YKS 13W14 (JP).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 29\tab LAND OF GEOFFREY OF LA GUERCHE. He came from La Guerche-de-Bretagne in the French d\'e9partement of Ille-et-Vilaine, arrondissement Rennes. His father, Sylvester, was Bishop of Rennes, and his elder broth er, William, was lord of La Guerche. Geoffrey's estates appear to have been given to Nigel de Albini in unknown circumstances. Nigel first married Maud, the widow of Robert of Mowbray, Earl of Northumberland. By his second wife he had a son, Roger who too k the name de Mowbray. Nigel was brother of the William de Albini Brito who was the ancestor of the earls of Arundel and Sussex. See }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Complete Peerage}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , ix. pp. 367-69; the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 88-90); }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 226; Cain, 'Introduction', }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Leicestershire Domesday}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 20. \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab There is a greasy patch on the parchment of the manuscript, but }{\i\insrsid920401 WIRCE}{\insrsid920401 can be clearly read, as can the text written on this patch in 29,1 (right-hand side of the column). However, 'print-through' was a problem which makes the reading in the Alecto facsimile unclear on this side of the folio. Thus }{\i\insrsid920401 WIRCE}{ \insrsid920401 resembles ?}{\i\insrsid920401 WIROEo}{\insrsid920401 , and in 29,1 the carucates appear as }{\i\insrsid920401 iiii}{\insrsid920401 (not }{\i\insrsid920401 iii}{\insrsid920401 ), the lordship ploughs as }{\i\insrsid920401 ii}{ \insrsid920401 (not}{\i\insrsid920401 i}{\insrsid920401 ) and the donor and recipient of the 'gift' an }{\i\insrsid920401 WcGollfrido}{\insrsid920401 (not}{\i\insrsid920401 W. Goisfrido}{\insrsid920401 ). Compare}{\cf1\insrsid920401 2,6 Keythorpe note. The Ordnance Survey facsimile does not suffer from print-through.}{\insrsid920401 \par \tab \tab Geoffrey acquired some estates in Leicestershire (29,3;14;18), including the major manor of Melton Mowbray (29,3), from Leofwin or his s on Leofric. This was by marriage with Aelfgifu, Leofwin's daughter, as appears from the charter by which Geoffrey endowed the priory of Monks Kirby in Warwickshire; see Nichols, }{\i\insrsid920401 Antiquities of Leicestershire}{\insrsid920401 , ii. appendix p. 125; }{\i\insrsid920401 VCH Warwickshire}{\insrsid920401 , i. p. 275; }{\i\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\insrsid920401 , i. p. 296; Cain, 'Introduction', }{\i\insrsid920401 Leicestershire Domesday}{\insrsid920401 , p. 20; Williams, }{\i\insrsid920401 English and the Norman Conquest}{\insrsid920401 , p. 12; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\insrsid920401 , p. 226. Among these estates was Thurcaston (13,19) which the king subsequently acquired by giving to Geoffrey Stanton-under-Bardon, East Norton, Cold Newton, Little Dalby and Withcote (29,1-2;15;19-20): 29,1 Thurcaston note. Thurcaston was a manor of 9 carucates; the lands acquired by Geoffrey in exchange totalled 19 \'bd carucates. However, the values in 1086 were closer: \'a34 for Thurcaston, \'a33 15s for the other lands. }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Hugh of Grandmesnil was holding Thurcaston in 1086.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\insrsid920401 Leofwin had also held 12 manors in Warwickshire (WAR 31,1-12) which Geoffrey held in 1086 and which formed his entire fief in that county. Among them was Newnham Paddox (WAR 31,11), from which Leofwin was apparently named, as the mother of Leofwin of Newnham appears at WAR 37,9. There is, however, another Leofwin in Domesday (BUK B13. 40,1. 57,1-4) named from Nuneham Courtenay i n Oxfordshire (OXF 32,1). Leofwin had also been Geoffrey's predecessor in LIN 63,2;5. \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Leofric appears as Leofric }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Cilt}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (Leofric Young) in LIN 63,1. LIN CK61. A Leofric had been Geoffrey's predecessor in Northamptonshire (NTH 47,1c) and in his only holding in Nottinghamshire (NTT 19,1). \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab At the time of the Leicestershire Survey these estates are held by Roger de Mowbray.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab This chapter consists of land held in lordship (29,1-4) followed by subinfeudations (29,5-21) and in each section it is arranged in the standard order: \par \tab \tab [Guthlaxton Wapentake]: 29,1 Lordship land \par \tab \tab ['Goscote' Wapentake]: 29,2 Lordship land \par \tab \tab Framland Wapentake: 29,3-4 Lordship land \par \tab \tab Guthlaxton Wapentake: 29,5-9 Subinfeudations \par \tab \tab Gartree Wapentake: 29,10 Subinfeudation}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab (29,11-12 are jurisdictions of 29,10 in Framland Wapentake) \par \tab \tab 'Goscote' Wapentake: 29,13-15 Subinfeudations \par \tab \tab [Framland Wapentake]: 29,16-21 Subinfeudations. The heading for Framland Wapentake at 29,19 is misplaced.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 29,1\tab IN THE MANUSCRIPT there is a greasy patch on the parchment which caused problems of reproduction in the Alecto facsimile; see LEC 29 Geoffrey note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [IN GUTHLAXTON WAPENTAKE]. For the insertion of this head, see 29,1 Stanton note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab STANTON[-UNDER-BARDON]. This was a chapelry and peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdiction (until 1851) of Groby Ancient Parish. It is not covered by the extant Leicestershire Survey but was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 (it lies in the body of that wapentake); see }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 159.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THE FOLLOWING. That is, East Norton (29,2).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab IN EXCHANGE FOR THE VILLAGE CALLED THURCASTON. King William had acquired Thurcaston by giving to Geoffrey }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Stanton-under-Bardon, East Norton, Cold Newton, Little Dalby and Withcote (29,1- 2;15;19-20): LEC 29 Geoffrey note. Hugh of Grandmesnil held Thurcaston in 1086 (13,19). It seems probable that the transaction was in two stages: King William acquired Thurcaston from Geoffrey, may have held it for a time and subsequently gave it to Hugh of Grandmesnil. Hugh of Grandmesnil acquired Thurcaston before 1081, for the church of Thurcaston was among gifts made to the Abbey of Saint-Evroult then: Orderic Vitalis, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Ecclesiastical History}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (Chibnall, iii. pp. 232-39); see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 296; and LEC 13 Hugh note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab See also Fleming, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday Book and the Law}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 190 no. 959.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 29,2\tab [IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE]. The heading is supplied from the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey relating to [East] Norton: 29,2 Norton note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [EAST] NORTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a chapelry of Tugby Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries. For another part, see 19,18. This estate appears in 'Goscote' Wapentake (in Loddington Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Sl ade, pp. 15, 36), where Roger de Mowbray holds 4 carucates and 3 virgates.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ALWIN AND ULF HELD IT FREELY. The main scribe of Great Domesday may have added this detail on the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 tenure, part of which was interlined, though he regularly included this information at the end of an entry.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 29,3\tab MELTON [MOWBRAY].}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086 and it was in that wapentake (in Melton [Mowbray] Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey, pp. 20, 51, where Roger de Mowbray has 15 carucates.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Geoffrey of la Guerche had granted two parts of the tithes, a tenth of the market and tolls and a man as a collector to the Abbey of St Nicholas of Angers in 1077: }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Monasticon Anglicanum}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , vi. p. 996 (PM). These were destined for his priory of Monks Kirby (Warwickshire) founded in 1077 as a cell of St Nicholas of Angers for Benedictine monks: Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Medieval Religious Houses}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , pp. 84, 90; }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 296.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 7 HIDES, 1 CARUCATE OF LAND AND 1 BOVATE. In the occurences of hides at Kilby (38,1), Bruntingthorpe (44,6) and apparently at Burbage (6,1), the hide is equivalent to 18 carucates. This equivalence of 14 \'bd carucates to the hide is exceptional, and phrased as such.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab At 14 \'bd carucates to the hide, this would give Melton Mowbray lands totalling 102 carucates and 5 bovates. Slade (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Leicestershire Survey}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 51) calls it 'a figure that cannot be safely accepted as it stands'. The total given in that Survey is 15 carucates, which may however relate only to the core of the manor, the size of which is not apparently given in Domesday. If it is assumed that the Domesday total includes the eight members totalling 62 carucates and 7 \'bd bovates, and to this is added the 7 carucates and 6 bovates at Welby (29,4) and the 8 carucates and 2 bovates at Stathern (29,18), both of which belonged to Melton Mowbray, and an allowance (say of 15 carucates, as in the Survey) is made for the core manor (which has 10 \'bd ploughs and a separate value), a total of 93 carucates and 7 \'bd bovates is reached, no t too far short of the Domesday total, bearing in mind that the size of the core manor is only estimated, and that other members may have been removed without Domesday recording the fact. If all the manors held by Geoffrey in Framland Wapentake (29,3-4;11 -12;16-21) are included, then the total becomes just short of 116 carucates (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 296). However, the holdings in 29,11-12 (totalling 4 \'bd carucates) are expressly said to be a jurisdiction of somewhere other than Melton Mowbray.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab A MARKET WHICH PAYS 20s. Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 mercat'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 abbreviates }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 mercatum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , and }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 redd'}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 almost certainly is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 reddens}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . The Alecto edition has 'The merchants render', preserving the translation in }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 329, which has }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 mercatores}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in brackets after it. However, in every reference to }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 mercator}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('merchant'), the main scribe of Great Domesday gave the word in full, perhaps because of the possibility of confusion with }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 mercatum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('market'). It is correctly referred to as a market in }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday Geography of Midland England}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 353. This is the only reference to a market in Domesday Leicestershire.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab FREEBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Melton Mowbray and no doubt lay in Framland Wapentake like the other members listed here. It appears in the Leicestershire Surve y (Slade, pp. 20, 52) in Melton [Mowbray] Hundred, where it is divided between the fees of Roger de Mowbray (9 carucates and 2 \'bd bovates) and [the honour] of Blyth (5 \'bd bovates). These odd figures add up to the 10 carucates of Domesday.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WYFORDBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086. It was in that wapentake, in [Nether] Broughton Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 21, 53), where it is held (as 1 \'bd carucates) by Roger de Mowbray. For other parts, see 14,8 and 18,4.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab BURTON [LAZARS]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Melton Mowbray. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086. Another part apparently begins a group of places in Framland Wapentake at 14,29. It was in that wapentake, in Melton [M owbray] Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 20, 52), where it is held by Roger de Mowbray.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The affix is from the hospital of St Lazarus for lepers founded }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 c}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . 1138 by Roger of Mowbray: }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Place-Names of Leicestershire}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 62.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [EYE] KETTLEBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was in the Ancient Parish of Melton Mowbray. It does not recur in Domesday but no doubt lay in Framland Wapentake like the other members listed here. It was in that wapentake, in Kirby [Bellars] Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (S lade, pp. 20, 25, 52), where it is held by Roger de Mowbray. Kirby Bellars is the next member included. This Kettleby is distinguished from Ab Kettleby (17,30) by being known earlier as Kettleby }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Beler}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 : }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Place-Names of Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 189.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab KIRBY [BELLARS].}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086. Another part apparently begins a group of places in Framland Wapentake at 29,16. It was in that wapentake, in Kirby [Bellars] Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp . 20, 52). In that Survey, Roger de Mowbray holds 24 carucates in Kirby Bellars which is the sum of Geoffrey of la Guerche's two holdings here (29,3;16).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab SYSONBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Melton [Mowbray]. It was probably in Framland W apentake in 1086. Another part is in a group of places in Framland Wapentake at 29,17. It was in that wapentake, in Kirby [Bellars] Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey, pp. 20, 25, 52, where Roger de Mowbray holds 4 \'bd carucates in Sysonby, which is the sum of his two Domesday holdings there (29,3;17).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab EASTWELL.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086. Another part apparently begins a group of places in Framland Wapentake at 42,7. It was in that wapentake (in Eastwell Hun dred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 20, 51), where it is held by Roger de Mowbray.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab GOADBY [MARWOOD].}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086. Another part seemingly ends a group of places in Framland Wapentake at 17,33. It was in that wapentake (in Scalford Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 21, 25, 54), where it is held by Roger de Mowbray.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 13 SMALLHOLDERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday altered the number of smallholders from }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 iii}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 to }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 xiii}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and interlined }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ci}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 m}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ], the last two letters of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 tredecim}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('13') to clarify his correction.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LEOFRIC SON OF LEOFWIN HELD. Geoffrey of la Guerche acquired this and other estates apparently by marriage to Aelfgifu, Leofwin's daughter and Leofric's sister. On Leofric and his father Leofwin, see LEC 29 Geoffrey note.} {\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 29,4\tab WELBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a chapelry and township of the Ancient Parish of Melton Mowbray. It no doubt lay in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Framland }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 29,3). Other parts appear to be in that wapentake at 40,13;37-38.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 It was in that same wapentake, in Kirby [Bellars] Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 20, 52). There it is assessed not as in Domesday at 7 carucates and 6 bovates, but at 9 carucates. The difference is accounted for by the acquisition and addition of the estate of 1 carucate and 2 bovates held in 1086 by Godwin from Countess Judith (40,37).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Welby church lies at SK725209, the deserted medieval village at SK726210.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WHICH BELONG TO MELTON [MOWBRAY]. That is, to 29,3.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THERE WERE 5 PLOUGHS. This was almost certainly }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 : the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday did not include this from this entry onwards in Leicestershire; see 9,1 1066 note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab MEADOW, 6 ACRES. Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ac}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ra}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 s}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is accusative after }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 h}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 abe}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 nt}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in the previous line.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 29,5\tab WALTER. See Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 458.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ULLESTHORPE. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a hamlet of Claybrooke Ancient Parish. It lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 29,6\tab "LILINGE".}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 In the text of Domesday "Lilinge" lies between two places that were in Guthlaxton Wapentake, and is most likely to have been in that wapentake in 1086.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Dr. Barrie Cox suggests a location in the Bitteswell-Ullesthorpe area of Guthlaxton Wapentake near Watling Street. }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Lilinge}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is the Old English personal name }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Lilla}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 plus -}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ing}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (}{\cf1\up6\cgrid0\insrsid920401 '}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Lilla's people'). The two estates called Peatling, the only other names in }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 -ingas }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in the county, are only a few miles away (PM).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 29,7\tab ROBERT . This is probably the same Robert who holds from Geoffrey in 29,19 and also from him in LIN 63,1, where he is described as 'Geoffrey of la Guerche's man'. See Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 394. \par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid4879481 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid920401 \tab \tab To Keats-Rohan's references should perhaps be added the Robert who held in the same vill from the escheated fief of Earl Aubrey; he also held in Swinford (10,9-10) (JP).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid4879481 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab BITTESWELL. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086. Another part is in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 10,9.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 29,8\tab 'STORMESWORTH'. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This lay in Swinford Ancient Parish. It was adjacent to another lost place, 'Westrill'; see Hoskins, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Essays in Leicestershire History}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 89; }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Deserted Medieval Village Research Group, 'Deserted Medieval Villages in Leicestershire', p. 26}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . It was still marked on the nineteenth-century Ordnance Survey six-inch map (sheet 53NW) at SK583806, but is now much built over. It was no doubt in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Guthlaxton }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wapentake in 1086 like the surrounding entries: another part is directly below a Guthlaxton wapentake heading at 23,2.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 29,9\tab SWINFORD. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a Guthlaxton wapentake head at 17,7.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 29,10\tab BUTERUS. A man of this rare name (which occurs nowhere else in Domesday), who is presumably this individual, attested a charter of Geoffrey of la Guerche giving land in Warwickshire for the establishment of a priory at Monks Kirby (WAR 31,1) as a dependency of St Nicholas of Angers; see }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , vi. p. 996; }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Warwickshire}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 275; }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 296; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 172, though she gives two references to him on folio 235d when there is only one.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab PICKWELL AND LEESTHORPE. Pickwell was }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 an Ancient Parish. Leesthorpe was a township of Pickwell. Both places lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086, and the same estate, named from both places, reappears in that wapentake (in Knossington Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 14, 31). There Roger of Mowbray holds it as 15 carucates, but the extra carucate seems to be a duplicate: see 29,12 Burrough note. Pickw ell and Leesthorpe formed a detached island of Gartree Wapentake.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of Pickwell, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 277-78.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 29,11\tab "GODTORP". The place, which appears as }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Gillethorp'}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in the Leicestershire Survey }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (Slade,}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 pp. 20, 50), is now l ost. It seems to have lain between Somerby and Newbold: }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Place-Names of Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 226}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 It was in Framland Wapentake in 1086 and was in that wapentake (in Cold Overton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey where it is held (as 3 carucates) by Roger de Mowbray.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab JURISDICTION OF PICKWELL AND SOMERBY. For Pickwell, see 29,10; for Somerby, 14,31. 19,19.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 29,12\tab BURROUGH[-ON-THE-HILL]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 29,11). Another part is in a grou p of places in Framland Wapentake at 14,32. It was in that wapentake (in Cold Overton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 20, 49), but this particular carucate is probably the one that makes the difference between the 14 carucates that Domes day allots to Pickwell and Leesthorp (29,10) and the 15 carucates included there by the }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Leicestershire Survey }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (Slade,}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 pp. 14, 31). \par \tab \tab }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 For the history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 64-66.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab JURISDICTION OF PICKWELL. See 29,10.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 29,13\tab QUENIBOROUGH. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 'Goscote' }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wapentake in 1086. It was in that wapentake (in Rearsby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 16, 41), where there are 12 carucates of the fee of Belvoir.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The name means 'the queen's }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 burh}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ', but there is no record of which queen held it.