{\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;}{\f4\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Helvetica;}{\f37\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603060405020304}Times{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f713\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f714\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f716\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f717\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f718\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f719\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f720\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f721\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f723\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial CE;}{\f724\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Cyr;}
{\f726\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Greek;}{\f727\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Tur;}{\f728\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial (Hebrew);}{\f729\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial (Arabic);}{\f730\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Baltic;}
{\f731\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial (Vietnamese);}{\f753\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Helvetica CE;}{\f757\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Helvetica Tur;}{\f760\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Helvetica Baltic;}
{\f1083\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f1087\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f1090\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}}{\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;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \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\sb240\sa60\keepn\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\outlinelevel1\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\i\f1\fs28\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 2;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*
\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb240\sa120\keepn\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\f4\fs28\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \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\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\i\f37\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext18 \ssemihidden caption;}{\s19\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext19 Index;}{
\s20\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1134\nooverflow\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\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext22 Table Contents;}{\s23\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon22 \snext23 Table Heading;}}{\*\revtbl {Unknown;}}
{\*\pgptbl {\pgp\ipgp0\itap0\li0\ri0\sb0\sa0}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid3042094\rsid7538050\rsid10430247\rsid14117264}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6612;}{\info{\author matt}{\operator John Palmer}{\creatim\yr2007\mo7\dy21\hr20\min54}
{\revtim\yr2007\mo7\dy30\hr22}{\printim\yr2113\mo1\dy1}{\version5}{\edmins6}{\nofpages30}{\nofwords14203}{\nofchars80962}{\*\company  University of Hull}{\nofcharsws94976}{\vern16389}}\paperw11906\paperh16838 
\deftab1080\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\makebackup\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot14117264 
\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\pararsid10430247 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid3042094 NOTES
\par }{\insrsid3042094 (version 1a)}{\insrsid10430247 
\par 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10430247 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid14117264 'ROTELAND'. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the running title }{
\i\insrsid14117264 ROTELAND}{\insrsid14117264  in vermilion c
apitals across the top of folio 293cd centred above both columns. There is an erasure above this running head: the scribe may have written, or begun, the county head too high on the page. (The instruction on where to find lands in Rutland in Nottinghamshi
r
e made by Arthur Agarde, keeper of Domesday Book 1570-1615, would of course not have been there then.) There is no running head on folio 294a, but there is another instruction by Agarde to look in Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire for more lands. On these
 and other notes written by Agarde in Domesday Book, which are included in the Alecto edition, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 133-34 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\insrsid14117264 The Story of Domesday Book}{\insrsid14117264 
, p. 201), and on Agarde generally, see Elizabeth M. Hallam, 'Annotations in Domesday Book since 1100', pp. 140-46 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\insrsid14117264 The Story of Domesday Book}{\insrsid14117264 , pp. 211-17).
\par }{\insrsid10430247 \tab }{\insrsid14117264 The name appears as }{\i\insrsid14117264 IN ROTELANDE}{\insrsid14117264  at the head of the Landholders' List on folio 280d that follows those holding land in Nottinghamshire. It is }{\i\insrsid14117264 Roteland}
{\insrsid14117264  in NTH 46,5 and LIN S9 and }{\i\insrsid14117264 Rotelande}{\insrsid14117264  in LIN S13. 56,17-18.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid7538050 \tab }{\cf1\insrsid14117264 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 Lat
in extended silently. The Anglo-Saxon}{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264  }{\cf1\insrsid14117264 letters thorn (\'fe) and eth (\'f0) are reproduced as }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 th}{\cf1\insrsid14117264 .}{\cf1\insrsid10430247 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid10430247 {\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 R1\tab 2 HUNDREDS. These are not given names here nor elsewhere, although Teigh (3,10) is said to be 'in the same hundred'. In the order of Domesday, the places in Alsto
e Wapentake fall into geographically coherent groups (1,5-6. 2,7-8. 2a,9. 3,10 and 2,11-13. 4,14. 5,15. 6,16 ) and, since Countess Judith appears in both, it is apparent that the lands are listed hundred by hundred within the wapentake rather than by fief
 (2,11 Alstoe note). Alstoe Wapentake is not found so divided in later documents; its hundreds are named here 'Northern' and 'Southern' for convenience.
\par \tab \tab These small hundreds, fiscal divisions of a wapentake, often consisting of 12 carucates, and therefore often known as '12-carucate hundreds', are explained in the Lindsey Survey of }{\i\insrsid14117264 c}{\insrsid14117264 
. 1115 and are found also in other Danelaw shires such as Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire. The twelfth-century Leicestershire Survey also attests their existence in that shire
, and it is assumed that they were in fact universal in the Danelaw shires in 1086, though largely unmentioned. See also LEC \{Introduction: Small Hundreds\}and NTT \{Introduction: Small Hundreds\}.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab 12 CARUCATES.}{\up6\insrsid14117264  }{\insrsid14117264 Those in the 'Northern' Hundred (with ploughlands and ploughs actually in use tabulated as well) seem to be:}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts11\trleft567\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2799\clshdrawnil \cellx3366\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1647\clshdrawnil \cellx5013\clvertalt\clbrdrt
\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1646\clshdrawnil \cellx6659\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb
\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1647\clshdrawnil \cellx8306\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid10430247 {\b\insrsid14117264 Place\cell 
Carucates\cell Ploughlands\cell Ploughs\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\b\insrsid14117264 \trowd \irow0\irowband0
\ts11\trleft567\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2799\clshdrawnil 
\cellx3366\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1647\clshdrawnil \cellx5013\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 
\clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1646\clshdrawnil \cellx6659\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1647\clshdrawnil \cellx8306\row }\trowd \irow1\irowband1\ts11\trleft567\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb
\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2799\clshdrawnil \cellx3366\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1647\clshdrawnil 
\cellx5013\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1646\clshdrawnil \cellx6659\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb
\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1647\clshdrawnil \cellx8306\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid10430247 {\insrsid14117264 1,5 Greetham
\par 1,6 Cottesmore
\par 2,7 Overton/ Stretton
\par 2,8 Thistleton
\par 2a,9 Thistleton
\par 3,10 Teigh\cell   3}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 3}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 3 \'bd}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \'bd}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \'bd}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 1 \'bd\cell   8}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 12}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 12}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 1}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 1}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 5\cell  10}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 24}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 12}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 2}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 1 \'bd}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 6\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid14117264 \trowd \irow1\irowband1\ts11\trleft567\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt
\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2799\clshdrawnil \cellx3366\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr
\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1647\clshdrawnil \cellx5013\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1646\clshdrawnil \cellx6659\clvertalt\clbrdrt
\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1647\clshdrawnil \cellx8306\row }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl
\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid10430247 {\b\insrsid14117264 Totals\cell }{\insrsid14117264  12\cell  39\cell  55 \'bd\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid14117264 
\trowd \irow2\irowband2\lastrow \ts11\trleft567\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2799\clshdrawnil \cellx3366\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1647\clshdrawnil \cellx5013\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone 
\clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1646\clshdrawnil \cellx6659\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1647\clshdrawnil \cellx8306\row }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid10430247 {\insrsid14117264 
\par \tab Not counted are the 2 \'bd
 carucates and 6 bovates included in the unduplicated Lincolnshire entries for Thistleton (LIN 27,49. 51,10. 56,21) which were either omitted from this total, or more likely counted in Lincolnshire, where the lands may also have lain, the vill being divid
ed between Lincolnshire and 'Roteland' in 1086 (2,8 Thistleton note).
\par \tab \tab The 12 carucates in the 'Southern' Hundred seem to be accounted for by:
\par 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts11\trleft567\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2799\clshdrawnil \cellx3366\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1647\clshdrawnil \cellx5013\clvertalt\clbrdrt
\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1646\clshdrawnil \cellx6659\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb
\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1647\clshdrawnil \cellx8306\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid10430247 {\b\insrsid14117264 Place\cell 
Carucates\cell Ploughlands\cell Ploughs\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\b\insrsid14117264 \trowd \irow0\irowband0
\ts11\trleft567\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2799\clshdrawnil 
\cellx3366\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1647\clshdrawnil \cellx5013\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 
\clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1646\clshdrawnil \cellx6659\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1647\clshdrawnil \cellx8306\row }\trowd \irow1\irowband1\ts11\trleft567\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb
\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2799\clshdrawnil \cellx3366\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1647\clshdrawnil 
\cellx5013\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1646\clshdrawnil \cellx6659\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb
\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1647\clshdrawnil \cellx8306\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid10430247 {\insrsid14117264 2,11 Whissendine

\par 2,12 Exton
\par 2,13 Whitwell
\par 4,14 'Austhorp'
\par 5,15 Burley
\par 6,16 Ashwell\cell   4}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 2}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 1}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 1}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 2}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 2\cell  12}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 12}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 3}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 5}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 7}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 6\cell  13}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 11}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 3}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 6}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 6}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 7\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid14117264 \trowd \irow1\irowband1\ts11\trleft567\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt
\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2799\clshdrawnil \cellx3366\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr
\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1647\clshdrawnil \cellx5013\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1646\clshdrawnil \cellx6659\clvertalt\clbrdrt
\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1647\clshdrawnil \cellx8306\row }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl
\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid10430247 {\b\insrsid14117264 Totals\cell }{\insrsid14117264  12\cell  45\cell  46\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid14117264 
\trowd \irow2\irowband2\lastrow \ts11\trleft567\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2799\clshdrawnil \cellx3366\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1647\clshdrawnil \cellx5013\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone 
\clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1646\clshdrawnil \cellx6659\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1647\clshdrawnil \cellx8306\row }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid10430247 {\insrsid14117264 
\par }{\i\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , i. pp. 122-23, followed by }{\i\insrsid14117264 Domesday Geography of Midland England}{\insrsid14117264 
, p. 370, divides the two hundreds differently in order to obtain 42 ploughlands in each. Its first 12-carucate hundred consists of Cottesmore, Overton, two Thistletons, Teigh, 'Austhorp' and Ashwell (1,6. 2,7-8. 2a,9. 3,10. 4,14. 6,16) yielding 42 plough
lands and 58 \'bd ploughs. The other contains Greetham, Whissendine, Exton, Whitwell, Burley (1,5. 2,11-13. 5,15) amounting to 42 ploughlands and 43 ploughs.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab IN EACH 24 PLOUGHS POSSIBLE. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\insrsid14117264 in uno quoq}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 ue}{\insrsid14117264 ] ('in each')
 to ensure that it was understood that each hundred could provide work for 24 ploughs; the repeat of these words is not strictly necessary.
\par \tab \tab In Alstoe Wapentake the number of ploughs and ploughlands are given for each entry and, apart from Cottesmore (1,6
), the figures are fairly close. They are, however, in excess of and not related to the figure here of 24 ploughs possible. These 24 ploughlands might be a fiscal assessment, though this is unparalleled in Great Domesday as this phrase is usually an estim
ate of actual arable capacity, an alternative formula to the 'Land for }{\i\insrsid14117264 n}{\insrsid14117264  ploughs' in the individual entries here. Alternatively, this figure of 24 may be an error, caused by a misreading of }{\i\insrsid14117264 xlii
}{\insrsid14117264  as }{\i\insrsid14117264 xxiiii}{\insrsid14117264  at some stage in the Domesday process,}{\i\insrsid14117264  }{\insrsid14117264 or the result
 of faulty addition. However, the similar phrase of 48 ploughs possible for 'Martinsley' Wapentake agrees with the number of ploughlands recorded in the estates in it (R2 carucates note).}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab THURGARTON ... BROXTOWE. These are wapentakes of Nottinghamshire with which Alstoe Wapentake had no geographical connection. The use of Latin }{\i\insrsid14117264 in}{\insrsid14117264 
 is not to be understood geographically, but fiscally. Thurgarton Wapentake contained about 82 carucates and Broxtowe about 87. The addition of 12 from each hundred of Alstoe Wapentake would produce a figure closer to the expected 96. See }{
\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , i. pp. 126-27; Hart, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Danelaw}{\insrsid14117264  p. 409; Roffe, 'Introduction', }{\i\insrsid14117264 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\insrsid14117264 , pp. 18-19; and R3 Nottingham note and 
\{Introduction: Carucation\}.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 R2\tab ONE HUNDRED. It is not named and was apparently co-extensive with 'Martinsley' Wapentake. A wapentake so small is anomalous: \{Introduction: Hundreds and Wapentakes\}.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab 12 CARUCATES ... 48 PLOUGHS POSSIBLE. The 12 carucates are accounted for by:
\par 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts11\trleft709\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2325\clshdrawnil \cellx3034\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1551\clshdrawnil \cellx4585\clvertalt\clbrdrt
\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1549\clshdrawnil \cellx6134\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb
\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1087\clshdrawnil \cellx7221\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1085\clshdrawnil \cellx8306\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid10430247 {\b\insrsid14117264 Place\cell Carucates\cell Ploughlands\cell Ploughs
\par (king)\cell Ploughs
\par (others)\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\b\insrsid14117264 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts11\trleft709\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt
\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2325\clshdrawnil \cellx3034\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb
\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1551\clshdrawnil \cellx4585\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1549\clshdrawnil \cellx6134\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1087\clshdrawnil \cellx7221\clvertalt\clbrdrt
\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1085\clshdrawnil \cellx8306\row }\trowd \irow1\irowband1
\ts11\trleft709\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2325\clshdrawnil \cellx3034
\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1551\clshdrawnil \cellx4585\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 
\clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1549\clshdrawnil \cellx6134\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1087\clshdrawnil \cellx7221\clvertalt
\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1085\clshdrawnil \cellx8306\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl
\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid10430247 {\insrsid14117264 1,17 Oakham
\par 1,19 Hambleton
\par 1,20 Ridlington\cell  4}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 4}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 4\cell 16
\par 16
\par 16\cell  2}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 5}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 4\cell  37}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 40}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 32\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid14117264 \trowd \irow1\irowband1\ts11\trleft709\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt
\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2325\clshdrawnil \cellx3034\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr
\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1551\clshdrawnil \cellx4585\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1549\clshdrawnil \cellx6134\clvertalt\clbrdrt
\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1087\clshdrawnil \cellx7221\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr
\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1085\clshdrawnil \cellx8306\row }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid10430247 {\b\insrsid14117264 Totals\cell 12\cell 48\cell 11\cell 109
\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\b\insrsid14117264 \trowd \irow2\irowband2\lastrow \ts11\trleft709\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt
\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2325\clshdrawnil \cellx3034\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1551\clshdrawnil \cellx4585\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1549\clshdrawnil \cellx6134\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone 
\clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1087\clshdrawnil \cellx7221\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1085\clshdrawnil \cellx8306\row }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid10430247 {\insrsid14117264 
\par \tab 
The one carucate held by Leofnoth at Oakham was possibly included in the four there (1,18 carucate note). Again the number of possible ploughs here seems artificial, being duodecimal and four times the carucation, but, unlike in R1, they are the same numb
er (48) as the ploughlands listed in the entries. However, this figure contrasts with the 120 ploughs actually on the land.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab THREE LORDSHIP MANORS. These were Oakham, Hambleton, Ridlington (1,17;19-20). The Latin phrase }{\i\insrsid14117264 exceptis tribus dominicis regis maneriis}{\insrsid14117264 
 ('apart from the king's three lordship manors') ostensibly means those where he has land in lordship, contrasting with other royal manors which are totally subinfeudated. However, these three are the only manors in 'Martinsley' Wapentake, 1,18 apparent
ly being part of Oakham (1,17) and 7,21 really being part of Ridlington (1,20). In this context the phrase is compressed and stands for 'apart from on the lordship land of the king's three manors', the number of these possible ploughs (14) contrasting wit
h the number on the non-lordship land of each manor.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab 14 PLOUGHS CAN PLOUGH. 'Possible ploughs' are not given in the entries, except for Albert the cleric's land (7,21) where there are 8 ploughs possible but 16 present, and for Oakham (1,17), where there ar
e 2 ploughs 'at the hall' (that is, in lordship: 1,17 hall note) but there could be another 4.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 R3\tab ATTACHED TO THE SHERIFFDOM OF NOTTINGHAM. Domesday says (R1) that Alstoe Wapentake's two hundreds are part of Thurgarton Wapentake and Broxtowe Wapentake. The
 attachment of 'Martinsley' Wapentake is not stated. Oswaldbeck Wapentake has been suggested, but only, it appears, on the basis of its carucage (about 43 in Domesday). Without the 12 carucates of 'Martinsley' Wapentake, it is a small half-wapentake; with
 them it is an oversize one (see Roffe, 'Introduction', }{\i\insrsid14117264 Nottinghamshire Domesday}{\insrsid14117264 
, pp. 18-19). It is possible that the revenue from 'Martinsley' Wapentake by-passed the Nottinghamshire wapentakal system and went straight to the sheriff.
