{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f1\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Arial;}{\f2\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 02070309020205020404}Courier New;}{\f3\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05050102010706020507}Symbol;}
{\f4\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Helvetica;}{\f5\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 02070409020205020404}Courier{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f6\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603040505020304}Tms Rmn;}
{\f7\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202030204}Helv;}{\f8\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040503060506020304}New York;}{\f9\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}System;}
{\f10\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Wingdings;}{\f11\fmodern\fcharset128\fprq1{\*\panose 02020609040205080304}MS Mincho{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};}
{\f12\froman\fcharset129\fprq2{\*\panose 02030600000101010101}Batang{\*\falt \'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcEcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};}
{\f13\fnil\fcharset134\fprq2{\*\panose 02010600030101010101}SimSun{\*\falt ????????????\'a8\'ac??????};}{\f14\fnil\fcharset136\fprq2{\*\panose 02010601000101010101}PMingLiU{\*\falt !Ps2OcuAe};}
{\f15\fmodern\fcharset128\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0609070205080204}MS Gothic{\*\falt MS Mincho};}
{\f16\fmodern\fcharset129\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0600000101010101}Dotum{\*\falt \'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcEcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};}
{\f17\fmodern\fcharset134\fprq1{\*\panose 02010600030101010101}SimHei{\*\falt o?????????????????????\'a1\'ec????????};}{\f18\fmodern\fcharset136\fprq1{\*\panose 02010609000101010101}MingLiU{\*\falt 2OcuAe};}
{\f19\froman\fcharset128\fprq1{\*\panose 02020609040305080305}Mincho{\*\falt ??\'81\'66c};}
{\f20\froman\fcharset129\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0600000101010101}Gulim{\*\falt \'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};}
{\f21\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040604050505020304}Century;}{\f22\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Angsana New;}{\f23\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0304020202020204}Cordia New;}
{\f24\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Mangal;}{\f25\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Latha;}{\f26\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 010a0502050306030303}Sylfaen;}
{\f27\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 01010600010101010101}Vrinda;}{\f28\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Raavi;}{\f29\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Shruti;}
{\f30\froman\fcharset1\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Sendnya;}{\f31\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Gautami;}{\f32\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Tunga;}
{\f33\froman\fcharset1\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Estrangella Edessa;}{\f34\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Arial Unicode MS;}{\f35\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}Tahoma;}
{\f36\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DejaVu Sans;}{\f37\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f38\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Marlett;}
{\f39\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Lucida Console;}{\f40\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana;}{\f41\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial Black;}
{\f42\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Comic Sans MS;}{\f43\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Impact;}{\f44\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Georgia;}
{\f45\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Medium;}{\f46\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Palatino Linotype;}{\f47\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Trebuchet MS;}
{\f48\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Webdings;}{\f49\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2 Estrangelo Edessa;}{\f50\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2 MV Boli;}{\f51\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Microsoft Sans Serif;}
{\f52\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Alba;}{\f53\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Alba Matter;}{\f54\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Alba Super;}
{\f55\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Baby Kruffy;}{\f56\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Chick;}{\f57\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Croobie;}
{\f58\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Fat;}{\f59\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Freshbot;}{\f60\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Frosty;}
{\f61\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}GlooGun;}{\f62\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Jenkins v2.0;}{\f63\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Jokewood;}
{\f64\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Poornut;}{\f65\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Porky's;}{\f66\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Pussycat;}
{\f67\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Weltron Urban;}{\f68\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Mistral;}{\f69\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Lucida Sans Unicode;}
{\f70\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Blackadder ITC;}{\f71\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Bradley Hand ITC;}{\f72\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Copperplate Gothic Bold;}
{\f73\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Copperplate Gothic Light;}{\f74\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Curlz MT;}{\f75\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Edwardian Script ITC;}
{\f76\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Engravers MT;}{\f77\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eras Demi ITC;}{\f78\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eras Light ITC;}
{\f79\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostile;}{\f80\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Felix Titling;}{\f81\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Book;}
{\f82\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Demi;}{\f83\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Medium Cond;}{\f84\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}French Script MT;}
{\f85\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Century Gothic;}{\f86\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Kristen ITC;}{\f87\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Lucida Sans;}
{\f88\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Maiandra GD;}{\f89\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Matisse ITC;}{\f90\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Papyrus;}
{\f91\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Perpetua;}{\f92\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Rockwell Extra Bold;}{\f93\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Tempus Sans ITC;}
{\f94\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Vivaldi;}{\f95\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Wingdings 2;}{\f96\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Wingdings 3;}
{\f97\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@Arial Unicode MS;}{\f98\froman\fcharset129\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@Batang;}{\f99\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Book Antiqua;}
{\f100\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Bookman Old Style;}{\f101\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Garamond;}{\f102\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Haettenschweiler;}
{\f103\fmodern\fcharset128\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Mincho;}{\f104\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Outlook;}{\f105\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Monotype Corsiva;}
{\f106\fnil\fcharset134\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@SimSun;}{\f107\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New Roman Special G2;}{\f108\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial Narrow;}
{\f109\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial Special G2;}{\f110\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial Special G1;}{\f111\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial Narrow Special G1;}
{\f112\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial Narrow Special G2;}{\f113\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New Roman Special G1;}{\f114\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Kartika;}
{\f115\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Albertus Medium;}{\f116\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Albertus;}{\f117\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Albertus Extra Bold;}
{\f118\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}ITC Avant Garde Gothic;}{\f119\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}ITC Avant Garde Gothic Demi;}{\f120\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}ITC Bookman Light;}
{\f121\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}ITC Bookman Demi;}{\f122\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CG Omega;}{\f123\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CG Times;}
{\f124\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}ITC Zapf Chancery;}{\f125\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Clarendon;}{\f126\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Clarendon Condensed;}
{\f127\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Clarendon Extended;}{\f128\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Coronet;}{\f129\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CourierPS;}
{\f130\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}ITC Zapf Dingbats;}{\f131\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Helvetica Narrow;}{\f132\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Letter Gothic;}
{\f133\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Marigold;}{\f134\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}New Century Schoolbook;}{\f135\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antique Olive;}
{\f136\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antique Olive Compact;}{\f137\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Palatino{\*\falt Book Antiqua};}{\f138\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}SymbolPS;}
{\f139\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Univers;}{\f140\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Univers Condensed;}{\f141\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MT Extra;}
{\f142\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}???????????????????????????????;}{\f143\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f144\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Microsoft Sans Serif (Vietnames;}{\f145\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Gre;}
{\f146\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Bal;}{\f147\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}ITC Avant Garde Gothic Demi Bal;}
{\f148\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}MS Reference Sans Serif;}{\f149\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000500000000000000}MS Reference Specialty;}{\f150\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05010101010101010101}Bookshelf Symbol 7;}
{\f151\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0504020104020203}Andale Mono IPA;}{\f152\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040502050405020303}MS Reference Serif;}{\f153\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}Verdana Ref;}
{\f154\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040502050405020303}Georgia Ref;}{\f155\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}MS Reference 1;}{\f156\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference 2;}
{\f157\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 02000500000000000000}RefSpecialty;}{\f158\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0506030101010103}Abadi MT Condensed;}{\f159\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0a06030101010103}Abadi MT Condensed Extra Bold;}
{\f160\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0306030101010103}Abadi MT Condensed Light;}{\f161\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0503020202020204}Agency FB;}{\f162\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020705040a02060702}Algerian;}
{\f163\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03080602030302030203}Andy;}{\f164\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020f0704030504030204}Arial Rounded MT Bold;}{\f165\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020602080505020303}Baskerville Old Face;}
{\f166\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04030905020b02020c02}Bauhaus 93;}{\f167\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040a05050d02020502}Beesknees ITC;}{\f168\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02050806060905020404}Bernard MT Condensed;}
{\f169\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030202020406070a0903}Bickley Script;}{\f170\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04030b070d0b02020403}Braggadocio;}{\f171\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0903060703020204}Britannic Bold;}
{\f172\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040905080b02020502}Broadway;}{\f173\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060802040406070304}Brush Script MT;}{\f174\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040603050505030304}Calisto MT;}
{\f175\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020a0402060406010301}Castellar;}{\f176\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020404031007020602}Chiller;}{\f177\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 0208090404030b020404}Cooper Black;}
{\f178\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020505060803040902}Edda;}{\f179\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020904090505020303}Elephant;}{\f180\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04030405020f02020502}Enviro;}
{\f181\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060602040506080206}Fine Hand;}{\f182\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030804020302050b0404}Freestyle Script;}{\f183\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040504061007020d02}Gigi;}
{\f184\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0502020104020203}Gill Sans MT;}{\f185\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0506020104020203}Gill Sans MT Condensed;}{\f186\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0a02020104020203}Gill Sans Ultra Bold;}
{\f187\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020502050305020303}Goudy Old Style;}{\f188\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 0202090407030b020401}Goudy Stout;}{\f189\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04030604020f02020d02}Harlow Solid Italic;}
{\f190\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040505050a02020702}Harrington;}{\f191\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020605060303030202}Imprint MT Shadow;}{\f192\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030604020304060b0204}Informal Roman;}
{\f193\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04090605060d06020702}Jokerman;}{\f194\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040403040a02020202}Juice ITC;}{\f195\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 040307050d0c02020703}Kino MT;}
{\f196\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030304020206070d0d06}Kunstler Script;}{\f197\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020a0a07050505020404}Wide Latin;}{\f198\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03010101010101010101}Lucida Calligraphy;}
{\f199\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03010101010101010101}Lucida Handwriting;}{\f200\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03020802060602070202}Matura MT Script Capitals;}{\f201\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02070704070505020303}Modern No. 20;}
{\f202\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0609020202020204}OCRB;}{\f203\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03040902040508030806}Old English Text MT;}{\f204\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04050602080702020203}Onyx;}
{\f205\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030303020206070c0b05}Palace Script MT;}{\f206\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03080702040402020b04}Parade;}{\f207\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03040602040708040804}Parchment;}
{\f208\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060402040502070804}Pepita MT;}{\f209\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020502060505020804}Perpetua Titling MT;}{\f210\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0606030402050204}Placard Condensed;}
{\f211\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 040506030a0602020202}Playbill;}{\f212\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02080502050505020702}Poor Richard;}{\f213\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060402040406080204}Pristina;}
{\f214\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03070502040507070304}Rage Italic;}{\f215\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02060603020205020403}Rockwell;}{\f216\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020a0606050403050204}Runic MT Condensed;}
{\f217\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03040602040607080904}Script MT Bold;}{\f218\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040a07060a02020202}Snap ITC;}{\f219\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03070502030502020203}Viner Hand ITC;}
{\f220\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03050402040407070305}Vladimir Script;}{\f221\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}normal verdana;}{\f222\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}IAGB5 Symbol;}
{\f223\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0706030402020204}Franklin Gothic Demi Cond;}{\f224\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0903020102020204}Franklin Gothic Heavy;}{\f225\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02010509020102010303}OCR A Extended;}
{\f226\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03020802040602020201}American Uncial;}{\f227\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04060505051002080904}Augsburger Initials;}{\f228\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020505020e03040504}Desdemona;}
{\f229\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060902040502070203}Forte;}{\f230\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03080302020302020206}Gradl;}{\f231\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 01010101010101010101}Mercurius Script MT Bold;}
{\f232\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 01010601010101010101}Monotype Sorts;}{\f233\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05020102010208020808}Monotype Sorts 2;}{\f234\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 040c0101020201010102}Ransom;}
{\f235\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 040409050d0802020404}Stencil;}{\f236\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04030805020b02020404}Stop;}{\f237\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020503060305020303}Bell MT;}
{\f238\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 0207040306080b030204}Californian FB;}{\f239\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 0204060206030a020304}Footlight MT Light;}{\f240\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040502050506030303}High Tower Text;}
{\f241\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040805050809020602}Ravie;}{\f242\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020904020102020604}Showcard Gothic;}{\f243\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0604020202020204}Bookshelf Symbol 1;}
{\f244\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05050102010706020507}Bookshelf Symbol 3;}{\f245\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0604020202020204}Bookshelf Symbol 4;}{\f246\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05010101010101010101}Bookshelf Symbol 5;}
{\f247\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Demi Cond CE;}{\f248\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Demi Cond Cyr;}
{\f249\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Demi Cond Greek;}{\f250\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Demi Cond Tur;}
{\f251\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Demi Cond Balti;}{\f252\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Heavy CE;}
{\f253\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Heavy Cyr;}{\f254\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Heavy Greek;}
{\f255\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Heavy Tur;}{\f256\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Heavy Baltic;}
{\f257\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Sans Serif (Vietna;}{\f258\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BR-01T;}{\f259\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BR-05B;}
{\f260\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Brougham;}{\f261\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BR-11U;}{\f262\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Albertville;}
{\f263\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Albertville Extrabold;}{\f264\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antique Oakland;}{\f265\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BR Symbol;}
{\f266\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}PC Brussels Demi;}{\f267\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}PC Brussels Light;}{\f268\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Cleveland Condensed;}
{\f269\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Conneticut;}{\f270\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Guatemala Antique;}{\f271\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Helsinki;}
{\f272\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Maryland;}{\f273\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Oklahoma;}{\f274\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}PC Tennessee Roman;}
{\f275\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Tennessee Roman;}{\f276\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Utah;}{\f277\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Utah Condensed;}
{\f278\fdecor\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}W Dingbats;}{\f279\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Courier (W1);}{\f280\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000702030000020004}Twentieth Century Poster1;}
{\f281\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04010502060101010303}Creepy;}{\f282\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020c0804040000000001}EraserDust;}{\f283\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 01010101010101010101}Figaro MT;}
{\f284\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 01010101010101010101}KidTYPEPaint;}{\f285\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03010101010101010101}Mistral AV;}{\f286\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0904020202020204}Plump MT;}
{\f287\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000509000000000005}Space Toaster;}{\f288\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000800000000000004}Team MT;}{\f289\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0504020203020204}News Gothic MT;}
{\f290\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040506030f02020702}Westminster;}{\f291\fmodern\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0809000000000003}Arial Alternative;}{\f292\fmodern\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0809000000000003}Arial Alternative Symbol;}
{\f293\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0606020104020203}Tw Cen MT Condensed;}{\f294\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0803020000000004}Tw Cen MT Condensed Extra Bold;}{\f295\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0509000000000004}Andale Mono;}
{\f296\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Uncial ATT;}{\f297\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Tw Cen MT Condensed Extra Bold ;}{\f298\fnil\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Uncial ATT CE;}
{\f299\fnil\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Uncial ATT Tur;}{\f300\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1){\*\falt Arial};}{\f301\fnil\fcharset255\fprq3{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Roman;}
{\f302\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) CE;}{\f303\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) Cyr;}{\f304\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) Greek;}
{\f305\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) Tur;}{\f306\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) (Hebrew);}{\f307\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) (Arabic);}
{\f308\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) Baltic;}{\f309\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) (Vietnamese);}
{\f310\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f311\froman\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f312\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f313\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f314\froman\fcharset177\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f315\froman\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f316\froman\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f317\froman\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f318\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0402020202020204}AvantGarde Bk BT;}{\f319\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04030205020b02020502}BernhardFashion BT;}{\f320\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Boink LET;}
{\f321\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02050604050505020204}BookmanITC Lt BT;}{\f322\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060802040406070304}BrushScript BT;}{\f323\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0904040702060204}Compacta Blk BT;}
{\f324\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0508030702060204}Compacta Lt BT;}{\f325\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 0208060305030b020404}Cooper Md BT;}{\f326\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0605020203020404}CopprplGoth BT;}
{\f327\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 0204050203030b020204}Dauphin;}{\f328\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060902030202020203}DomBold BT;}{\f329\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060902030302020204}DomCasual BT;}
{\f330\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030306020406070f0b05}English111 Presto BT;}{\f331\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03030702030607090b03}English111 Vivace BT;}{\f332\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040805071002020d02}FlamencoD;}
{\f333\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0806020204020204}Futura XBlkCn BT;}{\f334\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0602020204020303}Futura Md BT;}{\f335\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0506020204030204}Humanst521 Cn BT;}
{\f336\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03050502040202020203}Kids;}{\f337\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020602070506020304}NewBskvll BT;}{\f338\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03030602040405080b03}Nuptial BT;}
{\f339\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Scruff LET;}{\f340\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03050502040202020b03}Technical;}{\f341\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020f0702020204020204}VAGRounded BT;}
{\f342\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03010101010101010101}VivaldiD;}{\f343\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Animals 1;}{\f344\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Animals 2;}
{\f345\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Arrows2;}{\f346\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Balloons;}{\f347\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Buildings;}
{\f348\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}CommonBullets;}{\f349\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Computers;}{\f350\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}DF Calligraphic Ornaments LET;}
{\f351\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}DF Diversions LET;}{\f352\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}DF Diversities LET;}{\f353\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Festive;}
{\f354\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Food;}{\f355\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Household;}{\f356\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Hygiene;}
{\f357\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Kidnap;}{\f358\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Music;}{\f359\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Plants;}
{\f360\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}SportsFigures;}{\f361\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Transportation;}{\f362\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Weather;}
{\f363\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040603050705020303}CentSchbook BT;}{\f364\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03080402030202060204}Van Dijk;}{\f365\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 040b0500000000000000}Lithograph;}
{\f366\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 01010101010101010101}Adolescence;}{\f367\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0803020204040204}AntigoniBd;}{\f368\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0406020204020204}Antigoni Light;}
{\f369\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0703020204030204}Antigoni Med;}{\f370\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603020204030204}Antigoni;}{\f371\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0806020206070204}MGI Archon;}
{\f372\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020d0802060808030204}AucoinExtBol;}{\f373\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020d0602050304030204}AucoinLight;}{\f374\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0804040403020303}Banjoman Open Bold;}
{\f375\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0803080505070304}Bedini;}{\f376\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000503000000000004}Bermuda Solid;}{\f377\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0900020202060204}Eurostar Black Extended;}
{\f378\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0504020202050204}Eurostar;}{\f379\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0507020202060204}Eurostar Regular Extended;}{\f380\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000507000000000004}Falstaff Festival MT;}
{\f381\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0602060706020304}Gourmand;}{\f382\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0704030103070804}Metro Nouveau;}{\f383\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000504000000000003}Orbus Multiserif;}
{\f384\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000306050000000002}Palace Script MT Semi Bold;}{\f385\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02090502050106070304}Palladius;}{\f386\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0702050806020304}Peinaud;}
{\f387\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0302020206020904}Schindler;}{\f388\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0402020206020904}Schindler Small Caps;}{\f389\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03010101010101010101}Wendy Medium;}
{\f390\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03020602050506090804}Vianta;}{\f391\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040604020b02020304}LcdD;}{\f392\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020502060200020303}GiovanniITCTT;}
{\f393\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00050102010706020507}Map Symbols;}{\f394\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Regular Extended Balti;}{\f395\fdecor\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Creepy CE;}
{\f396\fdecor\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Creepy Tur;}{\f397\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}EraserDust CE;}{\f398\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}EraserDust Tur;}
{\f399\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Tw Cen MT Condensed CE;}{\f400\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Andale Mono CE;}{\f401\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Andale Mono Cyr;}
{\f402\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Andale Mono Greek;}{\f403\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Andale Mono Tur;}{\f404\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Andale Mono Baltic;}
{\f405\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AvantGarde Bk BT CE;}{\f406\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AvantGarde Bk BT Greek;}
{\f407\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AvantGarde Bk BT Tur;}{\f408\fdecor\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BernhardFashion BT CE;}
{\f409\fdecor\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BernhardFashion BT Greek;}{\f410\fdecor\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BernhardFashion BT Tur;}{\f411\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Boink LET Greek;}
{\f412\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BookmanITC Lt BT CE;}{\f413\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BookmanITC Lt BT Greek;}
{\f414\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BookmanITC Lt BT Tur;}{\f415\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BrushScript BT CE;}{\f416\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BrushScript BT Greek;}
{\f417\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BrushScript BT Tur;}{\f418\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Compacta Blk BT CE;}{\f419\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Compacta Blk BT Greek;}
{\f420\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Compacta Blk BT Tur;}{\f421\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Compacta Lt BT CE;}{\f422\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Compacta Lt BT Greek;}
{\f423\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Compacta Lt BT Tur;}{\f424\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Cooper Md BT CE;}{\f425\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Cooper Md BT Greek;}
{\f426\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Cooper Md BT Tur;}{\f427\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CopprplGoth BT CE;}{\f428\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CopprplGoth BT Greek;}