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 29,14\tab BURTON[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. The }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Burtone}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in lower-case letters, r ather than in capitals as he usually did for the main place in an entry; however, he did line it through in vermilion for emphasis as usual. The Alecto facsimile does not reproduce this red-lining; see 2,6 Keythorpe note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Burton-on-the-Wolds was a township of Prestwold Ancient Parish. It was probably in }{\insrsid920401 'Goscote' }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 29,13). Another part also appears to be in that wapentake at 35,1.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LEOFWIN [* OF NEWNHAM *] HELD IT FREELY. This is presumably the Leofwin father of Leofric and Aelfgifu. Geoffrey of la Guerche married Aelfgifu: LEC 29 Geoffrey note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par \tab \tab See Williams, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 English and the Norman Conquest}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , pp. 117-18; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 290 (JP).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 29,15\tab [COLD] NEWTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a township of Lowesby Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 'Goscote' }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wapentake in 1086. It was in that wapentake, in Tilton[-on-the-Hill] Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 15, 37). The fact that it is Cold Newton that is close to Tilton-on-the Hill distinguises this holding from Newton Burgoland (14,24-25) in the same wapentake, but in a different hundred according to that Survey (14,24 Newton note).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab In the Leicestershire Survey, this estate is held by Roger de Mowbray but its assessment has been raised to 8 carucates. For another part of Cold Newton, see 42,2.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [PART] OF THE EXCHANGE FOR THURCASTON.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 King William had acquired Thurcaston by giving to Geoffrey }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Stanton-under-Bardon, East Norton, Cold Newton, Little Dalby and Withcote (29,1-2;15;19-20): LEC 29 Geoffrey note; 29,1 Thurcaston note. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 See also Fleming, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday Book and the Law}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 190 no. 960. She has 'from the exchange for Thurcaston' here, but 'part of the exchange for Thurcaston' (p. 190 no. 961) for the same Latin phrase (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 de commutatione}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ) at 29,20. The Phillimore printed translation has 'is also of the Thurcaston exchange', presumably because there is no preposition before }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Turchilestone}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and its case is unknown because it is indeclinable.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 29,16\tab [IN FRAMLAND WAPENTAKE]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 29,16 Kirby note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab KIRBY [BELLARS]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086. Another part is in a group of places in Framland Wapentake that were dependent on Melton Mowbray at 29,3. It was in that wapentake, in Kirby [Bellars] Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 20, 52). In that Survey, Roger de Mowbray holds 24 carucates in Ki rby Bellars which is the sum of Geoffrey of la Guerche's two holdings here (29,3;16).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 29,17\tab SYSONBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Melton Mowbray. Another part is in a group of places in Framland Wapentake that were dependent on Melton Mowbra y at 29,3. It was probably in that wapentake in 1086 as it was, in Kirby [Bellars] Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 20, 52). In that Survey, Roger de Mowbray holds 4 \'bd carucates in Sysonby, which is the sum of his two Domesday holdings there (29,3;17)}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 29,18\tab WILLIAM [* OF BOSC-LE-HARD *] AND ROGER [* OF BOSC-LE-HARD *]. A William and a Roger hold another part of Stathern (15,16) from Robert of Tosny. William appears to be William of Bosc-le-Hard (see 15,16 William note; }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , vi. p. 996): }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 293 note 40. However, on Roger, see }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Keats-Rohan, }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 411; she does not include under Roger de Boscroard (p. 401) or under William de Boscroard (p. 471) any reference to this holding. See 15,16 William note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab STATHERN.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. Another part is in a group of places in Framland Wapentake that were dependent on Melton Mowbray at 29,3, and another ends a group of places in Framland Wapentake at 15,16. It was in that same wapentake (in Ha rby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 22, 57).}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \tab \tab }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 In Domesday the estate of 8 carucates and 2 bovates of Geoffrey of la Guerche (29,18), coupled with the two parts of Stathern (15,16) held by Roger of Tosny (4 \'bd carucates and 3 bovates, and 4 carucates and 7 bovates) make a unit of 18 carucates. The total size of Stathern is the same in the Leicestershire Survey, but William de Albini (representing Robert of Tosny) holds 8 \'bd carucates and Roger de Mowbray (representing Geoffrey of la Guerche) holds 8 carucates. The remainder (1 \'bd carucates) is a new estate, apparently carved out of the Domesday holdings, and held by Robert de Lisle there.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab IT IS AN ADJUNCT OF MELTON [MOWBRAY]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The Latin is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 iacet ad}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . This implies a dependent relationship and no t a geographical proximity (which is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 iacet in}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ). The Phillimore printed translation has 'it lies with Melton (lands)'; the Alecto edition has 'belongs to'; see 13,26 adjunct note. }{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 Melton Mowbray (29,3) was also held by Leofric son of Leofwin: LEC 29 Geoffrey note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LEOFRIC SON OF LEOFWIN HELD IT}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . See LEC 29 Geoffrey note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 29,19\tab FRAMLAND WAPENTAKE. This heading is really required above 29,16 (Kirby Bellars). It is possible that the various subtenants of this fief made separate returns and that Robert supplied a wapentake head, which was transferred to Domesday, while Ralph, the holder of Kirby Bellars, failed to do so.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ROBERT . }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 On this identification, see 29,7 Robert note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [LITTLE] DALBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086 and it was in that same wapentake (in Cold Overton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 20, 50).}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab In Domesday, Geoffrey of la Guerche has two holdings in Little Dalby (29,19;21) respectively of 4 \'bd carucates and 2 \'bd carucates. Their total (7 carucates) corresponds to the holdings of 5 carucates and 1 bovate of William le Gras }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 de feodo Tessum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and of 15 bovates of Roger de Mowbray in that Survey, though the division or the assessment of the estates is clearly different.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Great Dalby (3,12. 17,25. 32,1) was in 'Goscote' Wapentake.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 29,20\tab WITHCOTE.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086. For another part, see 19,20. Unlike the two estates held by Geo ffrey of la Guerche in Little Dalby (29,19;21) this holding does not reappear in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 50), though the other estate at Withcote (19,20) does so. Withcote was a detached part of Framland Wapentake; see \{ Introduction: Wapentakes\}.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [PART] OF THE EXCHANGE FOR THURCASTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 King William had acquired Thurcaston by giving to Geoffrey }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Stanton-under-Bardon, East Norton, Cold Newton, Little Dalby and Withcote (29,1-2;15;19-20): LEC 29 Geoffrey note; 29, 1 Thurcaston note. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 See also Fleming, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday Book and the Law}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 190 no. 961.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab SAY. The Latin is }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 dicunt}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . The Phillimore printed translation has 'state', which is an excessively formal translation for such an everyday word. Geoffrey's men need not have 'stated this on oath' as much as said it in passing. Compare 13,21 says note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 29,21\tab [LITTLE] DALBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a Framland wapentake heading at 29,19. It was in that same wapentake (in Cold Overton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 20, 50).}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab In Domesday, Geoffrey of la Guerche has two holdings in Little Dalby (29,19;21) respectively of 4 \'bd carucates and 2 \'bd carucates. Their total (7 carucates) corresponds to the holdings of 5 carucates and 1 bovate of William le Gras }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 de feodo Tessum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and of 15 bovates of Roger de Mowbray in that Survey, though the division or the assessment of the estates is clearly different.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Great Dalby (3,12. 17,25. 32,1) was in 'Goscote' Wapentake.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab JURISDICTION OF PICKWELL. See 29,10.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 30\tab THIS FIEF and the next one (LEC 31) appear to have been inserted by the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday in a space left by him at the end of the column on folio 235d after the fief of Geoffrey of la Guerche. The pen and ink used for these t wo chapters seem very similar to those used for Geoffrey's fief, but the character of the writing resembles that of other added fiefs (LEC 4, LEC 8 and LEC 39).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LAND OF GODFREY OF CAMBRAI. Apart from his single estate in Leicestershire, all his other lands formed a modest fief in Lincolnshire. He was a Fleming from Cambrai, now in the French d\'e9partement of Nord. See Keats-Rohan, }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 217.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab This fief consists of a single estate, held in lordship, in }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Framland Wapentake.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 30,1\tab SPROXTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086. It was in that same wapentake (in Sproxton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 21, 55), where it is held by the son of Gilbert.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 31\tab THIS FIEF was added by the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday at the same time as the preceding fief; see LEC 30 fief note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LAND OF GUNFRID OF CHOCQUES. The heading }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 TERRA GVNFRIDI DE CIOCHES}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , written in vermilion by the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday, is clearly visible }{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 in the manuscript, although the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 DE CIOCHES}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 appears to have got damp and is rather blurred; s}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ome of the ink has transferred to the adjacent folio in the quire (LEC 39 fief note).}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The Alecto facsimile reproduces only }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 TERRA GVNFRID}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , omitting the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 I}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 and }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 DE CIOCHES}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . Compare}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 2,6 Keythorpe note and LEC 39 fief note. The Ordnance Survey facsimile has }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 TERRA GVNFRIDI}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , then a blur of red; only the final }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ES}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and part of the preceding }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 H}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 CIOCHES}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 can be made out. Some of the ink was transferred to the adjacent folio in the quire (LEC 39 fief note).}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Gunfrid came from Chocques 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\'e9 thune-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\'e9thune was holding the fiefs of both Gunfrid of Chocques and Sigar of Chocques. See Farrer, }{\i\insrsid920401 Honors and Knights' Fees}{\insrsid920401 , i. pp. 20-28; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\insrsid920401 , pp. 239, 419. In England Gunfrid's lands are later known as the barony or honour of 'Chokes'.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab This fief consists of a single subinfeudated estate in }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Gartree Wapentake.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 31,1\tab MOWSLEY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a chapelry and township of Knaptoft Ancient Parish. It lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086. For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 249-53.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 32\tab LAND OF HUMPHREY THE CHAMBERLAIN. He was the chamberlain of the Conqueror\rquote s queen Matilda, and, after her death in 1083, of Guy, Count of Ponthieu, father-in-law of Robert de Bell\'ea me. He was brother of the Domesday tenant-in-chief Aiulf the chamberlain and, like him, appears to have been a sheriff, in this case of Norfolk (1087 x 1100); see Green, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 English Sheriffs}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 60. The Leicestershire Survey shows his lands here as held by a William }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Camerarius}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('chamberlain'), presumably a descendant. Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 , pp. 272, 274, points out that the descent of the lands of Humphrey the chamberlain in Somerset and Gloucestershire to the Orescuil (later Orcas) family suggests that the Humphrey }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Aurei Testiculi}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 of Norfolk is the same man, since }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Orescuil}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Aurei Testiculi }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 are the Old French and Latin forms that correspond to the meaning 'golden testicles'.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab This fief consists of two estates, held in lordship, both in }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 'Goscote' Wapentake.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 32,1\tab [GREAT] DALBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 'Goscote' }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wapentake in 10 86. It was in that wapentake (in Great Dalby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 17, 25, 42), where William the chamberlain holds 1 carucate in }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Magna Dalbia}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Little Dalby (C14. 14,31. 29,19;21) was in Framland Wapentake.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 32,2\tab BARSBY.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Ashby Folville. It was probably in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 'Goscote' }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wapentake in 1086, since it is probably to be identified in the total carucage for Barkby Hundred in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 16, 39-40), among the holdings of the king and the Earl of Leicester; see 1,3 Barsby note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 33\tab LAND OF GILBERT OF GHENT. He held in chief in thirteen counties apart from here. He came from Ghent in Flanders and was the son of Ralph, lord of Alost near Ghent, and Gisla. Gilbert married Alic e, daughter of Hugh de Montfort, and had several children including Walter, his heir, Emma, who married Alan de Percy, and another daughter who married Ivo of Grandmesnil. Gilbert founded the monastery of Bardney (Lincolnshire) as a cell of Sainte-Foi of Conques. His estates descended through his heirs and formed the barony of Folkingham (Lincolnshire). See Sanders, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 English Baronies}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 46; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 210.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab This fief consists of a single subinfeudated estate in}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Gartree Wapentake.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 33,1\tab [HUSBANDS] BOSWORTH. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086 and it was in that wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 23, 33), where it}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 is held by Osbert son of Trussel. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 For its later history, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 30-33.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WILLIAM PEVEREL FROM HIM. William Peverel is a fief-holder in his own right (LEC 25); see LEC 25 William note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 34\tab LAND OF GERBERT. This is the only appearance of this name in Domesday Book and nothing is known about him. See Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 208. \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid920401 This chapter contains only land held in lordship and the two estates are arranged in the standard order:}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Guthlaxton Wapentake: 34,1 \par \tab \tab [Gartree Wapentake]: 34,2}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 34,1\tab ASHBY [MAGNA]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086. For another part, see 25,5.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WHO RESIDE THERE. The Latin is }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ibi manentibus}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , the present participle being from }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 maneo}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('to stay', 'to remain'), which is the root of }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 mansio}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 mansura}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 manerium}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (''manor'). The significance of the phrase is unclear. It cannot suggest the existence of a group of non-resident villagers (contrast the resident burgesses of Derby: DBY B1 resident note), since there is no reason to believe that villagers did not uni versally reside in the villages where they laboured. It may be a rare undisciplined lapse into the redundancy of ordinary prose by a scribe noted for his brevity and austerity. It is also possible that this phrase occurred frequently among the more rambli ng formulae of the circuit volume but that here alone it escaped abbreviation.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 34,2\tab [IN GARTREE WAPENTAKE]. For the insertion of this head, see 34,2 Mowsley note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab MOWSLEY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a chapelry and township of Knaptoft Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Gartree }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Gartree }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 wapentake head at 31,1.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 249-53.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 35\tab LAND OF DURAND MALET. He was probably connected with the Malets, William and Robert, m ost likely as a son of William (who died in 1071) and therefore a brother of Robert. Ralph Malet and Walter Malet held after him in the early twelfth century and were probably his sons. See Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 182.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab This fief contains only two estates, both held in lordship and in 'Goscote' Wapentake.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 35,1\tab [IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE]. For the insertion of this head, see 35,1 Burton note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab BURTON[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a township of Prestwold Ancient Parish. It was probably in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 'Goscote' }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wapentake in 1086: other parts are in groups of places in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 'Goscote' \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab Wapentake at 29,14. 43,3-4;7.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab PRESTWOLD. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 like Burton-on-the-Wolds; see also 43,1, where another part is a member of Barrow-upon-Soar.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 35,2\tab WYMESWOLD.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 'Goscote' }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a }{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 'Goscote' }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 wapentake head at 18,2.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 36\tab LAND OF DROGO OF LA BEUVRIERE. He was a Fleming who came from Labeuvri\'e8re, now in the French d\'e9partement of Pas-de-Calais (arrondissement B\'e9thune, canton B\'e9 thune-sud), then in the Artois. He apparently married a relative of William I, but murdered her and fled in 1086. His fief was given to Adelaide d\rquote Aumale, William's sister or half-sister when she was married to her third husband Eudo de Champagne; see Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 179.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab This fief contains two estates, in two different wapentakes. Both are subinfeudated, but are entered in the reverse of the standard order of wapentakes: \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Framland Wapentake: 36,1 (Subinfeudation) \par \tab \tab 'Goscote' Wapentake: 36,2 (Subinfeudation)}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 36,1\tab [COLD] OVERTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086 and it was in that wapentake (in Cold Overton Hundred) in the Le icestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 49), where it is described as of the fee of William de Albini.}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab AS MANY [ACRES] OF WOOD. Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 totidem nemoris}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , meaning as many acres as the meadow (30). On }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 nemoris}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , see 2,6 wood note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 36,2\tab HOBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 'Goscote' }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wapentake in 1086. It was in that wapentake (in Thrussington Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 25, 43), where it is probably represented by the 4 carucates and 3 virgates held of the fee of Albemarle; see 23,1 Thrussington note.}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ULF HELD IT. Although there is no pronoun in the Latin, this sentence almost certainly refers only to this entry, despite the lack of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 holder for 36,1. The main scribe of Great Domesday was careful to indicate when such sentences referr ed to more than one holding by his use of phrases such as ' these two lands' (as in 13,73. 17,8. 23,6), 'held all of these lands / the whole of this land' (as in 9,5. 28,5) and so on; compare also 29,1, but see 17,33 lands note and 15,7 lands note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 37\tab LAND OF MAINOU THE BRETON. His place of origin and status in Brittany are uncertain, although there was a Maino Brito of Roug\'e9 (in the French d\'e9partement of Loire-Atlantique, arrondissement Ch\'e2 teaubriant), an early seigneur of Ch\'e2teaubriant, who originated from Erc\'e9-en-Lam\'e9e (in the French d\'e9partement of Ille-et-Vilaine, arrondissement Redon, canton Bain-de-Bretagne); see Bouvet, 'Les Premiers Seigneurs de Ch\'e2 teaubriant'. He was succeeded by his son Mainfelin and his fief became the barony of Wolverton, named from his Buckinghamshire holding; see Sanders, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 English Baronies}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 100; Keats-Rohan, }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 293.