\par \tab \tab The attachment of these wapentakes with their hundreds may not be ancient; see \{Introduction: History\} and \{Introduction: Carucation\}
. The arrangement must have been purely fiscal (as Domesday says: Alecto makes it clearer with '[for the purposes of] the king's tax'), since 
both the wapentakes of 'Roteland' would have had their own courts and the inhabitants of the wapentakes could not be expected to travel to Nottinghamshire, especially as Thurgarton and Broxtowe were not its most southerly wapentakes; see }{
\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid14117264 , i. pp. 239-40.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab THE KING'S TAX. That is, the payment of geld on each of the 36 carucates: a render of 72s if the payment was made at 2s to the carucate; see }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 123.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 R4\tab \'a3150 BLANCHED. This appears to be a different render, not r
elated to the payment of the geld, but typical of the yield from a borough or a group of royal manors. It may therefore represent a payment from the three royal manors of 'Martinsley' Wapentake (1,17;19-20. 7,21; only for the last of these is a 1086 value
 given), with or without a sum from Greetham and Cottesmore, the royal manors of Alstoe Wapentake (1,5-6; their value in 1086 totalled \'a321, or \'a3
20 if the value of Geoffrey's subtenancy in 1,6 is counted in with the main holding). The royal estates of 'Martinsley' Wapentake were worth \'a3140 }{\i\insrsid14117264 T.R.E. }{\insrsid14117264 (or \'a3
141 if the value of 1,18 is not counted in with that for 1,17), Greetham was then worth \'a37 and Cottesmore \'a37. The total value of all the manors in Alstoe Wapentake and 'Martinsley' Wapentake }{\i\insrsid14117264 T.R.E.}{\insrsid14117264  was \'a3
200 or \'a3201, of which \'a3150 could represent a 25% reduction. Either of these is more likely than that the figure represents the value of Queen Edith's manors in 'Martinsley' Wapentake and in Witchley Wapentake, then in Northamptonshire: }{
\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , i. p. 128; Cain, 'Introduction', }{\i\insrsid14117264 Northamptonshire and Rutland Domesday}{\insrsid14117264 , pp. 26-27.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid14117264 Domesday uses the old English currency system which lasted for a thousand years until 1971. The pound contained 20 shillings, each of 12 pence, abbreviated respectively as }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 \'a3}{
\cf1\insrsid14117264 (}{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 ibrae}{\cf1\insrsid14117264 ), }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 s}{\cf1\insrsid14117264 (}{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 olidi}{\cf1\insrsid14117264 ) and }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 d}{\cf1\insrsid14117264 (}{
\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 enarii}{\cf1\insrsid14117264 ). Domesday often expresses sums above a shilling in pence (as 16d in 7,21) and above a pound in shillings (for example, 60s in 2a,9).}{\cf1\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab 'Blanched' translates }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 albas}{\cf1\insrsid14117264 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264  }{\cf1\insrsid14117264 also }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 candidas }{\cf1\insrsid14117264 and }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 
blancas }{\cf1\insrsid14117264 in Domesday. A sample of coin was melted as a t
est for the presence of alloy or baser metal. Money could also be said to be blanched when, without a test by fire, a standard deduction was made to compensate for alloying or clipping; see }{\insrsid14117264 Richard Fitz Nigel, }{\i\insrsid14117264 
Dialogus de Scaccario }{\insrsid14117264 (Johnson, }{\cf1\insrsid14117264 p. 125). See also Grierson, 'The Monetary System under William I', p. 76 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 The Story of Domesday Book}{\cf1\insrsid14117264 
, p. 113-14).}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 1\tab [LAND OF THE KING]. The heading is inserted to explain the marginal figure }{\i\insrsid14117264 I}{\insrsid14117264 ; see 1,5 margin note.
\par \tab \tab King William. He was born in 
1027 or 1028, the son of Robert I, Duke of Normandy, and Arlette, daughter of Fulbert the tanner of Falaise. Duke of Normandy from 1035 to 1087, William seized the English throne in 1066 having defeated the uncrowned English King Harold, son of Godwin, at
 the battle of Hastings. William himself was crowned in Westminster Abbey on 25}{\up6\insrsid14117264 th}{\insrsid14117264 
 December 1066 and ruled England until his death in 1087. In 1050 or 1051 he married Matilda, daughter of Baldwin V, Count of Flanders; she predeceased him. Among his children 
were Robert Curthose, William Rufus, Henry, Cecilia (Abbess of Caen), and Constance (married to Count Alan of Brittany). He was succeeded in Normandy by his son Robert Curthose and in England first by his son William Rufus (William II, 1087-1100), then by
 his son Henry (Henry I, 1100-1135).}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 1,5\tab IN THE MARGIN next to this entry the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\insrsid14117264 I}{\insrsid14117264  in vermilion, as it was royal land. This corresponds with the Landholders' List for }{\i\insrsid14117264 
Rotelande}{\insrsid14117264  included at the end of the Landholders' List in Nottinghamshire on folio 280d.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab MARGINAL }{\i\insrsid14117264 M'}{\insrsid14117264 . As he did in the other counties in circuit VI and in those in circuit I (which was probably the second circuit to be written up), the main scribe of Great Domesday included }{
\i\insrsid14117264 M'}{\insrsid14117264  for }{\i\insrsid14117264 Manerium}{\insrsid14117264  beside all the estates in 'Roteland'. Compare 2,11 2M note and 2,7 outlier note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab ALSTOE WAPENTAKE ['NORTHERN' HUNDRED]. The estates in 'Roteland' are arranged by hundred in the order Alstoe Wapentake ('Northern' Hundred), Alstoe Wapentake ('Southern' Hundred), 'Martinsley' Wa
pentake. Within each hundred or wapentake, the arrangement is feudal, the king's lands being placed first. The normal Great Domesday arrangement is by fief, and within each, by hundred or wapentake, often in a standard sequence. See \{
Introduction: Writing\}.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab GREETHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It was a royal manor in 1086, granted, probably by William II, to Henry of Beaumont, Earl of Warwick (1089-1119) and subsequently held by that earldom: }{\i\insrsid14117264 Rotuli Hundredorum}{
\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 54; }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. p. 208; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 135.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab GODA [* COUNTESS GYTHA *]. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid14117264 Goda}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Gode}{\insrsid14117264  - represent the feminine Old English }{\i\insrsid14117264 Gode}{
\insrsid14117264 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 263. }{\i\insrsid14117264 Goda}{\insrsid14117264  is a masculine 
Old English name, but as it is obvious that in Domesday the two names coalesced and as the countess is regularly called 'Goda', it was decided by JRM and accepted by JMcND that she should be called Countess Goda. The Alecto edition has Countess Gode, exce
pt in Buckinghamshire, where it has Countess Goda, probably in error.
\par \tab \tab It is possible that Latin }{\i\insrsid14117264 comitissa}{\insrsid14117264  ('countess') has been omitted here and in 1,6. Countess Goda, sister of King Edward, had elsewhere held lands in 1066 which were held by King William
 in 1086 (for example, DOR 1,30-31. DBY 3,2, though see DBY 3,2 countess note). It is also possible that Domesday }{\i\insrsid14117264 Goda}{\insrsid14117264  here might be a mistake for one of the Domesday forms representing Old Danish }{
\i\insrsid14117264 Gytha }{\insrsid14117264 (von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid14117264 
, p. 281), as happens occasionally elsewhere in Domesday (see NTT 10,5 Gytha note). There were two countesses called Gytha: Earl (King) Harold's mother, the wife of Earl Godwin, who was King William's predecessor in many lands in Devon, Somerset, Do
rset, Wiltshire, Hampshire and Gloucestershire; and Gytha, wife of Earl Ralph of Hereford, whose lands did not pass to the king.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab Gytha on a number of occasions is rendered }{\i\insrsid14117264 Goda}{\insrsid14117264  by the Domesday scribe (e.g., BDF 22,2. NTT S5. NTT 10,5. NTT 23,1). Given th
e substantial nature of the holdings attributed to 'Goda' in 'Roteland' - 33 plough-teams with Cottesmore (1,6) - she is likely to be one of the countesses rather than an unidentified Goda with no other holdings in the area. Of the two, Countess Gytha is 
t
he more probable, as only one of Goda's properties lay further north than Buckinghamshire. This holding, Appleby in Derbyshire (DBY 3,2), quite possibly involved another scribal confusion, this time between Countess Goda and Countess Godiva; see DBY 3,2 c
ountess note (JP).
\par \tab \tab If either Countess Goda or Countess Gytha (Earl Harold's mother) is accepted, the lands may well have been royal for some time, but there is no documentary evidence to support either or any identification. See }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{
\insrsid14117264 , i. p. 134; Williams, 'King's nephew'.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab TAXABLE. Latin }{\i\insrsid14117264 ad gld'}{\insrsid14117264  (= }{\i\insrsid14117264 ad geldum}{\insrsid14117264 
) is translated literally 'to the geld' in the Alecto edition, but really means 'for the geld', 'for tax', a common meaning of }{\i\insrsid14117264 ad}{\insrsid14117264 . In the counties of circuit VI this phrase takes the place of the present participle 
}{\i\insrsid14117264 geld}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 ans}{\insrsid14117264 ] (singular) or }{\i\insrsid14117264 geld}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 antes}{\insrsid14117264 
] (plural) used in circuit V. In other circuits this information is conveyed by the verbs }{\i\insrsid14117264 geldare}{\insrsid14117264  and }{\i\insrsid14117264 se defendere }{\insrsid14117264 with the preposition }{\i\insrsid14117264 pro,}{
\insrsid14117264  meaning 'to pay tax for' and 'to answer for': e.g., }{\i\insrsid14117264 geldabat}{\insrsid14117264  }{\i\insrsid14117264 pro vi hidis}{\insrsid14117264  ('it paid tax for 6 hides') and }{\i\insrsid14117264 se defendebat pro ii hidis}{
\insrsid14117264  ('it answered for 2 hides') with the subject being the estate understood.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab THE KING HAS ... IN LORDSHIP; 33 VILLAGERS ... MILL ... MEADOW. The Latin cases of }{\i\insrsid14117264 uill'}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 bord'}{\insrsid14117264  and }{\i\insrsid14117264 molin'}{\insrsid14117264  ar
e not clear, but may be accusative (}{\i\insrsid14117264 uillanos}{\insrsid14117264 ,}{\i\insrsid14117264  bordarios}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 molinum}{\insrsid14117264 ) after }{\i\insrsid14117264 h}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 
abe}{\insrsid14117264 ]}{\i\insrsid14117264 t Rex }{\insrsid14117264 because }{\i\insrsid14117264 ac}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 ra}{\insrsid14117264 ]}{\i\insrsid14117264 s}{\insrsid14117264 
 in the measurement of the meadow is accusative. In 1,19-20 the accusative is clearly shown in }{\i\insrsid14117264 h}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 abe}{\insrsid14117264 ]}{\i\insrsid14117264 t Rex ... uill}{\insrsid14117264 [}{
\i\insrsid14117264 an}{\insrsid14117264 ]}{\i\insrsid14117264 os}{\insrsid14117264 . However, it is possible, though unlikely, that the meadow acres are accusative because they are the object of }{\i\insrsid14117264 h}{\insrsid14117264 [}{
\i\insrsid14117264 abe}{\insrsid14117264 ]}{\i\insrsid14117264 ntes}{\insrsid14117264 
, the villagers and smallholders having the meadow and, presumably, the mill. See also 5,15 meadow note and 6,16 meadow note. The woodland is detailed in a separate phras
e, as usual, as is the meadow in 1,6 (1,6 meadow note). The punctuation here seeks to preserve the ambiguity of the Latin.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. Latin }{\i\insrsid14117264 silua per loca past}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 ilis}{\insrsid14117264 ] is translated in the Phillimore printed edition as 'woodlan
d, pasture in places' and the same in the Alecto edition. Elsewhere the Phillimore printed edition has 'woodland pasture in places'. The addition of }{\i\insrsid14117264 per loca }{\insrsid14117264 
('throughout the area') is potentially ambiguous. It could be read closely with }{\i\insrsid14117264 silua}{\insrsid14117264  ('woodland in places') meaning there is woodland scattered over the estate rather than in a single block, or with }{
\i\insrsid14117264 pastilis}{\insrsid14117264  ('pasturable in places') meaning that some of the wood is too dense to allow grass to grow and grazing to take place. The evidence o
f Domesday is in favour of the former: that the woodland is scattered over the estate but has been combined into a single square or rectangle by Domesday; see DBY 1,12 woodland note. It seems as if }{\i\insrsid14117264 per loca}{\insrsid14117264 
 is expendable, since for 2,7 (Market Overton and 
Stretton) Domeday has 'pasturable wooldland in [various] places', whereas the duplicate entry in Lincolnshire (LIN 56,11) simply has 'pasturable woodland'. It must often have been the case that the woodland was scattered over the estate, whether Domesday 
say so or not.
\par \tab \tab For the interpretation of the phrase 'pasturable woodland', see 4,14 woodland note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab FURLONGS. }{\cf1\insrsid14117264 Domesday }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 quarentina}{\cf1\insrsid14117264 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264  }{\cf1\insrsid14117264 a subdivision of the league (see 1,6}{\insrsid14117264  league }{
\cf1\insrsid14117264 note), reckoned at 40 perches (which the Latin word implies) or 220 yards, an eighth of a mile.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 1,6\tab COTTESMORE. This was an Ancient Parish. A possible fragment of this estate's earlier history is contained in the will of Aethelmaer, Ealdorman of Hampshire, in which he bequeathed }{\i\insrsid14117264 Cottesmore}{
\insrsid14117264  to his youngest son (}{\i\insrsid14117264 Early Charters of Eastern England}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 107 no. 151 = Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid14117264 
, no. 1498). If the identification is correct, this would be a long way from Aethelmaer's other estates.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab Cottesmore was a royal manor in 1086. The major part was granted with Greetham (1,5), probabl
y by William II, to Henry of Beaumont who was Earl of Warwick 1089-1119. His son Roger de Newburgh inherited the earldom in 1119. Cottesmore, like Greetham, descended in the earldom of Warwick: }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 
, iv. p. 208; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 120.
\par \tab \tab Part of the manor lay in Barrow (SK8915), which was a chapelry of Cottesmore (Youngs, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 374), and in 'Wenton' (a lost place: }{\i\insrsid14117264 Place-Names of Rutland}{
\insrsid14117264 , p. 16); see }{\i\insrsid14117264 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 54; }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. p. 208; Oakham Survey Research Group, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Oakham Survey}{\insrsid14117264 
, p. 35.