{\f429\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CopprplGoth BT Tur;}{\f430\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DomBold BT CE;}{\f431\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DomBold BT Greek;}
{\f432\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DomBold BT Tur;}{\f433\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DomCasual BT CE;}{\f434\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DomCasual BT Greek;}
{\f435\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DomCasual BT Tur;}{\f436\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}English111 Presto BT CE;}
{\f437\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}English111 Presto BT Greek;}{\f438\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}English111 Presto BT Tur;}
{\f439\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}English111 Vivace BT CE;}{\f440\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}English111 Vivace BT Greek;}
{\f441\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}English111 Vivace BT Tur;}{\f442\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Futura XBlkCn BT CE;}
{\f443\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Futura XBlkCn BT Greek;}{\f444\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Futura XBlkCn BT Tur;}{\f445\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Futura Md BT CE;}
{\f446\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Futura Md BT Greek;}{\f447\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Futura Md BT Tur;}{\f448\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Humanst521 Cn BT CE;}
{\f449\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Humanst521 Cn BT Greek;}{\f450\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Humanst521 Cn BT Tur;}{\f451\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}NewBskvll BT CE;}
{\f452\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}NewBskvll BT Greek;}{\f453\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}NewBskvll BT Tur;}{\f454\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Nuptial BT CE;}
{\f455\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Nuptial BT Greek;}{\f456\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Nuptial BT Tur;}{\f457\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Scruff LET Greek;}
{\f458\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}VAGRounded BT CE;}{\f459\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}VAGRounded BT Greek;}{\f460\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}VAGRounded BT Tur;}
{\f461\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}VivaldiD CE;}{\f462\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}VivaldiD Tur;}{\f463\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CentSchbook BT CE;}
{\f464\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CentSchbook BT Greek;}{\f465\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CentSchbook BT Tur;}{\f466\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AntigoniBd CE;}
{\f467\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AntigoniBd Greek;}{\f468\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AntigoniBd Tur;}{\f469\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AntigoniBd Baltic;}
{\f470\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Light CE;}{\f471\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Light Greek;}{\f472\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Light Tur;}
{\f473\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Light Baltic;}{\f474\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Med CE;}{\f475\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Med Greek;}
{\f476\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Med Tur;}{\f477\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Med Baltic;}{\f478\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni CE;}
{\f479\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Greek;}{\f480\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Tur;}{\f481\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Baltic;}
{\f482\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MGI Archon CE;}{\f483\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MGI Archon Greek;}{\f484\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MGI Archon Tur;}
{\f485\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MGI Archon Baltic;}{\f486\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinExtBol CE;}{\f487\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinExtBol Greek;}
{\f488\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinExtBol Tur;}{\f489\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinExtBol Baltic;}{\f490\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinLight CE;}
{\f491\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinLight Greek;}{\f492\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinLight Tur;}{\f493\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinLight Baltic;}
{\f494\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Bedini CE;}{\f495\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Bedini Greek;}{\f496\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Bedini Tur;}
{\f497\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Bedini Baltic;}{\f498\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Black Extended CE;}
{\f499\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Black Extended Greek;}{\f500\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Black Extended Tur;}
{\f501\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Black Extended Baltic;}{\f502\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar CE;}{\f503\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Greek;}
{\f504\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Tur;}{\f505\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Baltic;}{\f506\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Regular Extended CE;}
{\f507\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Regular Extended Greek;}{\f508\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Regular Extended Tur;}
{\f509\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gourmand CE;}{\f510\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gourmand Greek;}{\f511\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gourmand Tur;}
{\f512\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gourmand Baltic;}{\f513\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Metro Nouveau CE;}{\f514\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Metro Nouveau Greek;}
{\f515\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Metro Nouveau Tur;}{\f516\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Metro Nouveau Baltic;}{\f517\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Palladius CE;}
{\f518\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Palladius Greek;}{\f519\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Palladius Tur;}{\f520\froman\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Palladius Baltic;}
{\f521\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Peinaud CE;}{\f522\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Peinaud Greek;}{\f523\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Peinaud Tur;}
{\f524\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Peinaud Baltic;}{\f525\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler CE;}{\f526\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Greek;}
{\f527\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Tur;}{\f528\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Baltic;}{\f529\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Small Caps CE;}
{\f530\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Small Caps Greek;}{\f531\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Small Caps Tur;}
{\f532\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Small Caps Baltic;}{\f533\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Vianta Greek;}{\f534\fdecor\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}LcdD CE;}
{\f535\fdecor\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}LcdD Tur;}{\f536\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}????????????????????????\'a8\'ac?????;}
{\f537\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}??????????????????????\'a8\'ac???????;}{\f538\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}?????????????????????????\'a1\'ec????;}
{\f539\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}??????????????????????????????\'a8;}{\f540\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR;}{\f541\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR;}{\f542\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial CYR;}
{\f543\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial TUR;}{\f544\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 Courier New CYR;}{\f545\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 Courier New TUR;}{\f546\fnil\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 02010000000000000000}Traditional Arabic;}
{\f547\fnil\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 02010000000000000000}Arabic Transparent;}{\f548\fnil\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 02010000000000000000}Andalus;}{\f549\fnil\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 02010000000000000000}Simplified Arabic;}
{\f550\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1{\*\panose 02010009000000000000}Simplified Arabic Fixed;}{\f551\fmodern\fcharset134\fprq1{\*\panose 02010609030101010101}NSimSun;}{\f552\fmodern\fcharset134\fprq1{\*\panose 02010609030101010101}@NSimSun;}
{\f553\fnil\fcharset134\fprq2{\*\panose 02010600030101010101}@SimHei;}{\f554\froman\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 02020600040205080304}MS PMincho;}{\f555\froman\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 02020600040205080304}@MS PMincho;}
{\f556\fmodern\fcharset128\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0609070205080204}@MS Gothic;}{\f557\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0600070205080204}MS PGothic;}{\f558\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0600070205080204}@MS PGothic;}
{\f559\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0600070205080204}MS UI Gothic;}{\f560\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0600070205080204}@MS UI Gothic;}{\f561\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}AngsanaUPC;}
{\f562\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}BrowalliaUPC;}{\f563\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Browallia New;}{\f564\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0304020202020204}CordiaUPC;}
{\f565\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}DilleniaUPC;}{\f566\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}EucrosiaUPC;}{\f567\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}FreesiaUPC;}
{\f568\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}IrisUPC;}{\f569\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}JasmineUPC;}{\f570\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}KodchiangUPC;}
{\f571\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}LilyUPC;}{\f572\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0604020202020204}Typographic Ext;}{\f573\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Iconic Symbols Ext;}
{\f574\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Math Ext;}{\f575\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05020603050405020304}Multinational Ext;}{\f576\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05020603050405020304}Greek Symbols;}
{\f577\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}SPSS Marker Set;}{\f578\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05050102010607020607}MapInfo Cartographic;}{\f579\fmodern\fcharset136\fprq1{\*\panose 02020309000000000000}@MingLiU;}
{\f580\froman\fcharset136\fprq2{\*\panose 02020300000000000000}@PMingLiU;}{\f581\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}(Use Asian text font){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f582\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}PMingLiU Western{\*\falt !Ps2OcuAe};}{\f583\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Gothic Western{\*\falt ?l?r ?S?V?b?N};}
{\f584\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Gothic CE{\*\falt ?l?r ?S?V?b?N};}{\f585\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Gothic Cyr{\*\falt ?l?r ?S?V?b?N};}
{\f586\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Gothic Greek{\*\falt ?l?r ?S?V?b?N};}{\f587\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Gothic Tur{\*\falt ?l?r ?S?V?b?N};}
{\f588\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Gothic Baltic{\*\falt ?l?r ?S?V?b?N};}{\f589\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MingLiU Western{\*\falt 2OcuAe};}
{\f590\froman\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New Roman CYR (Vietnamese;}{\f591\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f592\froman\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New Roman Greek (Vietname;}
{\f593\froman\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New Roman TUR (Vietnamese;}{\f594\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f595\froman\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New Roman Baltic (Vietnam;}
{\f596\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}NSimSun Western;}{\f597\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@NSimSun Western;}{\f598\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PMincho Western;}
{\f599\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PMincho CE;}{\f600\froman\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PMincho Cyr;}{\f601\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PMincho Greek;}
{\f602\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PMincho Tur;}{\f603\froman\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PMincho Baltic;}{\f604\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PMincho Western;}
{\f605\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PMincho CE;}{\f606\froman\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PMincho Cyr;}{\f607\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PMincho Greek;}
{\f608\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PMincho Tur;}{\f609\froman\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PMincho Baltic;}{\f610\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Gothic Western;}
{\f611\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Gothic CE;}{\f612\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Gothic Cyr;}{\f613\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Gothic Greek;}
{\f614\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Gothic Tur;}{\f615\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Gothic Baltic;}{\f616\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PGothic Western;}
{\f617\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PGothic CE;}{\f618\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PGothic Cyr;}{\f619\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PGothic Greek;}
{\f620\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PGothic Tur;}{\f621\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PGothic Baltic;}{\f622\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PGothic Western;}
{\f623\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PGothic CE;}{\f624\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PGothic Cyr;}{\f625\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PGothic Greek;}
{\f626\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PGothic Tur;}{\f627\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PGothic Baltic;}{\f628\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS UI Gothic Western;}
{\f629\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS UI Gothic CE;}{\f630\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS UI Gothic Cyr;}{\f631\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS UI Gothic Greek;}
{\f632\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS UI Gothic Tur;}{\f633\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS UI Gothic Baltic;}{\f634\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS UI Gothic Western;}
{\f635\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS UI Gothic CE;}{\f636\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS UI Gothic Cyr;}{\f637\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS UI Gothic Greek;}
{\f638\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS UI Gothic Tur;}{\f639\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS UI Gothic Baltic;}{\f640\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Browallia New (Thai);}
{\f641\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MingLiU Western;}{\f642\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@PMingLiU Western;}
{\f643\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}????????????????????\'a1\'a7?????????;}{\f644\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Sans Serif{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f645\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0502040204020203}Segoe Media Center;}{\f646\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0702040200020203}Segoe Media Center Semibold;}{\f647\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0804030504040204}Tahoma Small Cap;}
{\f648\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Elite{\*\falt Arial};}{\f649\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}GothicPS{\*\falt Arial};}
{\f650\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}????????????\'a1\'a7???????;}{\f651\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}??????????????????\'a8\'ac?????????;}
{\f652\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}????????????????????????\'a1\'a7?????;}{\f653\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}??????????????????????\'a1\'a7???????;}
{\f654\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CG Times (W1){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f655\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CG Times 12pt;}
{\f656\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}????????????????????\'a8\'ac?????????;}{\f657\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}?????\'a1\'ec???;}
{\f658\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}????\'a1\'a7???;}{\f659\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Prestige;}{\f660\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}?????????????????\'a1\'ec?????????;}
{\f661\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}??????????????????\'a1\'a7??????????;}{\f662\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}o{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f663\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}ome{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f664\fnil\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f665\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Plain text{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f666\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}boscombe{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f667\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}??????????????????????????\'a8\'ac???;}{\f668\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Rockwell CE;}
{\f669\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Sans Serif CE;}{\f670\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Sans Serif Cyr;}
{\f671\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Sans Serif Greek;}{\f672\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Sans Serif Tur;}
{\f673\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Sans Serif Baltic;}{\f674\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Serif CE;}
{\f675\froman\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Serif Cyr;}{\f676\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Serif Greek;}
{\f677\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Serif Tur;}{\f678\froman\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Serif Baltic;}
{\f679\froman\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Serif (Vietnamese);}{\f680\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana Ref CE;}{\f681\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana Ref Cyr;}
{\f682\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana Ref Greek;}{\f683\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana Ref Tur;}{\f684\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana Ref Baltic;}
{\f685\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana Ref (Vietnamese);}{\f686\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Georgia Ref CE;}{\f687\froman\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Georgia Ref Cyr;}
{\f688\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Georgia Ref Greek;}{\f689\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Georgia Ref Tur;}{\f690\froman\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Georgia Ref Baltic;}
{\f691\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gill Sans MT CE;}{\f692\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gill Sans MT Condensed CE;}
{\f693\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gill Sans Ultra Bold CE;}{\f694\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Sydnie;}{\f695\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Sydnie Greek;}
{\f696\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial Baltic;}{\f697\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 Courier New Baltic;}{\f698\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f699\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial CE;}{\f700\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial Greek;}
{\f701\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 Courier New CE;}{\f702\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 Courier New Greek;}{\f703\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f704\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f706\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f707\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f708\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f709\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f710\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f711\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f713\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial CE;}{\f714\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Cyr;}{\f716\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Greek;}{\f717\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Tur;}{\f718\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial (Hebrew);}
{\f719\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial (Arabic);}{\f720\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Baltic;}{\f721\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial (Vietnamese);}{\f723\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New CE;}{\f724\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New Cyr;}
{\f726\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New Greek;}{\f727\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New Tur;}{\f728\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New (Hebrew);}{\f729\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New (Arabic);}
{\f730\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New Baltic;}{\f731\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New (Vietnamese);}{\f743\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Helvetica CE;}{\f744\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Helvetica Cyr;}{\f746\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Helvetica Greek;}
{\f747\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Helvetica Tur;}{\f748\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Helvetica (Hebrew);}{\f749\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Helvetica (Arabic);}{\f750\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Helvetica Baltic;}
{\f751\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Helvetica (Vietnamese);}{\f815\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 MS Mincho Western{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};}{\f813\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 MS Mincho CE{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};}
{\f814\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 MS Mincho Cyr{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};}{\f816\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 MS Mincho Greek{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};}{\f817\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 MS Mincho Tur{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};}
{\f820\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 MS Mincho Baltic{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};}{\f825\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Batang Western{\*\falt \'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcEcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};}
{\f823\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Batang CE{\*\falt \'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcEcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};}
{\f824\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Batang Cyr{\*\falt \'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcEcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};}
{\f826\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Batang Greek{\*\falt \'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcEcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};}
{\f827\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Batang Tur{\*\falt \'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcEcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};}
{\f830\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Batang Baltic{\*\falt \'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcEcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};}{\f835\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2 SimSun Western{\*\falt ????????????\'a8\'ac??????};}
{\f913\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Century CE;}{\f914\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Century Cyr;}{\f916\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Century Greek;}{\f917\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Century Tur;}{\f920\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Century Baltic;}
{\f925\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Angsana New;}{\f935\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Cordia New;}{\f963\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Sylfaen CE;}{\f964\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Sylfaen Cyr;}{\f966\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Sylfaen Greek;}
{\f967\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Sylfaen Tur;}{\f970\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Sylfaen Baltic;}{\f1045\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Western;}{\f1043\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS CE;}
{\f1044\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Cyr;}{\f1046\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Greek;}{\f1047\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Tur;}{\f1048\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS (Hebrew);}
{\f1049\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS (Arabic);}{\f1050\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Baltic;}{\f1051\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS (Vietnamese);}{\f1052\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS (Thai);}
{\f1053\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Tahoma CE;}{\f1054\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Tahoma Cyr;}{\f1056\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Tahoma Greek;}{\f1057\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Tahoma Tur;}{\f1058\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Tahoma (Hebrew);}
{\f1059\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Tahoma (Arabic);}{\f1060\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Tahoma Baltic;}{\f1061\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Tahoma (Vietnamese);}{\f1062\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2 Tahoma (Thai);}
{\f1073\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f1074\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f1076\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f1077\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f1078\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f1079\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f1080\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f1081\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f1093\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Lucida Console CE;}
{\f1094\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Lucida Console Cyr;}{\f1096\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Lucida Console Greek;}{\f1097\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Lucida Console Tur;}{\f1103\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Verdana CE;}{\f1104\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Verdana Cyr;}
{\f1106\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Verdana Greek;}{\f1107\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Verdana Tur;}{\f1110\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Verdana Baltic;}{\f1111\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Verdana (Vietnamese);}{\f1113\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial Black CE;}
{\f1114\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Black Cyr;}{\f1116\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Black Greek;}{\f1117\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Black Tur;}{\f1120\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Black Baltic;}
{\f1123\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2 Comic Sans MS CE;}{\f1124\fscript\fcharset204\fprq2 Comic Sans MS Cyr;}{\f1126\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2 Comic Sans MS Greek;}{\f1127\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2 Comic Sans MS Tur;}
{\f1130\fscript\fcharset186\fprq2 Comic Sans MS Baltic;}{\f1133\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Impact CE;}{\f1134\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Impact Cyr;}{\f1136\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Impact Greek;}{\f1137\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Impact Tur;}
{\f1140\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Impact Baltic;}{\f1143\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Georgia CE;}{\f1144\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Georgia Cyr;}{\f1146\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Georgia Greek;}{\f1147\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Georgia Tur;}
{\f1150\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Georgia Baltic;}{\f1153\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium CE;}{\f1154\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cyr;}{\f1156\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Greek;}
{\f1157\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Tur;}{\f1160\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Baltic;}{\f1163\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Palatino Linotype CE;}{\f1164\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Palatino Linotype Cyr;}
{\f1166\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Palatino Linotype Greek;}{\f1167\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Palatino Linotype Tur;}{\f1170\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Palatino Linotype Baltic;}{\f1171\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Palatino Linotype (Vietnamese);}
{\f1173\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Trebuchet MS CE;}{\f1174\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Trebuchet MS Cyr;}{\f1176\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Trebuchet MS Greek;}{\f1177\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Trebuchet MS Tur;}
{\f1180\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Trebuchet MS Baltic;}{\f1213\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif CE;}{\f1214\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif Cyr;}{\f1216\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif Greek;}
{\f1217\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif Tur;}{\f1218\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif (Hebrew);}{\f1219\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif (Arabic);}{\f1220\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif Baltic;}
{\f1221\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif (Vietnamese);}{\f1222\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif (Thai);}{\f1226\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Alba Greek;}{\f1236\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Alba Matter Greek;}
{\f1246\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Alba Super Greek;}{\f1256\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Baby Kruffy Greek;}{\f1266\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Chick Greek;}{\f1276\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Croobie Greek;}{\f1296\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Freshbot Greek;}
{\f1306\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Frosty Greek;}{\f1316\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 GlooGun Greek;}{\f1326\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Jenkins v2.0 Greek;}{\f1366\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Pussycat Greek;}{\f1376\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Weltron Urban Greek;}
{\f1383\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2 Mistral CE;}{\f1384\fscript\fcharset204\fprq2 Mistral Cyr;}{\f1386\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2 Mistral Greek;}{\f1387\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2 Mistral Tur;}{\f1390\fscript\fcharset186\fprq2 Mistral Baltic;}
{\f1393\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode CE;}{\f1394\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode Cyr;}{\f1396\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode Greek;}{\f1397\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode Tur;}
{\f1398\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode (Hebrew);}{\f1513\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Book CE;}{\f1514\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Book Cyr;}{\f1516\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Book Greek;}
{\f1517\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Book Tur;}{\f1520\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Book Baltic;}{\f1523\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi CE;}{\f1524\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi Cyr;}
{\f1526\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi Greek;}{\f1527\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi Tur;}{\f1530\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi Baltic;}{\f1533\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cond CE;}
{\f1534\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Cyr;}{\f1536\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Greek;}{\f1537\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Tur;}
{\f1540\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Baltic;}{\f1553\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Century Gothic CE;}{\f1554\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Century Gothic Cyr;}{\f1556\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Century Gothic Greek;}