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab This fief contains three estates, all in lordship and all in Guthlaxton Wapentake.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 37,1\tab [IN GUTHLAXTON WAPENTAKE]. For the insertion of this head, see 37,1 Lutterworth note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LUTTERWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. This is its only mention in Domesday, but it seems probable that it lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the following two entries, as it did later:}{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 159.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab FREEMEN. By his use of the nominative case in Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 soch'i}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (= }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 sochemanni}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ) the main scribe of Great Domesday implied that only the Freemen had the ploughs. However, he may have written }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 soch'i}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in error for }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 soch'is}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (= }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 sochemannis}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , ablative plural after }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 cum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ). If so, the villagers and smallholders shared the ploughs with the Freemen. Both the Phillimore printed translation and the Alecto edition imply this. The punctuation adopted here assumes that the case is nominative.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab EARL RALPH HELD THESE 3 LANDS. That is, Earl Ralph of Hereford (see 5,2 Ralph note). The three lands clearly include Lutterworth (37,1), and the other two are almost certainly Misterton and Catthorpe (37,2-3). These three estates may have been in a different order in the preceding circuit v olume, with Lutterworth last and including this statement. It might have been promoted to first place (not uncommon in Domesday) because it was Mainou's principal manor.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 37,2\tab MISTERTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: other parts are in groups of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 3,7 and 23,3. It was in that wapentake (in Misterton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 26, 58), where the 2 carucates are held by [Norman] de Verdun.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 37,3\tab CATTHORPE. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. This is its only mention in Domesday, but it seems probable that it lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the preceding two entries, as it did later: } {\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 160.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 38\tab LAND OF OGER THE BRETON. He was also probab ly the same man as Oger son of Ungomar (RUT 4), who held in chief in Lincolnshire, Leicestershire and Northamptonshire. He became Lord of Bourne in Lincolnshire, an estate which he held in 1086 (LIN 42,1-2). Part of one of his lands in Lincolnshire (LIN 4 2,9) had been held by a Hereward and from an entry in the Lincolnshire }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Clamores}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (LIN CK48) it is apparent that one of his predecessors on another land (LIN 42,13) had been the English rebel Hereward the Wake. It is possible that Oger married Hereward's daug hter, though she was later married to Hugh of Envermeu; the presence of a Baldwin Wake among the later holders of 'Austhorp' (RUT 4,14) supports this (see RUT 4,14 'Austhorp' note). Oger had sons named Ralph and Conan of whom Ralph succeeded him. See }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Rutland}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 132; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 311.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab This fief consists of a single estate held in lordship in Guthlaxton Wapentake.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 38,1\tab 2 PARTS OF 1 HIDE. This gives a hide of 18 carucates. The same equation occurs at 44,6; see 6,1 hide note and \{Introduction: Hides and Virgates\}.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab KILBY.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Scribe B interlined }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 IN CILEBI}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , extending the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 I}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 of }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 IN}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 downwards to indicate that the insertion belonged after }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ten'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 on the line below. He added the place-name in 44,3 at the same time. For his other contributions in Leicestershire, see 3,7 carucates note. In the Alecto facsimile the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 B}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 of }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 CILEBI}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 resembles a }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 D}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ; see 2,6 Keythorpe note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Kilby was a chapelry of Wistow Ancient Parish. It lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab "EUR". This is the only occurrence in Domesday of this name-form. Von Feilitzen, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 249, suggested either that }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Eur}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 was a curtailed form, though he did not say of what, or was connected with Old Norse}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Iofurr}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , Old Swedish }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Iaevur}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . PM suggested the personal name Everard as the full form of Domesday }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Eur}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , but if this is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Eurardus}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , he only appears in Domesday as a 1086 tenant (rendered as Everard in the Phillimore printed translation of HUN 6,7, but as Evrard elsewhere, now standardized as Everard). It is safer to keep to the Domesday form at present, as in the Alecto edition.}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 39\tab THIS FIEF was inserted by the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday in a space left by him at the end of the column on folio 236a after the fief of Oger the Breton. It was added at the same time as the fiefs of Godfrey of Cambrai and Gunfrid of Chocques (LEC 30 fief note) and probably those of the Bishop of Coutances (LEC 4) and the king's almslands (LEC 8). The first part of the chapter heading }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 TERRA NIGELLI DE ALBINGI}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 has suffered from damp, but is visible in the Alecto facsimile; compare 2,6 Keythorpe note and LEC 31 Gunfrid note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab NIGEL OF AUBIGNY. He was a Norman from Saint-Martin-d\rquote Aubigny, in the French d\'e9partement of Manche (arrondissement Coutances, canton P\'e9rie rs) where he was lord. His brother was Richard, Abbot of St Albans (1097-1119), and his wife was Amice of Ferri\'e8res, daughter of Henry of Ferri\'e8 res (Ferrers). His son Henry succeeded him. He was an ancestor of the De Albini family of Cainhoe, in Bedfordshire. See Loyd, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 7; Sanders, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 English Baronies}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 26; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 301.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab This fief consists of only two estates, both subinfeudated; the standard order of wapentakes is reversed: \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab 'Goscote' Wapentake: 39,1 Subinfeudation \par \tab \tab [Guthlaxton Wapentake]; 39,2 Subinfeudation}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 39,1\tab SEAL. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Nichols identifies Domesday }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 SELA}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 with Over Seal. See also 14,19 Seal note (PM). Overseal was a chapelry of Netherseal Ancient Parish. This estate lay in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 'Goscote' Wapentake as did other parts of 'Seal' (14,19-20). }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 It was in that wapentake (in Seal Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 47), held by Henry de Albini, a descendant of Nigel of Aubigny. There the entry reads: }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 In Sceyla Henricus de Alben' ii car' que pertinent ad defencionem de Swepeston'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('In Seal, Nigel of Aubigny, 2 carucates which belong to the tax assessment of Swepstone'). The phrase }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ad defencionem }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 recalls the Domesday }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 se defendit pro}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('it pays tax for'). The link between Seal and Swepstone (14,23) is not r ecorded in Domesday, though Swepstone did have a 2-carucate subholding }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 which might be duplicated here: 14,23 carucates note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Overseal and Netherseal were transferred to Derbyshire in 1897 (PM).}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 39,2\tab [* IN GUTHLAXTON WAPENTAKE *]. For the insertion of this head, see 39,2 Donington note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 3 HIDES. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 In view of the plough estimate and resources given in this entry, these 3 hides will scarcely have been the equivalent of 54 carucates (6,1 hide note). This is more probably a simple slip for 'carucates', a s probably in 43,3. In this circuit Northamptonshire is measured in hides and virgates. \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab In the manuscript }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 iii hid'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is clear, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile, but in the Alecto facsimile the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 iii}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 resembles }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 vi}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ; see 2,6 Keythorpe note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab DONINGTON[-LE-HEATH]. }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 DVNTONE }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is lined through in vermilion in the manuscript, but this is not reproduced in the Alecto facsimile, nor is the rubrication on the }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 T}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 of }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Turchil}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ; }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 see 2,6 Keythorpe note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Donington-le-Heath was a chapelry of Ibstock Ancient Parish. This is its only mention in Domesday, but it seems probable that it lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, as it did later: }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 160.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the remaining third of the first line of this entry, perhaps for the later insertion of the wapentake head.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WASTE. In the manuscript }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Vast\'e2}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is clear, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile, but in the Alecto facsimile it appears as }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Vast \'fb}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ; see 2,6 Keythorpe note. }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Vasta}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 m}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ] agrees with }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 terram}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 understood. The Latin should thus be expanded to }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 terram vastam recepit}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (literally ' he acquired waste land', but meaning 'the land was waste when he acquired it'). Although according to the questions purported to have been asked during the Domesday Survey (see the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Inquisitio Eliensis}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 : Hamilton, p. 97), the value at three dates was required, this information was only sometimes included in Great Domesday. The only other occurrence of it in Leicestershire is in 43,6.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40\tab LAND OF COUNTESS JUDITH}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 She was the daughter of Lambert, Count of Lens, and William\rquote s half-sister Adelaide and thus related to Eustace of Boulogne and the niece of King William. By 1086 she was the widow of Earl Waltheof whom she married }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 c}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . 1070 and who was executed for treason in 1076. She in herited many of his lands. Her main heir was her daughter, Matilda (Maud) who married first Simon I de Senlis, second David I, King of Scotland, both husbands being successively earls of Huntingdon. Judith's lands formed the honour or barony of Huntingdon in later times, held by a line of the earls of Huntingdon. See Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 286. \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Although the main scribe of Great Domesday was inconsistent in where he detailed the lands of women in the text of a county, in Leicestershire he had wri tten the fiefs of Countess Godiva and Countess Aelfeva on folio 231d (LEC 11 and LEC 12), possibly because, like Earl Aubrey, whose fief preceded theirs, they were both dead. Although Adelaide, wife of Hugh of Grandmesnil, whose fief the scribe wrote afte r Judith's, was also dead, her death occurred only in July 1086 (}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , i. p. 297) so she may have been alive when the circuit volume was compiled and this was not changed in Domesday Leicestershire.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab At the time of the Leicestershire Survey most of Countess Judith's land were in the hands of her son-in-law, King David of Scotland; see the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 91).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab The wapentakal order of this fief is complex. As in his inscription of most other fiefs in Domesday Leicestershire, th e scribe divided the estates between those held in lordship (40,1-7) and the subinfeudations (40,8-41), marking the division with a line's space on which he then wrote the Guthlaxton wapentake head for 40,8, although there was no need for it to be repeate d . However, within the account of subinfeudated lands he did not proceed wapentake by wapentake in the standard sequence, but seems to have intended to enter all the lands of each subtenant, or a particular group of them, drawn from the wapentakes in the s t andard order before proceeding to the next individual or group. He did not carry this out perfectly, because in searching through his source he apparently briefly missed some holdings of individuals and then entered them out of sequence; see 40,24 entry n ote and 40,39 entry note. The arrangement of the fief is as follows:}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Guthlaxton Wapentake: 40,1-7 Lordship land}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Guthlaxton Wapentake: 40,8-10 Subinfeudation (Hugh of Grandmesnil)}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Framland Wapentake]: 40,11 Subinfeudation (Hugh of Grandmesnil) \par \tab \tab ['Goscote' Wapentake]: 40,12 Subinfeudation (Hugh Burdet) \par \tab \tab [Framland Wapentake]: 40,13-14 Subinfeudation (Hugh Burdet) \par }\pard \ql \fi-1440\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid4879481 {\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Gartree Wapentake: 40,15-21 Subinfeudation (Robert of Bucy);}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,22 Subinfeudation (Hugh of Grandmesnil)}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid4879481 {\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Framland Wapentake]: 40,23 Subinfeudation (Robert [* of Bucy *]) \par \tab \tab ['Goscote' Wapentake]: 40,24 Subinfeudation (Hugh Burdet); misplaced \par \tab \tab [Guthlaxton Wapentake]: 40,25 Subinfeudation (Robert [* of Bucy *]) \par \tab \tab [Gartree Wapentake] : 40,26 Subinfeudation (Grimbald ) \par \tab \tab ['Goscote' Wapentake]: 40,27 Subinfeudation (Grimbald ) \par }\pard \ql \fi-1440\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid4879481 {\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \tab }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [Gartree Wapentake]: 40,28-31 Subinfeudations (Osbern, Azur, Gilbert, Gundwin)}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab ['Goscote' Wapentake]: 40,32-36 Subinfeudations (Ralph , Feggi, Othenkar , Wulfsi) \par \tab \tab [Framland Wapentake]: 40,37-38 Subinfeudations (Godwin, Ralph ) \par \tab \tab 'Goscote' Wapentake: 40,39 Subinfeudation (Grimbald ); misplaced \par }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid4879481 {\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Framland Wapentake: 40,40-41 Subinfeudation (Hugh Musard)}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 . \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,1\tab OADBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 and}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 it was in that wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 26, 59), where Richard Basset holds 9 carucates and 1 virgate of the Ridel fee.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 3 SLAVES. They are unusually included with the Freemen and smallholders, rather than after the lordship ploughs, probably because no lordship was recorded. However, it is very unlikely that they shared the ploughs with them.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,2\tab PEATLING [MAGNA]. The }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 PETLINGE }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 over an erasure. He had ob viously written another place-name there, a shorter one judging by the compression of the replacement, and while waiting for the surface of the parchment to be re-prepared, he jotted down in the outer margin the correct place-name. Normally he erased such marginal notes once he had inserted the replacement word or figure, but occasionally, as here, he failed to do this; see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 124-26 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The Story of Domesday Book}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , pp. 190-91). However, he may have decided to leave the note this time for clarification because of the compression of the last few letters of the replacement.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Peatling Magna was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in }{\insrsid920401 Guthlaxton }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a }{\insrsid920401 Guthlaxton }{\cf1\insrsid920401 wapentake head at 17,1.}{\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\insrsid920401 It was in the same wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 28-29, 60). That Survey entry is unusually full and close to Domesday, probably a copy: 'In Leicestershire concerning the fee of the king of Scotland, [Counte ss] Judith held in Peatling [Magna] 3 carucates of land. There were 2 ploughs. Now 4 freemen with two smallholders have 1 plough there. There [are] eight acres of meadow. Richard Basset held it from King David of Scotland.' In Latin the opening words }{ \i\cf1\insrsid920401 In Comitatu Leycestr' de feodo Regis Scocie Juetta tenuit ...}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , translated in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 28-29) as 'In Leicestershire of the fee of the king of Scotland Judith held ... ', does not mean that Judith held from the King of Scotland, her successor. The }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 de}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 is 'on the subject of', not 'of'.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Domesday appears to distinguish the two estates called Peatling by the use of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 alia }{\cf1\insrsid920401 ('another') at 13,32 and 41,2, which are at Peatling Parva. Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 alia}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 does not normally mean this (it usually refers to the second occurrence of the same name in a list), but the peculiar circumstances of its use in Leicestershire suggest that there were already two distinct settlements in 1086; see 13,32 Peatling note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,3\tab COSBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Guthlaxton }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wapentake in 1086: other parts are in groups of places in }{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 Guthlaxton }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wapentake at 9,4 and 17,9.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,4\tab FROLESWORTH.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: other parts are in groups of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 9,2 and 17,3.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab MEADOW, 8 ACRES. Latin }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ac}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ra}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 s}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is accusative after }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 h}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 abe}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 nt}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 earlier in the line.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,5\tab SHARNFORD.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: other parts are in groups of places in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Guthlaxton }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wa pentake at }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 3,4 and 13,3. \par \tab \tab }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 For a grant of Sharnford to Burton Abbey, see 3,4 Sharnford note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,6\tab WILLOUGHBY [WATERLESS]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Guthlaxton }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 13,35. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 It was in that wapentake (in Hinckley Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 29, 58), where an estate of the same size (5 carucates less 1 bovate) is held of the fee of Countess Judith and later by Richard Basset under King (David of Scotland). }{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab MEADOW, 12 ACRES. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Latin }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ac}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ra}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 s}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is accusative after }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 h}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 abe}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 nt}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 earlier in the line.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,7\tab HEATHER. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. This is its only mention in Domesday, but it seems probable that it lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries, as it did later: }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 158.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab EARL WALTHEOF. See 14,16 Waltheof note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ESBIORN , A FREE MAN, HELD. Latin }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 lib}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 er}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ] }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ho}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 mo}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ] is mistranslated as 'Freeman' in the Phillimore printed edition, as if it were }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 sochemannus}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . It is unlikely that Earl Waltheof and Esbern held the lands jointly. It is more probable that Esbern held only one or two and that the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday did not at first realize this, hence the singular }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 tenuit}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . He should then have altered it to the plural }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 tenuerunt}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab On the identification of Esbiorn, see 14,23 Esbiorn note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THE WHOLE OF THIS LAND. That is, the preceding lordship holdings (40,1-7).