\par \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid14117264 In the Alecto facsimile the final }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 E}{\cf1\insrsid14117264  of }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 COTESMORE}{\cf1\insrsid14117264  resembles a }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 P}{\cf1\insrsid14117264 
. According to the Editors' note at the end of the Places Index in the Alecto edition of most counties, this phenomenon was c
aused 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 'Roteland' similar misreadings of place-names could 
occur in two other entries; see 2,8 Thistleton note and 1,20 Ridlington note, and compare 3,10 Teigh note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab GODA [* COUNTESS GYTHA *]. See 1,5 Goda note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab FREEMEN. Domesday }{\i\insrsid14117264 sochemannus}{\insrsid14117264  is sometimes translated as 'sokeman'. Freemen were men liable to attend the court of a lord who exercised }{\i\insrsid14117264 soca}{\insrsid14117264 
 ('soke' or 'jurisdiction') and serve him there. They were free from many of the burdens of villagers and before 1066 they often had more land and higher status than these. They were bracketed in the Commissioners' brief with the }{\i\insrsid14117264 
liberi homines}{\insrsid14117264  ('free men'); see Maitland, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Domesday Book and Beyond}{\insrsid14117264 , pp. 66-79.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab MEADOW, 40 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday initially wrote }{\i\insrsid14117264 7}{\insrsid14117264 , but immediately corrected it to }{\i\insrsid14117264 Ibi}{\insrsid14117264 
 ('there'; omitted in this translation). He did not usually put the meadow in a separate phrase (this is the only occurrence in 'Roteland') but linked it by the use of }{\i\insrsid14117264 7}{\insrsid14117264 
 to the population, often using the accusative case (1,5 king note), so this correction may have significance.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab LEAGUE. }{\cf1\insrsid14117264 Domesday }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 leuga}{\cf1\insrsid14117264 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264  leuua}{\cf1\insrsid14117264 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264  leuuede}{\cf1\insrsid14117264 , is a}{
\i\cf1\insrsid14117264  }{\cf1\insrsid14117264 measure of length, usually of woodland and pasture, traditionally reckoned at a mile and a half. If so, some woods will have been of enormous length; see Round in }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 VCH Northamptonshire
}{\cf1\insrsid14117264 , i. p. 280; and WOR 1,1c leagues note. The league is used regularly as a linear measure, two measurements being given for the land, as here.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab A CERTAIN GEOFFREY HAS \'bd CARUCATE. The Latin }{\i\insrsid14117264 quidam}{\insrsid14117264  indicates either that the main scribe of Great Domesday had no further information on this man, or that he wished to dist
inguish him from Geoffrey, Gilbert of Ghent's man (5,15). The \'bd carucate was probably part of the overall 3 carucates allotted to the manor. This portion seems to have had a separate later descent, being held in 1200 by Gu\'e9
rin de Glapion, seneschal of Normandy. He lost it in 1203 and it was granted by King John to Geoffrey de Gamaches, from whom it descended in the Gamages family: the Red Book of the Exchequer (Hall, ii. p. 805); }{\i\insrsid14117264 Book of Fees}{
\insrsid14117264 , p. 1151; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 122.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of Geoffrey - }{\i\insrsid14117264 Goisfridus}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Gosfridus}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Gaufridus}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Gaufridus}{\insrsid14117264 , }{
\i\insrsid14117264 Gaosfridus}{\insrsid14117264  - represent 'two or, possibly, three Old German names usually latinized in early documents as }{\i\insrsid14117264 Galfridus}{\insrsid14117264  or }{\i\insrsid14117264 Gaufridus}{\insrsid14117264  and }{
\i\insrsid14117264 Goisfridus}{\insrsid14117264  and }{\i\insrsid14117264 Gosfridus}{\insrsid14117264 ' (Reaney, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\insrsid14117264 , under Jeffray etc.). }{\i\insrsid14117264 Goisfridus}{
\insrsid14117264  and }{\i\insrsid14117264 Gosfridus}{\insrsid14117264  represent Old German }{\i\insrsid14117264 Gosfrid}{\insrsid14117264 , Romance }{\i\insrsid14117264 Josfrid}{\insrsid14117264 : Forssner, }{\i\insrsid14117264 
Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid14117264 , pp. 125-26. }{\i\insrsid14117264 Gaufridus}{\insrsid14117264  apparently could represent one of a series of Old German names such as }{\i\insrsid14117264 Gaufrid}{\insrsid14117264 , }{
\i\insrsid14117264 Gautfred,}{\insrsid14117264  }{\i\insrsid14117264 Waldfrid}{\insrsid14117264 ,}{\i\insrsid14117264  Walfrid}{\insrsid14117264 : }{\i\insrsid14117264 ibidem}{\insrsid14117264 
, pp. 101-102. Forssner commented on the confusion of these two names and also that between the latter and Old German }{\i\insrsid14117264 God}{\insrsid14117264 (}{\i\insrsid14117264 e}{\insrsid14117264 )}{\i\insrsid14117264 frid}{\insrsid14117264 
 (on whom, see }{\i\insrsid14117264 ibidem}{\insrsid14117264 , pp. 118-19). The modern name Geoffrey, chosen by JRM and also used in the Alecto edition, derives from Middle English }{\i\insrsid14117264 Geffrey}{\insrsid14117264 , from Old French }{
\i\insrsid14117264 Geuffroi}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Jeufroi}{\insrsid14117264  or Old French }{\i\insrsid14117264 Jefroi}{\insrsid14117264  (Reaney, }{\i\insrsid14117264 ibidem}{\insrsid14117264 
). See also Dodgson and Palmer, 'Introduction', }{\i\insrsid14117264 Index of Persons}{\insrsid14117264 , p. ix.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 2\tab THE MARGINAL }{\i\insrsid14117264 II}{\insrsid14117264 , written in vermilion by the main scribe of Great Domesday, corresponds to the second entry (for Countess Judith) in the Landholders' List for }{\i\insrsid14117264 Rotelande}
{\insrsid14117264  included at the end of the Landholders' List in Nottinghamshire on folio 280d.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab [LAND OF COUNTESS JUDITH]. She was the daughter of Lambert, Count of Lens, and of 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 (see 2,7 Waltheof note) whom she married }{\i\insrsid14117264 c}{\insrsid14117264 
. 1070 and who was executed for treason in 1075. 
She inherited many of his lands. Her main heir was her daughter, Matilda (Maud), who married first Simon I de Senlis, then David I, King of Scotland, both of whom were successively Earls of Huntingdon. Judith's lands formed the honour or barony of Hunting
don in later times, held by a line of the Earls of Huntingdon.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of the name Judith - }{\i\insrsid14117264 Iudita}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Iudit}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Gudeta }{\insrsid14117264 
- represent the biblical name Judith, meaning 'Jewess' or 'woman from Judea'.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 2,7\tab [* ALSTOE WAPENTAKE, ['NORTHERN' HUNDRED] *]. See 1,5 Alstoe note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab [MARKET] OVERTON \'85
 STRETTON. The affix Market probably distinguishes this place from Cold Overton, just over the border in Leicestershire. Market Overton and Stretton were both Ancient Parishes. Both the manor and its outlier descended 
from Countess Judith in the honour of Huntingdon: }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. pp. 204, 208; Oakham Survey Research Group, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Oakham Survey}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 35; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{
\insrsid14117264 , ii. pp. 141, 146. However, in 1107 Henry I granted lands, mills and tithes to 'the monks of La Charit\'e9[-sur-Loire] serving god in the church of St Andrew at Northampton': }{\i\insrsid14117264 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{
\insrsid14117264 , ii. no. 833 p. 70. These included part of the tithes of Stretton.
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid10430247 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab 
The entry is duplicated in LIN 56,11, but with different detail: Stretton is not said to be an outlier; Countess Judith's 3 ploughs are specifically said to be in lordship; the wood is merely 'pasturable' not 'pasturable in places'. The current value is 
\'a340 not \'a320 (though corrected: LIN 56,11 value note) and there is no mention of Alfred's claim on Stretton. These discrepancies are tabulated in \{Introduction: Duplicate Entries\}
. The relation of Stretton to Market Overton is relevant to the reconstruction of the 3-carucate units which in this hundred seem to be the underlying structure: \{Introduction: Carucation\}.
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid10430247 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab There was a 2-carucate jurisdiction (}{
\i\insrsid14117264 soca}{\insrsid14117264 ) of this manor at South Witham (LIN 56,20) and a 6-bovate part of Thistleton lying in Lincolnshire (LIN 56,21) was also a jurisdiction of this manor (2,8 Thistleton note).}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab OUTLIER. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\insrsid14117264 BER}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 EWICA}{\insrsid14117264 
] here; in other counties with the marginal letters indicating the status of the holding (1,5 marginal note) he put }{\i\insrsid14117264 B'}{\insrsid14117264  in the margin, either with an }{\i\insrsid14117264 M'}{\insrsid14117264 
 or on its own if the adjacent entry was only of an outlier. There is no marginal }{\i\insrsid14117264 B'}{\insrsid14117264  beside the }{\i\insrsid14117264 M' }{\insrsid14117264 in the duplicate entry (LIN 56,11), however.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab EARL WALTHEOF. His father Siward was Earl of Northumbria and of Huntingdonshire and of some neighbouring counti
es, probably including Northamptonshire. On Siward's death in 1055, Waltheof was too young, so Northumbria, Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire went to his brother-in-law Tosti. The northern revolt in 1065 against Tosti's harsh rule led to Huntingdonshir
e and Northamptonshire being given to Waltheof, while Northumbria went to Morcar, }{\cf1\insrsid14117264 the son of Earl Algar }{\insrsid14117264 and his wife Aelfeva, grandson of Earl Leofric and Countess (Lady) Godiva and brother of Earl Edwin}{
\cf1\insrsid14117264 .}{\insrsid14117264  Waltheof married William the Conqueror's niece, Countess Judith. In 1075 he plotted with Earl Ralph (of Ga\'eb
l, 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 Earl Roger of Hereford (son of Earl Willi
am). After the capture of Earl Roger by King William, Earl Waltheof went abroad and admitted his treason, returning to England when King William seemed to regard it lightly. However, he was imprisoned and subsequently beheaded (on May 31st 1075).
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his Christian name - }{\i\insrsid14117264 Wallef}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Waltef}{\insrsid14117264 ,}{\i\insrsid14117264  Walteif}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Walteu}{\insrsid14117264 
 etc. - represent Old Norse }{\i\insrsid14117264 Valthiofr}{\insrsid14117264 , Anglo-Scandinavian }{\i\insrsid14117264 W\'e6ltheof}{\insrsid14117264 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid14117264 
, p. 403. The earl, however, is commonly known as Waltheof and JRM kept to this. The Alecto edition also has Waltheof. According to von Feilitzen (}{\i\insrsid14117264 ibidem}{\insrsid14117264 
, note 1) all the instances of this name in Domesday refer to the earl.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab COUNTESS JUDITH. See RUT 2 Judith note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. See 1,5 woodland note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid10430247 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid14117264 \tab 
ALFRED OF LINCOLN CLAIMS. Alfred held land at Thistleton (2a,9) adjacent. On this claim, see Fleming, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid14117264 
, p. 223 no. 1305. She translates: 'Alfred of Lincoln, however, claims the fourth part in Stretton'. There is nothing in the Latin to represent 'however'. On the fourth part, see 2,7 fourth part note.
\par \tab \tab On Alfred himself, see RUT 2a Alfred note.
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid10430247 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\insrsid14117264 
Alured}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Aluredus}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Aluret}{\insrsid14117264 ,}{\i\insrsid14117264  Alueradus}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Aluerd}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Aluert}{
\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Aluer}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Eluret}{\insrsid14117264  - represent Old English \'c6}{\i\insrsid14117264 lfr\'e6d}{\insrsid14117264 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid14117264 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid14117264 , pp. 175-76. However, he stated that the Old Breton }{\i\insrsid14117264 Alfred}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Alfret}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Alfrit}{
\insrsid14117264  might sometimes be considered, as well as Old German }{\i\insrsid14117264 Alverat}{\insrsid14117264  etc., especially for Normans and 1086 landholders. 
This is certainly likely in the case of Alfred of Lincoln as he was a Breton (RUT 2a Alfred note). JRM preferred the modern form Alfred for both }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid14117264  and 1086 holders}{\insrsid14117264 
. The Alecto edition has Alfred and Alvred, the latter most often for 1086 holders.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab A FOURTH PART IN STRETTON. This is probably a rough measure as the total of Market Overton and Stretton is 3\'bd
 carucates. It is not clear whether Alfred is claiming the whole of Stretton and that this is a quarter of the whole manor of Overton-Stretton, or a quarter of Stretton itself. The Alecto edition has 'a fourth part of Stretton'.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 2,8\tab THISTLETON. This was an Ancient Parish. There are two entries for this vill in 'Roteland' (2,8. 2a,9) amounting to 1 carucate and included in the assessment of Alstoe Wapent
ake (R1 carucates note). Both parts are duplicated in Lincolnshire (respectively LIN 56,12. 27,48): \{Introduction: Duplicate Entries\}. The second entry (LIN 27,48) adds that Thistleton was assessed in South Witham (Lincolnshire); see 2a,9 there note.

\par \tab \tab Three other parts of Thistleton, amounting to 2 \'bd carucates and 6 bovates, seem to have lain in Lincolnshire and also to have been assessed there. The first of these three is for 1 carucate in }{\i\insrsid14117264 alia Tisteltune}{
\insrsid14117264  (LIN 27,49) held by Alfred of Lincoln, a jurisdiction, probably of South Witham (LIN 27,47). Latin }{\i\insrsid14117264 alia}{\insrsid14117264 
 does not imply a separate vill or village, but is an editorial device to draw attention to the second occurrence of the same place-name within a fief (Thorn, 'Manorial Affixes'). This particular Lincoln
shire entry follows that for Thistleton (LIN 27,48) which is duplicated as 2a,9.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab Secondly, there is an entry for 1 \'bd carucates of undefined status at Thistleton (LIN 51,10), and thirdly (in LIN 56,21) for 6 bovates which are said to be 'a jurisdiction also of this manor' (}{\i\insrsid14117264 
eiusdem manerii}{\insrsid14117264 ). The previous entry (LIN 56,20) is for South Witham, itself said to be a jurisdiction of Market Overton; prior to that entry is one for Coleby (LIN 56,19) far a
way in another wapentake (the end of this chapter is a miscellany). It is thus likely that the words }{\i\insrsid14117264 eiusdem manerii}{\insrsid14117264 
 in LIN 56,21 refer to Market Overton (held by Countess Judith in LIN 56,11, duplicated in RUT 2,7) as does the entry for South Witham (56,20).
\par \tab \tab 
It is possible that the vill of Thistleton had been divided between counties according to tenure at some time, although by 1086 Alfred of Lincoln and Countess Judith held parts in both counties. It is more likely that the division was made to produce
 fiscally round figures when 'Roteland' became a separate taxable entity: \{Introduction: History\}, \{Introduction: Carucation\}and \{
Introduction: County Boundary). There is certainly no room for the carucates of the Lincolnshire entries for Thistleton in Als
toe Wapentake's carucage (R1 carucates note). Thistleton is not counted in Lincolnshire after 1086 and it is possible that there has been an unrecorded boundary change, or that the Lincolnshire portions became merged with South Witham (2a,9 there note).

\par \tab \tab 
The Lincolnshire entry corresponding to the present one (LIN 56,12) only differs in calling Hugh 'the countess' man'. Although the next Lincolnshire entry (LIN 56,13) also has 'Hugh, the countess' man' and the corresponding 'Roteland' entry (2,11) has 'Hu
gh of Hotot', the Hugh in 2,8 is unlikely also to have been Hugh of Hotot in view of the descent of Thistleton. See \{Introduction: Duplicate Entries\}.
\par \tab \tab The manor followed the expected descent in the honour of Huntingdon, being undertenanted by a family named }{\i\insrsid14117264 de Bussey}{\insrsid14117264 /, }{\i\insrsid14117264 de Busey}{\insrsid14117264 /, }{\i\insrsid14117264 de Bushey}{
\insrsid14117264  or }{\i\insrsid14117264 de Bucy}{\insrsid14117264 , of which Hugh was possibly the ancestor: }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. pp. 204, 208; Oakham Survey Research Group,}{\i\insrsid14117264  Oakham Survey}{
\insrsid14117264 , p. 35; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 156.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab ERIK <OF TEALBY>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid14117264 Erich}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Eiric}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Aeiric}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Eric}{
\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Eriz}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Arich}{\insrsid14117264  - represent Old Danish }{\i\insrsid14117264 Erik}{\insrsid14117264 , Old Norse }{\i\insrsid14117264 Eirikr}{\insrsid14117264 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\insrsid14117264 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 246. They are rendered Eric and Eirikr in the Phillimore printed edition; these have now been standardized as 
Erik. The Alecto edition has Erik, except for HUN 29,3 where it has Eric and for LIN 28,20 where it has Eadric, probably in error.