{\f1557\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Century Gothic Tur;}{\f1560\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Century Gothic Baltic;}{\f1675\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS Western;}{\f1673\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS CE;}
{\f1674\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS Cyr;}{\f1676\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS Greek;}{\f1677\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS Tur;}{\f1678\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS (Hebrew);}
{\f1679\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS (Arabic);}{\f1680\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS Baltic;}{\f1681\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS (Vietnamese);}{\f1682\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS (Thai);}
{\f1685\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 @Batang Western;}{\f1683\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 @Batang CE;}{\f1684\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 @Batang Cyr;}{\f1686\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 @Batang Greek;}{\f1687\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 @Batang Tur;}
{\f1690\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 @Batang Baltic;}{\f1693\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Book Antiqua CE;}{\f1694\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Book Antiqua Cyr;}{\f1696\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Book Antiqua Greek;}{\f1697\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Book Antiqua Tur;}
{\f1700\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Book Antiqua Baltic;}{\f1703\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Bookman Old Style CE;}{\f1704\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Cyr;}{\f1706\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Greek;}
{\f1707\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Tur;}{\f1710\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Baltic;}{\f1713\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Garamond CE;}{\f1714\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Garamond Cyr;}
{\f1716\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Garamond Greek;}{\f1717\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Garamond Tur;}{\f1720\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Garamond Baltic;}{\f1723\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Haettenschweiler CE;}{\f1724\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Haettenschweiler Cyr;}
{\f1726\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Haettenschweiler Greek;}{\f1727\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Haettenschweiler Tur;}{\f1730\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Haettenschweiler Baltic;}{\f1735\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 @MS Mincho Western;}
{\f1733\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 @MS Mincho CE;}{\f1734\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 @MS Mincho Cyr;}{\f1736\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 @MS Mincho Greek;}{\f1737\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 @MS Mincho Tur;}{\f1740\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 @MS Mincho Baltic;}
{\f1753\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2 Monotype Corsiva CE;}{\f1754\fscript\fcharset204\fprq2 Monotype Corsiva Cyr;}{\f1756\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2 Monotype Corsiva Greek;}{\f1757\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2 Monotype Corsiva Tur;}
{\f1760\fscript\fcharset186\fprq2 Monotype Corsiva Baltic;}{\f1765\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2 @SimSun Western;}{\f1783\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial Narrow CE;}{\f1784\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Narrow Cyr;}
{\f1786\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Narrow Greek;}{\f1787\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Narrow Tur;}{\f1790\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Narrow Baltic;}{\f1853\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Albertus Medium CE;}
{\f1857\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Albertus Medium Tur;}{\f1860\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Albertus Medium Baltic;}{\f1863\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Albertus CE;}{\f1867\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Albertus Tur;}{\f1870\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Albertus Baltic;}
{\f1873\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Albertus Extra Bold CE;}{\f1877\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Albertus Extra Bold Tur;}{\f1880\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Albertus Extra Bold Baltic;}{\f1883\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 ITC Avant Garde Gothic CE;}
{\f1887\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 ITC Avant Garde Gothic Tur;}{\f1890\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 ITC Avant Garde Gothic Baltic;}{\f1893\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 ITC Avant Garde Gothic Demi CE;}
{\f1897\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 ITC Avant Garde Gothic Demi Tur;}{\f1900\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 ITC Avant Garde Gothic Demi Baltic;}{\f1903\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 ITC Bookman Light CE;}{\f1907\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 ITC Bookman Light Tur;}
{\f1910\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 ITC Bookman Light Baltic;}{\f1913\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 ITC Bookman Demi CE;}{\f1917\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 ITC Bookman Demi Tur;}{\f1920\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 ITC Bookman Demi Baltic;}
{\f1923\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 CG Omega CE;}{\f1927\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 CG Omega Tur;}{\f1930\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 CG Omega Baltic;}{\f1933\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 CG Times CE;}{\f1937\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 CG Times Tur;}
{\f1940\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 CG Times Baltic;}{\f1943\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2 ITC Zapf Chancery CE;}{\f1947\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2 ITC Zapf Chancery Tur;}{\f1950\fscript\fcharset186\fprq2 ITC Zapf Chancery Baltic;}
{\f1953\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Clarendon CE;}{\f1957\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Clarendon Tur;}{\f1960\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Clarendon Baltic;}{\f1963\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Clarendon Condensed CE;}
{\f1967\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Clarendon Condensed Tur;}{\f1970\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Clarendon Condensed Baltic;}{\f1973\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Clarendon Extended CE;}{\f1977\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Clarendon Extended Tur;}
{\f1980\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Clarendon Extended Baltic;}{\f1983\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2 Coronet CE;}{\f1987\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2 Coronet Tur;}{\f1990\fscript\fcharset186\fprq2 Coronet Baltic;}{\f1993\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 CourierPS CE;}
{\f1997\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 CourierPS Tur;}{\f2000\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 CourierPS Baltic;}{\f2013\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Helvetica Narrow CE;}{\f2017\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Helvetica Narrow Tur;}
{\f2020\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Helvetica Narrow Baltic;}{\f2023\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Letter Gothic CE;}{\f2027\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Letter Gothic Tur;}{\f2030\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Letter Gothic Baltic;}
{\f2033\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2 Marigold CE;}{\f2037\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2 Marigold Tur;}{\f2040\fscript\fcharset186\fprq2 Marigold Baltic;}{\f2043\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 New Century Schoolbook CE;}
{\f2047\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 New Century Schoolbook Tur;}{\f2050\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 New Century Schoolbook Baltic;}{\f2053\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Antique Olive CE;}{\f2057\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Antique Olive Tur;}
{\f2060\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Antique Olive Baltic;}{\f2063\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Antique Olive Compact CE;}{\f2067\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Antique Olive Compact Tur;}{\f2070\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Antique Olive Compact Baltic;}
{\f2073\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Palatino CE{\*\falt Book Antiqua};}{\f2077\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Palatino Tur{\*\falt Book Antiqua};}{\f2080\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Palatino Baltic{\*\falt Book Antiqua};}{\f2093\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Univers CE;}
{\f2097\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Univers Tur;}{\f2100\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Univers Baltic;}{\f2103\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Univers Condensed CE;}{\f2107\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Univers Condensed Tur;}
{\f2110\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Univers Condensed Baltic;}{\f6103\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR CE;}{\f6104\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR Cyr;}{\f6106\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR Greek;}
{\f6107\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR Tur;}{\f6108\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR (Hebrew);}{\f6109\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR (Arabic);}{\f6110\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR Baltic;}
{\f6111\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR (Vietnamese);}{\f6113\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR CE;}{\f6114\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR Cyr;}{\f6116\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR Greek;}
{\f6117\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR Tur;}{\f6118\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR (Hebrew);}{\f6119\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR (Arabic);}{\f6120\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR Baltic;}
{\f6121\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR (Vietnamese);}{\f6123\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial CYR CE;}{\f6124\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial CYR Cyr;}{\f6126\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial CYR Greek;}
{\f6127\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial CYR Tur;}{\f6128\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial CYR (Hebrew);}{\f6129\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial CYR (Arabic);}{\f6130\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial CYR Baltic;}
{\f6131\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial CYR (Vietnamese);}{\f6133\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial TUR CE;}{\f6134\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial TUR Cyr;}{\f6136\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial TUR Greek;}{\f6137\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial TUR Tur;}
{\f6138\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial TUR (Hebrew);}{\f6139\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial TUR (Arabic);}{\f6140\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial TUR Baltic;}{\f6141\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial TUR (Vietnamese);}
{\f6143\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New CYR CE;}{\f6144\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New CYR Cyr;}{\f6146\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New CYR Greek;}{\f6147\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New CYR Tur;}
{\f6148\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New CYR (Hebrew);}{\f6149\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New CYR (Arabic);}{\f6150\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New CYR Baltic;}{\f6151\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New CYR (Vietnamese);}
{\f6153\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New TUR CE;}{\f6154\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New TUR Cyr;}{\f6156\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New TUR Greek;}{\f6157\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New TUR Tur;}
{\f6158\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New TUR (Hebrew);}{\f6159\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New TUR (Arabic);}{\f6160\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New TUR Baltic;}{\f6161\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New TUR (Vietnamese);}
{\f6613\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek CE;}{\f6614\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek Cyr;}{\f6616\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek Greek;}{\f6617\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek Tur;}
{\f6618\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek (Hebrew);}{\f6619\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek (Arabic);}{\f6620\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek Baltic;}
{\f6621\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek (Vietnamese);}{\f6643\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic CE;}{\f6644\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic Cyr;}{\f6646\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic Greek;}
{\f6647\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic Tur;}{\f6648\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic (Hebrew);}{\f6649\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic (Arabic);}
{\f6650\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic Baltic;}{\f6651\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic (Vietnamese);}{\f7663\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial Baltic CE;}{\f7664\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Baltic Cyr;}
{\f7666\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Baltic Greek;}{\f7667\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Baltic Tur;}{\f7668\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial Baltic (Hebrew);}{\f7669\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial Baltic (Arabic);}
{\f7670\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Baltic Baltic;}{\f7671\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial Baltic (Vietnamese);}{\f7673\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New Baltic CE;}{\f7674\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New Baltic Cyr;}
{\f7676\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New Baltic Greek;}{\f7677\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New Baltic Tur;}{\f7678\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New Baltic (Hebrew);}{\f7679\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New Baltic (Arabic);}
{\f7680\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New Baltic Baltic;}{\f7681\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New Baltic (Vietnamese);}{\f7683\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE CE;}{\f7684\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman CE Cyr;}
{\f7686\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman CE Greek;}{\f7687\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman CE Tur;}{\f7688\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman CE (Hebrew);}{\f7689\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman CE (Arabic);}
{\f7690\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman CE Baltic;}{\f7691\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman CE (Vietnamese);}{\f7693\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial CE CE;}{\f7694\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial CE Cyr;}
{\f7696\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial CE Greek;}{\f7697\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial CE Tur;}{\f7698\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial CE (Hebrew);}{\f7699\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial CE (Arabic);}{\f7700\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial CE Baltic;}
{\f7701\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial CE (Vietnamese);}{\f7703\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial Greek CE;}{\f7704\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Greek Cyr;}{\f7706\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Greek Greek;}
{\f7707\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Greek Tur;}{\f7708\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial Greek (Hebrew);}{\f7709\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial Greek (Arabic);}{\f7710\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Greek Baltic;}
{\f7711\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial Greek (Vietnamese);}{\f7713\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New CE CE;}{\f7714\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New CE Cyr;}{\f7716\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New CE Greek;}
{\f7717\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New CE Tur;}{\f7718\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New CE (Hebrew);}{\f7719\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New CE (Arabic);}{\f7720\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New CE Baltic;}
{\f7721\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New CE (Vietnamese);}{\f7723\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New Greek CE;}{\f7724\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New Greek Cyr;}{\f7726\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New Greek Greek;}
{\f7727\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New Greek Tur;}{\f7728\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New Greek (Hebrew);}{\f7729\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New Greek (Arabic);}{\f7730\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New Greek Baltic;}
{\f7731\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New Greek (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;
\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;\red255\green255\blue255;}{\stylesheet{
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*
\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb240\sa120\keepn\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\f4\fs28\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\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\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext18 \ssemihidden caption;}{\s19\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext19 Index;}{
\s20\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext20 Plain Text;}{\s21\ql \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\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext22 Table Contents;}{
\s23\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon22 \snext23 Table Heading;}{\*\cs24 \additive RTF_Num 2 1;}{\*\cs25 \additive \f3 RTF_Num 3 1;}{\*\cs26 \additive RTF_Num 3 2;}
{\*\cs27 \additive RTF_Num 3 3;}{\*\cs28 \additive RTF_Num 3 4;}{\*\cs29 \additive RTF_Num 3 5;}{\*\cs30 \additive RTF_Num 3 6;}{\*\cs31 \additive RTF_Num 3 7;}{\*\cs32 \additive RTF_Num 3 8;}{\*\cs33 \additive RTF_Num 3 9;}{\*\cs34 \additive 
RTF_Num 4 1;}{\*\cs35 \additive RTF_Num 5 1;}{\*\cs36 \additive RTF_Num 6 1;}{\*\cs37 \additive RTF_Num 7 1;}{\*\cs38 \additive RTF_Num 8 1;}{\*\ts39\tsrowd\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 
\trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 \trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \sbasedon11 \snext39 \styrsid525747 Table Grid;}}{\*\revtbl {Unknown;}}{\*\pgptbl {\pgp\ipgp0\itap0\li0\ri0\sb0\sa0}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid399784
\rsid525747\rsid5256973\rsid5780933\rsid6037987\rsid6454769\rsid8005689\rsid8589712\rsid8996282\rsid9587363\rsid12996949\rsid15226843}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6612;}{\info{\author matt}{\operator John Palmer}{\creatim\yr2007\mo7\dy21\hr20\min54}
{\revtim\yr2007\mo7\dy31\hr16\min53}{\printim\yr2113\mo1\dy1}{\version6}{\edmins13}{\nofpages231}{\nofwords106650}{\nofchars607909}{\*\company  University of Hull}{\nofcharsws713133}{\vern16389}}
\deftab1080\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\makebackup\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot5780933 
\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\pararsid5256973 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid5780933 NOTES
\par }{\insrsid5780933 (version 1a)}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\insrsid5256973 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5256973 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cf1\insrsid5780933 STAFFORDSHIRE. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the running title }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 STATFORDSCIRE. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
in vermilion capitals across the top of folios 246ab-248ab, folio 249abcd and folio 250cd, centred above both columns. He wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 STATFORTSCIRE. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
on folio 248cd and folio 250ab. There are no running titles on the last folio of the quire, folio 250, because it is blank. He used the form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 STADFORDSCIRE.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 in the Landholders' List on folio 246a.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab When quoting from the text, the abbreviated forms are retained wherever possible, or the extensions to them are enclosed in square brackets; only where there is no doubt is the Latin extended silently. The Anglo-Saxon}{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 letters thorn (\'fe) and eth (\'f0) are reproduced as }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 th}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 .}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\insrsid5256973 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid399784 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 B1\tab 
THIS SECTION on the borough of Stafford (B1-17) was written by the main scribe of Great Domesday using a paler ink and pen with a fatter point than he use
d for the Landholders' List later on folio 246a and chapter 1 beginning in the opposite column (folio 246b). In several counties in Great Domesday the borough section was not written using the same pen and ink as the material succeeding it, suggesting it 
was a slightly later insertion. Compare L1 section note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [* BOROUGH *]. This heading has been inserted to indicate that Stafford is not apparently in any hundred; see B1 Stafford note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE BOROUGH OF STAFFORD. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 93
, reckoned it in Pirehill Hundred. Certainly, the single Ancient Parish of St Mary extended beyond the borough to include a number of Domesday estates: Enson (1,43), Marston (8,9), 'Coton' (8,14), Burton (11,6), 'Silkmore' (11,6), Hopton (11,11) and Salt 
(
11,12). It also contained the township of Castle Church in which lay Rickerscote (11,67) and "Monetvile" (11,68); see 11,6 Bradley note. The parts of this Ancient Parish which lay outside the borough were in Pirehill Hundred, but the borough itself paid a
n annual lump sum as most other boroughs do, and there is no reason to think that it was involved in any way with a hundred.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The name Stafford is from Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 staeth}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ford}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , meaning 'landing-place at the ford'. The ford was probably in the River Sow
 on the western approach to Stafford. Stafford is a low-lying and marshy site, not at an ancient crossroads and it appears that the place had no particular importance until Aethelflaed built a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 burh}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  there in 913; see the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  under 913 and \{Introduction: History\}
. Thereafter, it appears from excavations that it was a place where pottery was manufactured and grain stored and processed. A minster church was established here at an unknown date. It shared the dedication to Saint Bertelin with Ru
ncorn in Cheshire and both may have been the work of Aethelflaed early in the tenth century. A mint was established in Stafford under King Athelstan (924-939) and continued to function until the reign of Henry II (1154-1189).}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab William defeated the Staffordshire rebels in 1069 and passed through the shire again in 1070, when, it appears, a castle was built; see \{Introduction: History\}
. William's castle was built on land belonging to Chebsey (10,9), but its location is uncertain, unless it was the predecessor of the castle that William Pantulf held for the king against Robert of Bell\'ea
me in 1102, and was the same as the castle outside the borough later occupied by the lords of Stafford; see \{Introduction: Castles\}.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In 1086 it was the only borough in Domesday recorded as paying less after the Conquest than before, which is a reflection of the poverty of Staffordshire as a whole.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On the early history of Stafford, see Carver, 'Underneath Stafford Town'; Gelling, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 West Midlands}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 153-55; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , vi. pp. 186-245.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 8 UNOCCUPIED MESSUAGES.}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Latin is }{\i\f703\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 uast\'ea}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . Although the word is often translated by 'waste', both of buildings and of rural estates, the real sense is 'unoccupied', 'empty', 'abandoned' and, in rural areas only, 'uncultivated'. In the abse
nce of other evidence the notion of 'wasted', 'damaged' is not necessarily implied. See 8,18 waste note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 The Phillimore printed translation has 'dwellings'. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 mans}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 iones}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
], which is difficult to differentiate in meaning from }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 ma}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 n}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 surae}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 . Because of its occasional association with }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 domus}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  ('house', 'dwelling') }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 mansio}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 is clearly more than a house; it is probably a house-site, that is, a messuage, which might contain one or more dwellings. In Nottingham, for example, Roger of Bully has 3 }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 mansiones}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 in which there are 11 houses (B8). The Alecto edition has 'messuages'.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab OF THE EARLS' HONOUR. }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Honor }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 is}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 equivalent to }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 feudum}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  '}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 Holding'; in Domesday it is mainly, but not always, used}{\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 for the holdings of earls and great magnates (JRM).}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The Phillimore printed translation has 'of the Earl's Honour' both here and in B6. However, the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 comitu}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 m}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] is clearly plural (the singular is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 comitis}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) and means 'of the earls'. The same sense seems intended by the phrase }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de comitatu}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('of the earldom') in B8. The e
arls could be Edwin, Earl of Mercia (see 8,5 Edwin note) and Roger, Earl of Shrewsbury. However, in 1086, although Roger was holding an important part of the Earldom of Mercia, he was not holding the whole of it: Earl Hugh of Cheshire held another part. M
o
reover, the notion of an 'Earldom of Mercia' was anachronistic in 1086. In addition, the holdings of Robert of Stafford 'of the earls' honour' (B6) and William son of Ansculf's holding 'of the earldom' (B8) involve estates that were not held by Earl Roger
. It seems most likely that the earls in question are the English Earls of Mercia, that is, in succession, Earls Leofric, Algar and Edwin.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 B2\tab THE BISHOP OF CHESTER. That is, the diocesan bishop, formerly of Lichfield; see STS 2.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 14 MESSUAGES. These were pr
esumably attached to one or more of the bishop's rural manors. This arrangement is made clear in WAR B2: 'These messuages belong to the lands which these barons hold outside the borough and are there assessed'.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 B3\tab BURTON ABBEY. That is, the Benedictine Abbey of Burton; see STS 4.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 5 MESSUAGES. These were presumably attached to one or more of the abbot's rural manors.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 B4\tab EARL ROGER. That is, Earl Roger of Shrewsbury; see STS 8.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rogeri}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Roger}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), but frequently}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 abbreviated to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rog' }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hrodger}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rodger}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rotger}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rog(g)er}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  etc: Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 317-18. The Alecto edition also has Roger. On the erroneous form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Reger}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , see 8,10 Roger note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ARE AN ADJUNCT OF SHERIFFHALES. The Phillimore printed edition has 'lie in' which more correctly translates }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 iacent in}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab For Sheriffhales, Earl Roger's manor, see 8,5.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITHIN THE WALLS. Strictly the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 intra murum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 means 'within the wall' which formed a single circuit enclosing the borough. The date at which Stafford became a walled town, as distinct from a fortified }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 burh}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , is uncertain, but these walls may have been associated with the erection of the Norman castle outside; see \{Introduction: Castles\}.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 murum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 in slightly darker ink over an erasure, which was probably of a longer word than }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 murum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 as he wrote that larger than the surrounding text to fill the space.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 B5\tab HUGH [* OF MONTGOMERY *]. He was the son of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury; for his small fief, see STS 9.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The Domesday form of his first name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hugo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 (as it is regarded as a third declension noun in Latin the genitive is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hugonis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , the accusative }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hugonem}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , the dative }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hugoni}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and the ablative }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hugone}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), represents Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hugo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hugon}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hu\'eb}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 157-58. Hugh, which also derives from the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hugo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 (Reaney, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), was chosen by JRM. The Alecto edition also has Hugh.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab FROM THE EARLDOM. }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Comitatus}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 normally used in Domesday for English 'shire'; here in the continental}{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 sense of the holdings of a count or earl, Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 comes}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 . (JRM). Here is probably refers to the Earldom of Mercia; see B1 honou
r note. Worfield (9,1) had been held }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 T.R.E. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 by Algar, Earl of Mercia.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab THEY BELONG TO WORFIELD. That is, to Hugh's holding there (9,1).}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 B6\tab ROBERT OF STAFFORD. For his fief, see STS 11.