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,8\tab HUGH OF GRANDMESNIL. He is also a tenant-in-chief in Leicestershire (LEC 13).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab BROUGHTON [ASTLEY]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,9\tab MARKFIELD. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. This is its only mention in Domesday, but it seems probable that it lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries, as it did later:}{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 159}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,10\tab "ELVELEGE". }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The place is lost; the name-form is either the Old English personal name }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Aelfa}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , plus }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 leah }{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('the wood of Aelfa') or Old English }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 elf}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ,}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 leah}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 'the wood of the elves') (PM). The Old English personal name }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Aelfa}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is, however, unrecorded, and it is not certain that the Old English }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \'c6lfheah}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , which appears in Domesday with forms such as }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Aelfec}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Alfeg}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Elfeg}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 etc., would shorten to }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Elue}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . It seems likely that "Elvelege" was in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 (head at 40,8).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,11\tab [IN FRAMLAND WAPENTAKE].}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 40,11 Goldsmiths note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab HUGH [* OF GRANDMESNIL *]. His successor, the Earl of Leicester, holds in the Leicestershire Survey }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (Slade,}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 p. 21).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab GOLDSMITHS GRANGE.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The Domesday form is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Ricoltorp}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 which became 'Ringlethorpe' before being displaced by the current name. This is a settlement in Scalford Ancient Parish. It was probably in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Framland }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wapentake in 1086. For another part, also probably in Framland Wapentake, see 42,8. It was in that wapentake, in [Nether] Broughton Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 21, 53), where it is held of the fee of the Earl of Leicester.}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab It was formerly a grange of Garendon Abbey named }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Goldsmiths Grange}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in an }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Inquisitio Post Mortem }{\cf1\insrsid920401 of 1577, after John Goldsmith, a former owner, died 1467 (PM); see Hoskins, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Essays in Leicestershire History}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 72; }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Place-Names of Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 208.}{ \cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,12\tab [IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based on the evidence of Domesday and of the Leicestershire Survey; see 40,12 Rearsby note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab HUGH BURDET. He was presumably related to Robert Burdet whose wife holds land}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 from Robert of Bucy (17,29 ) and whose son holds from Hugh of Grandmesnil (13,41;53). Robert Burdet was presumably dead by 1086, but Hugh Burdet was alive. See 13,37 wife note. Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 258, suggests he was Robert Burdet's younger son.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab REARSBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 'Goscote' }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a 'Goscote' wapentake head at 17,21}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 It was in that wapentake (in Rearsby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 16-17, 41), where it}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 is held (as 4 \'bd carucates) by King David (of Scotland).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,13\tab [IN FRAMLAND WAPENTAKE].}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 40,13 Welby note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WELBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a chapelry and township of the Ancient Parish of M elton Mowbray. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086. Another part is in a group of places in Framland Wapentake at 29,4; see also 40,37-38. It was in that wapentake, in Kirby [Bellars] Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 20, 52).}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Two of the estates that Countess Judith held in Welby (40,13;38), respectively 6 \'bd carucates and \'bd carucate, and her \'bd -carucate estate in Sysonby (40,14) are represented in that Survey by the same total but differently divided: King David (of Scotland) holds 4 \'bd carucates in Sysonby and 3 carucates in Welby. A further estate at Welby held by Godwin under Countess Judith (40,37) was held by Roger de Mowbray in the Survey; see 40,37 Welby note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Welby church lies at SK725209, the deserted medieval village at SK726210.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,14\tab SYSONBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a chapelry and township of the Ancient Parish of Melton Mowbray. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Framland Wapentake at 29,17. It was in that wapentake, in Kirby [Bella rs] Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 20, 25, 52).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Countess Judith held \'bd carucate here, and two estates (respectively 6 \'bd carucates and \'bd carucate) in Welby (40,13;38). In the Leicestershire Survey these lands are represented by the same total but differently divided: King David (of Scotland) holds 4 \'bd carucates in Sysonby and 3 carucates in Welby. A further estate at Welby held by Godwin under Countess Judith (40,37) was held by Roger de Mowbray in that Survey; see 40,37 Welby note.} {\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,15\tab ROBERT OF BUCY. He is a Leicestershire fief-holder in his own right (LEC 17); see LEC 17 Robert note. The plain Robert who was Countess Judith's subtenant in 40,23;25 was probably Robert of Bucy, as was also the Robert in NTH 56,25;59.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LUBENHAM. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086. For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 222-24.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,16\tab FOXTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086, as were the surrounding entries. Another part was a member of Great Bowden (1,4) which was in that wapentake in 1086.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 91-94.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,17\tab GUMLEY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086: anoth er part is directly below a wapentake head at 16,4. There may once have been a Mercian royal manor here as there were assemblies held in 749, 772 and ?779: Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , nos. 92, 109, 114.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 117-19.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,18\tab [GREAT] BOWDEN. }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 BVGEDONE}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is clear in the manuscript, but the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 D}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 resembles a }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 B}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 in the Alecto facsimile (}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 see 2,6 Keythorpe note), as it does, but to a lesser extent, in the Ordnance Survey facsimile.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Great Bowden was an Ancient Parish. The major estate at Great Bowden was held by the king in 1086 (1,4). No doubt both were in Gartree Wapentake. The present estate lies in a run of places in that wapentake (40,15-22).}{ \insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,19\tab OTHORPE. It was part of Slawston Ancient Parish.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This is its only mention in Domesday, but it seems probable that it lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries, as it did later: }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 164.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab In the Leicestershire Survey }{\cf1\insrsid920401 (Slade,}{\insrsid920401 pp. 24, 35) an estate at Slawston, assessed at 2 \'bd carucates, is held by King David (of Scotland), the successor to Countess Judith. This is almost certainly the estate named Othorpe in Domesday and similarly rated at 2 \'bd carucates. The two plaaces are ad jacent. There is no mention in Judith's fief in Domesday of an estate in Slawston.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,20\tab BLASTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a free chapel in Medbourne Ancient Parish. It was no doubt in Gartree Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding places. Another part was a jurisdiction of Great Bowden (1,4). It appears that the land actually lay at Neville Holt (SK8193): }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 244-46.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ROBERT OF TOSNY HAS THE JURISDICTION. At 15,2 Robert of Tosny holds Medbourne to which 2 carucates of land in Blaston belong.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,21\tab STOCKERSTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Gartree Wapentake at 13,15. It was in the same wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 23, 33), where it }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is held by Richard Basset from the Earl of Leicester. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 For its later history, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 304-306.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,22\tab GLOOSTON. In the manuscript }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 GLORSTONE}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , split over two lines, is lined through in vermilion, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alec to facsimile only the second half (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 STONE}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ) is shown thus; }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 see 2,6 Keythorpe note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Glooston was an Ancient Parish, but had perhaps once been a dependency of Welham Ancient Parish (Youngs, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Local Administrative Units}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 226). It was probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086, as it was in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 23, 32), where it }{\insrsid920401 is held by Richard Basset from the Earl of Leicester. }{\cf1\insrsid920401 For its later history, see }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 , v. pp. }{\insrsid920401 113-14.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,23\tab [IN FRAMLAND WAPENTAKE]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 40,23 Scalford note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ROBERT [* OF BUCY *]. See 40,15 Robert note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab SCALFORD. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a gr oup of places in Framland Wapentake at 17,33. It was in that wapentake (in Scalford Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 21, 25, 54). There King David (of Scotland) holds 11 \'bd carucates, \'bd carucate more than the Domesday figure, though the former is likely to be correct.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab One carucate at Scalford and the mill was given by Earl Simon of Senlis and his wife Matilda to the monks of La Charit\'e9-sur-Loire, serving God in the church of St Andrew, Northampton: }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 170 no. 1317.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 60s. The }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday corrected this 1086 value figure over erasure; there is an erased note in the outer margin level with this correction. On these marginal memos, see 40,2 Peatling note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,24\tab THIS ENTRY should have been i ncluded with the other subtenancies of Hugh Burdet in 'Goscote' Wapentake (40,13-14), both because in this fief it seems that the main scribe of Great Domesday was entering together the lands of Judith's individual subtenants (LEC 40 Judith note) and beca use that is the standard order of wapentakes. He no doubt briefly omitted this entry when excerpting Hugh's lands from the circuit volume, where Judith's fief was probably arranged purely by wapentake. Compare 40,39 entry note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 40,24 Lowesby note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LOWESBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. This is its only mention in Domesday, but it seems probable that it lay in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 'Goscote' }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wapentake in 1 086 as it did, in Tilton[-on-the-Hill] Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 15, 37), where it}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is held by King David (of Scotland), though assessed at 12 carucates.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,25\tab [IN GUTHLAXTON WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based on the evidence of Domesday and of the Leicestershire Survey; see 40,25 Oadby note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ROBERT [* OF BUCY *]. See 40,15 Robert note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab OADBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another p art is directly below a Guthlaxton wapentake head at 40,1. It was in that wapentake (in Hinkley Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 26, 59). The joint Domesday estate of Oadby and Wigston Magna is assessed at 2 carucates less 2 bovates. In t he Survey 1 carucate and 1 virgate are held of the fee of King David (of Scotland) in Oadby. It is probable that the difference between the two figures is the size of Wigston Magna which is absent from the Survey.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WIGSTON [MAGNA]. This was an Ancient Paris h. It no doubt lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a Guthlaxton wapentake head at 13,1. The identification with Wigston Magna (rather than with Wigston Parva: 8,5) is secured by the relationship with Oadby which is nearby.} {\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THERE WERE 1 \'bd PLOUGHS. Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 fuit}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , singular, as usual with '1 \'bd'. See 25,3 oxen note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,26\tab [IN GARTREE WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 40,26 Owston note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab GRIMBALD . A man of this name, probably the same man, holds from Countess Judith in 40,27;39 and in Northamptonshire (NTH 56,26-29). See }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 238.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab OWSTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. This is its only mention in Domesday, but it seems probable that it lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086 as it did (in Knossington Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 14, 31), where it }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is held by King David (of Scotland). Together with Knossington (1,11. 18,1) and the two estates called Marefield (1,3), Owston formed a detached part of 'Goscote' Wapentake. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 For its later history, see }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 271-73.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,27\tab [IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 40,27 Allexton note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab GRIMBALD }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . See 40,26 Grimbald note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ALLEXTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 'Goscote' }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 'Goscote' }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 wapentake head at 40,39. It was in that wapentake (in Loddington Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 14, 36).}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par \tab \tab In the Leicestershire Survey, the two estates held by Countess Judith in 1086 (40,27;39, totalling 5 \'bd carucates) are represented by 5 carucates and 1 virgate held by her successor King David (of Scotland).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,28\tab [IN GARTREE WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of Domesday and the Leicestershire Survey; see 40,28 Stonton note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab STONTON [WYVILLE]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Gart ree Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in Gartree Wapentake at 13,56 and that part was in the same wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 23, 32-33). Judith's holding is, however, missing from that Survey. For the later hi story of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 309-11.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,29\tab CRANOE. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish, but had perhaps once been a township of Welham Ancient Parish: Youngs, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Local Administrative Units}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 224. Another part was a member of the royal manor of Great Bowden (1,4). It no doubt lay in Gartree Wapentake in 1086 as it did in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 23, 32), where it }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is held by Richard Basset from the Earl of Leicester. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 For its later history, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 82-83}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,30\tab WELHAM. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Gartree Wapentake in 1086: other parts are in groups of places in Gartree Wapentake at }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 2,5. 17,19, and they appear }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 24, 35), in Gartree Wapentake. The present estate, however, does not appear there.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 332-34.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,31\tab THEDDINGWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. There were several other parts of this vill (10,12-13. 27,2. 43,5) which all seem to h ave lain in Gartree Wapentake in 1086. In the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 27, 35), in text C only, 2 carucates are held of the Ridel fee by Hugh the sheriff; it is not obvious with which Domesday estate, if any, this should be identified; see 27,2 T heddingworth note. \par \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 316-17.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,32\tab [IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 40,32 Ashby note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab RALPH . Ralph here and in 40,33;38 was succeeded by the Folleville family (possibly from Folleville in the French d\'e9 partement of Eure, arrondissement Bernay, canton Thiberville) and may have been their ancestor; see }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 346}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 .}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ASHBY [FOLVILLE]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 'Goscote' }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wapentake in 1086: another part apparently begins a group of places in 'Goscote' Wapentake at 14,17. It was in that wapentake, in Ashby [Folville] Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 16, 40).}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par \tab \tab In the Leicestershire Survey, this estate is hel d by King David (of Scotland), though as 5 carucates. The extra carucate may have come from Henry of Ferrers' holding (14,17), but the assessment of Ashby Folville as a whole is 1 carucate larger in that Survey than in Domesday. \par \tab \tab }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 There was another Ashby (Ashby-de-la-Zouch) in 'Goscote' Wapentake and two other places called Ashby (Ashby Magna and Ashby Parva) in Guthlaxton Wapentake.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab SPINNEY. See 22,1 spinney note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,33\tab RALPH }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . See 40,32 Ralph note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 'NEWBOLD [FOLVILLE]'. This was in }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 the Ancient Parish of }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Ashby Folville. Part of Ashby Folville (14,17) belonged to it. The present estate no doubt lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 It was in that wapentake (in Barkby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 16, 39), where it has the same assessment as here and is held by Robert de Ferrers. See}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Place-Names of Leicestershire}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , iii. p. 99.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,34\tab FEGGI. The Domesday form }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Feggo}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 most likely represents the Old Danish personal name }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Feggi }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (originally a byname meaning 'old man'), identified and discussed by von Feilitzen, 'Some Scandinavian Personal Names', p. 54, and followed by Fellows-Jensen, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Scandinavian Personal-Names}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 81 (PM). This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab GADDESBY. This was a chapelry and peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Rothley until 1851}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 : Youngs, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Local Administrative Units}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 226 }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . Another part was a member of the royal manor of Rothley (1,3) in 1086. No doubt both the estates here held from Countess Judith (40,34-35) were in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 as they were }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (in Barkby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 16, 25, 40), where they are}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 represented by 2 carucates held by King David (of Scotland).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,35\tab OTHENKAR . This tenant may be the once substantial pre-Conquest landowner of that name: see DBY 13,2 Othenkar note (JP).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab GADDESBY. See 40,34 Gaddesby note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \'bd MILL. Latin }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 dimidia pars molini}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('a half part of a mill') is not significantly different from }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 dimidius molinus}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (' \'bd mill') and so has been translated as the latter; see also 17,21. The Phillimore printed translation has ' \'bd part of a mill' for both. In C17 the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 de medietate molini}{\cf1\insrsid920401 (' from half a mill') in its render.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,36\tab BROOKSBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. This entry seems to finish the list of places that lay in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This estate was in that wapentake (in Rearsby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 16, 41), where Pipard holds from King David (of Scotland), though the assessment is 1 carucate.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,37\tab [IN FRAMLAND WAPENTAKE]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 40,37 Welby note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WELBY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a chapelry and township of the Ancient Parish of Melton Mowbray. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086: other parts (29,4. 