\par \tab \tab The name Erik occurs on ten holdings in circuit VI of Domesday Book. There are sufficient links between them to suggest tha
t they refer to a single individual, despite being spread between three counties and devolving upon several tenants-in-chief. In Lincolnshire, Laceby and its dependencies (LIN 4,69-71), held }{\i\insrsid14117264 T.R.E.}{\insrsid14117264 
 by Swein, Erik and Tosti, is connected to another group he
ld by Erik centred on Tealby (LIN 28,20-24) by the intermediate tenure of one Rainer the deacon (CN13;18), the Tealby group in turn being connected to another holding of Erik (LIN 14,7) by soke in Willingham. Keelby (LIN 47,3), the final holding in Lincol
n
shire held by Erik, is just a few miles away from the main group of his properties. Thistleton (RUT 2,8), by contrast, is some distance from the Lincolnshire holdings; and Catworth and Sawtry in Huntingdonshire (HUN 29,3. 19,1. D27) even more so. But Sawt
ry provides a possible link between the three counties. The claims for Huntingdonshire state that the Tosti who had held Sawtry was the brother of Erik, a claim confirmed by the Ramsey Chronicle (}{\i\insrsid14117264 Early Charters of Eastern England}{
\insrsid14117264 , p. 235 no. 323). As alread
y noted, the main group of Erik's holdings in Lincolnshire were entered under the names of Erik, Tosti and Swein. It seems probable that this Erik and Tosti were the same men as the Huntingdonshire brothers. Their extensive properties (and this Tosti may 
have been the Tosti holding several other Lincolnshire holdings) makes the Ramsey Chronicle's description of Tosti as }{\i\insrsid14117264 unus ex baronibus regis Edwardi}{\insrsid14117264 
 ('one of King Edward's barons') comprehensible. Thistleton is almost midway between the Huntingdonshire and Lincolnshire holdings and would have provided a useful staging point (JP).}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab HUGH [* OF BUCY *]. Hugh of Bucy; see 2,8 Thistleton note. He is presumably the same as the Hugh who holds another part of Thistleton (LIN 56,21).}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab The Domesday form, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Hugo}{\insrsid14117264  (as it is regarded as a third declension noun in Latin the genitive is }{\i\insrsid14117264 Hugonis}{\insrsid14117264 , the accusative }{\i\insrsid14117264 
Hugonem}{\insrsid14117264 , the dative }{\i\insrsid14117264 Hugoni}{\insrsid14117264  and the ablative }{\i\insrsid14117264 Hugone}{\insrsid14117264 ), represents Old German }{\i\insrsid14117264 Hugo}{\insrsid14117264 , Old French }{\i\insrsid14117264 
Hugon}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Hu\'eb}{\insrsid14117264 : Forssner, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid14117264 , pp. 157-58. Hugh, which also derives from the Latin }{\i\insrsid14117264 Hugo}{
\insrsid14117264  (Reaney, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\insrsid14117264 ), was chosen by JRM. The Alecto edition also has Hugh.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid10430247 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid14117264 2a\tab 
[LAND OF ALFRED OF LINCOLN]. He was a Breton, probably from the seigneurie of Montfort-Ga\'ebl, near Rennes. 
He was probably married to a daughter of William Malet; another of William's daughters was married to Turold the sheriff of Lincolnshire. Alfred's title 'of Lincoln' does not appear to relate to any office he held there, although he was an important landh
older in the county. Alfred\rquote s sons were (1) another Alfred, possibly the Alfred \lquote nephew of Turold\rquote 
 of Domesday Lincolnshire (LIN C23) who married (before 1093) the widow of Hugh son of Grip or her daughter, thus acquiring Hugh son of Grip's fief; and (2) Alan of Lincoln who inherited his father\rquote s Lincolnshire holdings before 1100. See Round, }{
\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal England}{\insrsid14117264 , pp. 327-28; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Domesday People}{\insrsid14117264 , pp. 141-42.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab On the name Alfred, see 2,7 Alfred note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid10430247 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid14117264 2a,9\tab MARGINAL }{\i\insrsid14117264 III}{\insrsid14117264 
. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\insrsid14117264 III}{\insrsid14117264  in vermilion next to the second line of this entry, apparently to indicate a new landholder. However, in the Landholders' List for }{\i\insrsid14117264 Rotelande}{
\insrsid14117264  included at the end of the Landholders' List in Nottinghamshire on folio 280d, there is no mention of Alfred and the number }{\i\insrsid14117264 III }{\insrsid14117264 
is allotted to Robert Malet. It is possible that when the scribe first looked through the material for 'Roteland' as he was preparing to write the Landholders' List for it in Nottinghamshire, he missed the mention of Alfred of Lincoln i
n the information on Thistleton (which was possibly contained in a composite entry similar to those in the }{\i\insrsid14117264 Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis}{\insrsid14117264 
) or thought that Alfred was a tenant of Countess Judith. The fact that his source for the 'Roteland' entry did not mention Alfred's subtenant Gleu (see \{Introduction: Duplicate Entries\}) makes this confusion more understandable.}{\insrsid10430247 

\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab [* ALSTOE WAPENTAKE, ['NORTHERN' HUNDRED] *]. See 1,5 Alstoe note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab THERE ALSO ^[THISTLETON]^. That is, the previous entry for Thistleton 
(2,8). This estate is among Alfred's lands in the corresponding Lincolnshire entry (LIN 27,48) which is part of his fief. There the actual tenant is not Alfred himself, but Gleu, Alfred's man: \{Introduction: Duplicate Entries\}
; see also 2a,9 Siward note. For the relation of Thistleton to lands in Lincolnshire, see 2,8 Thistleton note.
\par \tab \tab In both the 'Roteland' and the Lincolnshire surveys of this estate, this Thistleton is said to be a manor. However, the Lincolnshire entry contains no value clause, but inst
ead says 'its valuation [is included] in [South] Witham'. This clause in itself does not necessarily suggest subordinate status; for example, Hagworthingham (LIN 12,85) is a manor but the value clause is replaced by 'its valuation is [included] in other m
anors'. However, against this Lincolnshire entry for Thistleton, there is a marginal }{\i\insrsid14117264 SOCA}{\insrsid14117264  ('jurisdiction'), apparently intended to gloss this statement. Thus doubt is cast on the marginal }{\i\insrsid14117264 M}{
\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 anerium}{\insrsid14117264 ] in both the Lincolnshire and 'Roteland' entries. There is 
also a difficulty with the value: the 1066 and 1086 values of South Witham (LIN 27,47) are 40s and 50[s] respectively, of Thistleton alone, in the 'Roteland' entry, the values are 20s and 60s; see }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 
, i. p. 130. It is possible that there are figur
e errors in one or both of these entries. However, as it is possible for a jurisdiction to grow into a manor, it is likely that the two different surveys of the estate at Thistleton, by being done at different times, record the change of status, or that t
h
e jurors in 'Beltisloe' Wapentake, Lincolnshire, corrected the information or took a different view of an uncertain relationship between the estates. The Lincolnshire version is probably right as this estate was later known as being 'in South Witham in Th
istleton' or 'in South Witham lands', and was held in the thirteenth century by the Colville family of Castle Bytham (Lincolnshire).}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab 
South Witham contained two manors of 4 carucates and 5 carucates (LIN 27,47. 56,1); also a jurisdiction of Market Overton (LIN 56,20), 2 carucates, and another piece, 6 bovates of undefined status (LIN 68,25), making in all 11 carucates and 6 bovates, sug
gesting that South Witham was a 12-carucate hundred.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab SIWARD. A man of the same name was the predecessor of Alfred on some of his Lincolnshire estates, including South Witham (LIN 27,47) where Alfred's subtenant was also his man Gleu.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\insrsid14117264 Siuuard}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Seuuard}{\insrsid14117264 (}{\i\insrsid14117264 us}{\insrsid14117264 ), }{\i\insrsid14117264 Seuuar}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 
Seiard}{\insrsid14117264 (}{\i\insrsid14117264 us}{\insrsid14117264 ), }{\i\insrsid14117264 Seiar }{\insrsid14117264 - represent either Old English }{\i\insrsid14117264 Sigeweard}{\insrsid14117264 
 or, probably in most of the Danelaw counties, the Old Danish }{\i\insrsid14117264 Sigwarth}{\insrsid14117264 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid14117264 , pp. 361-63. JRM prefer
red the form Siward as it is in regular use. The Alecto edition also has Siward.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 3\tab [LAND OF ROBERT MALET]. He was son of William Malet of Graville-Sainte-Honorine (in the French d\'e9partement of Seine-Maritime, commune of Le Havre) and Esilia Crispin of Tilli\'e8
res. William was also prominent in England, in the early years of the Conqueror's reign. Robert' s large English fief, which he inherited from his father, was centred on Eye in Suffolk (briefly held by Roger of Poitou after 1087) where he began the found
ation of a cell of the Abbey of Bernay. He was recorded as sheriff of Suffolk in 1071 possibly in succession to his father. He went on to be chamberlain to Henry I. He died after 1107. He was probably father of William II Malet (who forfeited Eye in 1109)
 and Robert Malet, ancestor of the Mallets of Curry Mallet (Somerset).}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab The origin of the byname Malet is unclear. Tengvik, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Old English Bynames}{\insrsid14117264 , pp. 350-51, suggests Old French }{\i\insrsid14117264 malet}{\insrsid14117264 , a diminutive of }{
\i\insrsid14117264 mal}{\insrsid14117264  (from Latin }{\i\insrsid14117264 malus}{\insrsid14117264 ), meaning 'bad', 'wicked' or 'evil
'. The force of the diminutive is unclear, whether 'quite evil', 'rather wicked' or 'a little naughty'. A related possibility, due to Ekwall (}{\i\insrsid14117264 Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names}{\insrsid14117264 
, 1936 edition) is that Malet is from Old French }{\i\insrsid14117264 maleit}{\insrsid14117264 , past participle of the verb }{\i\insrsid14117264 maleir}{\insrsid14117264 , meaning 'cursed'. Reaney, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Dictionary of British Surnames}{
\insrsid14117264 , under Mallett suggests two further possibilities. The first is that the name is a patronymic, a diminutive of French }{\i\insrsid14117264 Malo}{\insrsid14117264 , derived from the sixth-century Breton Saint Macl
ovius, represented in the place-name Saint-Malo. His second suggestion is based on the fact that Orderic Vitalis calls William Malet }{\i\insrsid14117264 Gulielmus agnomine Mal}{\insrsid14117264 (}{\i\insrsid14117264 l}{\insrsid14117264 )}{
\i\insrsid14117264 eto}{\insrsid14117264  ('William with the surname }{\i\insrsid14117264 Malletum}{\insrsid14117264 ') suggesting that he connected the name with Old French }{\i\insrsid14117264 maillet}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 mallet}{
\insrsid14117264 , a diminutive of Old French }{\i\insrsid14117264 mail}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 mal}{\insrsid14117264  from Latin }{\i\insrsid14117264 malleus}{\insrsid14117264  ('hammer'). }{\i\insrsid14117264 Maillet}{\insrsid14117264 
 in Medieval French is a mace. Support for this comes from the fact that when William Malet was banished in 1109, his son Hugh took the name }{\i\insrsid14117264 Fichet}{\insrsid14117264 . }{\i\insrsid14117264 Fichet}{\insrsid14117264  is a dimin
utive of Old French }{\i\insrsid14117264 fiche }{\insrsid14117264 ('iron point') probably used of a lance or javelin. Thus Hugh Malet in becoming Hugh Fichet may have wished to retain the warrior connections of his name in changing it..
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his first name - }{\i\insrsid14117264 Robert}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Rob}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 er}{\insrsid14117264 ]}{\i\insrsid14117264 t}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 us}{
\insrsid14117264 ], }{\i\insrsid14117264 Rodbertus}{\insrsid14117264 ,}{\i\insrsid14117264  Rotbert(us)}{\insrsid14117264  - represent Old German }{\i\insrsid14117264 Rodbert}{\insrsid14117264 ,}{\i\insrsid14117264  Rotbert}{\insrsid14117264 ,}{
\i\insrsid14117264  Robert }{\insrsid14117264 etc.: Forssner, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid14117264 , pp. 216-17; see also von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\insrsid14117264 , pp. 349-50. As the name Robert has survived to modern times, JRM chose that form. The Alecto edition also has Robert.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 3,10\tab MARGINAL }{\i\insrsid14117264 IIII}{\insrsid14117264 . The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\insrsid14117264 IIII }{\insrsid14117264 in vermilion next to the second line of this entry. In the Landholders' List for }{
\i\insrsid14117264 Rotelande}{\insrsid14117264  included at the end of the Landholders' List in Nottinghamshire on folio 280d Robert Malet is number three. The scribe's mistake here was caused by his insertion of }{\i\insrsid14117264 III}{
\insrsid14117264  next to the previous entry (2a,9), apparently due to his discovery of a further tenant-in-chief, Alfred of Lincoln.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab [* ALSTOE WAPENTAKE, ['NORTHERN' HUNDRED] *]. See 1,5 Alstoe note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab IN THE SAME HUNDRED. The main scribe of Great Domesday often included this phrase when he did not have the location of a holding, as here initially (3,10 Teigh note), though it ended by being redundant.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab TEIGH. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\insrsid14117264 In TIE}{\insrsid14117264 , using a capital }{\i\insrsid14117264 I}{\insrsid14117264  for }{\i\insrsid14117264 In}{\insrsid14117264 
 and extending it down to form an insertion mark. The rubrication is faint and is not reproduced in the Alecto facsimile. There is no duplicate entry for this estate in Lincolnshire.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab Teigh was an Ancient Parish. The estate descended to the honour of Leicester, being held by John }{\i\insrsid14117264 de Folevile}{\insrsid14117264  in 1305; see }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 
, iv. pp. 204, 208; Oakham Survey Research Group,}{\i\insrsid14117264  Oakham Survey}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 35; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 151.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab GODWIN <OF TEIGH>. The man is unidentified, but a Godwin was Robert Malet's predecessor in his manors in Lincolnshire.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of this name- }{\i\insrsid14117264 Goduuinus}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Goduin}{\insrsid14117264 (}{\i\insrsid14117264 us}{\insrsid14117264 ), }{\i\insrsid14117264 Goduine}{\insrsid14117264 , }{
\i\insrsid14117264 God}{\insrsid14117264 (}{\i\insrsid14117264 d}{\insrsid14117264 )}{\i\insrsid14117264 euuinus}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Gotwinus}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Couinus}{\insrsid14117264 
 etc. - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid14117264 Godwine}{\insrsid14117264 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid14117264 , pp. 269-73. JRM preferred the second element -win to Old English }{
\i\insrsid14117264 -wine}{\insrsid14117264 , as the vast majority of Domesday forms lacked the final }{\i\insrsid14117264 -e}{\insrsid14117264 . The Alecto edition has Godwine.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab 4 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\insrsid14117264 ii }{\insrsid14117264 above the }{\i\insrsid14117264 ii}{\insrsid14117264 
 in the text, as often elsewhere; there is no sign that it was a later insertion.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 2\tab This heading has been inserted by the editors to indicate that the main scr
ibe of Great Domesday, following the order of the hundreds within Alstoe Wapentake now began to enter the lands in the second (southern) hundred. Countess Judith held lands in the first (northern) hundred beginning at 2,7 where the scribe entered a margin
al }{\i\insrsid14117264 II}{\insrsid14117264 .}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab On Countess Judith, see RUT 2 Judith note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 2,11\tab [* ALSTOE WAPENTAKE, ['SOUTHERN' HUNDRED] *]. Lands held by Countess Judith have already been entered in 2,7-8. It is therefore likely that the contents of the second 12-carucate hundred begin here, e
specially as the separate groups 1,5-6. 2,7-8. 2a,9. 3,10 and 2,11-13. 4,14. 5,15. 6,16 are territorially compact; see R1 hundreds note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab 2M. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\insrsid14117264 .II.}{\insrsid14117264  above }{\i\insrsid14117264 M}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 anerium}{\insrsid14117264 
]. This normally indicated that the manor had been held by two people }{\i\insrsid14117264 T.R.E.}{\insrsid14117264  but had been combined in 1086. However, he did not include a }{\i\insrsid14117264 .II.}{\insrsid14117264  above the }{\i\insrsid14117264 
M'}{\insrsid14117264  in the duplicate entry in Lincolnshire, and only Earl Waltheof is mentioned as having held Whissendine. A marginal }{\i\insrsid14117264 II}{\insrsid14117264  might be expected here as Countess J
udith is number two in the Landholders' List for }{\i\insrsid14117264 Rotelande}{\insrsid14117264 
 included at the end of the Landholders' List in Nottinghamshire on folio 280d, and it is just possible that there was confusion over the significance of the figure in an earlier draft. On the other
 hand the scribe might not have felt it necessary to insert a chapter number, as it might have been thought already present at 2,7: there is no other case in 'Roteland' where a number is repeated when the landholder recurs (for example the king at 1,17).}
{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab There were two manors here later (2,11 Whissendine note), but the division could have occurred after 1086, and such evidence cannot be used to deduce the number of }{\i\insrsid14117264 T.R.E. }{\insrsid14117264 manors.}{
\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab WHISSENDINE. This was an Ancient Parish. The entry is duplicated in L
incolnshire (LIN 56,13). Apart from indicating only a single manor, the Lincolnshire entry describes Hugh of Hotot simply as Hugh, but calls him 'the countess' man'. The 5 ploughs are said to be 'in lordship'; the number of smallholders is seven, not six;
 meadow 10 furlongs long and 8 furlongs wide is mentioned. The value is omitted. See \{Introduction: Duplicate Entries\}.