\par \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Domesday forms of his first name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Robert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rob}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rodbertus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Rotbert(us)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rodbert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Rotbert}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Robert }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 etc: Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 216-17; see also von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 349-50. As the name Robert has survived to modern times, JRM chose that form. The Alecto edition also has Robert.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab OF THE EARLS' HONOUR. That is, of Earl Edwin's honour of Mercia. As in B1, the Latin }{\i\insrsid5780933 comitu}{\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\insrsid5780933 m}{\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\insrsid5780933  }{\insrsid5780933 
(' of the earls') is plural and appears to refer to the 'honour' held by successiv
e earls of Mercia, that is by Earl Leofric, Earl Algar his son and Earl Edwin, Algar's son; see B1 honour note. A distinction is clearly drawn between the messuages that Robert of Stafford holds 'from the earls' honour' (B6) and those that he holds 'of hi
s own Holding' (B7). The Phillimore printed translation has 'earl's' as if from the Latin }{\i\insrsid5780933 comitis}{\insrsid5780933 , singular, and referring to Earl Roger, who, however, did not hold Bradley.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab THEY BELONG TO BRADLEY. Robert of Stafford's lordship manor there is 11,6, held }{\i\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\insrsid5780933  by Earl Edwin. Tenements in Stafford still belonged to Bradley in 1372.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 B7\tab ROBERT ^[OF STAFFORD]^. The Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Idem Robertus}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  indicates that this Robert is the same person as in the previous entry. }{\insrsid5780933 
For his fief, see STS 11, and for his name, see B6 Robert note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab OF HIS OWN HOLDING. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 de feudo suo}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , that is 'of his own fee/fief'; see B1 honour note. These 41 messuages contrast with the 13 which he holds 'of the earls' honour' (B6).}
{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 B8\tab WILLIAM SON OF ANSCULF. For his fief, see STS 12.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Domesday form of William, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Willelmus }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (often abbreviated to }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Will's}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), represents Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Willihelm}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Willehelm}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Willelm}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Rom. }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Guill}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 i}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 elm}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 255-57. JRM preferred the common name William, which has survived into modern times. The Alecto edition also has William.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his father's name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ansculfus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ansculf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Anscul}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Anscholfus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ascolf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old German }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 A}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 )}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
sculf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , the form with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  being the Romance variant: von Feilitzen, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 161. According to Tengvik, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Old English Bynames}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 171, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ansculfus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is the Old French form of this name. The Alecto edition has Ansculf.}{\insrsid399784 

\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab 4 MESSUAGES OF THE EARLDOM. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 de comitatu}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , and the meaning is essentially the same as }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 de honore comitum}{
\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  ('from the earls' honour') in B1;6; see B1 honour note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab WHICH BELONG TO PENN, A MANOR OF THE EARLS. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 comit' }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 over an erasure, using slightly darker ink; the original word was shorter as he had to compress its replacement.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 The Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 M' comit'}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  could be extended to }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 manerium comitis}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  or }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 manerium comitum}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  ('a manor of the earl' or 'a manor of the earls'), although the abbreviation line over the }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 t}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  regularly indicates an omitted }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
m}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  (here }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 um}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ), whereas the singular }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 comitis}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 is generally indicated by the 'lightning' abbreviation sign as in B12. In view of the occurrence of the plural }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 comitum}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  in B1;6, it is probably more likely to be }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 comitum}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933  ('of the earls' ) here. One place called Penn (12,6) had been held by Earl Algar, father of Earl Edwin, and the other Penn (12,5) by Countess Godiva, wife of Earl Leofric; they were the parents of Earl Algar. However, if }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 comit'}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  is singular, it could refer to one of the earls of Mercia. The only earl in 1086}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
was Earl Roger, but he did not hold Penn, so the single manor intended is presumably the Penn of 12,6, held by Earl Algar and presumably before him by Earl Leofric. Thus, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 comit' }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 could be singular
 or plural. Penn (12,5-6) may have been a single comital manor out of which Earl Leofric had granted a part (12,5) to his wife. For a similar situation, see B6 honour note, and for the interpretation of 'earls', see B1 honour note. The Alecto edition tran
slates }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 comit'}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  as singular and identifies Penn as Upper Penn (12,6).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab INHABITED. The Phillimore printed translation has 'habitable' for the Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 hospitata}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 . However, the Latin for that is }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 hospitabilis}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  or (}
{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 in}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 )}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 habitabilis}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 . The word }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 hospitata}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  is a past participle from the verb }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 hospitor}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933  which is itself derived from }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 hospes }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
('guest', 'tenant', 'occupier'); the participle means 'having received a guest/tenant/occupier'. The sense appears to be no different from that of the participle }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 inhabitata}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  ('inhabited') derived from the verb 
}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 inhabito}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , which is found in }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 aliae inhabitantur}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  ('the others are inhabited') in B1.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 B9\tab HENRY OF FERRERS. For his fief, see STS 10.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The Domesday form of his first name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Henric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), represents Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Heinric, Henric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Henri}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 147; see also von Feilitzen, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 289. JRM preferred the common name Henry, which has survived into modern times. The Alecto edition also has Henry, except for the only }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 holder (NFK 32,7) where it has Heanric.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 B10\tab THE PRIESTS OF THE BOROUGH. These are no doubt the same as the 13 prebendary canons of 6,1. The 14 ^[messuages]^ (understood from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
mans}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ionem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\f710\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  uast\'e2 }
{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 earlier in the line) allows them one each with one perhaps for their }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 praepositus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, later known as a dean. On their church, see 6,1 canons note. This should not have been made a separate entry in the Phillimore edition.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 B11\tab ALL OF THESE HAVE FULL JURISDICTION. That is, the major lay and ecclesiastic
al holders mentioned in B2-9: the Bishop of Chester, Burton Abbey, Earl Roger, Hugh of Montgomery, Robert of Stafford, William son of Ansculf and Henry of Ferrers. The king himself had more than 'full jurisdiction'. The priests of the borough (B10) who se
rved in the king's church (6,1) are probably excluded by their subordinate status. These other holders probably exercised their jurisdiction in the manors (not all are named) to which their holdings in Stafford were appurtenant.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\insrsid5780933 The Latin }{\i\insrsid5780933 sacha 7 socha }{\insrsid5780933 is from Old English }{\i\insrsid5780933 sacu}{\insrsid5780933  ('cause', affair', 'matter in dispute') and }{
\i\insrsid5780933 socn}{\insrsid5780933  (a 'seeking'). The two terms only make full sense if taken together, and the presence of }{\i\insrsid5780933 sacha}{\insrsid5780933  in the phrase implies one particular meaning of }{\i\insrsid5780933 socha}{
\insrsid5780933 . Essentially these two words refe
r to the lord's right to have a court, to compel suit (attendance) at it and his right to investigate and hear cases. It is often translated as 'with sake and soke'. By the eleventh-century, the lord's powers seem to have extended from jurisdiction and ju
stice and the right to receive fines to the right to have other dues and services, or money in their place. Men with full jurisdiction seem to have been able to grant portions of their estates to tenants.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab THE KING HAS TAX FROM THEM. These individual payments along with the payments from each burgess will have amounted to the }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 firma burgi}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 and will have been additional to those that each magnate could get from men subject to him.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab EACH YEAR. This is the only explicit statement that }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 geldum }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 was levied annually by 1086;}{\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
though originally and formally imposed only in emergency, it had become virtually}{\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 annual. (JRM).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a space equivalent to two lines of wr
iting in order to separate the account of the messuages in Stafford (B1-11) from the payments received from this borough in 1066 and 1086.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 B12\tab \'a39 OF PENCE. The phrase 'of pence' in Domesday Book occurs some sixteen times, often in connection with a payment
 'at 20 to the "ora", that is, at the 20d rate, rather than the usual rate of 16d to the "ora"; it also occurs as '18 "ora" of pence' (see SHR 4,1,21 due note) and '3 (or 2) "ora" of pence', as well as simply so many pounds of pence, as here. However, in 
KEN 1,1 the reeve in 1086 pays from Dartford '\'a370 weighed (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 pensatas}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) and 111s of pence at 20 to the "ora", and \'a37 and 26d at face value (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ad numerum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 )'. Dover also made payments 'at face value' to the earl and 'of pence, which are at 20 to the "ora" ' to the 
king (KEN D7). As the separate payments from Dover represent the usual split between the king and the earl, a distinction is probably being made in the Dartford entry between a payment 'of pence at 20 to the "ora" ' and one that had been 'weighed'. It is 
possible that the \'a39 in the present entry were reckoned 'at face value'. On the "ora", see NTT S1 hundreds note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\insrsid5780933 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 as \'a3(}{
\i\insrsid5780933 ibrae}{\insrsid5780933 ), s(}{\i\insrsid5780933 olidi}{\insrsid5780933 )and d(}{\i\insrsid5780933 enarii}{\insrsid5780933 
). Domesday often expresses sums above a shilling in pence (for example, 30d in 1,22) and above a pound in shillings (for example, 70s in 1,1).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab FROM ALL THE CUSTOMARY DUES. These were the payments and obligations placed on a burgess or on his tenement. Principal among them was land tax (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
landgabulum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), but there were also tolls and judicial forfeitures. Some customary payments varied from borough to borough, but payments for brewing ale and tithing penny were co
mmon. Personal obligations, such as town watch, carrying or carting duties, working in the town fields, feeding prisoners and walling could be commuted into money payments. See Tait, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Medieval English Borough}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 96-98.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab TWO PARTS WERE THE KING'S, THE THIRD [PART WAS] THE EARL'S. Here the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 comit'}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  abbreviates the singular }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 comitis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, as the reference is to the division of the revenues at a particular time. The last Earl of Mercia was Earl Edwin; see 8,5 Edwin note. This division of a borough's revenues bet
ween king and earl on the basis of two-thirds to one-third, is normal. There being no Earl of Stafford in 1086, the king should receive the whole sum, but in this case has given part of his share to Robert of Stafford, the sheriff.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab KING WILLIAM. For the name William, see B8 William note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ROBERT. For this name, see B6 Robert note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HAS HALF THE KING'S OWN PART. }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 According to this entry, the king received \'a3
7 from the borough representing both his part and the earl's part; furthermore, it is said that Robert [of Stafford] has half the king's 'own part'. The king's own part was two-thirds of the \'a3
7, the earl's part being one-third. At 11,7, however, Robert is said to receive 70s which is not half of the king's part but half of the king's total revenue of \'a37.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab SO HE SAYS. The Phillimore printed translation has 'as he says', but there is probably an element of surprise and doubt in the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
ut dicit}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\insrsid5780933 See also Fleming, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 239 no. 1465.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left about a third of a column blank before writing the Landholders' List (STS L) towards the bottom of the space allotted to writing.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 L1\tab THIS SECTION on the landholders (L1-17) was written by the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 main scr
ibe of Great Domesday using a darker ink and a different pen to those used by him for the borough section earlier in this column (folio 246a); see B1 section note. He used a less dark ink for chapter 1, beginning on the next column (folio 246b) and probab
ly a different pen. This suggests that the contents of this page were written on three different occasions, as happened in some other counties in Great Domesday.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\insrsid5780933 L6\tab THE CANONS OF STAFFORD AND OF WOLVERHAMPTON. In the text on folio 247d chapter 6 (which has 
no chapter heading) contains only the holding of the 13 prebendary canons of Stafford. Chapter 7, which succeeds it, has the heading 'Land of the Clerics of Wolverhampton', but also contains the single holding of Samson [the cleric] (7,13), who in the Lan
dholders' List here on folio 246a is allotted a separate number, }{\i\insrsid5780933 VII}{\insrsid5780933 
. Such discrepancies between the List and the text are common in Great Domesday Book and were sometimes caused by the List not being written at the same time as the rest of the county.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab There is no obvious reason why the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote a large capital }{\i\insrsid5780933 N}{\insrsid5780933  in }{\i\insrsid5780933 HaNdone}{\insrsid5780933 
 (Wolverhampton); it is not over the erasure of several letters, a frequent reason why he wrote larger (see B4 walls note).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1\tab LAND OF THE KING. }{\insrsid5780933 King William. H
e was born in 1027 or 1028, the son of Robert I, Duke of Normandy, and Arlette daughter of Fulbert the tanner of Falaise. Duke of Normandy 1035-1087, William seized the English throne in 1066 having defeated the uncrowned English King Harold, son of Godwi
n, at the battle of Hastings. William himself was crowned in Westminster Abbey on 25}{\up6\insrsid5780933 th}{\insrsid5780933 
 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 chil
dren 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), th
en by his son Henry (Henry I, 1100-1135).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Terra Regis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 is divided, it appears, into three sections. The first (1,1-10) probably contains the land held }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 by King Edward, although only two estates are actually attributed to him (1,1;7), the entries are muddled and it is not certain how many manors there were, as opposed to dependencies. The second section (1,11-32) consists of land held }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  by Earls Algar and Harold, although the latter only held one of the estates (1,12). The third section (1,33-6
4) contains 'waste' or abandoned land in Pirehill and Totmonslow Hundreds, the entries for which are very brief.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab Although the main scribe of Great Domesday included hundred heads at 1,1;8;11;33;48, the last two are erroneous and there are thirteen others 
missing. When these are restored, the arrangement within the first two sections appears a jumble, with portions of the same hundred appearing several times, even though the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  holder was the same. It is as if the list of royal manors was not drawn up f
rom material arranged by hundreds. It is possible, however, that a royal reeve provided a check-list divided only into the three broad categories and that the full manorial detail was inserted into it from just such a territorially-arranged schedule.}{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The 'arrangement' of this chapter appears to be as follows:
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts11\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth5085\clshdrawnil \cellx4977\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3663\clshdrawnil \cellx8640\pard 
\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid399784 {\b\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Chapter and Section references and Hundreds\cell }{
\b\i\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\b\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  holders}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts11\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth5085\clshdrawnil \cellx4977\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3663\clshdrawnil \cellx8640\row 
}\trowd \irow1\irowband1\ts11\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth5085\clshdrawnil \cellx4977\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3663\clshdrawnil \cellx8640\pard 
\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid399784 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,1-4 Seisdon Hundred
\par }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,5-6 [Offlow Hundred]
\par 1,7 [Cuttlestone Hundred]
\par 1,8 Pirehill Hunded}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,9-10 [Offlow Hundred]\cell }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 King Edward (1,1). Not stated (1,2-4)
\par (not stated)
\par King Edward
\par (not stated)
\par (not stated)}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \trowd \irow1\irowband1
\ts11\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth5085\clshdrawnil \cellx4977
\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3663\clshdrawnil \cellx8640\row }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl
\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid399784 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,11-12 Offlow Hundred
\par }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,13-16 [Pirehill Hundred]
\par 1,17-19 [Totmonslow Hundred]
\par 1,20 [Offlow Hundred]}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,21 [Totmonslow Hundred]}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,22 [Cuttlestone Hundred]
\par }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,23 [Totmonslow Hundred]
\par 1,24-25 [Cuttlestone Hundred]
\par 1,26 [Offlow Hundred]
\par 1,27-28 [Seisdon Hundred]
\par 1,29-32 [Offlow Hundred]\cell Earl Algar (1,11). Earl Harold (1,12)
\par Earl Algar
\par Earl Algar
\par Earl Algar
\par Earl Algar
\par Earl Algar
\par Earl Algar
\par Earl Algar
\par Earl Algar
\par Earl Algar
\par Earl Algar\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \trowd \irow2\irowband2
\ts11\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth5085\clshdrawnil \cellx4977
\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3663\clshdrawnil \cellx8640\row }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl
\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid399784 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,33-47 Cuttlestone [actually Pirehill] Hundred
\par 1,48-64 Pirehill [actually Totmonslow] Hundred\cell Various}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Various\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \trowd \irow3\irowband3\lastrow 
\ts11\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth5085\clshdrawnil \cellx4977
\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3663\clshdrawnil \cellx8640\row }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid399784 {\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
\par \tab The first section may well have been intended to consist of land held by King Edward. If some estates, though listed separately, were in fact parts of others, the arrangement may be slightly simpler:}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 1,1 Kingswinford
\par \tab \tab 1,2-5 Tettenhall}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 1,6 Wednesbury}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 1,7 Penkridge
\par \tab \tab 1,8 Trentham
\par \tab \tab 1,9 Wigginton}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 1,10 Willenhall}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 
The final section consists of land in Pirehill and Totmonslow Hundreds that was not under cultivation in 1086. As such only the barest details are available. The only personal names are of those who had held the land, perhaps in 1066, or perhaps the last 
holders }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.W.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  before abandonment who could have also held }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E. }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 and stayed on before the fighting round Stafford and the great re-distribution of lands early in William's reign. Sometimes a hidage is given, suggesting that it was still a matter of record 
or of memory. In other cases, perhaps those abandoned earliest, the land is assessed in carucates, which are probably a more recent assessment to replace a forgotten earlier one in hides; see 1,5 carucate note and compare 1,47 carucate note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 The informat
ion varies. Sometimes there are hides and a plough estimate, but in all cases but one (1,47) land assessed in carucates is not accompanied by a plough estimate. Sometimes only a plough estimate is given and in a few cases there is hesitation about the num
ber of ploughs in it.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 There is also a difference between the survey of the two hundreds, that for Totmonslow containing no assessments in hides and either an assessment in carucates or an estimate in ploughs, but not both.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In cases where (as in 1,33) ther
e is a hidage ('1 hide') and a plough estimate ('Land for 3 ploughs') it is natural to assume that the latter is the normal plough estimate as elsewhere in Domesday (1,1 ploughs note). However, in the list of lands in Totmonslow Hundred (1,48-64) where no
 entry contains both an assessment in carucates and the 'land for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ploughs' formula, it is possible that the latter is equivalent to the former; in other words, that 'land for 1 plough' is there the same as '1 carucate'; see 1,56 carucate note. Likewise in
 the list of members of Lichfield (2,16) three are described as having '}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  carucates of land' and two have 'land for }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ploughs'. A study of the phrasing in some entries in the south-west counties of Great Domesday and in their corresponding entries in the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Liber Exoniensis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, the direct predecessor of these counties, certainly suggests that the two statements were interchangeable; see DEV 1,1 carucates note. In other entries, such as those for the members of Eccleshall (2,11;21 and probably 2,20) and Lichfield 
(2,16;22), there is no assessment in hides or carucates so the 'land for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 n }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
ploughs' statement may represent this assessment, rather than being an estimate of potential exploitation.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The source of the account of these 'waste' lands is unlikely to have bee
n a geld list in the sense of a list containing only place-names, holder and taxable hidage, because many entries contain a plough estimate, which is unlikely to have formed part of a geld list and is probably a }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.W.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  measure. The reasons for their abandonment are unclear. Staffordshire was much damaged in 1069 and in 1070 by William's army; see \{
Introduction: History\}. In itself the land would soon have recovered, but not if its cultivators had been killed or fled. Shrinkage of the population for whatever
 reason is the likeliest cause of abandonment. It is significant that other parts of the villages listed here were under full exploitation in 1086.
\par \tab \tab The origin of these abandoned estates is unclear. Some of them may in 1066 have been held from the king an
d in other circumstances would either be silently included in the details of a royal manor or be found in the final chapter, 'Land of the King's Thanes'. Other lands will no doubt have come to the king on the death of their holder or possibly by forfeitur
e
 or banishment. Some lands are evidently parts of royal manors: for example, Endon (1,61), Rudyard (1,63) and Rushton (1,64) had probably been part of the manor of Leek (see 1,21 dependencies note); Bucknall (1,34) and Shelton (1,38) of Penkhull (1,16) or
 
of Trentham (1,8; see 1,8 Trentham note). These may have been listed separately from the head manor because they were waste or they were parts of the manor that had been held by a 'thane' and would have been included in chapter 17 if the land were still u
n
der the plough and had a holder. Compare the account of the royal lands in Domesday Yorkshire which were originally omitted and then written on two inserted half-sheets, folios 300-301; although not 'waste', they may have been initially omitted because th
ey were in the process of being re-allocated or because the main scribe of Great Domesday originally intended to put them in the chapter on the thanes' lands and then changed his mind.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab On the possibility that royal land at Wolverhampton was omitted from Domesday, see 7,1 hide note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday omitted the figure }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 I}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 beside the chapter heading, as he did for the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Terra Regis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  section in several counties; the reason for this is not known.}{
\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,1\tab KINGSWINFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Seisdon Hundred, as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 9,15. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 277, it is still classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown. Old Swinford was in Worcestershire. The county boundary had presumably divided an ancient land-unit.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Kingswinford acted as a collection point for certain royal revenues. An entry in Domesday
 Worcestershire (WOR 1,4) reports 'From Kinver, he [the sheriff] pays 100s at 20 [pence] to the "ora". This land is in Staffordshire. Also Kingswinford is likewise. From this manor and from another 2 which are in Worcestershire - that is, Tardebigge at 9 
hides and Clent at 9 hides - from these 3 manors the sheriff pays \'a3
15 of pence at 20 to the "ora".'. The entry for Tardebigge in Worcestershire (WOR 1,5) records that 'The sheriff of Staffordshire receives and pays the revenue of this manor in Kingswinford, that is \'a3
11 of pence at 20 to the "ora" '. Of Clent, also in Worcestershire (WOR 1,6) Domesday says: 'The revenue of this manor, \'a34, is paid in Kingswinford in Staffordshire'.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab These three entries come at the end of the survey of royal land in Worcesters
hire together with mention of some particulars of Droitwich (WOR 1,3a-3b;7). They are probably placed there because of their exceptional or miscellaneous nature. JRM in the Phillimore printed edition (1,27 note) suggested that they had once had the same h
o
lder. This would be the most probable reason for the concentration of these renders on one manor. However, in 1066 Kingswinford, Clent and Tardebigge were held by King Edward and Kinver by Earl Algar. Nonetheless, the grant to Algar or his predecessors as
 earl could have been of a royal estate or from one. JRM further added that: '}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Both Worcestershire manors lie south-east of Kingswinford, 15 and 7 miles distant, all three on the line of a probable Roman road from Greensforge in Kingswinford to Alcester'. Th
is might have significance if Kingswinford had once been the centre of a multiple estate w}{\insrsid5780933 
hose members (possibly whose lordship land) had included Kinver, Tarbebigge and Clent, and which had partially disintegrated and been severed by the later county boundary.
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab There is, indeed, evidence that the three estates, Kingswinford, Clent and Tardebigge, had been linked, at least from the time of King Ethelred (978 or 979 to 1016). Hemming, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
Chartularium}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , pp. 276-77, under the heading }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 DE STAEFFORD SCIRE}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , recorded 
how he had learnt from Bishop Wulfstan of Worcester (1062-1095) that a dean of the monastery called Aegelsius, who was also wealthy and among the royal counsellors, had purchased these three vills from King Ethelred. He had them for his lifetime but inten
d
ed them for the monastery. In the chaos that followed King Ethelred's death, with King Edmund Ironside warring with the Danish king Cnut, a sheriff of Staffordshire called Aevic seized them on Aegelsius' death. Hemming added: 'As a result, until now all t
hese vills are in the hands of the sheriff of Staffordshire, although certain of them are situated in this sheriffdom [Worcestershire]'.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The }{\insrsid5780933 church lost the manors and these unusual arrangements}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  were destined to endure: in 1086, Clent and Tardebrigge were
 already fiscally in Staffordshire. They were not considered to be parts of Worcestershire again until the nineteenth century. Clent returned to Worcestershire from Staffordshire in 1844. Tardebrigge was in Staffordshire until 1266, then in Warwickshire u
ntil 1844 when it returned to Worcestershire; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 pp. 276-277, 326, 352; }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
VCH Worcestershire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 3; Youngs, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , ii. pp. 475, 490.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab After 1086, Kingswinford was granted away by the Crown and in 1254-55 to
gether with the manors of Clent and Meretown (1,24) was in the hands of Roger de Somery, holder of the barony of Dudley; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 116. No church is mentioned as existing in 1086, but in later times it was held by t
he king; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 1331.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab KING EDWARD. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Domesday forms of Edward - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eduuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eduardus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eaduuardus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Edw}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ardus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Euuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] etc. - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eadweard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
: von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 237-38. JRM preferred the first element Ed- for Old English }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ead-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and the second element -ward for Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -weard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, as they reflected the majority of the Domesday forms; moreover, the name Edward has survived into modern times and the king is known as Edward. The Alecto edition also has Edward.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab LAND FOR 6 PLOUGHS. This is an estimate of the number of ploughs that Kingswinford could support. It may be }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
an answer to the final question included in the 'terms of reference' for those carrying out the Domesday Survey recorded in the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Liber Eliensis}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (Hamilton,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 97): }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 et si potest plus haberi quam habeatur}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('and if more can be assessed th
an may [currently] be assessed'). This plough estimate is not the same as an assessment in hides (or carucates) and it is often not the same as the number of ploughs recorded as actually at work.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 

\par }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab IN LORDSHIP 1; 1 SLAVE; 14 VILLAGERS ... . JRM decided to p
reserve the ambiguity of the Latin punctuation here by putting a semi-colon after the slave - the villagers and smallholders with their ploughs are not separated from the lordship plough and slave by a verb, though it is very unlikely that they were regar
ded as part of the lordship. This occurs in many entries in Domesday, though the alternative formula, where the statement on the villagers and smallholders forms a new clause with the verb }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 habent}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
 ('they have') replacing }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 cum }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 (as in 1,29: '33 villagers and 7 smallholders with a priest have 11 ploughs'), may not reflect a real difference, but merely a variation in phrasing.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 

\par }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab A MILL AT 2s. Mills (water-mills) occur in fifty-five entries in Domesday Staffordshire, mostly one per entry, though 2 mills are recorded
 on eight estates and 3 mills appear at Worfield (9,1). As here they are given a money render (with a render of eels too in 1,24), though three times no render is mentioned. They are generally listed at the start of the resources. On the mill specifically
 said to be in lordship, see 1,31 mill note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab TO THIS MANOR BELONGS. In the Danelaw counties places are systematically designated as manors, outliers or jurisdictions. In Staffordshire, however, and in most other counties, the mentions of manor are incident
al; see B8. 1,1;6-7;30;32. 2,2;9;11;16;20-22. 8,5;9;29;31. 10,9. 11,6;37;56. 12,1;22. 14,1. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 However, estates can generally be assumed to be manors in the absence of indications to the contrary; see 
\{Introduction: Manorial Organization\}.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab 'CROCKINGTON'.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  This}{\insrsid5780933  was a former settlement in the chapelry of Trysull and Seisdon in Wombourne Ancient Parish.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The name 'Crockington' survives as that of a lane, between Trysull and Seisdon: }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 38 note 5 (JRM). Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 35, left this place unidentified, but }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 170, suggested 'Crockington'}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
. The site of the lost village is given as SO843943 in }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bate and Palliser, 'Suspected Lost Village Sites in Staffordshire', p. 34. This grid 
reference is the same as that for the location of Crockington Lane on the Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 sheet SO89SW of 1967.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab A further 1 \'bd hides, waste, are listed in the fief of William son of Ansculf (12,16), but it is said that (in 1066) the king had the 
jurisdiction over its holders; see 12,17 jurisdiction note. The 1 \'bd hides had probably been alienated from this estate and therefore from Kingswinford.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,2\tab TETTENHALL. This small estate of 1 hide was what was left to the king after another hide here had be
en granted to found a collegiate church here (7,5). The royal estate had perhaps once been larger, if the contents of the later Ancient Parish are any guide: it contained Compton (1,2), Wightwick (1,3), [Old] Perton (3,1), Trescott (7,4), Bilbrook (7,5), 
O
aken (11,45), Wrottesley (11,46), Pendeford (12,20) and Codsall (17,1). It is possible that Wolverhampton (7,1) had also been granted out of Tettenhall, that Bilston (1,4) had once been part of it and that the royal land in 1086 was a mere fragment of a o
nce great multiple estate.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The layout of this part of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Terra Regis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  with the major manors introduced by }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rex tenet }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (Kingswinford, 1,1; Tettenhall, 1,2; Wednesbury, 1,6; Penkridge, 1,7) and dependencies by}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  In ...