40,13) appear to have been Framland Wapentake. The three estates held by Countess Judith in Welby (40,13;37-38) were in that wapentake, in Kirby [Bellars] Hundred, in the Leicestershire Sur v ey (Slade, pp. 20, 52). There Roger de Mowbray holds 9 carucates, which appear to be composed of the estate of 8 carucates less 2 bovates held by Geoffrey of la Guerche in Welby (29,4) and the present estate of 1 carucate and 2 bovates held in 1086 by God win from Countess Judith, which was presumably acquired after 1086 by Geoffrey or a successor and added to the la Guerche estate at Welby.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Welby church lies at SK725209, the deserted medieval village at SK726210.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,38\tab RALPH }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . See 40,32 Ralph note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WELBY. In the manuscript ALEBI is lined through in vermilion clearly, though faintly, but this is not reproduced in the Alecto facsimile; }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 see 2,6 Keythorpe note. It is also not reproduced in the Ordnance Survey facsimile.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Welby was a chapelry and to wnship of the Ancient Parish of Melton Mowbray. It was probably in Framland Wapentake in 1086: other parts (29,4. 40,13) appear to have been Framland Wapentake. The three estates held from Countess Judith (40,13;37-38) were in that wapentake, in Kirby [Be llars] Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 20, 52). }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Two of these estates in Welby}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (40,13;38) were respectively 6 \'bd carucates and \'bd carucate. She also held a \'bd -carucate estate in Sysonby (40,14). In the Leicestershire Survey these lands are represented by the same total but differently divided: King David (of Scotland) holds 4 \'bd carucates in Sysonby and 3 carucates in Welby. A further estate at Welby held by Godwin under Countess Judith (40,37) was held by Roger de Mowbray in that Survey; see 40,37 Welby note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Welby church lies at SK725209, the deserted medieval village at SK726210.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,39\tab THIS ENTRY should have been included with Grimbald's other subtenancy in 'Goscote' Wapentake (40,27), }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 both because in this fief it seems that the main scribe of Great Domesday was entering together the lands of Judith's individual subtenants (LEC 40 Judith note) and because that is the standard order of wapentakes. Compare 40,24 entry note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab GRIMBALD }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . See 40,26 Grimbald note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ALLEXTON.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 'Goscote' }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wapentake in 1086 and it was in that wapentake (in Loddington Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 14, 36).}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par \tab \tab In the Leicestershire Survey, the two estates held by Countess Judith in 1086 (40,27;39, totalling 5 \'bd carucates) are represented by 5 carucates and 1 virgate held by her successor King David (of Scotland).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab IN LORDSHIP \'bd PLOUGH. The }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday had originally written }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 .i. car'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 here, but turned the }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 i}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 into a }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 d}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and interlined }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 im'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 for }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 dimidia}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid4879481 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,40\tab HUGH MUSARD}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 .}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 He was apparently a Norman who held land at F\'e9camp, and was not related to Enisan and Hascoit Musard: Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 271. }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Musardus}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 is Medieval Latin for 'stupid', 'lazy' (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 otiosus}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ,}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 piger}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ,}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 stupidus}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 : Du Cange, }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Glossarium}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , under }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 musardus}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ) and gives the Old French }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 musard}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . Apparently it was a surname. It gives the English surname Mussard: Tengvik, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Old English Bynames}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 352; see Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 271. \par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid4879481 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Hugh Musard also appears in the account of Stamford in Lincolnshire (LIN S5) and might be the same as the Hugh who was Countess Judith's subtenant there, described as her man (LIN 56,12-13;21). A Hugh also held a large number of estates from her in Be dfordshire and also in Northamptonshire. However, both Hugh Burdet (40,12 Hugh note) and Hugh of Grandmesnil were Judith's subtenants in Leicestershire and it is possible that any, all or none of the plain Hughs in her fiefs in Lincolnshire, Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire might be one or other of them.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab SAXBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086. It was in that wapentake (in Sproxton Hundred; see 40,41) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 22, 55), where it is held by Kin g David (of Scotland), but it is assessed at 3 carucates.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 40,41\tab HE ALSO ^[HUGH MUSARD]^. On Hugh Musard, see 40,40 Hugh note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab SPROXTON. In the manuscript }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 SPROTONE}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is lined through in vermilion clearly, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. The red-li ning is not reproduced in the Alecto facsimile; }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 see 2,6 Keythorpe note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Sproxton was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a Framland wapentake head at 30,1. It was in that wapentake (in Sproxton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 21, 55), where it is held by King David (of Scotland).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 41\tab LAND OF ADELIZA, WIFE OF HUGH OF GRANDMESNIL. Her father was Ivo, Count of Beaumont-sur-Oise (now in the French d\'e9partement of Val-d'Oise, arrondis sement Pontoise). For her husband, see LEC 13 Hugh note. With him she produced ten children, five sons and five daughters. In Domesday she held estates in her own right in Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Leicestershire and Warwickshire. See }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 297; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 124.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab This small fief is divided like most in Domesday Leicestershire between land held in lordship and land subinfeudated, the latter in the standard order of wapentakes: \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab ['Goscote' Wapentake]: 41,1 Lordship land \par \tab \tab [Guthlaxton Wapentake]: 41,2 Subinfeudation \par \tab \tab ['Goscote' Wapentake]: 41,3 Subinfeudation}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 41,1\tab [IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 41,1 Belgrave note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab BELGRAVE. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 'Goscote' }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in 'Goscote' Wapentake at 13,20. It was probably in that wapentake, in Ashby [Folville] Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 16, 40), if this 1 carucate is included with her husband's 7 carucates in the 12 carucates held by the Earl of Leicester; see 13,20 Belgrave note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab On the name, see 13,20 Belgrave note; for the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , iv. pp. 421-22.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 41,2\tab [IN GUTHLAXTON WAPENTAKE]. For the insertion of this head, see 41,2 Peatling note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ANOTHER PEATLING [PEATLING PARVA]. On this use of Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 alia}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , see 13,32 Peatling note. Later evidence shows that this estate was at Peatling Parva, which was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part lay in a group of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 13,32.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab FROM HER. Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 de ea}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , omitted in error in the Phillimore printed translation and in the first version of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday Explorer}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 .}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 41,3\tab [IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 41,3 Barkby note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab BARKBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086. Another part (15,10) was also apparently in 'Goscote' Wapentake. The present estate of 1 \'bd carucates is accounted for in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 16, 38-39), by the 1 \'bd carucates held of the fee of the Earl of Leicester in Barkby Thorpe and Hamilton; see 15,10 Barkby note. On this estate, see Postles, 'Barkby'.}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 42\tab LAND OF THE KING'S SERVANTS. This chapter has parallels in several other Domesday counties. Although the Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 seruientes}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('serving', 'servants'; see 13,63 Frenchmen note) suggests that these men hold in exchange for a particular service, the group may be more heterogeneous than the title implies: some of these could be minor Frenchmen or Englishmen holding their estates in the normal way. None of the holders in the present fief is given an occupational name, whereas in other counties the lands of, for example, William the porter, Hervey the chamberlain, Osbern the falconer, Ansger the cook, Richard the forester and Stephen t he carpenter, appear among the 'king's servants'. There was obviously some confusion about the title of such chapters: in Surrey the Landholders' List under number 36 on folio 30a has 'Oswald, Theodric and others of the King's Servants', but the chapter o n folio 36d is entitled 'Land of Oswald and Other Thanes'. The confusion probably pre-dated Great Domesday: in Exon, the predecessor of the counties in circuit II, the holdings of Humphrey the chamberlain in Somerset appear partly under the heading 'Lands o f the King's Servants in Somerset' and partly under that of 'Lands of the French Thanes in Somerset', the latter section including the holdings of 'servants' such as Hugolin the interpreter and Richard the interpreter. The main scribe of Great Domesday so m etimes removed the holdings of important people from composite sections in Exon and put them in separate chapters: DEV 22 William note. The dismemberment of some composite chapters in other circuit volumes would have led to a series of small chapters, oft en containing one or two estates, and to a new composite chapter formed from the remnants of one or more original composite chapters, containing a mixture of minor landholders.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab The chapter is apparently arranged by holders. Only Herbert holds land in more than one wapentake, and those lands were entered together, before the scribe passed on to the holdings of Robert of Jort. Because holders take precedence over wapentakes, 'Goscote' Wapentake appears three times. It seems likely that the scribe entered Her bert's lands first because they were the largest (42,1 Framland note).}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Framland Wapentake]: 42,1 Land of Herbert . The text contains an erroneous Gartree\tab \tab wapentake heading ( 42,1 Framland note). \par \tab \tab ['Goscote' Wapentake]: 42,2-3 Land of Herbert \par \tab \tab Framland Wapentake: 42,4 Land of Herbert (a jurisdiction of 42,1 probably missed at \par \tab first by the scribe) \par \tab \tab ['Goscote' Wapentake]: 42,5-6 Lands of Robert of Jort}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Framland Wapentake]: 42,7-8 Lands of Askell and Raven}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab ['Goscote' Wapentake]: 42,9 Land of Ralph Framen}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Guthlaxton Wapentake]: 42,10 Land of Thorkell}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab These last two entries are later additions.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 42,1\tab [IN FRAMLAND WAPENTAKE]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The manuscript has Gartree Wapentake, in error (PM). That this is an error seems clear from Domesday and from the Leicestershi re Survey: 42,1 Burrough note. However, in starting with Framland Wapentake, the scribe was entering material out of order. It is possible that he read through this composite section in the circuit volume (where it was probably ordered strictly by wapenta ke) and realizing that Herbert held the most land, decided to enter his lands first when he had reached Framland Wapentake at the end of the section in the circuit volume.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab HERBERT .}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 250, without giving reasons, identifies this Herbert as 'probably' the same as the tenant of Henry of Ferrers in Derbyshire (DBY 6,65)}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . She states that the present Herbert was the ancestor of the Fitz Herberts of Twycross in Leicestershire and of Norbury in Derbyshire, both held by H enry of Ferrers in 1086 and with Nigel [of Stafford; see 14,10 Nigel note] and Henry [of Fyfield; see DBY 6,57 Henry note] respectively as his subtenants. Certainly in the case of Twycross (14,10) the descent was to the de Gresley family, as Keats-Rohan a ccepts on p. 302. It appears therefore that both those estates were acquired by the Fitz Herberts long after 1086. There is no other reason to connect the present Herbert with the Derbyshire Herbert.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Keats-Rohan's identification may have been based upon t he argument from probability. The name Herbert occurs as a tenant once each in Derbyshire and Leicestershire. The Leicestershire Herbert has been identified as Herbert son of Aubrey (Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 250). In the same county the tenant-in-c hief Herbert held land in Burrough-on-the-Hill, as did Henry of Ferrers, the tenant-in-chief from whom the Derbyshire Herbert held his property. The Ferrers association makes the identification of this Herbert as Herbert plausi ble (JP).}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab BURROUGH[-ON-THE-HILL]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. Despite the Gartree wapentake head, this place no doubt lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a Framland Wapentake head at 42,4; see also 29,12. It was in that wapent ake (in Cold Overton Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 49). This estate, 4 carucates in Domesday, seems in that Survey to be part of the 6 carucates at Somerby held by Roger de Mowbray. A further 1 \'bd carucates contributing to this total of 6 carucates might have been those assessed in Domesday at Somerby, part of the royal estate of Rothley (1,3). The estates of Somerby and Burrough-on-the-Hill are greatly intermingled; see the tabulation and discussion in the Leicestershire Survey (Sla de, pp. 49-50).}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 64-66.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab FREEMAN. In the manuscript }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 soch'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (= }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 sochemannus}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ) extends slightly into the inner margin; only the }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 so}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 are reproduced in the Alecto facsimile (see also 42,2 plough note), though it appears fully in the Ordnance Survey facsimile.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 42,2\tab [IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 42,2 Newton note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [COLD] NEWTON. This was a township of Lowesby Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 as another part is in a group of places in 'Goscote' Wapentake at 29,15. This \'bd -carucate estate together with the 3 carucates at }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Netone}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (42,3) are probably accounted for by the 4 carucates at (Cold) Newton listed in this wapentake, in Tilton[-on-the-Hill] Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 15, 37). The fact that it is Cold Newton that is close to Tilton-on-the Hil l distinguishes this holding from Newton Burgoland (14,24-25) in the same wapentake, but in a different hundred (14,24 Newton note).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\insrsid920401 This estate and the following one (42,3) amount to 3 \'bd carucates. In the Leicestershire Survey they appear to be represen ted by an estate of 4 carucates at [Cold] Newton held by Walter de Beauchamp. This further suggests that the present }{\i\insrsid920401 Niwetone}{\insrsid920401 and }{\i\insrsid920401 Netone}{\insrsid920401 (42,3) are the same place, despite the discrepant spelling.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \'bd PLOUGH. In the manuscript the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 car'}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 of }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 dim' car'}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 extends into the inner margin, but is visible in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile it is reproduced as an ?}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 o}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 only; see also 42,1 Freeman note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab VILLAGERS, AND MEADOW, 2 ACRES. Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 uill}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 an}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 os}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ac}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ra}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 s}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 are accusative after }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 h}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 abe}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 nt}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in the previous line. However, it is very unlikely that the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday meant that they were in lordship, as well as the \'bd plough.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 42,3\tab [COLD] NEWTON. The Domesday form is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 NETONE}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('Newton'), the first element perhaps showing the influence of Old Scandinavian }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 nyr }{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 upon Old English }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 niwe. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 A location in Cold Newton, as suggested by Slade (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Leicestershire Survey}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 37), seems likely (PM); see 42,2 Newton note. The Phillimore printed translation has Newton without the affix; the Alecto edition has Cold Newton.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab H[ERBERT]'S BROTHER. This follows }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 335. A possible alternative would be either }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 fr}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ancus}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 h}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 omo}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ],}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 'freeman', or }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 fr}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ancigenus}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 h}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 omo}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ],}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 'Frenchman' (PM). The Phillimore printed translation has 'a free man' which would translate }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 liber homo}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . Farley correctly printed a capital }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 H}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 fr. H}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , which reinforces the view that }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 H}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is a personal name, probably }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Herberti}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in view of the tenant's name.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\insrsid920401 There is no other reference to this individual in Domesday and he is otherwise unknown.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 42,4\tab 6 BOVATES OF LAND OF JURISDICTION IN BURROUGH[-ON-THE-HILL]. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Idem tenet de soca vi bouatas terrae in BVR}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 G. For this the Phillimore printed translation h as 'He also holds 6 bovates of land from the jurisdiction in Burrough-on-the-Hill'. The Alecto edition has 'The same man holds of sokeland 6 bovates of land in Burrough-on-the-Hill'. Neither of these translations is entirely clear. Interpretation depends partly on the order of words and partly on the meaning of the two prepositions }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 de}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . There can be little doubt that the land lay in Burrough-on-the-Hill, in other words that these are not 6 unnamed bovates merely belonging to Burrough-on-the-Hill. The position of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 de soca }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 seems too early in the sentence, as if the main scribe of Great Domesday accidentally wrote at this point (because it was at the forefront of his mind) something that he intended to enter later. If he had put }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 vi bovatas terrae de soca}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 or }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 vi bovatas terrae}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ,}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 SOCA}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , his meaning would have been clearer. In the first case he would have meant '6 bovates of land consisting of jurisdiction(-land)'. In the second case }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 SOCA }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 would be in apposition to the }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 vi bovatas terrae}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 : '6 bovates of land, (a) jurisdiction'. Despite the uncertainty, the present translation seems the most obvious interpretation. \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab In the Leicestershire Survey this estate seems supernumerary to the holding of Roger de Mowbray, who held Herbert's other estate in Burrough-on-the-Hill (42,1); see the discussion in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 49-50). This reinforces the impression that these 6 bovates have already been entered in the 4 carucates of Burrough-on-the-Hill (42,1). As the present entry appears out of wapentakal ord e r, it seems likely that it was entered in the circuit volume or other predecessor document as a subdivision of Burrough-on-the-Hill and was initially missed by the main scribe of Great Domesday. He then entered it as the last of Herbert's lands before pas sing on to those of Robert of Jort. \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Burrough-on-the-Hill was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 42,5\tab [IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 42,5 Hoton note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ROBERT OF JORT.