\par \tab \tab The manor descended with the honour of Huntingdon, and passed from the subtenant Hugh to the Wake family. There was a Wake (or Powis) manor here in later times. In 1316 (}{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 
, iv. p. 204) the estate was held in halves, one half by Thomas }{\i\insrsid14117264 Wake}{\insrsid14117264  and Robert }{\i\insrsid14117264 de Helewelle}{\insrsid14117264 , the other by Richard }{\i\insrsid14117264 de Harington}{\insrsid14117264 
 and John }{\i\insrsid14117264 de Wyttelbury}{\insrsid14117264 ; see Oakham Survey Research Group, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Oakham Survey}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 35; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 157.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab EARL WALTHEOF. See 2,7 Waltheof note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab HUGH OF HOTOT. He probably came from Hotot-en-Auge in the French d\'e9partement of Calvados (arrondissement Lisieux, canton Cambremer), rather than from Hottot-les-Bagues in the same d\'e9partement (
arrondissement Bayeux, canton Caumont-l'Event\'e9). His lands were held by Hugh }{\i\insrsid14117264 de Moreville}{\insrsid14117264  by 1130 (Pipe Roll); see Farrer, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Honors and Knights' Fees}{\insrsid14117264 
, ii. p. 356; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Domesday People}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 264. The latter gives different arrondissements and cantons for the two places.
\par \tab \tab On the name Hugh, see 2,8 Hugh note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 2,12\tab EXTON. This was an Ancient Parish. There is a duplicate entry in Lincolnshire (LIN 56,17) which gives the same information. It is entered under the heading }{\i\insrsid14117264 IN ROTELANDE}{\insrsid14117264 . See \{
Introduction: Duplicate Entries\}.
\par \tab \tab The manor descended with the honour of Huntingdon; see }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. pp. 204, 208; Oakham Survey Research Group, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Oakham Survey}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 35; }{\i\insrsid14117264 
VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 128.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab EARL WALTHEOF. See 2,7 Waltheof note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. See 1,5 woodland note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 2,13\tab WHITWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. The corresponding entry in Lincolnshire (LIN 56,18) describes Herbert as 'the countess' man'; the woodland is simply 'pasturable', not 'pasturable in places'; only the 1086 value (40s) 
is given. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\insrsid14117264 Similit}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 er}{\insrsid14117264 ] }{\i\insrsid14117264 In Rotelande}{\insrsid14117264 
 ('Likewise in 'Roteland'') in the margin next to the Lincolnshire entry, following on from the }{\i\insrsid14117264 IN ROTELANDE}{\insrsid14117264  heading above the previous entry there (Exton: LIN 56,17 = RUT 2,12). See \{
Introduction: Duplicate Entries\}.
\par \tab \tab The manor descended with the honour of Huntingdon, but by the thirteenth century was held by the prior of the hospital of St John of Jerusalem; see }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. p. 208; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland
}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 165.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab "BESI". The Domesday forms - }{\i\insrsid14117264 Besy }{\insrsid14117264 here and in the duplicate entry in LIN 56,18, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Besi}{\insrsid14117264  in OXF 35,19, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Beso}{\insrsid14117264 
 in SUF 6,216 and 35,7 - might represent Old Danish }{\i\insrsid14117264 B\'f8si}{\insrsid14117264 , according to von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 201, but he mentions other possibilit
ies. In view of the uncertainty it has been thought best to retain the Domesday form }{\i\insrsid14117264 Besi}{\insrsid14117264  for all these occurrences. The Phillimore printed translation has Besi here and in Oxfordshire and Suffolk, B\'f8
si in Lincolnshire; these have now been standardized as "Besi". The Alecto edition has Besi here, in Oxfordshire and in Lincolnshire, but Bosi in Suffolk.
\par \tab \tab The Oxfordshire "}{\cf1\insrsid14117264 Besi" was a predecessor of Miles Crispin who was also preceded on two of his holdings by a }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 Bisi}{\cf1\insrsid14117264  (BUK 23,32) and a }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 Bosi}{
\cf1\insrsid14117264  (BRK 33,8) which ma
kes it probable that all three forms, which occur only seven times between them in Great Domesday, represent one name and a single individual. Miles' predecessor in Buckinghamshire is described as a royal thane, as is the }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 Bisi}{
\cf1\insrsid14117264  who preceded Hugh of Bolbec (BUK 26,8). The }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 Bisi}{\cf1\insrsid14117264  who preceded William son of Ansculf (BUK 17,21) was also an overlord and a close neighbour of the }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 Bisi}{
\cf1\insrsid14117264  on the Crispin fief. The }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 Besi}{\cf1\insrsid14117264 , man of Alsi, with two small holdings }{\insrsid14117264 in neighbouring vills in }{\cf1\insrsid14117264 Hartismere Hundred in Suffolk, is likely
 to be a second individual (JP).}{\insrsid14117264 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab The Domesday form }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 Bisi }{\cf1\insrsid14117264 occurs three times in Domesday Buckinghamshire (BUK 17,21. 23,32. 26,8) and represents Old Norse/Old Danish/Old Swedish }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 Bisi}{
\cf1\insrsid14117264 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\cf1\insrsid14117264 , p. 202, who rejected it as representing the forms }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 Besi}{\cf1\insrsid14117264 , }{
\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 Besy}{\cf1\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 Beso}{\cf1\insrsid14117264 
 (p. 201). The Alecto edition has Bisi. This makes it unlikely that any of these people is the same individual as the "Besi" in the present entry or elsewhere. Likewise the form }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 Bosi}{\cf1\insrsid14117264  in BRK 3
3,8, as well as the forms }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 Bose}{\cf1\insrsid14117264  and }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 Boso}{\cf1\insrsid14117264 , represents Old Norse/Old Danish }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 Bosi}{\cf1\insrsid14117264 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\cf1\insrsid14117264 , p. 207.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab HERBERT. The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Herbertus}{\insrsid14117264  (often abbreviated to }{\i\insrsid14117264 Herb't'}{\insrsid14117264 , represents Old German }{\i\insrsid14117264 Her}{\insrsid14117264 (}{
\i\insrsid14117264 e}{\insrsid14117264 )}{\i\insrsid14117264 bert }{\insrsid14117264 etc.,}{\i\insrsid14117264  }{\insrsid14117264 Old French }{\i\insrsid14117264 Herbert}{\insrsid14117264 : Forssner, }{\i\insrsid14117264 
Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid14117264 , pp. 148-49. The Alecto edition also has Herbert.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. See 1,5 woodland note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab PERCHES. }{\cf1\insrsid14117264 Domesday }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 pertica }{\cf1\insrsid14117264 or }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 perca}{\cf1\insrsid14117264  }{\insrsid14117264 is a linear measure, usually reckoned as 16 \'bd
 feet, 40 of them making a furlong, though a 20-foot perch was in use for measuring woodland until last century; see Zupko, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Dictionary of English Weights and Measures}{\insrsid14117264 
, under perch. See also Grierson, 'Weights and Measures', pp. 80-81 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\insrsid14117264 The Story of Domesday Book}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 120).}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab VALUE 40s. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote }{\i\insrsid14117264 xx}{\insrsid14117264 , but corrected it to }{\i\insrsid14117264 xl}{\insrsid14117264  by superimposing an }{\i\insrsid14117264 l}{\insrsid14117264 
 on the second }{\i\insrsid14117264 x}{\insrsid14117264 . There is no }{\i\insrsid14117264 T.R.E.}{\insrsid14117264  value in the duplicate Lincolnshire e
ntry (LIN 56,18). The Phillimore printed translation has '20s' for the 1086 value. The Alecto edition has '40s'.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab 40[s]. Latin }{\i\insrsid14117264 sol}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 idos}{\insrsid14117264 ] ('shillings') was probably omitted through lack of space, as elsewhere in Great Domesday.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 4\tab 
[LAND OF OGER ^[SON OF "UNGEMAR"]^]. He was also probably the same man as Oger the Breton, 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 42,9) had been held by a Hereward and from a Lincolnshire Claim (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 
m
arried Hereward's daughter, though she was later married to Hugh of Envermeu; the presence of a Baldwin Wake among the later holders of 'Austhorp' supports this (see 4,14 'Austhorp' note). Oger had sons named Ralph and Conan of whom Ralph succeeded him. S
ee }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , i. p. 132; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Domesday People}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 311.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\insrsid14117264 Ogerus}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Ogerius}{\insrsid14117264  - represent Old German }{\i\insrsid14117264 Odger}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Og}{\insrsid14117264 (}{
\i\insrsid14117264 g}{\insrsid14117264 )}{\i\insrsid14117264 er}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Autger}{\insrsid14117264  etc. and Old French }{\i\insrsid14117264 Ogier}{\insrsid14117264 : Forssner, }{\i\insrsid14117264 
Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 197. Dauzat,}{\i\insrsid14117264  Dictionnaire des Noms et Pr\'e9noms de France}{\insrsid14117264 , has the forms }{\i\insrsid14117264 Oger}{\insrsid14117264  and }{\i\insrsid14117264 
Og\'e9}{\insrsid14117264 , as well as}{\i\insrsid14117264  Ogier}{\insrsid14117264 . The Phillimore printed edition has the forms Oger and Odger; these have now been standardized as Oger. The Alecto edition has Ogier.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday form of his father, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Vngemar}{\insrsid14117264 , which only occurs in this entry in Domesday, might represent the hypothetical Old Western Scandinavian }{\i\insrsid14117264 Ungemann-}{\insrsid14117264 , }{
\i\insrsid14117264 Ungmathr-}{\insrsid14117264 : Tengvik, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Old English Bynames}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 202 (who gives }{\i\insrsid14117264 Radulfus}{\insrsid14117264  in error for }{\i\insrsid14117264 Ogerus}{\insrsid14117264 
); see Forssner, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid14117264 
, p. 197 note 4. However, this implies that the Domesday form is miswritten. As Oger's name is either Old German or Old French, it is likely that his father's name was also. The note (by JMcND) in the Phillimore printed
 edition (at R14) suggests a hypothetical Old High German }{\i\insrsid14117264 Jungemar}{\insrsid14117264 . Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Domesday People}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 311, refers to a Gingomar father of Haimo of Soug\'e9
al, fl. 1060. In view of the uncertainty it has been thought better to keep the Domesday form. The Phillimore printed translation has Ungomar; the Alecto edition has Ungemar.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 4,14\tab [* ALSTOE WAPENTAKE, ['SOUTHERN' HUNDRED] *]. The main scribe of Great Domesday continued entering lands in the 'southern' hundred of Alstoe Wapentake, begun at 2,11. This heading h
as been included here to indicate the continuing territorial arrangement of the entries which the scribe attempted to overlay with feudal chapters; see 2,11 Alstoe note and \{Introduction: Writing\}.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab 'AUSTHORP'. The Domesday form is }{\i\insrsid14117264 Alestanestorp}{\insrsid14117264 , later }{\i\insrsid14117264 Al}{\insrsid14117264 (}{\i\insrsid14117264 e}{\insrsid14117264 )}{\i\insrsid14117264 storp}{\insrsid14117264 (}{
\i\insrsid14117264 e}{\insrsid14117264 ), }{\i\insrsid14117264 Al}{\insrsid14117264 (}{\i\insrsid14117264 e}{\insrsid14117264 )}{\i\insrsid14117264 sthorp}{\insrsid14117264 (}{\i\insrsid14117264 e}{\insrsid14117264 
). This place lay in Burley Ancient Parish. It had disappeared by the sixteenth century. It is marked at a point midway between Cottesmore and Burley on Speed's map of 1610 (from which the name-form is taken) and is placed at SK891124 by Beresford, }{
\i\insrsid14117264 Lost Villages}{\insrsid14117264  }{\i\insrsid14117264 of England}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 383, and at SK891123 by }{\i\insrsid14117264 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 247; see }{\i\insrsid14117264 Place-Names of Rutland}{
\insrsid14117264 , p. 11; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. pp. 131-32.
\par \tab \tab One carucate in }{\i\insrsid14117264 Alestorp }{\insrsid14117264 is}{\i\insrsid14117264  }{\insrsid14117264 held of the fee of Baldwin Wake by the Abbot of Bourne in }{\i\insrsid14117264 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid14117264 
, ii. p. 54; see also }{\i\insrsid14117264 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid14117264 , vi. p. 371. This suggests that Oger son of "Ungemar" is identical with Oger the Breton, Lord of Bourne in Lincolnshire (LIN 42,1-2): Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid14117264 
Domesday People}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 311. At the same time, the Nuneaton Priory held 1 carucate by the gift of Simon }{\i\insrsid14117264 de Aneseye}{\insrsid14117264 
. This is twice the assessment of Domesday 'Austhorp' and it is possible that, if it is not a re-rating, the 1 carucate actually lay in Burley (5,15 Burley note). See }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. p. 208; O
akham Survey Research Group, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Oakham Survey}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 35; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. pp. 131-32.
\par \tab \tab There is no duplicate entry for this estate in Lincolnshire.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab LEOFRIC. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid14117264 Leuric}{\insrsid14117264 (}{\i\insrsid14117264 us}{\insrsid14117264 ), }{\i\insrsid14117264 Leuuric}{\insrsid14117264 (}{\i\insrsid14117264 us}{\insrsid14117264 ), }{
\i\insrsid14117264 Leofricus}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Lefric}{\insrsid14117264 (}{\i\insrsid14117264 us}{\insrsid14117264 ), }{\i\insrsid14117264 Leofuriz}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Lefriz}{\insrsid14117264 
 etc. - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid14117264 Leofric}{\insrsid14117264 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid14117264 , pp. 313-15. The Alecto edition has Leofric.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab OGER. In the Landholders' List for }{\i\insrsid14117264 Rotelande}{\insrsid14117264  included at the end of the Landholders' List in Nottinghamshire on folio 280d }{\i\insrsid14117264 Ogerius}{\insrsid14117264 
 is entered in the fourth place. However, as the main scribe of Great Domesday had already written }{\i\insrsid14117264 IIII}{\insrsid14117264 
 in the margin beside the holding of Robert Malet (3,10 marginal note) he seems to have decided to abandon the practice, which in any case was of little use as 'Roteland' is arranged by wapentakes and hundreds, not by fiefs.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab MEADOW. Latin }{\i\insrsid14117264 ac}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 ra}{\insrsid14117264 ]}{\i\insrsid14117264 s}{\insrsid14117264  is accusative after }{\i\insrsid14117264 h}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 abe}{
\insrsid14117264 ]}{\i\insrsid14117264 t}{\insrsid14117264 .}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND. In the Phillimore printed edition, this phrase is translated as 'woodland pasture', as it is in the Alecto edition. However, this is to reverse the force of the Latin where }{\i\insrsid14117264 silua}{
\insrsid14117264  is a noun and }{\i\insrsid14117264 pastilis}{\insrsid14117264  an adjective. The main scribe of Great Domesday was here writing primarily about woodland, then adding details that described or defined it. This
 is evident where he noted different types of woodland as in HUN 20,8 where he recorded }{\i\insrsid14117264 silua pastilis }{\insrsid14117264 ... }{\i\insrsid14117264 7}{\insrsid14117264  }{\i\insrsid14117264 alia silua }{\insrsid14117264 
... ('pasturable woodland ... other woodland ... '): clearly the other woodland was not pasturable. This phrase is not a reference to th
e pannage of pigs, but essentially replaces the normal entry for woodland combining it with a mention of pasture (principally for the plough-oxen). In such cases, separate pasture is rarely mentioned. For a fuller discussion, see DBY 1,1 woodland note and
 for the related 'pasturable woodland in [various] places', see 1,5 woodland note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 5\tab [LAND OF GILBERT OF GHENT]. He held in chief in thirteen counties apart from here. He came from Ghent in Flanders and was son of Ralph, lord of Alost, near Ghent and Gisla.