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  suggests 
that not only did Wightwick (1,3) belong to Tettenhall (as Domesday expressly says) but also Bilston (1,4) and Bescot (1,5). Wightwick was a member of Tettenhall Ancient Parish, and Bilston of the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter, but Bescot lay a
t
 a distance and like Wednesbury (1,6) was in the Ancient Parish of Walsall (St Matthew); Walsall like Bescot and Wednesbury also lay in another hundred (Offlow). As Bescot directly precedes Wednesbury in the text, it is easy to connect the two, but it may
 be that Tettenhall was the mother settlement, that Wednesbury too had once belonged to it and that it was only later that Bescot and Wednesbury became directly linked through the growing importance of Walsall.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Tettenhall is recorded by the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 under the year 910 as the site of a major defeat of the Danes. The battle appears to have actually taken place }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 in Uodnesfelda campo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, that is, near Wednesfield (Aethelweard, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Chronicle}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 52-53) and this might suggest that Wednesfield (1,6. 7,7) al
so was once part of Tettenhall; see Stenton, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 323-24.
\par \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
After 1086, administratively this was regarded largely as a collegiate area, dependent on the church holding (7,5, a gift of the king in alms), then an Ancient Parish. Ecclesia
stically it was sometimes known as Tettenhall Regis from the royal holding here; civilly it was known as plain Tettenhall. The ecclesiastical portion is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tetenhale decen' clericorum}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283. Tettenhall probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later:}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 15; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 283. In}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 277, a portion (1,2) is still classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown. For another part, see 7,5. The present estate, known as 'Tettenhall Regis', consisted of two detached parts and was in and out of royal hands for the next two centuries; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 143, 384; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 113; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xx. pp. 15-16.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab COMPTON. This was a settlement in Tettenhall Ancient Parish. For the latter's administrative status, see 1,2 Tettenhall note. In}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 277, Compton is still classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,3\tab WIGHTWICK. This was a settlement in Tettenhall Ancient Parish; see 1,2 Tettenhall note. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086, like Tettenhall itself.
\par \tab \tab This estate appears to have formed the nucleus of the holding of a family named from the place, the de Wightwicks; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, xx. p. 18.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab IT BELONGS TO TETTENHALL. That is, to the estate of 1,2.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,4\tab BILSTON. This was a chapelry and township of the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter. In 1086 it probably lay in Seisdon Hundred, as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283.
\par \tab \tab Domesday does not say if this was an independent estate, nor who held it }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. It could also, like Wightwick (1,3), have belonged to Tettenhall (1,2); see 1,2 Tettenhall note.
\par \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bilsetnatun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was one of the estates confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, 
Archbishop of Canterbury, as Wulfrun's endowment of her monastery at Wolverhampton: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 
, no. 1380). If it ever came into the hands of the monastery it was subsequently lost to it.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,5\tab 
[IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Bescot and Wednesbury (1,5-6). However, it is not certain that a head was missing here; see 1,6 [***] note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BESCOT. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Walsall St Matthew. In 1086 it probably lay in Offlow Hundred, as Walsall did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 9, 14.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab It seems very likely that Bescot, or possibly Wednesbury (1,6), accounted in 1086 for Walsall. Walsall is unlikely, however, to be the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Walesho}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  of the will of Wulfric Spot, though so identified by }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, xvii. p. 169. That place is more probably Wales in Yorkshire: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1536 }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 = 
}{\insrsid5780933 Whitelock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-6 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxvi).}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Unless Walsall has been accidentally omitted from Domesday (as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, xvii. p. 169, suggests) it is probable that it gradually displaced Bescot in importance. In}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 277, it was listed as }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Walshale cum membris}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('Walsall with members') being Ancient Demesne of the Crown, and is coupled with Wednesbury (1,6). Walsall was granted by King Henry II in 1159 to Herbert }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 le Rous}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ruffus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ). In the early thirteenth century, the holder was William }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ruffus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 142, 348, 593, apparently by archery-service. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries Walsall was held by the de Morteyn family; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. pp. 9, 14. Under the Crown they also held Bescot, which was by that time a separate manor within Walsall and they also held Bloxwich (1,6). Walsall included Goscote (SK0102). On Wallsall, see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108.}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 On the estate as a whole, see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, xvii. pp. 169-73.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab No church is mentioned in Domesday either at Bescot or at Wednesbury. However, there was one at Walsall in later times, held in 1226-28 by }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Magister Serlo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , by gift of King John; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 384.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Domesday does not indicate the nature of the estate nor its }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 holder. As it appears to have lain in Offlow Hundred, at first sight it appears not to belong to Tettenhall (1,2) but to be either an independent, but abandoned, estate, o
r a portion of Wednesbury (1,6) to which it is close and with which it had a parochial connection, both Bescot and Wednesbury being in the Ancient Parish of Walsall St Matthew. However, the layout of the Domesday text here strongly suggests that it was a 
dependency of Tettenhall; see 1,2 Tettenhall note. It had probably been held by King Edward }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 1 CARUCATE OF LAND. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 The genitive, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 terrae }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ('of land'), is used to distinguish }{
\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 car}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ucatae}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 from }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 car}{
\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ucae}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ] (' ploughs') here and elsewhere (JRM, note to 1,58).}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
In the shires of the Danelaw (Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire) and occasionally on their fringes, the carucate is the normal taxable measure of land, equivalent to the hide of the counties of Wessex and Mercia. Its s
ubdivision was the bovate. In Wessex and Mercia, some land that had never been hidated, and therefore not taxed, was measured in carucates; this particularly applied to some royal estates in Wessex. Those carucates appear to have been an attempt to assess
 
the taxable extent of land, or possibly its plough potential, should it have been decided to tax it. The present instance and others elsewhere in Staffordshire appear to be a variation of this latter use of the term: they are an assessment of the taxabili
t
y of land. Here, however, it is unlikely that the land has never been hidated, but that the hidage is unknown because the land has been abandoned. Carucates are largely mentioned in Domesday Staffordshire in connection with 'waste' land, and where they ar
e
 not, it is possible that the land had formerly been waste but had been re-cultivated. Sometimes carucates (not said to be waste) and hides and virgates appear in the same entry (as in 1,47. 11,8;36-37;57. 17,17), but in these instances it may be assumed 
t
hat the carucates represent land that had been waste. In the first and last of these entries it might appear that the carucate had a subdivision, a virgate, but see 1,47 carucate note. In other counties, the carucate appears to be applied to new land in h
idated areas. On this, see }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 18; Round, 'Domesday Measures of Land', pp. 199-204.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On the apparent equivalence of '}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 n}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  carucates' and 'land for }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 n}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  ploughs' in some entries, see STS 1 king note.}{\insrsid5780933 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 172, sees this carucate as an error for hide and points out that Wednesbury and Shelfield (1,6) together with a hide here would make a five-hide unit.}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,6\tab WEDNESBURY. Wednesbury St Barthol}{\cf11\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 o}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 mew was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of W
alsall (St Matthew). In 1086 it probably lay in Offlow Hundred, as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 14. In}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 277, Wednesbury is classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown. The earlier pattern may have been that Wednesbury was part of
 Tettenhall (1,2) and had Bescot (1,5) as its member. Walsall may have been a dependency of Bescot (possibly the site of the church for this area of the manor), but in time came to dominate both Wednesbury and Bescot.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The 1066 holder of this estate is not given. However, in the first section of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Terra Regi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
s only King Edward is named as a holder (1,1;7), so he was possibly the holder of}{\cf11\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wednesbury.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab After 1086, Wednesbury partly passed out of Crown hands: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wednesbr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ' was held by William }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Heronville }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 as a fee of the Earl of Warwick, barony of Henry d'Oilly. It was an exchange for Stonesfield in Oxfordshire }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 extra parcum de Wudestok'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('outside Woodstock park'); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 142, 544, 595, 970; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 8.}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. These are not explicitly stated, although Bloxwich and Shelfield named in the entry may be included in the term dependencies.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left the rest of the line blank after}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  appendiciis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, as if he expected he would need to insert a hundred head, a common reason for such spaces at the end of the first line of an entry (see 1,7 hundred note). This head would probably have been for Offlow Hundred. In the present edition an Offlow hun
dred head has been placed before the previous entry, for Bescot (1,5). If however, as seems likely, Bescot was a member of Tettenhall (see 1,2 Tettenhall note), then the scribe would not have indicated that Bescot lay in a different hundred to Tettenhall,
 in common with his practice elsewhere in Great Domesday.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab It is less likely that the space was left for the later insertion of the }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 holder of Wednesbury, as it seems that King Edward had held all the estates in this section of the }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Terra R egis}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  (1,1-
10); see STS 1 king note. It is also unlikely that the space was left for the names of the dependencies, as elsewhere in }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Domesday Staffordshire in the phrase 'with dependencies' they are not named immediately (see 1,13;15-18;20-21;23-25;27;29-30 etc.)}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  or the names and assessments are given later in the entry (as in 2,16. 11,6).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab A MILL. The Abbey of Bordesley (in Worcestershire) held a mill at }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Finchespath'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 [unidentified] in the manor of Wednesbury in later times (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 1291) though it is not certain that this was the location of the Domesday mill.
}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BLOXWICH. At the time of Domesday, this was only an ar
ea of woodland, though it later became a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Walsall (St Matthew). In 1086 it probably lay in Offlow Hundred like Wednesbury itself and like Walsall, which was not named in Domesday Book but was probably included in Bescot 
(1,5). Walsall was held by the de Morteyns in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries; see 1,5 Bescot note. Domesday }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Blocheswic}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 is represented by Bloxwich (SJ9901) and Little Bloxwich (SK0003).}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab SHELFIELD. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Wals
all (St Matthew). Like Bescot (1,5), which probably represents Walsall, it probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086; see 1,5 Bescot note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,7\tab [IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Penkridge.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab T
he main scribe of Great Domesday left a space at the end of the first line of this entry, almost certainly for the later inclusion of the hundred head, as on many other occasions in Great Domesday, and in this county probably in 1,6. 7,7. 8,4;7-8 and poss
ibly in 4,10 (but perhaps not in 10,6).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 
PENKRIDGE. Like Tettenhall (1,2), this estate had once been larger, but by 1086 at least, part had been granted to the collegiate church here (7,17) and was held by nine clerics. As a result, after 1086, Penkridge wa
s regarded as a chapelry in the collegiate church of Penkridge, then an Ancient Parish by 1551: Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, ii. p. 419. In 1086 it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred, as it did later:}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 2,16;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281. Cuttlestone Bridge which represents the moot-site lay within the bounds of the manor; see \{Introduction: Moot-sites\}.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Penkridge had probably been an ancient and important royal estate; an assembly took place there in 958; see Sawyer, 'Royal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tun}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ', p. 295. It is mentioned in a charter: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 384 no. II (= Birch, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cartularium Saxonicum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , no. 1041 = }{\insrsid5780933 Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 667).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  It is difficult to discover its original extent, but Domesday itself lists as its membe
rs, Wolgarston?, Drayton, Congreve, Dunston, Cowley and Beffcote. The disposition of these on the ground, with many other, apparently unconnected, estates lying between them and Penkridge suggests that the manor of Penkridge had once embraced all the terr
i
tory between itself and its named members. The manor's extent may also be discernible in those Domesday estates that lay in Penkridge Ancient Parish: Whiston (4,9), 'Bedintone'/ Pillaton (4,10), Mitton (11,6), Stretton (11,57), Water Eaton (11,58), Gailey
 
(11,59), Otherton (11,60), Great Saredon (11,61), Coppenhall (11,63), Shareshill (11,64), Levedale (11,66), Rodbaston (13,9), Little Saredon (17,2) and Bickford (17,3). Even these may not exhaust the members of Penkridge. Cannock was possibly granted out 
o
f it (1,25 Cannock note) as perhaps was Brewood (2,1 Brewood note). One of Penkridge's members (Cowley) was in Gnosall Ancient Parish, and it is possible that that area was once part of Penkridge. Gnosall Ancient Parish also contained Beffcote (1,7), Knig
h
tley (8,6), Moreton (8,7), Walton (8,11), Brough Hall (11,5) and Wilbrighton (11,54). Other Ancient Parishes (including Bradeley, Haughton, Ranton, Lapley, Church Eaton and Blymhill) stood between Penkridge and Gnosall. The likelihood is that Penkridge on
ce dominated the area from the borough of Stafford to the border with Shropshire; see \{Introduction: Manorial Organization\}.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab After 1086, the manor presumably lay in the hands of the Crown for a time, but by 1156 it was held by Walter Hussey. It was again 
in the hands of the Crown from 1173 to 1206, but in 1207 it was given to Hugh Hussey, son of Walter. In 1215 Hugh conveyed the estate to Henry of London, Archbishop of Dublin (1213-28), who had formerly been Archdeacon of Stafford; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 143, 384, 593, 970; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. p. 2; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 108.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab KING EDWARD. See 1,1 Edward note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [***]. On the space left here, see 1,7 hundred note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab THE WOODLAND HAS [IS] 1 LEAGUE LONG AND 1 WIDE. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Silua}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 h}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 abe}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 t. i. leuu}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 a}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ] }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 l}{
\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 on}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 g}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 a}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ] }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
7 una lat}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 a}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ]. }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 He began by writing }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 habet}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
 ('has') and would naturally have continued '1 league in length (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 in longitudine}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 )' and '1 in width (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 in latitudine}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
)'. However, as he wrote, he slipped into the common '1 league long (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 long'}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ) and 1 wide (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 lat'}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 )', but failed to alter the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
habet}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  to }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 est }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ('is'). For further examples involving woodland, see 1,13;20. In 12,2 he used the correct formula: }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Silua longit}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [}
{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 udinem}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ] }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 h}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 abe}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 t .ii. leuu}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 arum}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  7 t}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 a}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 nt}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 un}{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 dem lat}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 itudinem}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ]. Similarly in 12,18 he wrote }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Silua h}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 abe}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 t .iii. q}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ua}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 rent}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
inas}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  in l}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 on}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 g}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 itudine}{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  7 lat}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 itudine}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ]. For an example involving the dimensions of an estate, see DBY 10,16. }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Compare 1,9 meadow note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WOLGARSTON?. The Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Turgarestone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . Following }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, iv. p. 38, and the Phillimore printed edition, it is tempting to identify this place with Wolgarston (which was a settlement in Penkridge Ancient Parish), but it is difficult to explain the difference of the initial letter. }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 93, regards the initial letter as an error and appears to suggest that the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 - has become attached from Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 aet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('at'): the phrase }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 aet wulfgares more}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  occurs in 993. This misdivision occurs several times in Domesday (for example, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Addelam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Delam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, that is Deal, in KEN M17), but does not involve the replacement of the initial letter of the place-name. However, in one of the predecessor documents it is possible that a misshapen runic }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 wynn}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('w', which resembled a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 P}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) was mistranscribed as a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .
\par \tab \tab Like Penkridge itself (1,7) it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Wolgarston was a distinct member of the manor of Penkridge until 1372, after which it apparently merged with it; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 125.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab DRAYTON. This was a settlement in Penkridge township in Penkridge Ancient Parish; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 89. Like Penkridge itself, it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab After 1086, Drayton, like Dunston, passed to the barony of Stafford (descent from Robert of Stafford); see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 967; }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary II', pp. 263-65; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 113.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Drayton is represented by Drayton Manor and Drayton Home Farm (SJ9216), and Lower Drayton (SJ9315).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LAND [FOR *** PLOUGHS]. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ra \'e7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 with no punctuation after it, so that he could insert the number of ploughs in the estimate at a later date. It would seem that the details of the plough estimate were important as h
e often left room for their completion; see also here in 1,14. 2,10. 8,29. }{\insrsid5780933 
In circuit I he left over 150 such spaces, ninety or so in Kent alone. Obviously this information was missing in his source, but he was inconsistent in his policy over it as the plo
ugh estimate is completely missing in a large number of entries in Great Domesday. Sometimes the information was found to complete the estimate, though not in Staffordshire.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab CONGREVE. This was a settlement in Penkridge township in Penkridge Ancient Parish; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 89. Like Penkridge itself, it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Congreve descended as a member of Penkridge until at least 1372; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. p. 112.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab DUNSTON. This was a chapelry of Penkridge Ancient Parish. Like Penkridge itself, it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 3, 17; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 281. After 1086 it appears to have become a member of the manor of Bradley (11,6); see 11,6 dependencies note; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. p. 144. As a result, the estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 967; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 3}{\insrsid5780933 .}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab COWLEY. This was a settlement in Gnosall Ancient Parish; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 156.}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 In 1086 it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred, as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 1; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282. It is represented by Lower Cowley (SJ8218) and Upper Cowley (SJ8219).}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended with Penkridge itself. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cunteleg'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 is held from the barony of Stafford in 1284-85 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 1); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 118.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BEFFCOTE. This was a settlement in Gnosall Ancient Parish; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, i. p. 154.
\par \tab \tab The estate descended with Penkridge; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 117.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 1 THANE. Thanes are usually only found in Domesday as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 holders or as men who hold from the king in the 'Land of the King's Thanes', usually the final chapter in a county, or occasionally elsewhere (see 2,20-21). The 
position of this thane after the lordship ploughs and before the villagers and smallholders with their ploughs (although the thane may have shared in the ploughs) is also unusual. In the Phillimore printed edition there is a full-stop after '1 thane', whi
c
h links him even more closely with the lordship; this has been changed to a semi-colon for the present edition. The Alecto edition has 'In demesne are 2 ploughs, and 1 thegn and there are 16 villans ... '. Normally in Domesday Staffordshire slave(s) are l
isted between the lordship plough(s) and the villagers, smallholders and their ploughs, but emendation of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 tain'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  to }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 seru'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('slave') seems rather drastic.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,8\tab TRENTHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Pirehill Hundred, and it did so later:}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 12; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.
\par \tab \tab No }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  holder is given, but it is probable that this initial section of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Terra Regis}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is devoted to estates that had been held by King Edward; see STS 1 king note.
\par \tab \tab 
It is difficult to perceive the original extent of the royal manor of Trentham. In later times there were two detached portions of the Ancient Parish adjacent to the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, which itself abutted the royal (but formerly comital) es
t
ate of Wolstanton (1,15). The detachments seem to have been caused by the creation of the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent, long before the emergence of the great industrial town there. Stoke-upon-Trent is only represented in Domesday by half a church t
h
ere, attached to Caverswall (11,36). The other half is not mentioned, but it may have belonged to Trentham, or more particularly to Penkhull, another comital estate (1,16), which had probably originated as a grant out of Trentham. It may be that the estat
e
 of Trentham, held by King Edward in 1066, had once been more extensive. Not only was the castle, manor and borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme probably built upon its land and Penkhull and Stoke-upon-Trent carved out of it, but a number of other nearby estat
es could have originated from it. These could have included Wolstanton (an Ancient Parish), but also perhaps Caverswall, another Ancient Parish.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The growth of Newcastle-under-Lyme (from the thirteenth century) and the much later expansion of Stoke-upon-Tr
ent have greatly altered the administrative topography in this part of Staffordshire, which in 1086 consisted mainly of the contiguous royal manors of Wolstanton, Penkhull and Trentham. With the post-1086 creation of Newcastle-under-Lyme and the growth of
 
Stoke-upon-Trent, the dependencies (named and unnamed) of Wolstanton, Penkhull and Trentham, became, in some cases, chapelries or townships of the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent, or dependencies of Newcastle-under-Lyme manor, itself a chapelry of the 
A
ncient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent. Stoke-upon-Trent church was mother of a large parish, which included the Domesday estates of Clayton (13,6), Whitmore (13,2), Burslem (11,22), Norton-in-the-Moors (11,19), Bucknall (1,34), Fenton (17,21), Bradeley (11,28
), Abbey Hulton in Burslem chapelry (11,21), Rushton in the same chapelry (1,64), Penkhull (1,16) and Shelton (1,38) plus a number of places not named in Domesday; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , viii. p. 188; and 11,36 Stoke note. Trentham, as an Ancient Parish, re
tained Hanford and Hanchurch (13,4-5) and Wolstanton included Dimsdale (13,7), Knutton (13,8) and Thursfield (13,1). It seems very likely that Wolstanton, Penkhull and Trentham with their various dependencies had all been members of a single ancient royal
 estate.