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 In the manuscript }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Iorz}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , interlined by the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday; Farley misprinted }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Lorz}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . Robert}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 came from Jort in the French d\'e9 partement of Calvados (arrondissement Caen, canton Morteaux-Couliboeuf) and is represented by a man of the same name in 1166; see Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 377.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab HOTON. This was a chapelry of Prestwold Ancient Parish. It seems likely that the place lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 as it was (in Dalby-on-the-Wolds Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 17, 43). Another portion was a dependency of Barrow-upon-Soar (43,1).}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par \tab \tab In the Leicestershire Survey, this estate is held by a later Robert of Jort, but assessed only as 2 carucates, in contrast to 5 carucates in Domesday. Slade (Leicestershire Survey, p. 43) suggests a possible confusion of the figures }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 v}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ii}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , or with the 2 carucates held by Robert of Jort in Wymeswold (42,6).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ROBERT OCCUPIES IT BY FORCE. Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 possidet}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 mean 'to hold', 'to possess'. The verb is derived from }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 potis}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('able', 'capable') and }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 sedeo}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('to sit', 'occupy'). It is not in itself a verb of taking or seizing so the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 vi}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('by force' , 'by violence') fits rather uncomfortably with it. It is possible that there is an ellipsis here and that the sentence means 'seized by force and still holds'. The Latin present tense can, in such a context, suggest the continuation of a past action; com pare the use of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 necat}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in HUN 1,2 for 'has inundated and continues to do so'.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The illegal tenure is presumably of the whole estate of Hoton, not just its meadow as Fleming (}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday Book and the Law}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 190 no. 962) has it.}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab This sentence was written as an overrun, but was not a later addition; see 42,6 [***] note.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 42,6\tab WYMESWOLD. This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a 'Goscote' wapentake head at 18,2.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 2 CARUCATES OF LAND [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a space after }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 t'r\'ea}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 suitable for about eleven letters. There is nothing obviously missing from the sentence and no wapentake head is needed, so it is possible that because of the overrun from 42, 5 at the end of this line (42,5 force note) he decided not to put the location of the 2 carucates there in view of the length of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wimundeswale}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . He could, however, have written the }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and drawn a link-line.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 42,7\tab [IN FRAMLAND WAPENTAKE]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 42,7 Eastwell note}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab EASTWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Framland Wapentake in 1086 like another part which was a member of the manor of Melton Mowbray (29, 3). It is probably to be identified in that wapentake (in Eastwell Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 20, 51), where its 5 carucates and 2 bovates seem to correspond to the estates of Robert de Ferrers (2 carucates) and Robert de Lisle (4 c arucates).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 42,8\tab RAVEN . }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The name Raven is uncommon, occurring only 18 times in Domesday Book. This tiny Leicestershire, over 20 miles from the nearest other Raven (on an even more impoverished property), is likely to have been the only holding of it owner (JP).}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab GOLDSMITHS GRANGE. The Domesday form is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Ricoltorp}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 which became 'Ringlethorpe' before being displaced by the current name. This is a settlement in Scalford Ancient Parish. It was probably in }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Framland }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Wapentake in 1086: another part (4 0,11) was probably in Framland Wapentake. It was in that wapentake, in [Nether] Broughton Hundred, in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 21, 53), where it is held by Robert de Ferrers.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab It was formerly a grange of Garendon Abbey named }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Goldsmiths Grange }{\cf1\insrsid920401 in an }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Inquisitio Post }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Mortem of 1577, after John Goldsmith, a former owner, died 1467 (PM); see Hoskins, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Essays in Leicestershire History}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 72; }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Place-Names of Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 208.} {\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab In the manuscript }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 RICOLTORP }{\cf1\insrsid920401 is lined through in vermilion, albei t faintly, and this is not reproduced in the Alecto facsimile (see 2,6 Keythorpe note). The red-lining appears in the Ordnance Survey facsimile.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 42,9\tab THIS ENTRY and the next one (42,10) were added in paler ink by the main scribe of Great Domesday in a spac e left by him at the end of the holdings of the king's servants. They were inserted at the same time as the two holdings at the end of the fief of Earl Hugh (43,7-8) and as the three holdings of Robert son of William the usher immediately after them, whic h are really a separate fief (43,9-11; see 43,9 entry note). None of these additions was rubricated. The parchment here is very poor, being thin and yellow, so that the ink does not seem to have taken well; parts have become rubbed as well with the result t hat the writing is often faint or blurred and occasionally illegible; see 42,9 meadow note and 43,8 Cotes note. A fifth added unrubricated entry (1,12) was done in a different campaign; see 1,12 entry note. In neither the present entry nor 42,10 did the s cribe include the wapentake head, a frequent omission of his in entries added after rubrication (but see 1,12 entry note).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE]. The insertion of this heading is based principally on the evidence of the Leicestershire Survey; see 42,9 Asfordby note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ASFORDBY?. If correctly identified, this was an Ancient Parish. Another portion was a member of the royal manor of Rothley (1,3). Only that other portion (1,3) reappears in the Leicestershire Survey, in Great Dalby Hundred, 'Goscote' Wapenta ke ((Slade, pp. 17, 42). It is likely that Asfordby was in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086, as it was in that Survey. \par \tab \tab The Domesday name-form here, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Esseberie, }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 contrasts with }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Offerdebie}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 for the other part of Asfordby at 1,3. Ostensibly these are different names and there is therefore some doubt as to the identification of this present estate}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 unless it was once }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Essferdeberie}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 and a syllable had dropped out of its name. The other Domesday form, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Offerdebie}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , is also imperfect with initial }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 O}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 - standing for }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 A}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 -. Even so the terminations differ. The name either means the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 by}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('farm', 'homestead') of a man called Asfrith (Old Danish }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Asfrith }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , Old Norse }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Asfrothr}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ), or is from Old English }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Aescford}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('ford at the ash-trees'). As it stands, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Esseberie }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 might be expected to evolve to 'Ashbury', but no place of that name has been found. It may also be significant that the present estate of 3 \'bd carucates does not appear in the Leicestershire Survey, although the Asfordby of 1,3 does so. There the 13 carucates allotted to Asfordby in the Survey are only 1 carucate in excess of the Domesday assessment at 12 carucates. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 See}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Place-Names of Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , iii. p. 9.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab IN COMMENDATION. That is to say, presumably, that Ralph was 'able to go where he would with his land' and had sought the king's protection by 'commending' himself and his land to the king.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab MEADOW, 12 ACRES. In the manuscript }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 7 xii. ac' p'ti}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is visible, though faint, due to damage to the parchment (42,9 entry note). Farley printed it. It is not repro duced in either the Ordnance Survey or Alecto facsimiles, although in the former there is a blur where it should be, while in the latter there is a blob of ink in the middle of the space where it should be and this blob is not in the manuscript. The Alect o edition has [...] after the villagers' ploughs. Because of the poor state of the parchment here (42,9 entry note) someone has overwritten parts of the two added entries, generally carefully (but see 42,10 value note). However, he obviously failed to over write the meadow detail, though there remains the possibility that it was erased.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 42,10\tab THIS ENTRY and the previous one (42,9) were added by the main scribe of Great Domesday after rubrication in a space left by him at the end of the holdings of the king's servants and at the same time as other unrubricated entries; see 42,9 entry note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [IN GUTHLAXTON WAPENTAKE]. For the insertion of this head, see 42,10 Sharnford note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab SHARNFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: other parts are in groups of places in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 3,4. 13,3. 40,5.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For a grant of Sharnford to Burton Abbey, see 3,4 Sharnford note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 6 CATTLE. Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 a}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 nim}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 alia}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , commonly called }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 animalia otiosa}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('idle animals', that is, beef or dairy cattle , in contrast to ploughing oxen), as, for example, on Exon folio 174b4 (= SOM 2,7). However, occasionally in Exon (DEV 1,3 cattle note) and in a few counties in Great Domesday they seem to have been oxen. Although cattle and other animals are enumerated i n the surviving circuit returns (Exon and Little Domesday), they were normally omitted from Great Domesday, except to make a particular point. In SHR 4,20,8 the cattle were a rent (SHR 4,20,8 cattle note). Here they are more likely to have been oxen; compa re 25,3 oxen note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab VALUE 4s. In the manuscript the value statement appears to have been overwritten because of the poor state of the parchment (42,9 entry note); the person responsible did not get his alignment exactly accurate so that the number of minims was misread by Farley as }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 .iiiii.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . However, a close study of the manuscript has revealed that the scribe wrote }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 .iiii.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . The Phillimore printed translation follows Farley with 'Value 5s', but the Alecto edition has the correct '4s'.}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 In the Ordnance Survey fa csimile the number of minims also seems to be five, though smudging obscures this.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 43\tab THIS FIEF had apparently been omitted during }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 the initial writing campaign: in the Landholders' List on folio 230b Earl Hugh appears in an expected place as }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 XIII}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 between Countess Aelfeva and Hugh of Grandmesnil, but in the text the fief of Hugh of Grandmesnil succeeds that of the countess. }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 XLIII Comes Hugo}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 was later added in black ink in the margin of folio 230b beside the Landholders' List, its number indicating its positi on in the text after the lands of the king's servants (LEC 42) and before the similarly added LEC 44. The scribe may have mislaid the folios or quire of the circuit volume which contained Earl Hugh's fief. This is supported by his omission also of Hugh's f ief in Warwickshire (WAR 13), of an entry in Oxfordshire (OXF 15,5) and his misplacement during the initial writing campaign of his fief in Northamptonshire (NTH 22) and the correction of this by the use of red transposition signs; all these were in the s a me circuit as Leicestershire. Alternatively, he may have needed to check details in Hugh's fief, whose holding in Hampshire was also initially omitted: HAM 22 fief note. If so, he added it too soon as is shown by his having to return, after the county had been rubricated, to insert a further two entries (43,7-8). There were also several corrections to this fief, apparently done on different occasions, and one error and two omissions in the wapentake heads (43,1 Goscote note. 43,5 Gartree note. 43,6 Goscote note).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab In Leicestershire the lordship lands and the subinfeudated lands in each fief are almost always separately detailed (\{Introduction: Layout and Content\}and \{Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes\} ) and if the scribe had wanted to preserve some part of Earl Hugh's fief in its correct place in the county folios, he could have inserted his lordship lands on folio 233a (albeit after, rather than before, the fief of Hugh of Grandmesnil (LEC 13). He would have had to have overrun into the foot margin of folio 233a, however, or to have arranged differently the dependencies of Barrow-upon-Soar (43,1). He could then have added the subinfeudated lands on folio 237a under the heading 'Land of the Men of Earl Hugh' as he did for the omitted subinfeudated ho ldings of the Count of Meulan (LEC 44 fief note). \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The scribe wrote }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 XLIII}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 clearly in vermilion beside the chapter heading. In the Alecto facsimile this number appears as }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 XLIII}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 with the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 L}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 superimposed on the}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 X}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ; }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 see 2,6 Keythorpe note. In the Ordnance Survey facsimile the }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 XLIII}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 appears as in the manuscript.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LAND OF EARL HUGH. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Hugh of Avranches, also known as Hugh the fat, was second Earl of Chester from }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 c}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . 1071-1101 having succeeded William's first earl, Gherbod (left his earldom }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 c}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . 1071; died 1085). Hugh came from Avranches in the French d\'e9 partement of Manche. He was son of Richard Goz, vicomte of Avranches, and a woman who was possibly a half-sister of King William. His lands became the honour or barony of Chester. Hugh's only son Richard perished with the White Ship in 1120 and the lands passed to a first cousin, Ranulph I Le Meschin, son of Ranulph the vicomte of Bayeux who was married to Hugh's sister Margaret. See Sanders, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 English Baronies}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , pp. 32-33; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 258. \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Earl Hugh's e states became part of the Earldom of Chester and passed to its successive holders. At the time of the Leicestershire Survey they were held by the then Earl of Chester, either Ranulf le Meschin (died 1129) or his son Ranulf de Gernon; see the Leicestershir e Survey (Slade, p. 87).}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Among estates held at the time of the Leicestershire Survey by the Earl of Chester are some that cannot be or cannot certainly be related to a Domesday holding:}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab 1 carucate in }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 alia Ouerton'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [Coleorton] in Belton Hundred, 'Goscote' Wapentake: the }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Leicestershire Survey }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (Slade,}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 pp. 18, 45). \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab 6 carucates in Diseworth in Diseworth Hundred, 'Goscote' Wapentake: the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 46).}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab 3 \'bd virgates in Ravenstone in Diseworth Hundred, 'Goscote' Wapentake: the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 47). \par \tab \tab \'bd carucate in Appleby in Seal Hundred, 'Goscote' Wapentake: the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 48). \par \tab \tab 1 carucate in }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Chilteston}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in Seal Hundred, 'Goscote' Wapentake: the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 19, 48). \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab 3 carucates in Ratcliffe Culey in Hinckley Hundred, Guthlaxton Wapentake: the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 26, 58).}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab This fief, like most of the others in Domesday Leicestershire, is divided between land in lords hip and land subinfeudated, the main scribe of Great Domesday indicating this by leaving a blank space between the two sections. He began with Earl Hugh's one lordship estate which was in 'Goscote' Wapentake. At this point, rather than start the subinfeud a tions in the standard order of wapentakes (with Gartree Wapentake, there being nothing in Guthlaxton Wapentake), he entered three subinfeudations in 'Goscote' Wapentake. Only then (at 43,5) did he begin to inscribe the rest of the subinfeudations in the s tandard order. 43,7-8 were later additions (43,7 entry note) as were 43,9-11, which are duplicates of 20,1-4 and do not belong in this fief (43,9 entry note). \par \tab \tab ['Goscote' Wapentake]: 43,1-4 (43,1: Lordship; 43,2-4: Subinfeudations). At 43,1 the}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 text has Guthlaxton Wapentake in error. \par \tab \tab [Gartree Wapentake]: 43,5 Subinfeudation \par \tab \tab ['Goscote' Wapentake]: 43,6-8 Subinfeudations. 43,7-8 were later additions.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab [Framland Wapentake]: 43,9-11 (Duplicate of lands held by and from Robert the usher (= 20,1-4), wrongly numbered in the Phillimore printed translation as part of chapter 43.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 43,1\tab [IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE]. The manuscript has Guthlaxton, in error (PM).}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid4879481 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 297, suggests that the wapentake head is correct, arguing that Barrow-upon-Soar d oes not appear in 'Goscote' Wapentake in the Leicestershire Survey which is otherwise complete for that wapentake. This last is not true as that Survey omits a group of six or seven manors (including Barrow-upon-Soar) lying in the centre of the wapentake a nd there is no reason to think that they were a detachment of another wapentake: the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 11). The mistake was most probably caused by the fact that the main scribe of Great Domesday was here beginning a new fief and Guthlaxton is the first wapentake in the standard order: \{Introduction; Standard Order of Wapentakes\}. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The assertion in }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. 297, that Barrow-upon-Soar probably lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake is tacitly corrected on p. 339.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid4879481 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab BARROW[-UPON-SOAR]. This wa s an Ancient Parish. Although this is its only appearance in Domesday apart from a mention of 10 houses in Leicester linked to it (C8), it seems probable that it lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 as did all those members that are mentioned elsewhere in t he text. It lay in that wapentake later: }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 162. \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab This was a large multiple estate and by the mid-twelfth century a hunting park had been established here: }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Place-Names of Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , ii. p. xv.}{\cf1\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab EARL HAROLD. This and 43,5-6 (Th eddingworth and Kegworth) were the only estates that he held in Leicestershire and far from those shires where he was earl. It is possible that this manor came to him from his wife Ealdgyth who was the sister of Earls Edwin and Morcar. Earl Edwin was Earl of Mercia and it is possible that this important manor had formerly belonged to his earldom; see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. pp. 297-98.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WITH THE DEPENDENCIES WRITTEN BELOW. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 It is not clear which estates this heading is meant to cover. It must certainly refer to those that end with the second appearance of Frisby-on-the-Wreake. The status of the lands described in the next five entries is unsure (43,2-6). Earl Hugh's fief, as written originally (43,1-6), consisted either of four manors (Barrow-upon-Soar, Lough borough, Theddingworth, Kegworth) with dependencies or of a single multiple estate (Barrow-upon-Soar). \par \tab \tab In favour of the first suggestion is that the 1066 holders of Loughborough (43,2) are said to be five thanes and separate 1066 holders (Earl Harold in b oth cases) are given for Theddingworth and Kegworth (43,5-6). Furthermore, claims are mentioned in 43,4-5 which would be unusual if they were members of a multiple estate. Moreover, Loughborough has its own jurisdiction in Burton-on-the-Wolds (43,3), whic h ought to give Loughborough itself the status of a manor, rather than its being a part of Barrow-upon-Soar. The layout of the manuscript, with a line's space left between the entries for Barrow-upon-Soar and Loughborough, also suggests that the main scrib e believed Loughborough to be a separate estate.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Conversely, in favour of the notion that 43,1-6 comprise a single multiple estate are the absence of 1066 holders for 43,2;4 and that at the end of 43,6 there is a summary of the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 T.R.E. }{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 ploughs in the lands 'written above' (see 43,6 written note) and a value 'of the whole'. While there are separate fief summaries included in the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Liber Exoniensis}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , the occurrence of a value clause throughout most of Domesday seems to mark the end of the survey of one discrete estate.