 Gilbert married Alice, daughter of Hugh de Montfort, and had several children including Walter, his heir, Emma, who married Alan de Percy, and another daughter who married Ivo of Grandmesnil. Gilbert founded the monastery of Bardney (Lincolnshire) as a c
ell of Sainte-Foi of Conques. His estates descended through his heirs and formed the barony of Folkingham (Lincolnshire). See Sanders, }{\i\insrsid14117264 English Baronies}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 46; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Domesday People}{
\insrsid14117264 , p. 210.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday form of his name, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Gislebertus }{\insrsid14117264 (often abbreviated as }{\i\insrsid14117264 Gisleb't'}{\insrsid14117264 ), represents Old German }{\i\insrsid14117264 Gisilbert}{\insrsid14117264 , }{
\i\insrsid14117264 Gislebert}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Gillebert}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Gilbert}{\insrsid14117264 , Old French }{\i\insrsid14117264 Gislebert}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Gil}{\insrsid14117264 (
}{\i\insrsid14117264 l}{\insrsid14117264 )}{\i\insrsid14117264 ebert}{\insrsid14117264 : Forssner, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid14117264 , pp. 115-16. The Alecto edition has Gilbert.
\par \tab \tab In the Landholders' List for }{\i\insrsid14117264 Rotelande}{\insrsid14117264 
 included at the end of the Landholders' List in Nottinghamshire on folio 280d Gilbert of Ghent is entered in the fifth place. On the apparent decision by the main scribe of Great Domesday not to continue including fief numbers in the margin here, see
 4,14 Oger note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 5,15\tab [* ALSTOE WAPENTAKE, ['SOUTHERN' HUNDRED] *]. On this insertion, see 4,14 Alstoe note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab BURLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. The corresponding Lincolnshire entry (LIN 24,80) describes Geoffrey only as 'Gilbert's man': there was no need
 for 'of Ghent' as Gilbert of Ghent was the fief-holder. There are 7 not 8 smallholders and no mention that the woodland is pasturable. See \{Introduction: Duplicate Entries\}.
\par \tab \tab The manor descended in the barony of Ghent and was held under it by the }{\i\insrsid14117264 de Armenters}{\insrsid14117264 / }{\i\insrsid14117264 Ermenters}{\insrsid14117264  family (from Armenti\'e8res near Lille in Flanders). David }{
\i\insrsid14117264 de Armenters}{\insrsid14117264  gave a church at Burley to Nuneaton Priory 1174 x 1188; the nuns also held land said to be at 'Austhorp' but which perhaps actually lay in Burley (4,14 'Austhorp' note); see }{\i\insrsid14117264 
Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. pp. 204, 208; Oakham Survey Research Group, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Oakham Survey}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 35; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. pp. 113, 119.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab ULF [* FENMAN *]. The Domesday forms of his first name - }{\i\insrsid14117264 Vlf}{\insrsid14117264 (}{\i\insrsid14117264 us}{\insrsid14117264 ), }{\i\insrsid14117264 Olf}{\insrsid14117264 (}{\i\insrsid14117264 us}{
\insrsid14117264 ), }{\i\insrsid14117264 Wlf}{\insrsid14117264  etc. - represent Old Norse }{\i\insrsid14117264 Ulfr}{\insrsid14117264 , Old Danish }{\i\insrsid14117264 Ulf}{\insrsid14117264 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid14117264 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid14117264 , pp. 400-401. Ulfr appears in the Phillimore printed translations for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, but has been standardized now as Ulf. The Alecto edition has Ulf.
\par \tab \tab He is probably Ulf Fenman }{\i\insrsid14117264 (Fenisc)}{\insrsid14117264 ,}{\i\insrsid14117264  }{\insrsid14117264 
one of the predecessors of Gilbert of Ghent in Lincolnshire, Derbyshire and Huntingdonshire, though a plain Ulf was his predecessor in several other counties. Sometimes the main scribe of Great Domesday left a space after the name Ulf, probably for
 his byname; see NTT 17,1 Ulf note. According to Tengvik, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Old English Bynames}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 135, }{\i\insrsid14117264 fenisc}{\insrsid14117264  is Old Scandinavian }{\i\insrsid14117264 fjonski}{\f713\insrsid14117264 
 ('from Fjon' = F\'fbnen, a Danish island), quoting }{\i\insrsid14117264 EHR }{\insrsid14117264 25 (1910), p. 594 (a review by J\'f3n Stef\'e1nsson of }{\i\insrsid14117264 Nordische Personennamen in England in alt- und fr\'fchmittelenglischer Zeit}{
\insrsid14117264 ); Tengvik rejects derivation from Scandinavian }{\i\insrsid14117264 fe-niskr }{\insrsid14117264 ('niggard'). However, }{\i\insrsid14117264 fenisc}{\insrsid14117264 
 may be 'Fenish', 'from the Fens', though this may imply more than 'from the fens', possibly that he was an expert on water-flow or drainage.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab GEOFFREY [* OF AALST *]. This Geoffrey may have come from Aalst in Flanders (Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Domesday People}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 233) and may have been the ancestor of the }{\i\insrsid14117264 de Armenters}{
\insrsid14117264  family (see 5,15 Burley note) On the name Geoffrey, see 1,6 Geoffrey note..}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab MEADOW. Latin }{\i\insrsid14117264 ac}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 ra}{\insrsid14117264 ]}{\i\insrsid14117264 s}{\insrsid14117264  is accusative probably after }{\i\insrsid14117264 h}{\insrsid14117264 [}{
\i\insrsid14117264 abe}{\insrsid14117264 ]}{\i\insrsid14117264 t}{\insrsid14117264 , rather than after }{\i\insrsid14117264 h}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 abe}{\insrsid14117264 ]}{\i\insrsid14117264 ntes}{\insrsid14117264 
 (1,5 king note). The corresponding Lincolnshire entry (LIN 24,80) has }{\i\insrsid14117264 ac'}{\insrsid14117264  which would normally be extended to the nominative }{\i\insrsid14117264 acrae}{\insrsid14117264 .}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. See 1,5 woodland note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 6\tab [LAND OF EARL HUGH]. Hugh of Avranches, also known as Hugh the fat, was second Earl of Chester from }{\i\insrsid14117264 c}{\insrsid14117264 . 1071 to 1101 having succeeded William's first earl, Gherbod (left his earldom }{
\i\insrsid14117264 c}{\insrsid14117264 . 1071; died 1085). He 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.
\par \tab \tab In the Landholders' List for }{\i\insrsid14117264 Rotelande}{\insrsid14117264  included at the end of the Landholders' List in Nottinghamshire on folio 
280d Earl Hugh is entered in the sixth place. On the apparent decision by the main scribe of Great Domesday not to continue including fief numbers in the margin here, see 4,14 Oger note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 6,16\tab [* ALSTOE WAPENTAKE, ['SOUTHERN' HUNDRED] *]. On this insertion, see 4,14 Alstoe note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab ASHWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. The corresponding Lincolnshire entry (LIN 13,38) has 2, not 3, smallholders. See \{Introduction: Duplicate Entries\}.
\par \tab \tab The manor descended within the honour of Chester, and the subtenancy to the Tuschet family. Markeaton (DBY 4,1) held by Earl Hugh, also passed to the Tuschets; see }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. pp. 204, 208; Farrer, }{
\i\insrsid14117264 Honours and Knights' Fees}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 28; Oakham Survey Research Group, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Oakham Survey}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 35; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 108.}{\insrsid10430247 

\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab EARL HAROLD. Harold Godwinson. He was the second son of Earl Godwin and Countess Gytha. He was born }{\i\insrsid14117264 c}{\insrsid14117264 . 1020 and appointed Earl of East Anglia }{\i\insrsid14117264 c}{\insrsid14117264 
. 1044. In 1051 he fled with his younger brother Leofwin when his father and brothers Swein, Tosti and Gyrth were
 banished. The family was restored to power in 1052 and on his father's death in 1053, Harold relinquished his earldom of East Anglia and succeeded to his father's earldom of Wessex. The Earldom of Hereford was merged with that of Wessex under Harold on t
h
e death of Earl Ralph of Hereford in 1057. Harold married Ealdgyth, daughter of Earl Algar of Mercia. He succeeded Edward the Confessor as king of England on 6th January 1066 by decision of the royal council. On 25th September 1066 he defeated his brother
 
Earl Tosti who was in alliance with King Harold Hardrada of Norway at Stamford Bridge, but was killed at the battle of Hastings on 14th October of that year. The invader, William, Duke of Normandy, claimed that King Edward had promised him the crown of En
gland and that Harold himself had accepted him as future king during a visit to France. He is consistently called Earl Harold in Domesday.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of the name Harold - }{\i\insrsid14117264 Harold}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Haroldus}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Heraldus}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Herold}{\insrsid14117264 , }{
\i\insrsid14117264 Heroldus}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Horoldus}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Herolt}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Herould}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 us}{\insrsid14117264 ], }{
\i\insrsid14117264 Eroldus}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Eral}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Heral}{\insrsid14117264  - represent Old Danish }{\i\insrsid14117264 Harald}{\insrsid14117264 , Old Norse }{\i\insrsid14117264 Haraldr}{
\insrsid14117264 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid14117264 , pp. 284-86. As the name Harold has survived and as King/Earl Harold is known by this name-form, JRM preferred it; the Ale
cto edition also has Harold.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab JOCELYN [* OF TUSCHET *], EARL HUGH'S MAN. Earl Hugh appears to have had two different people called Jocelyn among his tenants: Jocelyn }{\i\insrsid14117264 Brito}{\insrsid14117264  (the Breton) and Jocelyn }{\i\insrsid14117264 
de Tuschet}{\insrsid14117264 . Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Domesday People}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 236, identifies the Jocelyn who holds from Earl Hugh in Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, Cheshire and 'Roteland' as Jocelyn }{\i\insrsid14117264 de}{
\insrsid14117264  }{\i\insrsid14117264 Tuschet}{\insrsid14117264 , which in this instance is very likely because of the descent of the manor: 6,16 Ashwell note.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\insrsid14117264 Gozelin}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 us}{\insrsid14117264 ], }{\i\insrsid14117264 Godzelinus}{\insrsid14117264 ,}{\i\insrsid14117264  Goscelinus}{\insrsid14117264 
 etc. - represent Old German }{\i\insrsid14117264 Gautselin}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Gauzlin}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Goz(e)lin}{\insrsid14117264 , Old French}{\i\insrsid14117264  Goscelin}{\insrsid14117264 , }{
\i\insrsid14117264 Gosselin}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Jocelin}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Joscelin}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Joselin}{\insrsid14117264  etc: Forssner, }{\i\insrsid14117264 
Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid14117264 , pp. 128-29. Jocelyn, which also derives from these names (Reaney, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\insrsid14117264 
), was chosen by JRM. The Alecto edition has Joscelin.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab MEADOW. Latin }{\i\insrsid14117264 ac}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 ra}{\insrsid14117264 ]}{\i\insrsid14117264 s}{\insrsid14117264  is accusative probably after }{\i\insrsid14117264 h}{\insrsid14117264 [}{
\i\insrsid14117264 abe}{\insrsid14117264 ]}{\i\insrsid14117264 t}{\insrsid14117264 , rather than after }{\i\insrsid14117264 h}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 abe}{\insrsid14117264 ]}{\i\insrsid14117264 ntes}{\insrsid14117264 
 (1,5 king note). The corresponding Lincolnshire entry (LIN 13,38) has }{\i\insrsid14117264 ac'}{\insrsid14117264  which would normally be extended to the nominative }{\i\insrsid14117264 acrae}{\insrsid14117264 .}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 1\tab [LAND OF THE KING]. Having finished entering lands in Alstoe Wapentake, the main scribe of Great Domesday turned to those in 'Martinsley' Wapentake.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab THE MAIN SCRIBE of Great Domesday did not repeat the vermilion }{\i\insrsid14117264 I}{\insrsid14117264  beside this continuation of the king's lands; see 4,14 Oger note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 1,17\tab 'MARTINSLEY' WAPENTAKE. This was the kernel of 'Roteland', held }{\i\insrsid14117264 T.R.E.}{\insrsid14117264  by Queen Edith as her dowry and by King William in 1086. See R2 and \{Introduction: History\}
. The numbering adopted by the Phillimore printed edition (R17-21) and here repeated (as 1,17-20. 7,21) obscures the fact that there are only three manors in this wapentake: Oakham (1,17-18), Hambleton (1,19) and Ridlington (1,20. 7,2
1). There was dependent land in Stamford (\{Introduction: Boroughs\}).}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab OAKHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It was held, like Hambleton and Ridlington (1,19-20) by Queen Edith in 1066 as part of her dowry of 'Roteland'}{\i\insrsid14117264  }{\insrsid14117264 (that is, probably, 'Martinsley' Wapent
ake), which her husband, King Edward, intended should pass at her death to Westminster Abbey. William I did not allow the grant to take full effect. Although Westminster had an interest in 1086 (1,17 jurisdiction note), and acquired more later, it never h
e
ld the whole manor. After 1086 the abbey gained a member, Barleythorpe, and the manor known as 'Deanshold' (presumably from the Deans of Westminster), possibly under William II, and by the sixteenth century it had the rectories of Langham, Egleton, Brooke
 and Barleythorpe (}{\i\insrsid14117264 Valor Ecclesiasticus}{\insrsid14117264 
, i. p. 416). However, the bulk of the 1086 estate was held by the Crown or a succession of laymen. It was granted, probably by William II, to Henry of Beaumont or his son Roger of Newburgh (successive Earls of Warwick
); see 1,6 Cottesmore note. In the mid-twelfth century, it was re-acquired by the king in exchange for Sutton Coldfield (Warwickshire), and then held of the Crown by the Ferrers family until forfeited in 1204. It was granted by King John to Isabella (sist
e
r of Henry of Ferrers) and her husband Roger of Mortimer for life in 1207, then by Henry III in 1252 to his brother Richard, Earl of Cornwall. Thereafter, it grew into a barony, a private borough and ultimately (from the fifteenth century) a soke, at firs
t a distinct part of 'Martinsley' Wapentake, then a jurisdiction of its own: Beresford and Finberg, }{\i\insrsid14117264 English Medieval Boroughs}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 149; and \{Introduction: Wapentakes and Hundreds\}.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab Thus the components of the 1086 manor of Oakham (1,17 outliers note) were d
ivided. The lordship land of this lay estate consisted of 'Lordshold' (in Oakham, contrasting with 'Deanshold', held by Westminster Abbey), Langham and Egleton; there were knight's fees in Oakham, Clipsham, Braunston, Pickworth, Belton and Wardley in 'Rot
e
land' and in Knossington, Thorpe Satchville and Twyford in Leicestershire. There were estates held in socage in Gunthorpe and Braunston. Some of these estates were not part of Oakham in 1086. Twyford (in Leicestershire) was part of the royal manor of Roth
l
ey (LEC 1,3) and there is no mention of a connection with 'Roteland', unlike Knossington (see 1,17 outliers note). Belton and Wardley were outliers of Ridlington (1,20) and Clipsham and Pickworth were perhaps originally part of Hambleton (1,19). A castle 
was built at Oakham (first evidenced in 1150: }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , i. p. 168), although King, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Castellarium Anglicanum}{\insrsid14117264 
, ii. pp. 416-17, regards it as fortified after 1075 under William I. The lay manor came to be the most important in Rutland, eclipsing Hambleton, w
hich may have been the original chief place. On the whole manor, see the Red Book of the Exchequer (Hall, ii. p. 805); }{\i\insrsid14117264 Book of Fees}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 1151; }{\i\insrsid14117264 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid14117264 
, ii. p. 49; Oakham Survey Research Group, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Oakham Survey}{\insrsid14117264 , pp. 6, 26-27, 33-34; }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. p. 207; }{\i\insrsid14117264 Valor Ecclesiasticus}{\insrsid14117264 
, i. pp. 416, 423; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. pp. 10-14; Harvey, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Westminster Abbey Estates}{\insrsid14117264 , pp. 356-57; Donnelly, 'Westminster Abbey's Oakham Manor'.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab WITH 5 OUTLIERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\f720\insrsid14117264 c\'fb}{\insrsid14117264  }{\i\insrsid14117264 .v.}{\insrsid14117264  }{\i\insrsid14117264 Bereuuitis}{\insrsid14117264 , possib
ly not at the time of writing the text beneath; see 1,17 jurisdiction note.
\par \tab \tab It is likely that four of the five outliers were:
\par \tab \tab Brooke (SK8405). It became part of the later lay manor, but was given by Hugh de Ferrers to the priory (later abbey) of Kenilworth: }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. p. 207; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{
\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 38.
\par \tab \tab Egleton (SK8707). This was also part of the later lay manor: }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. p. 207; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 45.