\par \tab \tab Newcastle-under-Lyme, it appears, grew up on the land of Trentham. The castle here was in existence by 1149 when King Stephen granted to Ranulf de Gernon, Earl of Chester, the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
novum castellum de Staffordshira}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('the new castle of Staffordshire'); see Tait, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Medieval Manchester}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 136-74. A settlement grew up around this new castle and it is mentioned, among other lands, in a grant to Trentham Priory in 1162: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Trentham cum omnibus pertinenciis}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  scilicet Berlaston}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Betteleya}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  dimidia Baltredeleye}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  quid}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 am}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
viculus Novi Castelli qui est de territorio parochie de Trentham}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('Trentham with all its appurtenances, namely Barlaston, Betley, half of Balterley, a certain small settlement, [the] New Castle, which is on the land of the parish (church) of Trentha
m'); see Parker, 'Trentham Priory Cartulary', p. 303. Barlaston (11,24), Betley (17,10) and Balterley (17,11-12) appear in Domesday which makes no connection between them and Trentham. Barlaston itself was an Ancient Parish and close enough to Trentham to
 
have once been within its compass. Betley and Balterley, however, are on the edge of the shire and if they were ever connected with Trentham, they must have been detached parcels of the manor, unless Trentham had once occupied the northern part of what be
came Pirehill Hundred.
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid399784 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 
Newcastle-under-Lyme grew into a manor, first mentioned in 1215, and into a borough; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\insrsid5780933 
, viii. pp. 11-12. It was subject to tallage in 1173, there was a jury for the borough in 1203 and there was a borough charter in 1235; see Beresford and Finberg, }{\i\insrsid5780933 English Medieval Boroughs}{\insrsid5780933 
, p. 163. Burgages are mentioned }{\i\insrsid5780933 in villa Novi Castri}{\insrsid5780933  in 1212 (}{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 143) and the [}{\i\insrsid5780933 villa}{\insrsid5780933 ] }{\i\insrsid5780933 Novi Castri}{
\insrsid5780933  was part of the Liberty of the Earl of Lancaster in }{\i\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13.
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid399784 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab A me
mber of Trentham, not mentioned in Domesday, and later a part of Newcastle-under-Lyme manor, was Hanley (SJ8847); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 143, 594; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , viii. p. 142. It is possible that the estate of Chesterton (SJ8349) which was said to be royal demesne in 1212 (when Henry }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Walerton'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was holding by charter of King Henry) was originally part of Trentham: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 143. A further estate was probably Keele (SJ8145), held in 1212 as a member of the manor of Newcastle by the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 fratres miliciae Templi}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (the knights templar) by gift of King Henry (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 143) and listed as Ancient Demesne in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 277.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Trentham itself remained an estate and was held (together with Newcastle-under-Lyme) by the Earls of Chester. An }{\insrsid5780933 
Augustinian priory was established here, apparently by Ranulf de Gernon, Earl of Chester, who died in 1153, although in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p 1285, the foundation was attributed to Hugh 'the old Earl of Chester' (that is Hugh of Avranches, the Domesday tenant-in-chief) in the time of William II}{\insrsid5780933 . Trentham itself was among its possessions; see}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 142; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p}{
\insrsid5780933 . 12.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 5 VILLAGERS WITH 1 SMALLHOLDER ... HAVE 3 \'bd PLOUGHS. ... 3 VILLAGERS AND 6 SMALLHOLDERS WITH 1 PLOUGH. It is unusual for there
 to be two mentions of villagers and smallholders with their ploughs in one entry. It is possible that in a document preceding Great Domesday the second set of villagers and smallholders were either added or misplaced and the main scribe of Great Domesday
 did not notice this. The correction concerning the reeve (1,8 reeve note) may indicate imperfections in his source. Alternatively the apparent sharing of the 3 \'bd
 ploughs, but not the single plough, by the reeve may have been the reason why the scribe did n
ot combine the two mentions of villagers and smallholders with their ploughs. It is also possible that the 3 villagers and 6 smallholders with their plough were on a dependency of Trentham, separately treated in the source, and that Domesday scribe had de
c
ided not to mention the dependency and had failed to combine its details properly with those of the manor. The entry for Baswich and its dependency Walton-on-the-Hill (2,2) shows how the present entry might have looked if he had decided to include the dep
endency.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid399784 {\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab AND A REEVE. After }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 bord'}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  h }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
was first written, evidently for }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 h}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 abe}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 nt}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ('have'), and }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 7}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  was written over the letter, presumably when the reeve was noticed (JRM). Such immediate corrections by the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 main scribe of Great Domesday were quite common.}{
\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Reeves (Old English }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 gerefa}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , usually rendered as Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 praepositus}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
) played an important administrative role, particularly for the king. There were reeves in charge of boroughs, in charge of counties (the 'shire-reeve' or 'sheriff') and of individual or grou
ps of several royal manors. This is the only occurrence of a reeve in }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Domesday Staffordshire.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid399784 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab A PRIEST. There had possibly been a minster church here; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 255; }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Medieval Religious Houses}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 484.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab AFTER THE W
OODLAND the main scribe of Great Domesday left the rest of the line blank before entering the value on a new line. This space, and others like it (1,13;17-19;26. 2,10;16. 3,1. 4,4-5. 12,14;19) might have been for the later inclusion of other resources, as
 seems to have been the case in Domesday Shropshire (see SHR \{Introduction: Content and Layout of Entries\}
), though in Staffordshire the scribe did not always leave such spaces when just woodland was recorded. His omission of any punctuation after the woodl
and in 1,17 may be relevant, while the woodland is missing altogether in 1,26 and 2,10, and he wrote just }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Silua.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 with no dimensions in 12,14. In 2,5 he did not leave a space after the mill for the other resources and these were then written four entries fu
rther on; see 2,5 mill note. These spaces are similar to those left for other apparently missing details, such as hundred heads (1,7 hundred note), hidages (2,3 hides note), plough estimates (1,7 land note), the ploughs used by the villagers and smallhold
ers etc. (4,6 villagers note) and the resources as a whole in 7,15;17.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,9\tab [IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Wigginton and Willenhall.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 According to JRM 'the Hundred heading has been inserted in the wrong place'. He was referring to its appearance above Alrewas (1.11), instead of here. Both}{\insrsid5780933 
 Wigginton}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  and Willenhall (1,9-10) appear to have lain in Offlow Hundred, but the schedule of the }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Terra Regis}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  appears to have been put together from at least 
three sources and the Offlow hundred heading at 1,11 marks the beginning of one of them; see STS 1 king note.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WIGGINTON. This was a chapelry of Tamworth Ancient Parish. In 1086 it probably lay in Offlow Hundred, as it did later:}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 14. In}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 8, it is held with half of Tamworth and in}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 77, it is still classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown. Then its apparent members were Hopwas (1,31), Coton (SK1805) and Comberford (SK1910). In 1254-55 it was held 
by Robert Walerand as ward during the minority of Henry of Hastings: Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108. According to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 116 (1274-75), it had been given by the 'last King Henry' (presumably Henry III) to the father o
f Henry of Hastings for part of the land that he held in Cheshire, but had later been given by the same King Henry to Philip Marmiun. It is Philip Marmiun who holds Wigginton together with half of the borough of Tamworth in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 8. The same man holds the castle of Tamworth in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 1275, 1280, and the barony of Tamworth in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 829, 841, 1275, 1280.
}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab No }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  holder is given, but it is probable that this initial section of the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Terra Regis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is devoted to estates held by King Edward; see STS 1 king note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab TAMWORTH. The borough is not entered in Domesday Book. Four of its burgesses are entered here, a mile to the north, with eight more burgesses three miles to the south at Drayton Bassett (1,30), where they 'work like oth
er villagers', and 10 burgesses at Coleshill in Warwickshire (WAR l,5), nine miles to the south (JRM).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The
 omission of a survey of Tamworth is curious, though not unparalleled; a number of other boroughs are missing from Domesday Book, including Bristol from Gloucestershire, London from Middlesex and Winchester from Hampshire, though spaces had been left by t
he }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 main scribe of Great Domesday }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
in the manuscript for the last two of these. It is possible that the area, in view of its history and important church, was an area of special privilege and so not hidated. Tamworth was partly in Staffordshire and partly in 
Warwickshire, but it cannot be that the commissioners surveying Warwickshire left Tamworth to those handling Staffordshire and }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 vice versa}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  (so Desborough, 'Introduction', }{
\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Staffordshire Domesday}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 4) since both counties are members of the same Domesday circuit (see \{Introduction: Circuit and Ruling Pattern\}.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Tamworth was a borough and an Ancient Parish. The borough lay on the Staffordshire-Warwickshire border and until a series of boundary changes, beginning in the nineteenth century, the castle was in Wa
rwickshire and the church in Staffordshire. The boundary ran from the River Tame up Holloway, turned right along Church Street and then left along Gumpegate. The Ancient Parish included land in Staffordshire (the township of Syerscote (11,48), the chapelr
y of Wigginton (1,9), and the hamlet of Hopwas or Hopwas Hays (SK1704)) and in Warwickshire }{\cf11\insrsid5780933 (}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 the chapelry of Wilnecot (WAR 16,24) and the township of Amington (WAR 28,1) and }{\insrsid5780933 
Stoneydelph (SK2302)}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  and the township of Bolehall (SK2103) and Glascote (SK2203)); see Youngs}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 425}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 The Staffordshire portion of Tamworth probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086. In 1284-85 half of the borough of Tamworth appears in Offlow Hundred in Staffordshire coupled with Wigginton, held by Philip Marmiun from the king (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5), while the other half appears in 1316 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 179) as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tammeworth medietas cum membris}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 held by the king in the Warwickshire hundred of Hemlingford. In}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), pp. 277, 320, the borough of Tamworth appears in both counties.}{
\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Tamworth, like Tamhorn (2,22), is named from the River Tame. It is probably the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tomtun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 that was mentioned in a charter of 675 x 692 (}{\insrsid5780933 Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon }{\insrsid5780933 Charters, no. 1804) }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 which was the confirmation of a sale of la
nd to the monastery at Breedon-on-the-Hill (Leicestershire). This lay in the province of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tomsaetan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and it is possible that the names }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tomtun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tomsaetan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  are also connected. }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tomtun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  will have become Tamworth by the substitution of Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 worthig}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 tun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; see Gelling, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 West Midlands}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 146. It had been an important royal site, where the kings of Mercia had their palace, counterbalanced by their religious centre and mausoleum at Repton in Derbyshire. It was at the centre of 'Mercia proper' and it was 
probably King Penda (?626-641) who established his power-base here. A series of charters, beginning with that of 675 x 692 referring to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tomtun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 and extending to the year 857, refer to it as a royal vill or as the place of an assembly; in date order, they are Birch, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cartularium Saxonicum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, nos. 843, 239, 259, 293, 326, 350, 430, 432-34, 436, 450, 455 (2), 488, 492 (= }{\insrsid5780933 Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , nos.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 1804, 120, 133, 155, 163, 172, 192, 196, 195, 193-94, 198-99, 207-208; see Sawyer, 'Royal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ', pp. 296-97. According to the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, Aethelflaed died here in 918 and Tamworth was the meeting place of King Athelstan of Wessex and the Scandinavian King Sihtric of York in 926 when Athelstan gave his sister Edith to Sihtric in marriage; see }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 8-10; }{\insrsid5780933 Sawyer, 'Royal }{\i\insrsid5780933 Tun}{\insrsid5780933 ', pp. 296-97. There was a mint at Tamworth in the reign of King Athelstan.
\par \tab \tab The Mercian site was fortified and consisted of a ditch and palisade forming a three-sided enclosure facing the River Tame. The ditch and palisade were found during excavation lying under the defenses built for the}{\i\insrsid5780933  burh}{
\cf11\insrsid5780933  }{\insrsid5780933 constructed by Aethelflaed in 913. The enclosure contained the church of St Edith an
d the site of the later castle. For the excavation of Tamworth, see the papers by F. T. Wainwright, J. Gould, K. Sheridan and P. Rahtz in }{\i\insrsid5780933 Transactions of the Lichfield and South Staffordshire Historical and Archaeological Society}{
\insrsid5780933 , vols. 9 (1967-68), 10 (1968-69), 13 (1}{\cf11\insrsid5780933 8}{\insrsid5780933 71-72), 14 (1972-73) and 16 (1974-75); there is a convenient overview in }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gelling, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 West Midlands}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 146-52.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab About the year 940, according to the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
(D version), 'Olaf [a Dane from Ireland chosen by the Northumbrians as t
heir king] took Tamworth by storm and the losses were heavy on both sides and the Danes were victorious and took away much booty with them. Wulfrun was taken captive in that raid' (the translation is by Whitelock and others, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 71). 
Wulfrun was the mother of Aelfhelm, Ealdorman of Northumbria (c. 993-1006), and of Wulfric Spot, and the foundress of the abbey at 'Hampton' to which was added her name to give Wolverhampton.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Wulfrun's son, Wulfric Spot, gave }{\insrsid5780933 land in }{\i\insrsid5780933 Tamwurthin}{\insrsid5780933  to his daughter in his will (1002 x 1004): }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1536 }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 = }{\insrsid5780933 Whitelock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 
, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxvi no. 13). It is possible that she had some connection with the religious community there (see Sawyer, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. xxii). To the community at Tamworth, Wulfric Spot also gave }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Langandune}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  [Longdon], 'just as they had leased it to him'. He also gave h
alf the usufruct to that community and half to Burton Abbey, his foundation}{\insrsid5780933 : }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 
, no. 1536 =}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\insrsid5780933 Whitelock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxxiv no. 78). Longdon is not included in Domesday, perhaps, as Sawyer suggests, because Tamworth had special privileges and was not hidated.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The collegiate church of St Edith, which may have been preceded by a nunnery, was
 possibly a royal foundation of the tenth century for St Edith may be the Edith who was sister of King Athelstan who was married at Tamworth in 926 (see above) and widowed in 927; }{\insrsid5780933 see}{\i\insrsid5780933  VCH Staffordshire}{
\insrsid5780933 , iii. pp. 309-10; Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 483.
\par \tab \tab Tamworth castle may have been in existence in 1086. The castle and barony of Tamworth were held by Robert the bursar (brother of Urso, sheriff of Worcester) in the late eleventh or early twelfth century, since }{\i\insrsid5780933 c}{
\insrsid5780933 . 1141 they were given by the Empress Matilda to William de Beauchamp 'to hold as freely as Robert the bursar held it': }{\i\insrsid5780933 Magni Rotuli Scaccarii Normaniae}{\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. xcix; }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid5780933 , iii. no. 68, pp. 26-27. Robert was a Domesday holder, th
ough not of Tamworth. However, it appears that between Robert the bursar and William of Beauchamp, the castle and honour had been held by Robert Marmiun, having been granted to him by King Henry I (1100-1135) late in his reign. Subsequently Tamworth was r
estored to Robert Marmiun by King Stephen in 1153 and confirmed by King Henry III to Philip Marmiun; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Magni Rotuli Scaccarii Normaniae}{\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. xcvii; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\insrsid5780933 
, i. pp. 355-56. See \{Introduction: Castles\} and 1,9 Wigginton note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab MEADOW, 6 FUR
LONGS IN LENGTH AND 2 FURLONGS WIDE. Measurement in acres is much more usual for meadow in Domesday Staffordshire and elsewhere. Moreover, when two measurements are given for meadow elsewhere in Great Domesday the formula is usually '}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 x}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  leagues/furlongs long and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 y}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 leagues/furlongs wide'. Here }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 p}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ra}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 is in the genitive case, though the Phillimore printed edition did not indicate this with a comma after 'meadow' as it normally did. Compare 1,7 woodland note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab VALUE ... \'a34. The main scribe
 of Great Domesday added the value statement in three lines in the outer margin of folio 246b level with the entry for Wigginton. He drew lines round three sides of it to indicate even more clearly that it belonged to the adjacent entry. He boxed in some 
36 other additions of his, though sometimes these boxes were little more than double 'gallows' signs. The fact that the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
 in the present addition are lined through in red shows that he wrote it before the county was rubricated.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,10\tab WILLENHALL. This wa
s a chapelry and township of the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter. For another part, held by the canons of Wolverhampton and no doubt originating as a grant out of this royal manor, see 7,8. Wolverhampton itself probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 
1086 and Willenhall is also evidenced there later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 283. However, there are grounds for thinking that the church of Wolverhampton later managed to create for itself a large discontinuous and scattered parish which in effect produc
ed islands of Seisdon Hundred within the hundred of Offlow. This was probably not the case in 1086; see 7,7 Offlow note. If this is so, the both parts of Willenhall were, in 1086, in Offlow Hundred, their natural geographical location.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab No }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  holder is given for this estate, but it is probable that this initial section of the }
{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Terra Regis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is devoted to estates held by King Edward; see STS 1 king note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Willenhall had probably been a royal estate, or part of one, from early times, as an assembly was held there probably in 733; see}{\insrsid5780933  Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters
}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 86.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 It is probable that the royal manor of Willenhall included the later manor of 'Bentley': }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 59. This was held by a serjeantry connected with the forest of Cannock, that of guarding the 'hay' and 'foreign' wood of 'Bentley'; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 7, 348, 594, 1186, 1291, 1331. }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 'Bentley' is marked at }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
SO984994 on the nineteenth-century six inches to the mile Ordnance Survey map, but has since been lost to colliery workings; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 279 note 2.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,11\tab IN OFFLOW HUNDRED. On this head, which marks the beginning of a new section of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Terra Regis}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , see STS 1 king note and 1,9 Offlow note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALREWAS. This was an Ancient Parish which inclu
ded the chapelries of Edingale (in Derbyshire in 1086: DBY 6,15), Pipe Ridware (2,22) and the townships of Fradley (SK1613) and Orgreave (SK1416); see Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 401. It lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. pp. 8, 14. In}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 277, Alrewas was still classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Land at }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Alrewasse }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 with other places amounting to 40 hides was granted to Wulfsige the black (}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Wulfsye prenomine Maur'}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ) by King Edmund in 942: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 90-91 no. 82 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 479 = Sawyer, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 9-13 no. 5). The other places were }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Bromleage}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  (Bromley Abbots and/or Kings Bromley), }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Barton}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933  (Barton-under-Needwood), }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Tatenhyll}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  (Tatenhill), }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Brontiston}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  (Branston), }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Stretton}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  (Stretton), }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Rothulfeston }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 (Rolleston-on-Dove), }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Clyfton}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  (Clifton Campville), }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Hagnatun}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  (Haunton in Clifton Campville).}{
\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Hart in }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 91-92, identifies these 40 hides with the following Domesday places:
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid525747 {\fs20\insrsid525747\charrsid9587363 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts39\trgaph108\trleft1260\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 
\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr
\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3780\clshdrawnil \cellx5040\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2160\clshdrawnil \cellx7200\pard\plain 
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid8589712\yts39 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747\charrsid9587363 Place\cell Hides\cell }\pard\plain 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747\charrsid9587363 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts39\trgaph108\trleft1260\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl
\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 
\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr
\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3780\clshdrawnil \cellx5040\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2160\clshdrawnil \cellx7200\row }\pard\plain 
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid8589712\yts39 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747\charrsid9587363 *1,11 Alrewas
\par *1,12 Kings Bromley
\par *1,20 Barton-under-Needwood
\par *1,29 Clifton Campville
\par }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747  }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747\charrsid9587363 1,32 Harlaston
\par }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747  }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747\charrsid9587363 4,1 Burton-upon-Trent
\par *4,2 Branston
\par }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747  }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747\charrsid9587363 4,3 Wetmore
\par *4,4 Stretton
\par *10,3 Rolleston-on-Dove
\par }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747  }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747\charrsid9587363 11,49 Wychnor
\par }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747  }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747\charrsid9587363 16,1 Thorpe Constantine
\par }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747  }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747\charrsid9587363 plus
\par }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747  }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747\charrsid9587363 3 hides at Abbots Bromley (4,5)+
\par }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747  }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747\charrsid9587363 3 carucates at Chilcote (DBY 1,25)\cell 3
\par 3
\par 3
\par 8
\par 4
\par 1 \'bd 
\par 1 \'bd 
\par 1 \'bd 
\par 1 \'bd 
\par 2 \'bd 
\par 2
\par 3
\par 
\par 3
\par (3 carucates)\cell }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747\charrsid9587363 \trowd \irow1\irowband1\ts39\trgaph108\trleft1260
\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 
\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr
\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3780\clshdrawnil \cellx5040\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2160\clshdrawnil \cellx7200\row }\pard\plain 
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid8589712\yts39 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747\charrsid9587363 TOTAL\cell 37 \'bd hides and 3 carucates\cell }\pard\plain 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747\charrsid9587363 \trowd \irow2\irowband2\lastrow \ts39\trgaph108\trleft1260\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 
\trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 
\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr
\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3780\clshdrawnil \cellx5040\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2160\clshdrawnil \cellx7200\row }\pard 
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid525747 {\cf1\insrsid525747 \tab }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747\charrsid15226843 * Places mentioned in the charter.
\par }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747 \tab }{\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747\charrsid15226843 + see 4,5 Bromley note.
\par }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid399784 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid525747 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 
Of the places not mentioned in the charter, Harlaston was a chapelry of Clifton Campville (1,29)), Burton-upon-Trent was the parish in which Branston and Stretton lay, and so might be silently included in one or other and Wychnor 
was in Tatenhill Ancient Parish. Tatenhill is mentioned in the charter and also contained Barton-under-Needwood, which is separately mentioned there. It is assumed that Haunton (SK2310) was included in the 8 hides that Domesday allots to Clifton Campville
.