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab This last argument seems decisive in favour of 43,1-6 forming a single estate. The complications are perhaps caused by the fact that the estate had partially broken up by 1086 and the main scribe was uncertain how to deal with it. If this view is accepted, it gives new significance to the scribe's use of }{\i\insrsid920401 appendiciis}{\insrsid920401 ('dependencies'), rather than }{\i\insrsid920401 berewicis}{\insrsid920401 ('outliers') or }{\i\insrsid920401 soca}{ \insrsid920401 ('jurisdiction(s)') at 43,1. Thus Loughborough, in partially breaking away from Barrow-upon-Soar, could have become a manor, but still be dependent on one. On this interpretation, the five thanes who held in 1066 were holding a portion of Barrow-upon-Soar that was situated at Loughborough, from Earl Harold.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [CASTLE] DONINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. Another part is directly below a 'Goscote' wapentake head at 12,2.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab COSSINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It does not recur in Domesday, but it was in 'Goscote' Wapentake (in Dalby-on-the-Wolds Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 17, 43), where the Earl of Chester holds it. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab HOTON. This was a chapelry of Prestwold Ancient Parish. For another part, see 42,5. It was omitted from the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 43).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab SEAGRAVE. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapenta ke in 1086 Another part is in a group of places in 'Goscote' Wapentake at 17,23; see also 1,3. 14.7. It is not named in the Leicestershire Survey, but its 2 carucates, combined with the one allotted to Sileby in Domesday, seem to be represented there in ' Goscote' Wapentake, by 3 carucates held by the Earl of Chester and assigned to Sileby alone: the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 15, 24, 38).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab SILEBY. This was an Ancient Parish. Another part is found in a group of places in 'Goscote' Wapentake at 13,64 and a further part is a member of the royal manor of Rothley (1,3) It was in that wapentake (in Beeby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 15, 24, 38). There the holdi ng of the Earl of Chester is 3 carucates, which are probably made up of the 1 carucate here at Sileby and the 2 carucates at Seagrave.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab REARSBY. This was an Ancient Parish. Another part is directly below a 'Goscote' wapentake head at 17,21. It was in that w apentake (in Rearsby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 16-17, 25, 41) where it is held by the Earl of Chester, though assessed as 2 \'bd carucates.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab BROOKSBY. This was an Ancient Parish. Another part is found at the end of a group of places in 'Goscote' Wapentake at 40,36. It was in that wapentake (in Rearsby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 16, 41), where it is rated at 5 carucates and the Earl of Chester holds it.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab FRISBY[-ON-THE-WREAKE]. This was an Ancient Parish. Another p art is given further down this list of the dependencies of Barrow-upon-Soar and a further part was a member of the royal manor of Rothley (1,3). All probably lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086. The two parts of Frisby-on-the-Wreake held by Earl Hugh are s o similar that they could be duplicates of each other, but the Leicestershire Survey (where they are placed in Great Dalby Hundred and in 'Goscote' Wapentake: Slade, pp. 17, 42) shows that they were separate estates, whose combined total (3 carucates) is p robably represented by the 4 carucates held there by the Earl of Chester. For the history of this estate, see Hoskins, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Essays in Leicestershire History}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , pp. 24-66.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab PRESTWOLD. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086: another part appears to be in 'Goscote' Wapentake at 35,1.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab CHARLEY. This was an extra-parochial place. It probably lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086 like the other members of Barrow-upon-Soar. Though waste in 1086, it reappeared in that wapentake (in Loughbor ough Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 18, 44), where it is held as 6 \'bd carucates. In that Survey, p. 18, no holders are given in Loughborough Hundred, but the Earl of Chester is the last holder to be mentioned (in the previously-entered hu ndred). In addition to Charley, the estates mentioned there include Dishley and Hathern, also held by Earl Hugh (of Chester) in 1086 (43,6). For a notification (dated 1129) that Ranulf Earl of Chester has granted Charley and two other places to the king a nd that the king has granted them to Robert Earl of Leicester, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 231 no.1607.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab FIND OUT THE VALUE. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 rq' p'ci\'fb}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (= }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 require precium}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ) in vermilion at the end of the entry for Charl ey, but it does not necessarily refer to that entry. Rather it may have been a convenient space to write a memorandum to himself to find out the value of the whole manor of Barrow-upon-Soar, which lacks one, as do the succeeding entries (43,2-5). It was n o t until the end of 43,6 that he gave the value of 'all these above-written lands', and he may not have seen this when he wrote the request, probably during the rubrication of Leicestershire. On these marginal requests for information, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 124-26 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The Story of Domesday Book}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , pp. 190-91); see also 11,2 lordship note and compare 1,4 meadow note and 28,1 margin note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab GADDESBY. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a chapelry and peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Rothley until 1851}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 : Youngs, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Local Administrative Units}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 226}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . Another part was a member of the royal manor of Rothley (1,3) in 1086, and further portions were in a group of places in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 40,34-35.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 It was probably in that wapentake (in Barkby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 16, 24, 40), if the 1 carucate of Domesday held by Earl Hugh is represented by the 1 carucate and \'bd bovate held by the Earl of Leicester.}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ROTHERBY. This was an Ancient Parish. This is its only mention i n Domesday, but it seems probable that it lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086, like the other dependencies of Barrow-upon-Soar. It was in that wapentake (in Great Dalby Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 17, 42), where the Earl of Chester ho lds it, though its assessment (6 carucates) was larger.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab FRISBY[-ON-THE-WREAKE]. This was an Ancient Parish. Another part is given earlier in this list of the dependencies of Barrow-upon-Soar and a further part was a member of the royal manor of Rothley (1, 3). All probably lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086. The two parts of Frisby-on-the-Wreake held by Earl Hugh are so similar that they could be duplicates of each other, but the Leicestershire Survey (where they are placed in Great Dalby Hundred and in 'Go scote' Wapentake: Slade, pp. 17, 42) shows that they were separate estates, whose combined total (3 carucates) is probably represented by the 4 carucates held there by the Earl of Chester.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab OF THESE LANDS ... 12 CARUCATES OF LAND. This sentence, a complete line in the manuscript, was written by the main scribe of Great Domesday over an erasure. He later added }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 t}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 er}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 r\'ea}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 : the original dot after }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 carucatas}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 can be seen under the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 r}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . The Phillimore printed edition mistranslates }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 de comite}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('from the earl') as }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 comitis }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('the Earl's [men-at-arms]').}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 43,2\tab LOUGHBOROUGH. In the manuscript this is }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 LVCTEBVRNE}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , but in the Alecto facsimile the first letter has not been reproduced at all; }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 see 2,6 Keythorpe note. In the Ordnance Survey facsimile it is as in the manuscript.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Lough borough was an Ancient Parish. Loughborough had a house appurtenant to it in the borough of Leicester (C8); otherwise it is not mentioned in Domesday. It probably lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake (heading supplied at 43,1) and it was in that wapentake (in Lough borough Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 18, 44).}{\insrsid920401 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab In the Leicestershire Survey, this estate with appendages (amounting to 19 carucates in 1086; see 43,2 carucates note) is held by the Earl of Chester as 1 hide and 13 carucates. If a hide contains 18 carucates (6,1 hide note) this makes 31 carucates, but if it contains 14 \'bd carucates (29,3 hides note) that makes 27 \'bd carucates. It seems possible that the 1 hide in Burton-on-the-Wolds (43,3), whose jurisdiction was in Loughborough, should be included. However, the Domesday total would then be 37 carucates (at 18 carucates to a hide), but if the hide in 43,3 is an error for 'carucate' (43,3 hide note), the Domesday total would be 20 carucates, which is closer to, but still far less than, the 31 carucates of that Survey.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Domesday does not mention the status of this estate. It had its own jurisdiction in Burton-on-the-Wolds (43,3), but was probably itself a dependency of Barrow-upon-Soar (43,1); see 43,1 dependencies note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ROGER [* OF MILLY? *]. In a confirmation charter of 1081Roger }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 de Millai}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 appears with two other men of Earl Hugh (Brisard and Robert }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Pultrel}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 ) as giving their tithes in Leicestershire to Saint-Evroult; see LEC 13 Hugh note. It is unclear whether the present Roger is Roger }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 de Millai}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 or, if he is not the same person, it is the Roger who holds \'bd carucate also in Loughborough two lines below. There is no mention here of a Brisard, but a Robert appears in 43,6 as holding from Earl Hugh (43,6 Robert note).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Roger's place of origin is uncertain. Chibnall (}{\cf1\insrsid920401 Orderic Vitalis, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Ecclesiastical History}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , iii. pp. 238-39}{\insrsid920401 ) suggested M\'e9 lay, by which she probably meant Melay (}{\cf1\insrsid920401 d\'e9partement of Maine-et-Loire, arrondissement Cholet, canton Chemill\'e9}{\insrsid920401 ) which occurs }{\cf1\insrsid920401 as }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Melei}{\cf1\insrsid920401 in 1019. Bates, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , no. 255 pp. 771, 1102), suggested Meslay (d\'e9partement Calvados, arrondissement Caen, canton Thury-Harcourt) though this appears as }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Merlai}{\cf1\insrsid920401 }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 c}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . 1000. }{\insrsid920401 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\insrsid920401 , p. 405, suggested }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Milly (d\'e9partement Manche, a rrondissement Avranches, canton Saint-Hilaire du Harcou\'ebt), for which early forms have not been found, though the early forms for other places called Milly are }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Milleium}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Miliacum}{ \cf1\insrsid920401 , }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Melliacum}{\cf1\insrsid920401 . From a charter of Ranulf of Chester confiming gifts to Saint-Evroult (Round, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Calendar of Documents, France}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , pp. 222-23 no. 636) it appears that Roger }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 de Millaio}{\cf1\insrsid920401 gave the tithe of his land in Normandy to that church; this would rule out the identification of }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Millai }{\cf1\insrsid920401 with Melay which is not in Normandy. }{\insrsid920401 On purely phonological grounds the identification with Milly seems more likely. On these three places, see }{\cf1\insrsid920401 Dauzat and Rostaing, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Dictionnaire des Noms de Lieux en France}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , pp. 446, 453, 457}{\insrsid920401 .}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab RALPH 3 \'bd CARUCATES. The land held by Ralph, Hugh, Godric and Roger totals 11 carucates and is clearly additional to the 8 carucates, held by Roger, that begin the entry.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab HUGH 3 \'bd CARUCATES OF LAND. In the manuscript there is an erasure at the end of this statement, extending into the central margin with a transposition sign written on top of it by the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday. This sign corresponds to one later in the column beside the added entry on Burton-on-the-Wolds (43,7 entry note). The erasure may have been of a note alerting him to the omission of that entry. The scribe also interlined a different transposition sign above }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Hugo}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 which corresponds to one above the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Hugo}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in 43,7, presumably indicating that they were the same person. The scribe was always very careful to vary the design of his transposition signs when more than one set of signs appeared in a column, as here. Farley printed a + above }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Hugo}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and a dot inside a circle at the end of this statement, rather than the signs used by the scribe.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab }{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ROGER [* OF MILLY? *]. See 43,2 Roger note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab MEADOW, 45 ACRES. All except the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 x}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 of the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 xlv ac' p'ti}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 was written by the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday over an erasure.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 43,3\tab 1 HIDE. In view of the other details in this entry, this hide will scarcely have been the equivalent of 18 carucates (6,1 hide note). It is more probably a simple s lip for 'carucate', as probably at 39,2. Added weight is given by the fact that another part of Burton-on-the-Wolds (43,4) is assessed at 2 carucates and has 1 plough in lordship and 20 acres of meadow, the same as in the present entry. Both 43,3 and 43,4 therefore seem to be small estates. Northamptonshire, in the same circuit as Leicestershire, is measured in hides and virgates.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab BURTON[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a township of Prestwold Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086, like th e surrounding entries. Other parts are in groups of places in 'Goscote' Wapentake at 29,14 and 43,7 .}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab This dependency of Loughborough (43,2) is probably silently included with it }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in the Leicestershire Survey: 43,2 Loughborough note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab JURISDICTION BELONGS TO LOUGHBOROUGH. That is, to Earl Hugh's estate at 43,2.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 43,4\tab BURTON[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a township of Prestwold Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries. Other parts are in groups of places in 'Goscote' Wapentake at 29,14 and 43,7 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab HUGH OF GRANDMESNIL CLAIMS THE JURISDICTION. Hugh holds Wymeswold (13,63) which is nearby. \par \tab \tab }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 See also Fleming, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday Book and the Law}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 190 no. 963.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 43,5\tab [IN GARTREE WAPENTAKE]. For the insertion of this head, see 43,5 Theddingworth note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THEDDINGWORTH. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. There were several other parts of this vill (10,12-13. 27,2. 40,31) which all seem to have lain in Gartree Wapentake in 1086.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the later history of this estate, see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , v. pp. 316-17.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THIS LAND IS AMONG THE KING'S CLAIMS. The Latin (extended) is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Haec terra est in calumnia regis}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 336, has 'The king claims this land' which would be the correct rendering for }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 rex hanc terram calumniatur}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . Something else, perhaps the existence of a schedule of royal claims, is implied by the present form of words. The Alecto edition corrected the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 reading to 'This land is among the king's claims' and this translation has been adopted here in preference to that in the Phillimore printed translation ('This land is in the King's claim'). }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Calumnia}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is singular, but could be being used here as a collective noun. The jurisdiction of William Lovett's holding in Theddingworth (27,2) belongs to the king's manor of Great Bowden (1,4), perhaps the reason for this statement: }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 336, note 85.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab See also Fleming, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Domesday Book and the Law}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 190 no. 964; she translates 'is in the king's claim'.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab EARL HAROLD. See 43,1 Harold note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 43,6\tab [IN 'GOSCOTE' WAPENTAKE]. For the insertion of this head, see 43,6 Kegworth note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ROBERT [* SON OF HUGH *]. In a 1081 confirmation charter a Robert }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Pultrel}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , one of Earl Hugh's men, is recorded with two others as giving his tithes in Leicestershire to Saint-Evroult; see LEC 13 Hugh note and 43,2 Roger note. However, }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 393 (under p lain Robert), identifies this man as the holder of two manors under Earl Hugh, one on folio 237a (which is the present one) and one on folio 157b in Oxfordshire, both of which descended to Richard FitzNigel and his heirs by }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 c}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 . 1150. A Robert held three man ors from Earl Hugh on folio 157b in Oxfordshire (OXF 15,1;3;5) and the holder of 15,1 (South Weston) and 15,5 (Ardley) was identified as Robert d'Oilly in the notes to the Phillimore printed edition of that county and by Farrer, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Honors and Knights' Fees}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , ii. pp. 244-48; Keats-Rohan (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ibidem}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 378, under Robert De Oilli) includes two references to folio 157b, presumably to OXF 15,1;5. However, Keats-Rohan ( }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ibidem}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 392, under Robert Pultrel) seems to suggest by her folio 237a reference that Robert here is Robert Pultrel, though she only identifies him as a tenant of Robert, Count of Meulan (her other two references there, however, are to one of the Roberts who held of Countess Judith at 40,20;23;25 and to one of the Count of Meulan's tenants of that name in 44,5;8-9). There is only one unidentified Robert on folio 237a, however. Farrer (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ibidem}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , ii. p. 79), under Kegworth, identifies the present holder as Robert son of Nigel (and Robert's holding in Tackley, OXF 15,3, descended to Richard Fitz Nigel: p. 242).}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 More work is obviously needed on the identification of the Robert in the present entry, though it is possible that Robert Pultrel and Robert son of Nigel were one and the same. \par }{\insrsid920401 \tab \tab For the identification of Robert as the son of Hugh, see }{\i\insrsid920401 VCH Cheshire}{\insrsid920401 , i. pp. 308-309; Lewis, }{\cf18\insrsid920401 'Formation of the Honour of Chester',}{\insrsid920401 pp. 10, 59. The Leicestershire holdings straddle those held by Robert in NTT 3,1-3 and both had been held by Harold (JP).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab KEGWORTH. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. Apart from six app urtenant houses in the borough of Leicester (C8), this vill is not mentioned in Domesday. It probably lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086, as it did (in Tonge Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 18, 44), where it continues to be held by the E arl of Chester.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab EARL HAROLD. See 43,1 Harold note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab HATHERN. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. This is the only mention of Hathern in Domesday, but there is no reason to doubt that it lay in 'Goscote' Wapentake like Kegworth and Dishley. Hathern is included by t he Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 44-45), in 'Goscote' Wapentake, but the estates at Thorpe Acre (1,8), Dishley (1,9) and Hathern are divided up in a different way, and Garendon (SK5019), not named in Domesday is included with them; see 1,8 Thorpe note .}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab DISHLEY. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086: another part is in a group of places in 'Goscote' Wapentake at 1,9. The whole of Dishley was in that wapentake (in Loughborough Hundred) in the Leicestershire Survey (Sl ade, p. 45), but like Hathern (above), Thorpe Acre (1,8) and Dishley (1,9) the combined carucage is there differently divided and Garendon (SK5019), not named in Domesday is included with them: 1,8 Thorpe note .}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WRITTEN ABOVE. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 p}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 rae}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 scriptis}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('written before' or 'previously written'). The lands are seemingly all those entered in Earl Hugh's fief up to this point (43,1-6), which lack details of ploughs }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and values. The joint valuation and number of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ploughs may indicate that all six entries were part of a single multiple estate centred on Barrow-upon-Soar (43,1); see 43,1 dependencies note. It would appear that this sentence and the next two summarizing the value were intended to be the final sentences in Earl Hugh's fief, but two e states (43,7-8) were subsequently found and added (43,7 entry note).