\par \tab \tab Gunthorpe (SK8605). This was another part of the later lay manor: }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. p. 207; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 17.
\par \tab \tab Langham (SK8411). This was a further part of the later lay manor: }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. p. 207; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 49.
\par \tab \tab All these places were chapelries of Oakham. The fifth outlier (}{\i\insrsid14117264 pace}{\insrsid14117264  }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 15) might well be Bar
leythorpe (SK8409), another chapelry of Oakham, or possibly Knossington in Leicestershire (LEC 1,11). Barleythorpe did not follow the descent of the other outliers but was held by Westminster Abbey (}{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 
, iv. p. 207). The name itself has nothing to do with barley and therefore with berewick, both words deriving from Old English }{\i\insrsid14117264 bere}{\insrsid14117264  ('barley', 'corn'). Thee first element is manorial, from John }{\i\insrsid14117264 
de Bolour}{\insrsid14117264  (who held }{\i\insrsid14117264 c}{\insrsid14117264 .1200) or his family: }{\i\insrsid14117264 Place-Names of Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , pp. 64-65. Three carucates in Knossington
 (LEC 1,11) 'belong to the jurisdiction of Oakham', probably meaning that they were a Jurisdiction (}{\i\insrsid14117264 soca}{\insrsid14117264 
) of Oakham, but the size sits uncomfortably with Oakham's total assessment of 4 carucates. Knossington is therefore probably a Jurisdiction of Oakham, 
perhaps an ancient one, rather than an outlier of it. Land there was still included in Rutland in the time of Edward III: }{\i\insrsid14117264 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. pp. 50-51.
\par \tab \tab On the possible relation of Oakham to Clipsham and Pickworth, see 1,19 Hambleton note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab CHURCH JU
RISDICTION. This refers to Oakham, not the 5 outliers: the interlination of the latter interrupts the sense. The exact meaning is unclear, but it appears to refer to an interest, here unspecified, that Westminster Abbey had in these three estates (1,17;19
-20). Edward the Confessor had intended the whole wapentake, conferred on Edith, his queen, to be granted to Westminster Abbey on her death. The Conqueror did not permit the grant to take full effect. According to }{\i\insrsid14117264 Rotuli Hundredorum}{
\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 52, the advowson
s of the churches of Oakham, Hambleton and Uppingham (part of Ridlington: 1,20) were in the hands of William I, though Westminster Abbey later acquired them. It may well have received unspecified dues in 1086, as later. See }{\i\insrsid14117264 
VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , i. p. 133, ii. p. 10;}{\cf1\insrsid14117264  Fleming, }{\i\cf1\insrsid14117264 Domesday Book and the Law}{\cf1\insrsid14117264 , p. 223 no. 1306; }{\insrsid14117264 and \{Introduction: History\}.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab QUEEN EDITH. She was the daughter of Godwin, Earl of Wessex and married King Edward the Confessor in 1045. 'Roteland' may have been her husband's gift as it was of earlie
r kings to their queens. When her father and brothers (Swein, Harold, Tosti, Gyrth and Leofwin) were oulawed 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\insrsid14117264 Anglo-Saxon Writs}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 559.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of her name - }{\i\insrsid14117264 Eddid}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Edid}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Eddied}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Ediet}{\insrsid14117264 , }{
\i\insrsid14117264 Edied}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Edded}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Edged}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Edit}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Eddiet}{\insrsid14117264 
 - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid14117264 Eadgyth}{\insrsid14117264 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid14117264 
, pp. 231-32. JRM preferred the modern name Edith, as does the Alecto edition (except for KEN D25, where it has Eadgyth, perhaps in error).
\par \tab \tab 'Roteland' (presumably meaning 'Martinsley' Wapentake), was her special possession and she held land and residences in Stamford (Lincolnshire) attached to it: LIN S9; see \{Introduction: Boroughs\}
. She also appears to have held Ketton and Barrowden in Witchley Wapentake (Northamptonshire) nearby (NTH 1,1-2): \{Introduction: History\}.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab 
2 PLOUGHS AT THE HALL. This apparently means the same as '2 ploughs in lordship', the hall being the administrative centre of the estate, where dues and geld were collected and justice dispensed and it would probably have been surrounded by some o
r all of the lordship land. The Alecto edition has '2 ploughs [belonging] to the hall'.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab ANOTHER 4 PLOUGHS POSSIBLE. See R2 ploughs note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab A PRIEST AND A CHURCH. This was a superior church (see \{Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\}), held by Albert t
he cleric (see 7,21), though he is probably not the 'priest' of this entry and his holding of land was separate (1,19 bovate note). On the advowson, see 1,17 jurisdiction note. It is likely that there were dependent chapels in the outliers of Langham, Egl
eton, Brooke and Gunthorpe: }{\i\insrsid14117264 Valor Ecclesiasticus}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. pp. 416, 423; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 14.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab 4 BOVATES. This is \'bd carucate. Albert has another 3 bovates attached to the churches of Hambleton (1,19) and St Peter of Stamford (7,21 St Peter note).}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND. See 4,14 woodland note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 1,18\tab THERE ALSO \'85 1 CARUCATE. Ostensibly this carucate is additional to the 4 carucates held by the king in Oakham (1,17), but this would ups
et the otherwise neat arrangement of 'Martinsley' Wapentake, consisting of 12 carucates composed of three manors of 4 carucates each (R2 carucates note). Although the marginal }{\i\insrsid14117264 M}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 anerium}{
\insrsid14117264 ] implies that this is a separate holding, it is likely that it is in e
rror and that this is a subholding of 1,17 and that Fulcher Malsor (who does not appear in the Landholders' List on folio 280d) held from the king. The main scribe of Great Domesday should thus have written }{\i\insrsid14117264 De terra huius manerii}{
\insrsid14117264  ('Of the land of this manor') as in 1,6, rather than }{\i\insrsid14117264 Ibidem}{\insrsid14117264 
. The inclusion of the extent of the whole of Oakham at the end of this entry also suggests that it was merely a subholding of the main manor: 1,18 manor note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab LEOFNOTH. The Domesday forms - }{\i\insrsid14117264 Leuenot}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Leuenod}{\insrsid14117264 , }{\i\insrsid14117264 Leueno}{\insrsid14117264  - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid14117264 Leofnoth}{
\insrsid14117264 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 313. The Alecto edition has Leofnoth.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the remaining third of the first line of this entry. The reason for this 
is unclear; in other counties the hundred or wapentake head occupied this place, but the gap cannot have been left for this here.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab FULCHER MALSOR. He appears to have been a Fleming or a Norman by origin. His nickname }{\i\insrsid14117264 mala op}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 er}{\insrsid14117264 ]}{\i\insrsid14117264 a}{\insrsid14117264 
 here (compare Adam son of Durand }{\i\insrsid14117264 malis operibus}{\insrsid14117264  in ESS 63) corresponds to Old French }{\i\insrsid14117264 malesoeuvres}{\insrsid14117264 
, ('bad works') though the significance is unclear. He was succeeded by his son Simon. His descendants named Milton Malsor (NTH 44,1a) and Thorpe Malsor (NTH 18,76). The latter was held
 by an undifferentiated Fulcher in 1086, who may have been the same as the present holder. See Tengvik, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Old English Bynames}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 349; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Domesday People}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 201.}{
\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his first name - }{\i\insrsid14117264 Fulcher}{\insrsid14117264 (}{\i\insrsid14117264 us}{\insrsid14117264 ), }{\i\insrsid14117264 Fulcher}{\insrsid14117264  - represent Old German }{\i\insrsid14117264 
Fulcher}{\insrsid14117264 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid14117264 
, p. 256. The Phillimore printed edition has the forms Fulcher and Fulchere; these have now been standardized as Fulcher. The Alecto edition has Fulcher.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab Farley misprinted }{\i\insrsid14117264 opa}{\insrsid14117264  for }{\i\insrsid14117264 op'a}{\insrsid14117264 : he failed to see the line through the descender of the }{\i\insrsid14117264 p}{\insrsid14117264  denoting }{
\i\insrsid14117264 er}{\insrsid14117264 .}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab 5 OXEN IN A PLOUGH. Three oxen were probably borrowed from elsewhere in Oakham (1,17) since the usual number of oxen to a plough-team is eight, but see CON 5,2,19 plough note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab [VALUE]. The main scribe of Great Domesday may have initially briefly omitted the value statement which lacks a verb and is partially interlined.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab THE WHOLE MANOR. This formula, applied to a whole vill or to a single manor where it forms the vill, is common in Little Domesday. In a territorially-arranged schedule, such as the }{\i\insrsid14117264 
Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis}{\insrsid14117264 , the arrangement is by hundreds and within them by vills. At the end of the details of each vill a dimension for the whole (usually }{\i\insrsid14117264 x}{\insrsid14117264  leagues by }{
\i\insrsid14117264 y}{\insrsid14117264  league
s) is given. In Little Domesday the dimensions appear, but nonsensically after only one estate or manor in the vill, since the estates that composed the vill have been divided among the various feudal schedules. 'Roteland' is arranged by wapentake, hundre
d and vill, but in Alstoe Wapentake these villar dimensions are absent. They are given for all three manors in 'Martinsley' Wapentake'.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 1,19\tab HAMBLETON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was held by Queen Edith in 1066 as part of her dowry of 'Roteland' (that i
s, presumably, 'Martinsley' Wapentake), to pass on her death to Westminster Abbey. Although the church, and its daughter in Stamford, passed to Westminster Abbey (1,19 churches note), William I did not allow the grant to take full effect. He or William II
 granted the central manor to William }{\i\insrsid14117264 Barba}{\insrsid14117264 , predecessor of the Umfraville family in which the manor and one of the outliers, Normanton, descended: the Red Book of the Exchequer (Hall, ii. p. 534); }{
\i\insrsid14117264 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 49; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. pp. 67-68.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab 
The main settlement was at 'Upper Hambleton', but there was also a 'Middle Hambleton' and a 'Nether Hambleton'; these last two are beneath the water of Empingham Reservoir, now called Rutland Water. Nether Hambleton was probably one of Hambleton's outlie
rs: }{\i\insrsid14117264 Place-Names of Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 179.
\par \tab \tab Hambleton had an important link with Stamford and contained the wapentake moot (which lay in Martinsthorpe, one of its outliers); it is possible that Hambleton was once the chief place in 'Martinsley' Wapentake and per
haps in a greater 'Roteland', though later displaced in importance by Oakham; see Phythian-Adams, 'Rutland Reconsidered', pp. 75-76; and \{Introduction: Manorial Organization\}. On a possible relation with Empingham, see }{\i\insrsid14117264 
Place-Names of Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 179; and 1,19 outliers note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab 7 OUTLIERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\f720\insrsid14117264 c\'fb}{\insrsid14117264  }{\i\insrsid14117264 .vii.}{\insrsid14117264  }{\i\insrsid14117264 Berew}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 itis}{
\insrsid14117264 ], possibly not at the time of writing the text beneath; see 1,17 jurisdiction note.
\par \tab \tab These outliers were probably at:
\par \tab \tab Braunston (SK8306), later attached to Oakham (1,17 Oakham note) and held by Walchelin }{\i\insrsid14117264 de Ferrers}{\insrsid14117264  in 1167: }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. pp. 206-207; }{\i\insrsid14117264 
VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 33.
\par \tab \tab Nether Hambleton (SK8906) identified by Phythian-Adams, 'Rutland Reconsidered', p. 80 note 17.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab Lyndon (SK9004), granted to the Earl of Warwick by William I or William II, subtenanted by the Montfort family: }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. p. 206; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{
\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 73. In }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. p. 207, it is associated with Uppingham and Wing (members of Ridlington, 1,20, itself held by the Earls of Warwick).
\par \tab \tab 
Manton (SK8804). This outlier was divided after 1086. Henry I gave half to the Abbey of Cluny together with Tixover in Northamptonshire, part of Ketton (NTH 1,1); the other half went to William Mauduit, the king's chamberlain, and was held by serj
eanty with Barrowden, South Luffenham and Morcott (all in Northamptonshire): }{\i\insrsid14117264 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. pp. 234, 254 nos. 1618, 1721; }{\i\insrsid14117264 Book of Fees}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 1151; }{
\i\insrsid14117264 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 49; }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. pp. 205, 207; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. pp. 77-79, 228.
\par \tab \tab Martinsthorpe (SK8604). This was held by the Montforts under the Earls of Warwick (see Lyndon above) and was apparently joined to their manor of Preston, having the same descent as Uppingham (both were outliers of Ridlington: 1,20): }{
\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. pp. 206-207; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 84.
\par \tab \tab Normanton (SK9306). This place was acquired with Hambleton by the Umfravilles and followed its descent: }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. pp. 206-207; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 
, ii. p. 86. The shape of the parish boundary strongly suggests that it was once a part of Edith Weston.
\par \tab \tab Edith Weston (SK9205) which preserves the name of the }{\i\insrsid14117264 T.R.E. }{\insrsid14117264 
holder Queen Edith. It was given by Henry I to his chamberlain, William de Tankerville (Tancarville), who himself gave it to the Abbey of St George de Boscherville which he founded in Normandy: }{\i\insrsid14117264 Book of Fees}{\insrsid14117264 
, p. 1151; }{\i\insrsid14117264 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 49; }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. p. 207; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , i. p. 163, ii. p. 362. As a western }{
\i\insrsid14117264 tun}{\insrsid14117264 , Edith Weston presumably related originally to the royal manor of Ketton (NTH 1,1) which
 has some significance for the development of the estate of Hambleton and for the history of Rutland; see Phythian-Adams, 'Rutland Reconsidered', p. 69; }{\i\insrsid14117264 Place-Names of Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 221; and \{Introduction: History\}.
}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab Market Overton is considered as a possible outlier in }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 
, pp. 68, 141-42, but it is separately mentioned in Great Domesday (2,7) and had no apparent connection with Hambleton at that date.
\par \tab \tab Detached from the body of the wapentake and probably belonging at first to Hambleton (though possibly to Oakham) were Clipsham (SK9616) and Pickworth (SK9913): }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 
, ii. p. 265. These may represent outlying, possibly woodland, resources. The woodland here assigned to Hambleton appears to be too large to be contained within the stated dimension
s of the manor. Alternatively this link may recall a time when the intervening parts of Alstoe Wapentake were also part of an estate based on Oakham-Hambleton-Ridlington. On Clipsham (held in the twelfth century by Ralph }{\i\insrsid14117264 de Fre}{
\insrsid14117264 (}{\i\insrsid14117264 s}{\insrsid14117264 )}{\i\insrsid14117264 ney}{\insrsid14117264  - also called }{\i\insrsid14117264 de Fra}{\insrsid14117264 (}{\i\insrsid14117264 i}{\insrsid14117264 )}{\i\insrsid14117264 sneto}{\insrsid14117264 
 and}{\i\insrsid14117264  de Fraxineto}{\insrsid14117264  - the holder of Belton: 1,20 outliers note), see }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. pp. 205, 207; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 
, ii. p. 42. On Pickworth, see }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. pp. 205, 207; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 265. See also \{Introduction: Manorial Organization\}. It is suggested by }{
\i\insrsid14117264 Place-Names of Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , p. xlviii, that Clipsham was detached as a source of iron-working for the whole of 'Martinsley' Wapentake.
\par \tab \tab In Northamptonshire, part of Empingham (NTH 46,5) held by Gilbert of Ghent and assessed at 7 \'bd hides and 1 bov
ate, is said to be 'of the king's Jurisdiction of 'Roteland' '. This may be an ancient connection pre-dating the break-up of a larger 'Roteland' or its creation, or it may be a more recent arrangement. The nearest royal holding to Empingham is Hambleton; 
see \{Introduction: History\}.
\par \tab \tab On the manor as a whole, see }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. p. 207; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. pp. 67-68; Phythian-Adams, 'Rutland Reconsidered', p. 80.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab CHURCH JURISDICTION. See 1,17 jurisdiction note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab QUEEN EDITH. See 1,17 queen note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab 3 CHURCHES. These are presumably one at Hambleton and one each at two of the outliers. One of these may have been at Manton for the advowson of a 'church' there was given to Richard, Earl of Cornwall by Henry III: }{
\i\insrsid14117264 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 52.