 However, there are some difficulties with this attempt to reconstitute the 40 hides. Firstly, it is not obvious why Thorpe Constantine and Wetmore have been included, except to make up the numbers. Secondly, the identification of the holding at 4,1 with 
Burton-upon-Trent is not entirely secure since Domesday calls the place Stafford. Thirdly, the three hides at 'Bromley' seem to have been counted twice: in Domesday the total for Kings Bromley and Abbots Bromley is 3 \'bd
 hides, not the six included in Hart's analysis; see 4,5 Bromley note. Further, if the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Newanbold}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  also given to Wulfsige the black by King Edmund (Hart, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 92 no. 83 = Sawyer, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, no. 484) was Newbold in Barton-under-Needwood, then only part of the 3 hides assessed there by Domesday will have been given by the present charter. However, that Newbold may have been in Derbyshire; see 1,20 Barton note and DBY 1,1 Newbold note. Finall
y it has been assumed that the 3 carucates of Chilcote are equivalent to 3 hides, yet it is far from evidenced that existing hidage figures were simply converted to carucates in the Danelaw counties; see \{Introduction: Carucation\}
. This being the case it is unwise to base much on these figures.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alrewyz}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , presumably this place, was held as a fee of Roger de Somery with }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Barre}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Great Barr] in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 543. However, in }
{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 545, 593, 970, and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. p. 8, it appears in the hands of the Somerville family, holding by a charter of King John; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108. Some pieces of land in Tamworth were said to belong to Alrewas in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 116. This may have been an ancient arrangement.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid399784 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR. }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
He was the son of Earl Leofric and Countess (Lady) Godiva and father of Earl Edwin of Mercia and of Earl Morcar of Northumbria. Algar was }{\insrsid5780933 
Earl of East Anglia 1051-1052 in place of Harold during the exile of the Godwin family and from 1053-1057 
on Harold's appointment to the Earldom of Wessex in succession to his father. Outlawed in 1055 he formed an alliance with the Welsh King Gruffydd ap Llywelyn (of Gwynedd and Powys), routed an English force and pillaged Hereford. Restored, he was Earl of M
ercia 1057-1062, but was banished in 1058 and again regained his position with Gruffydd's help.}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 He died before 1066. Although Edwin succeeded to the earldom of Mercia, it is Algar rather than he who is often recorded in Domesday as the }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  holder.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par \tab }{\insrsid399784 \tab }{\insrsid5780933 The Domesday form, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Algar(us)}{\insrsid5780933 , is used throughout Domesday for the earl. This form together with the other forms - }{\i\insrsid5780933 Elgar}{\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\insrsid5780933 Aelgar}{\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\insrsid5780933 Alger}{\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\insrsid5780933 us}{\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\insrsid5780933 Aelger}{\insrsid5780933  - could represent Old English }{\i\insrsid5780933 \'c6lfgar, \'c6thelgar}{
\insrsid5780933  or}{\i\insrsid5780933  Ealdgar }{\insrsid5780933 or even}{\i\insrsid5780933  Old Norse Alfgeirr}{\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 144-46, under }{
\i\insrsid5780933 Al-gar}{\insrsid5780933 , and also p. 142, under }{\i\insrsid5780933 Al-}{\insrsid5780933 . However, he included all the references to the earl under Old English }{\i\insrsid5780933 \'c6lfgar}{\insrsid5780933  (}{\i\insrsid5780933 ibidem
}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 172-73). JRM, however, preferred to keep to the base form for the earl as it reflected the consistent Domesday spelling, which might suggest that the earl was actually known as Algar in 1086. The Alecto edition has Earl \'c6lfgar.}
{\insrsid399784 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid399784 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 
MEADOW, 24 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of acres. It would seem that after the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 xx.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  he began to write a }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 v}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , but then realized it should be a minim and tried to make the stroke more upright; as the result was less than clear he interlined }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 or}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (the last two letters of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 quattuor}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, '4') in clarification (compare 8,13 ploughs note, 1,32 slaves note and 2,18 meadow note).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab A FISHERY. Alrewas lay on the River Trent. Only one other fishery is recorded in Domesday Staffordshire, in Worfield (9,1) and it rendered 15s, rather than the eels in this entry.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WOODLAND. Together with the woodland at Barton-under-Needwood (1,20) this probably formed the nucleus of the later forest of Needwood.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,12\tab [KINGS] BROMLEY. This was a chapelry of Alrewas Ancient Parish, centred on the later Alrewas Priory, then a separate Ancient Parish following the Dissolution of the monasteries; see Youngs, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 405. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086, like Alrewas itself, as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 9, 14. In}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 277, it is still classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown.
\par \tab \tab After 1086, 'Bromley Regis' continued to be held by or from the Crown. Baldwin de Hodenet held it in 1212 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 143) and Thomas Corbet of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hetleg'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Hatley] in 1236 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 593); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 545. In 1254-55 it was held by Roger Corbet (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108) and in 1284-85 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. p. 9) a Thomas Corbet held it and, in 1316, (another) Roger Corbet (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 14).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Land at }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Bromleage }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 with other places amounting to 40 hides was granted to Wulfsige the black (}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Wulfsye prenomine Maur'}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ) by King Edmund in 942: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 90-91 no. 82 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 479 = Sawyer, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 9-13 no. 5). It is sometimes said that }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Bromleage}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 may have accounted for both the later Bromleys, Abbots Bromley (4,5) and Kings Bromley, although they are some distance apart and the names may have evolved quite separately; see 4,5 Bromley note. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
For an attempt to identify the 40 hides, see 1,11 Alrewas note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab According to the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, Earl Leofric of Mercia died in 1057, and John of Worcester, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Chronicle}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. pp. 582-83, in his enlarged version adds }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 in propria villa quae dicitur Bromleaga}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('in his own vill, called Bromley'. Leofric was buried at Coventry in the abbey he had founded.}{\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL HAROLD.}{\insrsid5780933  Harold Godwinson. He was the second son of Earl Godwin and Countess Gytha. He was born }{\i\insrsid5780933 c}{\insrsid5780933 . 1020 and appointed Earl of East Anglia }{
\i\insrsid5780933 c}{\insrsid5780933 . 1044. In 1051 he fled with his younger brother Leofwin when his father and brothers Swein, Tosti and Gyrth were banished. The family was restored to power in 1052 and on his father's death
 in 1053, Harold relinquished his earldom of East Anglia and succeeded to his father's earldom of Wessex. The Earldom of Hereford was merged with that of Wessex under Harold on the death of Earl Ralph of Hereford in 1057. Harold married Ealdgyth, daughter
 
of Earl Algar of Mercia. He succeeded Edward the Confessor as king of England on 6th January 1066 by decision of the royal council. On 25th September 1066 he defeated his brother Earl Tosti who was in alliance with King Harold Hardrada of Norway at Stamfo
r
d Bridge, but was killed at the battle of Hastings on 14th October of that year. The invader, William, Duke of Normandy, claimed that King Edward had promised him the crown of England and that Harold himself had accepted him as future king during a visit 
to France. He is consistently called Earl Harold in Domesday.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
This was Harold's only Staffordshire manor, formerly held by Earl Leofric, which Harold probably acquired on his marriage to Ealdgyth, granddaughter of Earl Leofric and sister of Earl Edwin; see }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 39; Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. xxix.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of Harold - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Harold}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Haroldus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Heraldus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Herold}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Heroldus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Horoldus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Herolt}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Herould}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eroldus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eral}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Heral}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Harald}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Haraldr}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 284-86. As the name Harold has survived and as King/Earl Harold is known by this name-form, JRM preferred it, as did Alecto.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,13\tab [IN PIREHILL HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of the next four estates: Sandon, Chartley, Wolstanton, and Penkhull (1,13-16).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab SANDON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 3, 12. In}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 277, Sandon is still classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Sandon and Chartley (1,14) did not long remain in royal hands, but were granted to the Earl of Chester according to }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 75. They were both Ferrers fees in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 542, 969, 975, and }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 6. In this last the place is '}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Sondon}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 with appurtenances at }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Linespel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [unidentified]'. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Sondon}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 is part of the Liberty of the Earl of Lancaster in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 
The modern village of Sandon lies at SJ947295. There is an isolated church at SJ954294 and the moated site of Sandon Old Hall lies at SJ956295. Sandon Hall is at SJ956286. The village has possibly migrated: the Deserted Medieval Research Group places
 (Great) Sandon at SJ955296, that is adjacent to Sandon Old Hall; see Bate and Palliser, 'Suspected Lost Village Sites in Staffordshire', p. 36. For 'Little Sandon', see 11,10 Sandon note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 1 HIDE. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 hida}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  slightly askew, the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 d}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 on the vertical score delimiting the outer edge of the column (folio 246b), but it is not a later addition. In the Alecto facsimile the word looks blurred.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH ITS DEPENDENCIES. These are likely to have lain within the present parish, such places as Romer, Smallrise, Twirlow and Hardewick; see Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, p. 75.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab THE WOODLAND [HAS] IS. See 1,7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 woodland note. On the space left after these details, see 1,8 after note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,14\tab CHARTLEY. This
 was an extra-parochial area, then, from 1858 a separate Civil Parish known as Chartley Holme. It was adjacent to the Ancient Parish of Stowe, sometimes known as Stowe-by-Chartley; see Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 407. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 6, 12; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 277.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab For the descent of the manor, see 1,13 Sandon note.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The grid reference is to Chartley Hall (SK006284). Chartley Castle is at SK101285.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 See 1,11 Algar note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 
LAND [FOR *** PLOUGHS]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a space at the beginning of the second line of this entry for the later inclusion of the number of ploughs in the estimate, though the information was never forthcoming. O
n such spaces, see 1,7 land note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,15\tab WOLSTANTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086. In}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 277, it is still classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown. Judging by the lie of the boundary of the A
ncient Parish, Wolstanton may have originated as a grant to an ealdorman or earl of Mercia from the royal manor of Trentham. For the interrelation of Trentham, Wolstanton, Penkhull, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-upon-Trent, see 1,8 Trentham note and 11,3
6 Stoke note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab A member of Wolstanton was probably Tunstall (SJ8651), held with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Chaderleg'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 [Chatterley, SJ8451] and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Normannecot'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [probably Normacot, 13,3] by Henry }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Verdun}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in right of his wife in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 143. It is distinct from the Tunstall (2,
20) held by the Bishop of Chester in 1086.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR.}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  See 1,11 Algar note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,16\tab PENKHULL. This was a township of Stoke-upon-Trent Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086. Like Stoke-upon-Trent itself, it had probably originated as par
t of the royal manor of Trentham (1,8), having been granted out of it to an ealdorman or earl of Mercia. In}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 277, it is still classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown and is coupled with Shelton (SJ 8748, possibly the Domesday est
ate of 1,38), Clayton (13,6), Seabridge (SJ8343) and Wolstanton (1,15). It declined in importance, however, after 1086 and was regarded, from the middle of the thirteenth century, as part of the manor of Newcastle-under-Lyme, which probably originated in 
the royal manor of Trentham (1,8); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, viii. p. 184. Half of the church of Stoke-upon-Trent belonged to Caverswall (11,36). It seems likely that the unmentioned other half was at Penkhull. The later borough of Stoke-upon-Trent probably arose on the land of Penkhull; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, viii p. 173. For the interrelation of Trentham, Wolstanton, Penkhull, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-upon Trent, see 1,8 Trentham note and 11,36 Stoke note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 See 1,11 Algar note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH [ITS] D
EPENDENCIES. One of these may have been at Longton (SJ9143), which was later part of the manor of Newcastle-under-Lyme, and a chapelry of Stoke-upon-Trent; see 11,36 Stoke note. In the thirteenth century it was held by serjeanty, the service being that of
 finding an armed man to serve the king at }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Novum Castrum subtus Limam}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  [Newcastle-under-Lyme]; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 143, 594, 1185, 1245, 1285; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , viii. p. 230.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Mixon (SK0458) was also probably part of Penkhull. According to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , 
p. 1286, referring to 1251-52, it was given to Hulton Abbey (together with Bradnop, a part of the manor of Leek, 1,21) by Henry de Audley after the death of Ranulph de Blundeville, Earl of Chester. In 1274-75 (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p.
 118), it is recorded that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Mixene}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 was held by Hulton Abbey and had formerly been held in fee-farm from the king 'by service of five shillings, a cartload of hay and an iron fork paid to the manor of Penkhull'. Mixon is remote from Penkhull, but it may well 
have been an estate established to supply iron to a royal manor. A disused mine is recorded there on the Ordnance Survey map.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,17\tab [IN TOTMONSLOW HUNDRED]. The head is supplied from the probable location of Rocester, Crakemarsh and Uttoxeter (1,17-19).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ROCESTER. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab It appears that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 the manor of Rocester had dependencies in Derbyshire: the jurisdiction of three bovates in Snelston (DBY 6,53) belonged to it, as did 1 carucate in Roston (DBY 6,57), and the two villages of Wyaston and Edlaston (DBY 6,59), less one bovate, were in its r
e
venue. The holder of these last two had been Earl Edwin, son of Earl Algar the holder of Rocester. It is not certain how old these arrangements were, but they could have preceded shiring, with the portions that were later in Derbyshire being originally me
asured in hides, but later carucated along with all land in the other Danelaw shires; see DBY \{Introduction: Carucation\}. It appears that a multiple estate had broken up.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab After 1086, Rocester passed to the Earls of Chester, and a}{\insrsid5780933 n abbey for Augustinian ca
nons was founded there between 1141 and 1146 by Richard Bacon, the nephew of Ranulph le Meschin, Earl of Chester; see \{Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\}. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
In 1274-75 (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 117) the Abbey of Rocester was held from the king in free alms and recorded as having been a fee of the Earl of Chester; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  See 1,11 Algar note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. Bradley-in-the-Moors and Waterfall were chapelries of Rocester Ancient Parish. Of t
hese, Bradley-in-the-Moors (15,1) was an apparently independent estate in 1086. Waterfall may well have been a dependency of Rocester in 1086; see 11,4 Cauldon note.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab At its foundation, Rocester Abbey was endowed }{\insrsid5780933 with the church of Rocester and its depend
ent chapels in Bradley-in-the-Moors and Waterfall and various other nearby lands including the vill of Rocester and Combridge (SK0937) with the lordship land there and at Wootton (either Wootton in Ellastone, SK1045, or Woottons in Croxden, SK0738), as we
l
l as appurtenances in Nothill (in Croxden, SK0737), Denstone (in Alton, SK0940), Quixhill (in Rocester, SK1041), part of Roston (in Derbyshire, DBY 6,57, a dependency of Rocester in 1086), Bradley-in-the-Moors, Waterfall and Calton (SK1050, a chapelry div
ided between Blore, Mayfield and Waterfall Ancient Parishes); see \{Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\}
. Those places that lay in Rocester Ancient Parish were probably among its unnamed 1086 dependencies. It is less certain whether the 1086 manor exte
nded into the land of the manors of Croxden (17,18) and Alton (1,54). However, Rocester gives the impression of having once been a larger and more important manor and it is possible that a number of estates that were separately listed and apparently indep
endent in 1086 had originated in it.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WOODLAND ... WIDE. The main scribe of Great Domesday did not put a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  after }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 lat'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and left the rest of the line blank before entering the value on a new line. For such spaces, see 1,8 after note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,18\tab CRAKEMARSH. This was a settlement in Uttoxeter Ancient Parish and, like Uttoxeter itself (1,19), it probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086.
\par \tab \tab Crakemarsh became a Ferrers fee and in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 969, it appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Krakemerz}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  together with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cracton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ' [Creighton, SK0836] and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Strongeshul}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Stramshall, SK0735] which were presumably the dependencies mentioned but not named by Domesday, or were among them; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 542. In 1274-75 (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 117) }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Crakemerch}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Crethton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  were held from Edmund 'Crouchback' (Earl of Lancaster), brother of King Edward I, by John }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
de Verdun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and were recorded as a member of the manor of Uttoxeter (1,19). This connection with Uttoxeter may have originated much earlier.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR. }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 See 1,11 Algar note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab FOR THE SPACE left after the mill detail and before the value statement, see 1,8 after note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,19\tab UTTOXETER. The Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wotocheshed}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
e. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 14; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 
Uttoxeter was held from Edmund 'Crouchback' (Earl of Lancaster), brother of King Edward I, in 1274-75 (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 117) and was part of the Liberty of the Earl of Lancaster in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 19, and had probably been part of the Ferrers barony before that. On the descent of Henry of Ferrers' lands, see STS 10 Henry note.}{
\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The manor of Kingstone (SK0629) probably originated as part of Uttoxeter. In the thirteenth century it was held by the Gresley family; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 118; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 See 1,11 Algar note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab FOR THE SPACE left between the woodland details and the value statement, see 1,8 after note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,20\tab [IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Barton-under-Needwood.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BARTON[-UNDER-NEEDWOOD]. This was a chapelry of Tatenhill Ancient Parish. Tatenhill is not itself mentioned in Domesday, but Wychnor (1
1,49) also lay within its parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 280.}{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Land at }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Barton}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  with other places amounting to 40 hides was granted to Wulfsige the black (}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Wulfsye prenomine Maur'}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ) by King Edmund in 942: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 90-91 no. 82 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 479 = Sawyer, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 9-13 no. 5). The fact that the next entry in that charter is for }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Tatenhyll }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 [Tatenhill], suggests that Tatenhill 
(not named in Domesday) was then a part of Barton. The relationship was later reversed. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 For an attempt to identify the 40 hides, see 1,11 Alrewas note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In a charter dating from the same year (942) King Edmund also gave land in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Newanbolde}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 to Wulfsige the black: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 92 no. 83 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 484 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 10-12 no. 6)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . If this place is Newbold in Barton-under-Needwood, then it appears to have been an additional estate whic
h is, nonetheless, probably included in Barton-under-Needwood in Domesday. However, in this charter all the other places given were in Derbyshire, though close to each other and to Burton. The possibility that this place was Newbold in Derbyshire (DBY 1,1
) cannot currently be ruled out. Burton Abbey later held land in Tatenhill (by 1185, see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, iii. p. 202), but the origin of this estate is uncertain.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Barton-under-Needwood passed to the Earls of Ferrers and was held as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Barton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in Offlow Hun
dred as part of the Liberty of the Earl of Lancaster in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 15.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR. }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 See 1,11 Algar note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. These dependencies probably included Tatenhill (SK2021), which named the later parish, and Dunstall (SK1820); see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 39 note 14.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tonstal}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Dunstall]}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Neubold}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 [Newbold, SK2019] were a Ferrers fee in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 542, 969.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab THE WOODLAND HAS [IS]. See 1,7 woodland note. The woodland here no doubt contributed to the later forest of Needwood; see \{Introduction: Forest\}.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,21\tab [IN TOTMONSLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Leek.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LEEK. This was the township of Leek and Lowe in Leek Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 
Most or all of the manor was granted in 1093 by the king to Earl Hugh of Chester and descended in that earldom. In 1232 part was granted to the abbey of Dieulacres by Ranulph 'de Blundeville' (i.e. of Oswestry), a later Earl of Chester. In 1274-75 (Wrotte
s
ley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 117) the manor of Leek was held by the Abbot of Dieulacres and recorded as formerly belonging to the 'Liberty of Chester'. It remained a possession of that abbey until its dissolution in 1538. The rest of the manor r
everted to the Crown in 1237 together with the Earldom of Chester. See }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , vii. pp. 100-102.
\par \tab \tab No churches in the manor of Leek are mentioned in Domesday, but it seems probable that the church at Leek was pre-Conquest. 