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \'a340. The main scribe of Great Domesday drew a link-line between }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 xl}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 lib'}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 to indicate that he did not intend to add anything in the space left between them. He may have erased something after }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 xl }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 but if so it was done very neatly and nothing is visible in the manuscript. }{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WHEN THE EARL ACQUIRED IT. This third valuation (1066, 1086 and 'when acquired' ) is very rare in the Leicestershire folios (the only other ocurrence being in 39,2), though requested in the questions prefaced to the }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Inquisitio Eliensis }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (Hamilton, p. 97). Without this information it would not have been possible to observe the remarkably depressed value of these estates at some point between 1066 and 1086.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 43,7\tab THIS ENTRY and the next one (43,8) were added by the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday in a space left by him at the end of Earl Hugh's fief (which itself had been omitted by him during the initial writing campaign: LEC 43 fief note). The fact that they were not rubricate d and not added with the rest of chapter 43 suggests that they were not in the circuit volume. This estate was held by Earl Hugh himself, although the scribe had already detailed his lordship lands at the start of the chapter (43,1). These two entries wer e added at the same time as the similarly unrubricated entries 42,9-10 and the three holdings of Robert son of William the usher (43,9-11) entered immediately after the present entries but really forming a separate fief (43,9 entry note). A fifth unrubrica t ed added entry was done in a different campaign (1,12 entry note). Like the last entries on folio 236d the writing of these entries on folio 237a is faint and blurred in places, illegible in others (43,8 Cotes note, and see 42,9 entry note and 42,9 meadow note). A transposition sign (omitted by Farley) next to 43,7 corresponds to one earlier in the column (printed by Farley) at the end of the second line of the entry for Loughborough (43,2 Hugh note), presumably indicating that this holding was part of tha t manor.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab BURTON[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a township of Prestwold Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Goscote' Wapentake in 1086, like the previous entry. Other parts are in groups of places in 'Goscote' Wapentake at 29,14 and 43,3.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab HUGH. He was apparently the same as the Hugh in 43,2; see 43,2 Hugh note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ACCOUNTED FOR WITH [THOSE] ABOVE. That is, it is really part of the lands in Earl Hugh's fief whose resources and value are summarised at the end of 43,6; see 43,6 written note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 43,8\tab THIS ENTRY and the previous one (43,7) were added after rubrication by the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday; see 43,7 entry note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab ROGER OF BULLY. He is a fief-holder in his own right in Leicestershire (LEC 18)}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [* 1 CARUCATE OF LAND *] IN [* COTES *]. Because of abrasion of the parchment the place-name and the 1 carucate are now illegible in the manuscript. They were read as }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Cote .i. car'}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 in the thirteeenth century by the scribes of the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Abbreviatio}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 (folio 171v) and the Breviate (folio 124r). It is presumably Cotes (SK5520), a township of Prestwold Ancient Parish, in 'Goscote' Wapentake, the head inserted above 43,6; see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 162.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \'bd PLOUGH [***]. Although the reading in the manuscript is now illegible at the beginning of the second line, the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday probably wrote }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in dominio}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('in lordship').}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [1 \'bd PLOUGHS]. In the manuscript }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 .i. car7 dimid' }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 can be made out, though it is faint. In the Ordnance Survey facsimile and the Alecto facsimile only the }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 dimid}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ' is visible. The reading in the note by PM here is inaccurate: the villagers and smallholders do not have 2 \'bd ploughs. The Alecto edition has \'861 \'bd \'86ploughs'.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 43,9\tab THIS ENTRY and the next two (43,10-11) were inserted by the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday in a space left by hi m after he had added the omitted fief of Earl Hugh (LEC 43 fief note). He left a line's space before adding them. They were written after Leicestershire had been rubricated and at the same time as two entries in Earl Hugh's fief (43,7 entry note) and as t wo holdings of the king's servants (42,9 entry note). The parchment here and on folio 236d is very poor (42,9 entry note) and the writing is often blurred and faint and occasionally illegible (43,8 Cotes note, and see 42,9 meadow note).}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid4879481 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab The Phillimore pri nted edition mistakenly numbered these three entries as part of chapter 43, but in fact they form a separate fief. As the Phillimore numbering is widely used, no attempt has been made to correct this. If this addition had been rubricated a chapter head wo uld have been inserted in the line's space left before it. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 It is a virtual duplicate of the fief of Robert the usher which had already been entered on folio 235a (LEC 20); both there and here the Framland wapentake head was omitted. Disregarding minor chang es in word order, there are three discrepancies between the two accounts: the scribe had given the plough estimates for three of the four entries on folio 235a (a small space was left in the fourth, perhaps for this information), but there is no mention o f them in this addition. He also combined the two holdings in Long Clawson (20,3-4) into one here (43,11), recording four smallholders in contrast to the two and one of those entries (probably a simple copying error, as he had originally written }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ii}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , or }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 iii}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , for the villans and then corrected it to}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 v}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ), and he provided the additional information in the duplicate that Auti and Ernwy held these lands }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 with sake and soke. These discrepancies may suggest different sources. However, Galbraith (}{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Making of Domesday Book}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , pp. 165, 169, 203) believed that they proved a common source, as does Cain ('Introduction', }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Leicestershire Domesday}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 6) who ascribes the variations to the scribe being also the editor. The scribe may well have repeated the fief because of the confusion over Robert's identity: was he Robert the usher or Robert the son of an usher called William? If he had abbreviated the name in editing the return for chapter 20 from the circuit volume (where the name was no doubt given in full), he may have caused problems for himself when he came to check later and had forgotten what he had done. In CAM 39,3 a Robert is given as a subtenant of David of Argentan, but we know from the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Inquisitio Eliensis}{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 (Hamilton, p. 115), that he was in fact Robert the usher. \par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid4879481 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid920401 \tab \tab In the Alecto Penguin translation these three entries confusingly follow straight on from the end of the holding of Roger of Bully (43,8) without the line's space which was included in the Alecto county edition (A. Williams and R.W.H. Erskine (eds.),}{ \i\insrsid920401 The Leicestershire Domesday}{\insrsid920401 , folio 237r ).}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [IN FRAMLAND WAPENTAKE]. For the insertion of this head, see 20,1 Framland note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab HOSE. See 20,1 Hose note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 43,10\tab THIS ENTRY, the previous one (43,9) and the succeeding one (43,11) were additions made by the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday after the rubrication of Leicestershire; see 43,9 entry note.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab HOSE. See 20,1 Hose note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 43,11\tab THIS ENTRY and the two previous ones (43,9-11) were additions made by the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday after the rubrication of Leicestershire; see 43,9 entry note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [LONG] CLAWSON. See 20,3 Clawson note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab [3] FREEMEN. The }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 7 iii soch'i}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , but the first minim is very faint, though probably just because rubbed, rather than as a result of an imperfect erasure, as the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 7}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 is also faint. Farley printed }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 7 iii soch'i}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and this can be read in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. It appears as }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 7 ii soch'i}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in the Alecto facsimile, but was read as '\'863 sokemen\'86 ' in the Alecto edition.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 5 VILLAGERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of villagers from }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ii}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 to }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 v}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 .}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 44\tab THIS CHAPTER was added by the }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday after he had added the fief of Earl Hugh on folio 237a, though not at the same time as it. This folio was at the end of the qui re containing Leicestershire and was previously blank. He had already detailed the Count of Meulan's lordship lands on folio 231c (LEC 9), but failed to include those of his subtenants after them; see \{ Introduction: Layout and Content] on the separation of lordship and subinfeudated lands in Leicestershire. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 If the circuit volume containing this county had been arranged purely by hundred or wapentake, which is probable, a reason for the initial omission of these subtenancies can be found in the considerable rearrangement necessary: the scribe would first have abstracted the lordship lands, but then failed to go over the material again to extract the subtenancies. However, he initially omitted two place-names while adding this chapter, one of which he later i nserted (44,9) and one which scribe B added (44,3 Blaby note); they may have been omitted in the circuit volume.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LAND OF THE COUNT OF MEULAN'S MEN. All these lands lie in a single wapentake (Guthlaxton Wapentake), as do the Count of Meulan's lordship lands (LEC 9).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 44,1\tab THE LAND OF 4 VILLAGERS. The Latin (extended) is }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 terram .iiii. uillanorum}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 .}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Free men and thanes are commonly given as }{ \i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 holders, but not villagers, the term being a social classification normally reserved for the 1086 population: }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , i. p. 290. The Phillimore printed translation has 'land for 4 villagers'. That would be more probably expressed in Latin by }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 terram ad iiii uillanos}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , but land is not measured by the number of villagers it can support, and the relationship of th e number of villagers to the number of hides or carucates is not fixed. It is more probable that the land belonged to four of the 24 villagers mentioned in the Count of Meulan's lordship holding in Aylestone (9,1) but that Thorold has dispossessed three o f them. The Alecto edition has 'Turold holds the land of 4 villans'.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LAND FOR 1 PLOUGH. As there is no other assessment in this entry this looks as if it is the equivalent of 1 carucate: compare part of the 'land for 6 ploughs' in 9,1 corresponding to the 4 carucates of 44,2 (44,2 Leofwin note).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THIS LAND LIES IN AYLESTONE. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The Latin is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 iacet in}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and refers to location, not dependency (which is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 iacet ad}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ). The Alecto edition has 'belongs to'. }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The sentence appears, in effect, to make up for the absence of a p lace-name in the first line. In the circuit volume there would almost certainly have been one entry for Aylestone, including the lordship (9,1 here) and subinfeudated holdings (44,1-2 here), with the place-name given only at the beginning as usual. When t h e main scribe of Great Domesday separated the lordship land from the subinfeudations here, he failed to include the place-name for this subtenancy, though he did in the next entry (44,2). The unusual formula 'land of 4 villagers' (see 44,1 land note) in t he present entry may have confused him.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 44,2\tab AYLESTONE. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It must have lain in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a Guthlaxton wapentake head at 9,1, as is the previous entry here (44,1). }{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WATER-MEADOW. See 13,18 water-meadow note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab WILLIAM PEVEREL. He is also a tenant-in-chief in Leicestershire (LEC 25) and held the adjacent 'Lubbesthorpe' and 'Bromkinsthorpe' (25,3).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THE JURISDICTION OF 2d A YEAR. The Latin (extended) is }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 socam duorum denariorum}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ; the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 de}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 means 'consisting of': the payment from the jurisdiction amounted to 2d a year. The Alecto edition has '[which renders] 2d a year'.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab LEOFWIN. It is stated under the Count of Meulan's lordship lands in Aylestone (9,1) that }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 T.R.E.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Leofwin held 'land for 6 p loughs' from Saxi and that with 4 of these 'ploughlands' 'he could do what he wished'; these are presumably the 4 carucates here.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 44,3\tab BLABY.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Scribe B added }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 in BLADI}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 at the end of the first line of this entry, mostly in the outer margin. In common with all his work it is not rubricated. He originally wrote }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 BLAD.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and then turned the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 punctus}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 into an }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 I}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , lengthening it to clarify the correction. The main scribe of Great Domesday had also omitted the place-name in another entry in this inserted fief (44,9), but presumably could not rectify this omission or simply failed to do so, as he also did in 38,1 where scribe B added the place-name. See LEC 44 chapter note. For scribe B's other contributions in Leicestershire, see 3,7 carucates note.}{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Blaby was an Ancient Parish. This is its only mention in Domesday, but it seems probable that it lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries, as it did later: }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , p. 159.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 44,4\tab WHETSTONE.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a chapelry of Enderby Ancient Parish. This is its only mention in Domesday, but it seems probable that it lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086 like the surrounding entries, as it did later: }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 158.}{ \cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 44,5\tab ROBERT. See 43,6 Robert note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab PEATLING [MAGNA].}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part is directly below a Guthlaxton wapentake head at 17,1.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab \tab Domesday appears to distinguish the two estates called Peatling by the use of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 alia }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ('another') at 13,32 and 41,2, which are at Peatling Parva. Latin }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 alia}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 does not normally mean this (it usually refers to the second occurrence of the same name in a list), but the peculiar circumstances of its use in Leicestershire suggest that there were already two distinct settlements in 1086; see 13,32 Peatling note.}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab OSMER . Osmer was an uncommon name, the only other occurrence within 50 miles of Peatling being a waste holding at Newton (DBY 6,8) which is unlikely to be connected with this one (JP).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 44,6\tab BRUNTINGTHORPE. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086: another part seems to be in that wapentake at 13,26.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab 2 PARTS OF ONE HIDE, THAT IS 12 CARUCATES}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . This gives a hide of 18 carucates, assuming that a 'part' here is a third. The same equation occurs at 38,1; see 6,1 hide note and \{ Introduction: Hides and Virgates\}.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab BOVI . The name Bovi occurs on eight holdings, six of them in central England. Those in Leicestershire and Warwickshire, which devolved upon the Count of Meulun, are grouped aro und the two Northamptonshire holdings (one of which had been retained by the king in order to build a castle at Rockingham). Given this pattern and the rarity of the name, it is likely that they had been held by one individual before the Conquest. The six th holding, in Nottinghamshire, is no more distant from this group than the holdings of the Count of Meulun are from each other, so this too may have belonged to the same individual (JP).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 44,7\tab FULCO . Identified by Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 202, who does not include the present holding though this was adjacent to two of the Warwickshire holdings, just across the county boundary (JP).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab CLAYBROOKE. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. This is its only mention in Domesday, but it seems probable that it lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries, as it did later: }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 159.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab A grant of woodland here was made in 962 probably by King Edgar (the charter reads Ethelred) to his minister Leofric: Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , no. 833. The bounds are discussed in Phythian-Adams, }{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Continuity}{\cf1\insrsid920401 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid920401 Fields and Fission}{\cf1\insrsid920401 , pp. 40-41.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 44,8\tab ROBERT. See 43,6 Robert note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab SHAWELL. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 It was an Ancient Parish. This is its only mention in Domesday, but it seems probable that it lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries, as it did later: }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 158.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab SAXI . See 9,1 Saxi note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 44,9\tab ROBERT. See 43,6 Robert note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab "PLOTELEI". The }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 In PLOTELAI}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , extending the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 I}{ \cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 of the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 In}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 downwards to the line below to act as an insertion sign. This place-name and the one added by scribe B in this inserted fief (44 ,3) may have been omitted in the circuit volume: LEC 44 chapter note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }{\cf1\insrsid920401 \tab \tab }{\insrsid920401 This place is at present unidentified, but almost certainly lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake as did the places in the surrounding entries.}{\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 44,10\tab BAGWORTH.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was a chapelry of Thornton An cient Parish. This is its only mention in Domesday, but it seems probable that it lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries, as it did later: }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 158.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab SAXI . See 9,1 Saxi note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 44,11\tab INGENWULF . The name Ingenwulf occurs on four holdings in Domesday Book, all held from the Count of Meulan. The odds against one tenant-in-chief having two tenants with the same name which was unique to his fief would involve a large number of zeros. An cestor of the Bourton family: Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 281 (JP).}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab IBSTOCK.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 This was an Ancient Parish. It is otherwise unmentioned in Domesday, but it seems probable that it lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries, as it did later: }{ \i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 , p. 159.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THE JURISDICTION IS AN ADJUNCT OF.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 The Latin is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 iacet ad}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 . This implies a dependent relationship and not a geographical proximity (which is } {\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 iacet in}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 ). The Phillimore printed translation has 'lies in'; the Alecto edition has 'belongs to'; see 13,26 adjunct note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab THE ABOVE VILLAGE, BAGWORTH. That is, 44,10.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 44,12\tab KILWORTH. There were two separate Ancient Parishes called }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid920401 North Kilworth and South Kilworth. It is not certain when the separation occurred and how the four Domesday estates (16,3. 23,5. 44,12-13) are to be allocated between the two units. The present estate probably lay in Guthlaxton Wapentake in 1086. Further parts of 'Kilworth' appear to have been in Guthlaxton Wapentake at 16,3 and 23,5: 23,5 Guthlaxton note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 44,13\tab [2] CARUCATES. There is an ink blot in the manuscript, but }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 .ii.}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 can be seen beneath it. Farley left a gap, but the Phillimore printed translation has '5 carucates'. In the Ordnance Survey facsimile the figure resembles a }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 u}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 .}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 }{ \cgrid0\insrsid920401 The Alecto edition has '\'862\'86 carucates'.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab IN THE SAME VILLAGE. See 44,12 Kilworth note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \tab AS MUCH IS THERE. The Latin is }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid920401 tantum}{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 and means that 'the same amount' or 'as much' is there, referring to the \'bd plough. The Phillimore printed translation has 'as many are there' in error.}{\cgrid0\insrsid4879481 \par }{\cgrid0\insrsid920401 \par }}