\par \tab \tab One at least of these churches, presumably at Hambleton itself, was superior for St Peter's Church in Stamford belonged to it, held by Albert the cleric; see 7,21; LIN S13; and \{Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\}
. On the advowson of Hambleton church, see 1,17 jurisdiction note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab WHERE. This correctly renders Latin }{\i\insrsid14117264 ubi}{\insrsid14117264 , but }{\i\insrsid14117264 ubi}{\insrsid14117264  itself, which is equivalent to }{\i\insrsid14117264 in quibus}{\insrsid14117264 
 ('in which') is awkward here. It is possible that the main scribe of Great Domesday intended to write }{\i\insrsid14117264 ubi ... sunt}{\insrsid14117264  ('where there are ... '), but changed his mind and used the verb }{\i\insrsid14117264 p}{
\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 er}{\insrsid14117264 ]}{\i\insrsid14117264 tin}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 ent}{\insrsid14117264 ] instead. The normal construction with the latter would be with }{\i\insrsid14117264 ad}{\insrsid14117264 
 ('to') and he should strictly have written }{\i\insrsid14117264 ad quas}{\insrsid14117264  if the lands were attached to the churches (}{\i\insrsid14117264 aecclesiae}{\insrsid14117264  is feminine), as in 1,17, or }{\i\insrsid14117264 ad quos}{
\insrsid14117264  if the lands belonged to the priests (}{\i\insrsid14117264 presbiteri}{\insrsid14117264 , masculine). The Alecto edition has 'to which'.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab 1 BOVATE AND 8 ACRES BELONG. Land (4 bovates) also belonged to the church at Oakham (1,17). These apparently straightforward statements are complicated by
 the entry at 7,21 where it is said that Albert the cleric has the churches of Oakham, Hambleton and St Peter of Stamford with the lands attached to them, 7 bovates. The entry for Oakham refers to 'a priest and a church' and that for Hambleton to '3 pries
ts and 3 churches'. It seems likely that Albert's lands, though belonging to the churches of Oakham, Hambleton and St Peter of Stamford, were separate from the lands held by the four priests. An entry in Lincolnshire (LIN S13) appears to assign to Albert 
\'bd carucate (4 bovates) and this may belong to the church of St Peter in Stamford; see 7,21 St Peter note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab FERTILE UNDERWOOD IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. The Latin is }{\i\insrsid14117264 silua minuta fertilis per loca}{\insrsid14117264 . }{\i\insrsid14117264 Silua minuta}{\insrsid14117264  is perhaps a spinney or wood for coppicing, contrastin
g with }{\i\insrsid14117264 silua}{\insrsid14117264  elsewhere in 'Roteland'. Latin }{\i\insrsid14117264 fertilis}{\insrsid14117264  is from the verb }{\i\insrsid14117264 fero}{\insrsid14117264 
, one of whose meanings is 'to produce, yield'. Here, however, the phrase }{\i\insrsid14117264 fertilis }{\insrsid14117264 appears to be a mere variant on }{\i\insrsid14117264 pastilis }{\insrsid14117264 
('pasturable': 4,14 woodland note): productive woodland can be grazed and grazing is only possible if the woodland is pasturable. The Alecto edition has 'bearing mast' for }{\i\insrsid14117264 fertilis}{\insrsid14117264 
, but beech-trees seem improbable in a }{\i\insrsid14117264 silua minuta}{\insrsid14117264  and if }{\i\insrsid14117264 fertilis}{\insrsid14117264  is a variant for }{\i\insrsid14117264 pastilis}{\insrsid14117264  the phrase concerns grass-grazing, not p
annage. On the phrase 'in [various] places', see 1,5 woodland note.
\par \tab \tab For the possibility that this large wood (almost too large to fit within the dimensions of the manor and crowding out a large arable area represented by the 45 ploughs at work, as well a
s the 40 acres of meadow) was detached at Clipsham and Pickworth, see 1,19 outliers note. In Pickworth is Turnpole wood (TF0013), probably containing Old English }{\i\insrsid14117264 thorn}{\insrsid14117264  ('thornbush'); see }{\i\insrsid14117264 
Place-Names of Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 158. Thorns were a valuable resource, and it may be that it was being exploited by the three royal manors of 'Martinsley' Wapentake.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab THE WHOLE MANOR. See 1,18 manor note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 1,20\tab RIDLINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was held, like Oakham and Hambleton, by Q
ueen Edith in 1066 as part of her dowry of 'Roteland' (that is, presumably, 'Martinsley' Wapentake), to pass on her death to Westminster Abbey. William I did not allow the grant to take full effect. He or his successor (William II) granted the main manor 
and four outliers to Henry of Beaumont, Earl of Warwick (1089-1119). The estate passed to Henry's son, Robert of Newburgh, also Earl of Warwick (1119-1153). Their subtenants were the Montforts: }{\i\insrsid14117264 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid14117264 
, ii. p. 49; }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. p. 206; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 92.
\par \tab \tab In the Alecto facsimile the }{\i\insrsid14117264 IN}{\insrsid14117264  of }{\i\insrsid14117264 REDLINCTVNE}{\insrsid14117264  resembles a }{\i\insrsid14117264 UI}{\insrsid14117264 ; see 1,6 Cottesmore note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab 7 OUTLIERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\f720\insrsid14117264 c\'fb}{\insrsid14117264  }{\i\insrsid14117264 .vii.}{\insrsid14117264  }{\i\insrsid14117264 Berew}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 itis}{
\insrsid14117264 ], possibly not at the time of writing the text beneath; see 1,17 jurisdiction note.
\par \tab \tab These outliers were probably at:
\par \tab \tab Ayston (SK8600) which was granted with the main manor to Henry of Beaumont, and, like it, was held by the Earls of Warwick: }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. pp. 206-207; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 
, ii. p. 59. Although Ayston will probably have been held by Queen Edith or by her predecessor, Aethelred's queen, as part of Ridlington, King Edward granted 3 }{\i\insrsid14117264 cassati}{\insrsid14117264 
 here (presumably for life with reversion to the queen) to his minister Aethelstan (who probably named the estate: }{\i\insrsid14117264 Place-Names of Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 171) in 1046 (}{\i\insrsid14117264 Early Charters of Eastern England}{
\insrsid14117264 , p. 108 no. 161 = Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid14117264 , no. 1014). The grant appears to be genuine and is significant since the 3 }{\i\insrsid14117264 cassati}{\insrsid14117264 
 seem to represent a hidation that was effaced by a systematic carucation after this date and before 1066; see \{Introduction: Carucation\}.
\par \tab \tab Belton (SK8101). This was held from the manor of Oakham (1,17) by the twelfth century, by Ralph }{\i\insrsid14117264 de Fre}{\insrsid14117264 (}{\i\insrsid14117264 s}{\insrsid14117264 )}{\i\insrsid14117264 ney}{\insrsid14117264  (also called de 
}{\i\insrsid14117264 Fra}{\insrsid14117264 (}{\i\insrsid14117264 i}{\insrsid14117264 )}{\i\insrsid14117264 sneto}{\insrsid14117264  and}{\i\insrsid14117264  de Fraxineto}{\insrsid14117264 ), who also held Clipsham (1,19 outliers note): }{
\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. p. 206; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 28.
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid10430247 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab 
Leigh (SK8204). This is now represented by Leigh Lodge and the Civil Parish of Leighfield created in 1858 from an extra-parochial area (Youngs, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 375). By
 the fifteenth century the forest of Rutland had shrunk to become Leighfield Forest, named from this manor: }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. p. 207; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 
, i. pp. 251-56, ii. pp. 15-16; Cantor, 'Medieval Hunting Grounds of Rutland', p. 16.
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid10430247 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab Preston (SK8702). This w
as granted with the main manor to Henry of Beaumont and, like it, subtenanted by the Montfort family. Preston grew into a manor with members drawn from Ridlington (Uppingham, Wing) and Hambleton (Lyndon, Martinsthorpe): }{\i\insrsid14117264 
Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 49; }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. pp. 205, 207; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 88.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab Uppingham (SK8699). This was granted with Ridlington itself to Henry of Beaumont, Earl of Warwick, and descended with it, likewise tenanted by the Montforts: }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. p. 207; }{
\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 96.
\par \tab \tab Wardley (SK8300). This was later attached to the barony of Oakham: }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. p. 207; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 53.
\par \tab \tab Wing (SK8903). This was granted to Henry of Beaumont with the main manor and later merged with Preston. In the twelfth century part o
f the manor was given to Thorney Abbey (Cambridgeshire) and part to the priory of St Neots (Huntingdonshire); see }{\i\insrsid14117264 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid14117264 , iv. pp. 206-207; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 104.
\par \tab \tab On the manor as a whole, see }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , ii. p. 92.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab CHURCH JURISDICTION. See 1,17 jurisdiction note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab QUEEN EDITH. See 1,17 queen note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab 3 CHURCHES. These were probably at Uppingham, Wardley and Belton, all to the south of Ridlington. These feature in a notification of William I that he has given the churches of these three places 'to St
 Peter and the monks of Westminster', with all their liberties and appurtenances as in the time of King Edward: Bates, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid14117264 , no. 335 pp. 971-72 (= }{\i\insrsid14117264 
Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid14117264 . i. no. 275 p. 72); see }{\i\insrsid14117264 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid14117264 , i. p. 301 no. xlii; }{\i\insrsid14117264 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , i. p. 133, ii. pp. 56, 91, 101; Mason, }{
\i\insrsid14117264 Westminster Abbey Charters}{\insrsid14117264 , pp. 163-65; Mason, 'Westminster Abbey's Rutland Estates'; Harvey, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Westminster Abbey Estates}{\insrsid14117264 
, p. 404. The document itself is a forgery, but may well contain authentic material. On the advowson of Uppingham church, see 1,17 jurisdiction note. Preston is 'the }{\i\insrsid14117264 tun }{\insrsid14117264 of the priests' (}{\i\insrsid14117264 
Place-Names of Rutland}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 204).
\par \tab \tab Of these churches, Uppingham was certainly important later (1,17 jurisdiction note). In the }{\i\insrsid14117264 Taxatio Ecclesiastica}{\insrsid14117264  of 1291 (p. 66) the Church of Uppingham is worth \'a328 and has }{\i\insrsid14117264 
portiones}{\insrsid14117264  ('payments') from Wing, Ridlington, Preston Leigh, Bisbrooke and Martinsthorpe. Of these, Bisbrooke was a part of Barrowden in Northamptonshire (NTH 1,2e) in 1086 and p
erhaps is a further example of the intimate connection between Oakham-Hambleton-Ridlington and Barrowden-Ketton.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab The Abbot of Westminster also had a payment (}{\i\insrsid14117264 pensio}{\insrsid14117264 ) for Uppingham rated at \'a32 (see }{\i\insrsid14117264 Valor Ecclesiasticus}{\insrsid14117264 , i. p. 414). A church of Wardley and
 Belton is separately named, as is a church at Ridlington.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab 2 MILL-SITES. The Latin is }{\i\insrsid14117264 ii. sed}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 es}{\insrsid14117264 ]}{\i\insrsid14117264  molin}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 orum}{\insrsid14117264 
] and this unusual detail explains why no value is given, though the mill in Greetham (1,5) has no value recorded for it.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. See 1,5 woodland note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab THE WHOLE MANOR. See 1,18 manor note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid10430247 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid14117264 7\tab 
[LAND OF ALBERT THE CLERIC]. He was also known as Albert of Lorraine and Albert the chaplain. Like Bishop Giso of Wells and others he was a Lotharingia
n (Lorrainer) recruited for the English church by Edward the Confessor. He served that king and his successor, William I, as chaplain. In Domesday he is both a tenant-in-chief and subtenant. His Bedfordshire fief (BDF 49) passed to the barony of Beauchamp
,
 but the undertenants were surnamed Loereng, Lohareng or Loring, which suggests that they were Albert's descendants. Albert appears to have died between 1086 and 1096; possibly between 1086 and 1087, that is, after the Domesday Survey but before the death
 of William I if the writ of 'King William' granting Westminster Abbey 'the churches of 'Roteland' and the lands belonging to those churches as Albert the Lotharingian had them' (Bates, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{
\insrsid14117264 , no. 336 p. 973) is related to a writ granting 'the tithe' of 'Roteland' to Westminster Abbey (Bates, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid14117264 
, no. 334 p. 970) which is definitely a writ of William I. See Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Domesday People}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 133.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab The Domesday form of his name, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Albertus}{\insrsid14117264  (regularly abbreviated to }{\i\insrsid14117264 Alb}{\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 er}{\insrsid14117264 ]}{\i\insrsid14117264 t}{
\insrsid14117264 [}{\i\insrsid14117264 us}{\insrsid14117264 ]) represents Old German }{\i\insrsid14117264 Albert}{\insrsid14117264 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid14117264 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid14117264 , p. 143; Forssner, }{
\i\insrsid14117264 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid14117264 , pp. 19-20.
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid10430247 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid14117264 \tab \tab In the Landholders' List for }{\i\insrsid14117264 
Rotelande}{\insrsid14117264  included at the end of the
 Landholders' List in Nottinghamshire on folio 280d Albert the cleric is entered in the seventh place. On the apparent decision by the main scribe of Great Domesday not to continue including fief numbers in the margin here, see 4,14 Oger note.
\par \tab \tab Although t
he scribe had included Albert the cleric as a landholder in the List, it appears that Albert's holding of 1 bovate was part of the manor of Ridlington (1,20), so he did not hold in chief but as a subtenant of the king. The rest of the entry records his ho
lding from the king of three churches and lands attached to them.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 7,21\tab IN THE AFORESAID LAND. Latin }{\i\insrsid14117264 terra}{\insrsid14117264  is singular, so must refer to Ridlington only. The main scribe of Great Domesday could have written }{\i\insrsid14117264 
De terra huius/eiusdem/predicti manerii}{\insrsid14117264  ('Of the land of this/the same/the aforesaid manor'); see RUT 7 Albert note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid10430247 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid14117264 \tab CHURCH OF OAKHAM \'85
 STAMFORD. Albert did not, apparently, hold the church or churches of Ridlington (which were actually at Uppingham, Belton and Wardley). For the record of a grant by Willi
am I to Westminster Abbey of churches in 'Roteland' with attached lands 'as Albert of Lorraine held them', see \{Introduction: History\}.
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid10430247 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid14117264 \tab 
ST PETER OF STAMFORD. LIN S13 states 'Albert [has?] 1 church, St Peter's [of Stamford], with 2 messuages and \'bd carucate
 of land which lies in 'Roteland', in Hambleton'. The messuages mentioned there were clearly in Stamford, but Domesday clearly says that the \'bd carucate lay in Hambleton - the Latin }{\i\insrsid14117264 quae}{\insrsid14117264  refers to }{
\i\insrsid14117264 terra}{\insrsid14117264  ('land') - which is where the present entry says he held land. 'Lies in' (}{\i\insrsid14117264 iacet in}{\insrsid14117264 ) gives the actual location and is not the same as }{\i\insrsid14117264 iacet ad}{
\insrsid14117264  ('is an adjunct of') which does not. However, there is some difficulty in reconciling the figures for the amount of land that he and the priests held: 1,19 bovate note and 7,21 bovates note.
\par \tab \tab St Peter's was probably the oldest church of the borough of Stamford, but it was a daughter church of Hambleton. The connection between Stamford and Hambleton (which may be part of a larger relationship between the borough and 'Mar
tinsley' Wapentake, or 'Roteland') may well have been ancient; see \{Introduction: History\}
\par \tab \tab On Stamford, see \{Introduction: Boroughs\}.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab THE LANDS ATTACHED TO THESE CHURCHES. The Latin }{\i\f713\insrsid14117264 eisdem \'eacclesiis}{\insrsid14117264  is in the dative case, as expected after the verb }{\i\insrsid14117264 adiacere}{\insrsid14117264 
 ('to belong to'). In the Phillimore printed edition it was mistranslated as 'the attached lands of these churches', as if the Latin were }{\i\f713\insrsid14117264 earumdem \'eacclesiarum}{\insrsid14117264 
 (genitive), though the meaning is essentially the same.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab 7 BOVATES. It would appear that these are separate from the 4 bovates belonging to the church at Oakham in 1,17 and the 1 bovate and 8 acres belonging to Hambleton in 1,19; see 1,19 bovate note and 7,21 St Peter note.}{
\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab 8 PLOUGHS POSSIBLE. See R2 ploughs note.}{\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the scribe left blank the remainder of folio 294: only the first nine lines had been used, but the whole folio had been ruled, as had folio 295, similarly left blank; see \{Introduction: Writing\}.}{
\insrsid10430247 
\par }{\insrsid14117264 
\par }}