There were also churches at Cheddleton (8,30, originally a member of Leek Ancient Parish), Horton (SJ9562) and Ipstones (SK0249); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, vii. pp. 78, 132.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab A borough had been established at Leek by }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 c}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . 1207, together with a weekly market; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , vii. p. 80.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR. }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 See 1,11 Algar note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. The later medieval estate of Leek consisted of 12 townships: Leek and Lowe (SJ9955), Bradnop (SK0155), Endon (SJ9253), Heaton (SJ9562), 'Leekfrith' (SJ9861), Long
sdon (SJ9654), Onecote (SK0455), Rudyard (SJ9557), 'Rushton Jones' (possibly now Rushtonhall, SJ9261), Rushton Spencer (SJ9362), Stanley (SJ9352) and Tittesworth (SK0058). Of these, Endon (1,61), Rudyard (1,63) and both parts of Rushton (1,64) were listed
 
in Domesday as separate estates, but probably only because they were waste. All these may well have been parts of the pre-Conquest estate of Leek. After 1086, Heaton and 'Leekfrith' were given with the bulk of Leek itself to Dieulacres Abbey; Bradnop and 
Onecote were separated and granted to Henry de Audley. Henry de Audley gave Bradnop to Hulton Abbey: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 1286. The core of Rudyard remained a separate estate (1,63 Rudyard note) and the Audleys created a manor named Horton, which included Horto
n (SJ9457), Endon (1,61), part of Rushton (1,64) - that is, 'Rushton Jones' -, Longsdon (SJ9654), Stanley (SJ9352) and Bagnall (SJ9250), this last being in the parish of Stoke-upon-Trent; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 118;}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , vii. pp. 69-70, 78-80, 171, 187, 196, 205. The honour of Chester continued to hold part of Leek. In }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 970, it holds }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Longesdon}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ' [Longsdon], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ruston'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Rushton, 1,64], }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 altera Longesdon}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [another estate in Longsdon] and half of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ipstan}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Ipstones, SK0249] .}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab AS MANY WIDE. That is, 4 leagues wide. In the Phillimore printed edition the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 totid}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 em}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] is translated as 'as wide', as if the word were }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 tantum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,22\tab [IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Rugeley.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab RUGELEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 17; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab After 1086 it remained in royal hands until 1189 when it was granted (with the manor of Cannock, 1,25) to the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, by King Richard I; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 154. As }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ruggele}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, it forms part of the Liberty of the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 17, together with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Canokbury}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Cannock, 1,25]. There was a serjeantry here in the thirteenth century held for guarding the 'hay' of Rugeley in Cannock Forest by a family called }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Puz}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Puteo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  who held from Hugh }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Loges}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , the chief forester of Cannock, the overlord having been the king before the Bishop of Chester; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 7, 594.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab A member of the manor, not mentioned or named in Domesday, was Brereton (SK0516). A further member, retained by the Crown when Rugele
y was granted away, was Hagley (SK0418), held by the keepers of the 'hay' of Rugeley; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 154-55.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 See 1,11 Algar note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE FIFTH PART OF 1 HIDE. No corresponding fifths of a hide occur on estates near Rugeley. The main scribe of Great Domesday seems to have briefly omitted the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  on }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 pars}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  as it almost touches the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 h}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  of }{\i\f703\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 hid\'ea}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WOODLAND. It appears to have been drawn into the royal forest of Cannock; see 1,25 woodland note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,23\tab [IN TOTMONSLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Mayfield.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab MAYFIELD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 14; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Matherfeld}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was part of the Liberty of the Earl of Lancaster in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. p. 14, and had probably been part of the Ferrers honour of Tutbury before that. On the descent of Henry of Ferrers' lands, see STS 10 Henry note. In 1274-75 (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 11
8) it was recorded that the prior of Tutbury had gallows at }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Mathelefelt}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 See 1,11 Algar note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. It is not evident what or where these were.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,24\tab THIS ENTRY and the next four (1,25-28) were written by the main scribe of 
Great Domesday, perhaps after a break, using a different pen and a paler ink to those he had used earlier in the column (folio 246c). His writing became smaller too, especially for the last of these entries (1,28). The fact that the ink for the entries in
 
the next column (1,29 on) is darker means that he decided the pale ink was not adequate; he also wrote larger there, though still smaller than in the early part of chapter 1 (before 1,24). It is unlikely that he left a space for these five entries and ret
urned later to insert them: they had been held by Earl Algar like those in the next column (1,29-32) and Elford (1,26) was in Offlow Hundred as were those four entries, so it is hard to see how they could have not been found during editing.}{
\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Meretown.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab MERETOWN. This was a settlement in Forton Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 17. It may have stood for Forton (SJ7521) in 1086, the latter later becoming the more important place: Meretown and Forton are coupled in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 277. The church of Forton was said to be in the king's gift in 1198-99: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 1331.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 
Meretown continued in the hands of the Crown until 1204, when it was given to Ralph de Somery along with the manors of Kingswinford (1,1) and Clent (WOR 1,6) in exchange for Wolverhampton (7,1); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Rotuli Chartarum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 136; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 105.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR. }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 See 1,11 Algar note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. It is probable that Forton was among them; see 1,24 Meretown note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab A MILL AT 3s AND 4000 EELS. The eels, from the mill-pond, formed part of the mill's render. In the Phillimore pri
nted edition the semi-colon after '3s' makes this unclear. Although this is the only mention of eels in connection with mills in Domesday Staffordshire, such renders were common in Domesday; see SHR 4,3,52 mill note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WOODLAND ... 2 FURLONGS. In the Alecto facsimile only the first minim of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 is reproduced; in the manuscript it is fainter than the first. However, in the Ordnance Survey facsimile it is the same colour as the first, suggesting that it may have been touched up by hand there; compare 1,26 
smallholders note, 1,26 mills note, 1,27 Kinver note and 2,5 Haywood note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,25\tab CANNOCK. The Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Chenet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , contrasting with later forms such as }
{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cnot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (1156), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Canot }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (1157), }
{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Canoc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (1198), although the identity is not in doubt; see }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Ekwall, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
Dictionary of English Place-Names}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 under Cannock}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . Domesday appears to contain the first mention of Cannock. The form }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Canuc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  found in a charter of 956 (Sawyer, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , no. 609) and often quoted as the earliest form and, furthermore, as proof of a Celtic origin of the name, does not appear to belong here; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 56.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This Cannock was an Ancient Parish, perhaps only from the time of the Dissolution; earlier it was probably in Penkridge Ancient Parish as a dependency of Penkridge collegiate church; see Youngs, }
{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 407; and 7,17 Penkridge note. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281. For another part, see 17,5.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In 1086, Cannock consisted of this hide and a carucate at 17,5. }{\insrsid5780933 
Bridgeman and Mander, 'Staffordshire Hidation', p. 162, would be inclined to couple the 1 hide here with the three at Hatherton (7,13) and the one at "Estendone" (13,10) to make a five-hide unit, ignoring the carucate in 17,5.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 
The estate was granted to Ranulph de Gernon, Earl of Chester, by Henry Plantagenet (the future King Henry II) in 1153 and was given in the same year by Ranulph to the Cistercian Abbey of Radmore; its monks transferred to Stoneleigh (in 
Warwickshire) in 1155. Cannock appears to have returned to royal hands before being given (with Rugeley, 1,22) to the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield in 1189 by King Richard I; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 53. It is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Kanoc cum membris}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 114. As }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Canokbury}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , it forms part of the Liberty of the Bishop of Chester in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 17, together with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ruggele}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 [Rugeley, 1,22].}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On the important forestership of Cannock and the forest serjeantries, see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 142, 348, 1331.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 See 1,11 Algar note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. One of them will have been Great Wyrley (SJ9907), of which the king was overlord until 1487. Although the dependency is not named and no tenant given, it seems probable that it was held from the 
king both in 1066 and in 1086 by Richard the forester (see STS 13 Richard note), descending both with the office of royal forester and with Richard's manor of Chesterton (WAR 44,8). It therefore passed to }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
his daughter Margery, the wife of William Croc, and descended in that family until, after a later William Croc was hanged in 1170, the king gave his lands and his sister (another Margery) to Robert }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
de Brok}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . His successor was Peter }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Brok}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  who became a monk, after which, by 1195, the land went to Hugh }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Loges}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  who was husband of Robert }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Brok}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
's daughter (a third Margery); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 7; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 5, 77-79. For Little Wyrley, see 2,16.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab A further dependency was probably Cheslyn Hay (SJ9707) which was guarded in the thirteenth centur
y by Robert Trumwine and then William Trumwine as a serjeanty for which they held 1 virgate in Cannock (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Kanok}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Kanocksbur'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) and for which Robert Trumwine had formerly paid a mark to Hugh }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Loges}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 594, 1186, 1246; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Rotuli Hundredorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 115.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Another dependency may have been Huntington (SJ9713), which was a township of Cannock Ancient Parish. Huntington is identified by some with "Estendone" (13,10); see 13,10 "Estendone" note.}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab WOODLAND. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 main scribe of Great Domesday wrote a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 b}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 above and slightly to the left of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 iiii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 a}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 above the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 vi.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 to correct their order. It is not entirely clear whether he intended the whole of the width to be transposed (so that the length preceded the width, as usual) or whether it was just the figur
es that he wanted to alter (so the width was 6 leagues and the length 4 leagues. However, elsewhere in Great Domesday, as well as in some of the ecclesiastical manuscripts in which he worked, he used such letters to correct the order of phrases rather tha
n
 figures (which he could easily have corrected by erasure or overwriting). The Phillimore printed translation merely included (b) and (a) where they occurred in the manuscript, but the Alecto edition corrected the order of the width and length and that ha
s been followed in the present edition.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab }{\cf1\insrsid399784 \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 This woodland no doubt formed the nucleus of the later royal forest of Cannock; the woodland at Rugeley (1,22) probably formed a northern extension of it; see Eyton, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 40; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 338, v. p. 58; }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 and \{
Introduction: Forest\}.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab According to the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 1275, 'King William enfeoffed a servant Richard Chenvin with land to guard the forest of Cannock'. The land was held by Hugh }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Loges}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 in or before 1246; }{\insrsid5780933 see }{\i\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 79; and STS 13 Richard note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,26\tab [IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Elford.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ELFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 7, 14; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\insrsid5780933 Land at }{\i\insrsid5780933 Elleforda}{\insrsid5780933  was given by Wulfric Spot to his daughter, with reversion to Burton Abbey, in his will (1002 x 1004): }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1536 = Whitelock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxvi no. 11). If it ever reached its destination, it had been alienated by 1066.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab After 1086, this estate passed to the barony of Chester (descent from Earl Hugh): }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 545, 970; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 7.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 See 1,11 Algar note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 8 SMALLHOLDERS. In the manuscript the first minim of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 viii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 is faint (the smooth, shiny parchment here meant that the ink did not take well), probably the reason why in the Alecto facsimile the number appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 v.ii}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . In the Ordnance Surv
ey facsimile, however, all the minims appear the same, suggesting that it may have been touched up by hand; compare 1,24 furlongs note, 1,26 mills note, 1,27 Kinver note and 2,5 Haywood note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 2 MILLS. In the manuscript the first minim of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is faint (the 
smooth, shiny parchment here meant that the ink did not take well), probably the reason why in the Alecto facsimile the number appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 i}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. In the Ordnance Survey facsimile, however, both minims appear equally clear, suggesting that it may have been touched up by hand; compare 1,24 furlongs note, 1,26 smallholders note, 1,27 Kinver note and 2,5 Haywood note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab FOR THE SPACE left after the meadow and mills details and before the value statement, see 1,8 after note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,27\tab [IN SEISDON HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Kinver and Pattingham (1,27-28).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab KINVER. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Kinfare. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 9, 15. In}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 277, Kinver is still classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown and is coupled with Halfcot (SO8685) and Compton (SO8284).}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The woodland of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cynibre}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was first mentioned in 736 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of the West Midlands}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 91 no. 211 = Sawyer, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , no. 89). This is a grant by Aethelbald, King of Mercia, to his }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 comes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 Cyneberht of land at Ismere [in Churchill, Worcestershire] by the River Stour and at }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Brochyl}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 in Morfe Forest, for the construction of a monastery. The wood is also mentioned in the grant of 2 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 mansiunculae}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, at Cookley in Wolverley (Worcestershire), in 964 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of the West Midlands}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 112 no. 288 = Sawyer, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , no. 726). The land granted is said to be bounded in the north by the forest of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Cynefarestan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and in the west by the forest of Morfe. The estate of Kinver is not attested until Domesday.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab It appears that after 1086 Kinver was farmed by Urso of Abetot, sheriff of Wo
rcestershire, and then by his son Roger who succeeded him as sheriff. The estate was granted before 1168 by Henry II together with the keepership of Kinver Forest to Philip son of Helgot, great grandson of Helgot the 1086 holder of Bobbington (11,43)}{
\insrsid5780933 ; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p}{\insrsid5780933 p. 142, 348, 594; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. }{\insrsid5780933 p. 9; Eyton, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Antiquities of Shropshire}{\insrsid5780933 , iii. pp. 161-62; and see }{\i\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 343.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  It was later known as the manor of Kinver and Stourton of which the king retained the overlordship. The manor c
ontained the estates of Stourton (SO8585), Dunsley (SO8583) and Whittington (SO8582). See Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 116; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xx. pp. 129, 134-35.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Stourton Castle was erected on the land of Kinver. It originated as a roy
al hunting lodge which had been built by the late eleventh century as William II stayed there. The castle was in existence by 1222 and became the residence of the lords of Kinver. The borough of Kinver was in existence }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 c}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . 1221 when a market was granted. See }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, xx. pp. 130-31, 143.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 In the Alecto facsimile the second }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 E}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 R}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  of the Domesday form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 CHENEVARE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 have not been reproduced satisfactorily, the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 E}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  appearing as an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 L}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 R}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  hardly appearing at all. Both are faint in the manuscript. 
However, in the Ordnance Survey facsimile they appear clearly, suggesting that they may have been touched up by hand there; compare 1,24 furlongs note, 1,26 smallholders note, 1,26 mills note and 2,5 Haywood note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 See 1,11 Algar note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. For Compton, Dunsley, Halfcot, Stourton and Whittington, see 1,27 Kinver note. An outlying part of Kinver was Kingsley in Tettenhall Ancient Parish; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 see }
{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xx. p. 21.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 7 SMALLHOLDERS. In the Alecto facsimile the number of smallholders appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , not the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 vii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 which is clearly the reading in the manuscript and which is reproduced clearly in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. On other poor reproductions in the Alecto facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab A PRIEST. The church remained in the king's gift and in 1226-28 was held by Gilbert of Lacy: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 384.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WOODLAND. This was no doubt the nucleus of the later Kinver Forest. Kinver Forest is first so named in 1168 }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
but it seems probable that it was the unnamed forest that impinged on the holdings of "Haswic" (7,6), Chasepool (12,3), Enville (12,10) and "Cippemore" (12,11); see \{Introduction: Forest\}.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE VALUE WAS AND IS 100s. An entry in Worcestershire Domesday (WO
R 1,4) reports 'From Kinver, he [the sheriff] pays 100s at 20 [pence] to the "ora". This land is in Staffordshire'; see 1,1 Kingswinford note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,28\tab PATTINGHAM. This was an Ancient Parish, which included the Shropshire township of Rudge. Pattingham became a separate Civil Parish in 1866, confined to Staffordshire; see Youngs, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 419. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 9, 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab After 1086 this estate was given to Hugh of Avranches, Earl of Chester, and descended within that earldom; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 544; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, xx. p. 175. An undertenancy, not mentioned in Domesday, appears to have passed to the Bassets of Weldon, being held under them in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. p. 9, by Roger de Somery. In 1254-55 however, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Patingham}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 was held of the fee of Roger de Somery (that is, from the barony of Dudley); see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 114.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 See 1,11 Algar note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab A PRIEST. His church was given to Launde Priory (in Leicestershire), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 c}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .1120 at its foundation; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xx. p. 180.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,29\tab [IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of the next four places (1,29-32).}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab CLIFT
ON [CAMPVILLE]. This was an Ancient Parish. For civil purposes, it was known as Clifton Campville with Haunton; ecclesiastically it was Clifton Campville with Chilcote. Chilcote was a settlement in Derbyshire and remained there for civil purposes. Clifton
 Campville probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 8, 15; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Land at }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Clyfton }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 with other places amounting to 40 hides was granted to Wulfsige the black (}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Wulfsye prenomine Maur'}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ) by King Edmund in 942: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 90-91 no. 82 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 479 = Sawyer, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 9-13 no. 5). It seems probable that the next entry in the grant (}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Hagnatun}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , that is Haunton (SK2310) in Clifton 
Campville, was one of the dependencies of the estate in 1086. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 For an attempt to identify the 40 hides, see 1,11 Alrewas note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Clifton passed to the Ferrers barony, becoming part of the honour of Tutbury (see STS 10 Henry note). It was held by Richard }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Kaunvill'}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in 1242-43: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 975; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 542, 975; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 8, 15.}{
\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. Staffordshire Domesday does not specify. However, Chilcote in Derbyshire (DBY 1,25) is said to belong to Clifton Campville.}{\insrsid5780933 
 Chilcote was a chapelry and township of the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ancient Parish of}{\insrsid5780933 
 Burton-upon-Trent which itself lay in Staffordshire in 1086 and later, although Chilcote was in Derbyshire in 1086, being transferred to Leicestershire in 1897. In the Derbyshire text, the layout of Domesday, with its marginal letters }{
\i\insrsid5780933 B}{\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\insrsid5780933 S}{\insrsid5780933 , gives the impression that DBY 1,21-26 are outliers or Jurisdictions of the manor of Repton (DBY 1,20) which Ingleby, ending the list at DBY 1,26 is expres
sly said to be. Therefore the information that Chilcote belongs to Clifton Campville is surprising. The position of the sentence 'this belongs to Clifton [Campville] in Stafford' could suggest that this is a statement in support of a claim: that Chilcote 
i
s not an outlier of Repton (where the king's agents in Derbyshire have scheduled it) but a dependency of Clifton Campville in Staffordshire; see DBY 1,25 belongs note. Another claim relating to Clifton Campville (16,1) may illuminate the present entry. It
 reads 'Nicholas claims this land for the king's revenue in Clifton [Campville]'. This interpretation is more likely than that Clifton Campville is a dependency of Repton and Chilcote of Clifton Campville, and therefore of Repton; see 16,1 claims note.

\par \tab \tab A further dependency was probably Haunton; see 1,29 Clifton note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,30\tab DRAYTON [BASSETT]. This was an Ancient Parish, part of which was in Warwickshire. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 8, 14; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab After 1086, this estate passed to the barony of Chester (descent from Earl Hugh); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 544. Ralph Basset holds in 1242-43: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 970; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. It is not clear what or where these were.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 8 BURGESSES IN TAMWORTH. See 1,9 Tamworth note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BELONG TO THIS MANOR. Staffordshire is one of many counties where the status of a holding (manor, outlier, Jurisdiction) is not normally given.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WORK THERE LIKE T
HE OTHER VILLAGERS. The 'there' is presumably Drayton Bassett. Many burgesses in Domesday are linked to rural manors, on behalf of which they may be trading in the borough and enjoying the merchant's rights of being a burgess. Sometimes, the details of th
e
se links are given in the borough entry itself. That these burgesses sometimes worked on the manors to which they belong can always be assumed, but is here explicitly stated, as also in SHR 3h,1, WOR 19,12 and compare SUS 5,2. Thus these are not resident 
burgesses; see DBY B1 resident note.
\par \tab \tab 'Villagers' is here being used in its general sense of the inhabitants of a village, including smallholders and other inhabitants.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab KING HAS 2 MILLS ... AND MEADOW, 20 ACRES. WOODLAND. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is accusative after }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 habet rex}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('the king has'), but the woodland is in a separate sentence. The punctuation in the Phillimore printed edition does not make this clear. On the possibility that the meaning is that the mills and meadow were part of the lordship, but the woo
dland was for general use, see 1,31 mill note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,31\tab 
HOPWAS. This was a hamlet civilly and ecclesiastically in Wigginton which itself was a chapelry of Tamworth Ancient Parish. There was also a hamlet called Hopwas Hayes. Like Wigginton (1,9) Hopwas probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086. In}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 277, Hopwas is still classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab IN LORDSHIP A MILL. The mills of Domesday are usually listed among the resources of the estate and therefore, probably, available
 to all; see 1,1 mill note. Occasionally, as here, the mill is the lord's or 'serves the hall'; for the former, see BUK 14,46. DEV 23,22. NFK 20,22, and for the latter, see CHS 1,1. 9,25.}{\cf11\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 SHR 2,1. SUS 9,2, WOR 8,10a. 26,3. etc. The phrasing of the entry fo
r Drayton Bassett (1,30) - 'In the manor the king has 2 mills ... and meadow ... ' - may also suggest that they were part of his lordship, though the woodland there, which is in a separate sentence, apparently was not. In KEN 5,2 there is a fishery 'which
 serves the hall'. On meadow as part of the lordship, see DBY 16,8 meadow note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,32\tab HARLASTON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Clifton Campville. Like Clifton Campville itself (1,29), it probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 8, 15; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 280.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\insrsid5780933 Land at }{\i\insrsid5780933 Heorlfestun}{\insrsid5780933  was given by Wulfric Spot to his brother Aelfhelm in his will (1002 x 1004): }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1536 = Whitelock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxiv no. 5).}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Harlaston passed to the Ferrers barony; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 542, 969, 975; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 8, 15.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab It is represented by Harlaston and Little Harlaston, both at SK2110.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 4 HIDES. The main scribe of Great Domesday did not write the plough estimate immediat
ely after the hidage but left a space because of the overrun of the value in the previous entry (1,31), although he had separated it from the present entry by his use of a 'gallows' sign. On spaces that were left for the later inclusion of missing materia
l, see 1,7 hundred note, 1,7 land note, 1,8 after note, 2,3 hides note and 4,6 villagers note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 2 SLAVES. These are misplaced: normally in this county they are entered after the lordship ploughs before the villagers. They were not a later addition to the te
xt, but may have been misplaced or added in the source used by the main scribe of Great Domesday. He also originally wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 iiii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 for the number, but later erased the first and last minims and the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  after and then interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 o}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (the last letter of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 duo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , '2') in clarification (compare 2,18 meadow note and 1,11 meadow note).}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 See 1,11 Algar note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THESE 4 MANORS, AS ALSO THOSE ABOVE. The four manors are Clifton Campville, Drayton Bassett, Hopwas and Harlaston (1,29-32). 'Those above' are the others in this section of the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Terra Regis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (1,11;13-28), the intervening manor (11,12) being held by Earl Harold.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,33\tab THIS ENTRY begins the final section of the 'Land of the King' and consists of abandoned estates in the hundreds of Pirehill and Totmonslow. See STS 1 king note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED. [* IN PIREHILL HUNDRED *]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 The manuscript has }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 IN CVDOLVESTAN h}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 undre}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 d}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 o}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
], but this is clearly an error, as the settlements listed in 1,33-47 must have been in Pirehill Hundred. The next heading, (above 1,48) is for Pirehill Hundred, but that is an error for Totmonslow Hundred.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BIDDULPH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Like a number of royal estates it passed to the de Verduns and was held by Theobald }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Verdun}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in 1284-85 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5).}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The grid reference (SJ8960) is for both Biddulph and 'Over Biddulph', the former represented by Biddulph Old Hall and the latter by Over Hall Farm and Over Biddulph. Biddulph Grange is at SJ8959.}
{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. It is not clear what or where these were.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GRUFFYDD. The Domesday forms - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Grifin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Grifinus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old Welsh }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Griffin}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , a pet form of Old Welsh }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gruffudd }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 with the Romance suffix -}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 in}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 275. JRM preferred the modern spelling Gruffydd and this is the form used for the Welsh King Gruffydd in the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Handbook of British Chronology}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . The printed Phillimore edition of Cornwall has Gr
iffin; this has now been standardized as Gruffydd. The Alecto edition has Gruffydd, except for Cornwall where it has Griffin.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,34\tab BUCKNALL. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 5, 12; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Like a number of royal estates it passed to the de Verduns and was held with Biddulph (1,33) by Theobald }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Verdun}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in 1284-85 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5). For a possible further portion of Bucknall, see 11,21 Hulton note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE THIRD PART OF 1 HIDE. This odd fraction is probably complemented by the third part of a hide at Abbey Hulton and 'Rushton' (11,21) and by the third p
art of a hide at Burslem (11,22), neither of which were waste. All these places are adjacent.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab KETIL <OF BUCKNALL>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ketel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Chetel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Kitel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Chitel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ketellus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  etc. - represent Old Norse }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ketill}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ketil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 304-305. Although Ketel may have been JRM's preferred form, he chose Ketil- in compounds, so it has been thought best to use the Old Danish form of the name here. The Alecto edition has Ketil.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
\par }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab It is just possible that this is the same man as Henry of Ferrers' predecessor in Derbyshire, who also held an estate retained by the king (see DBY 1,32 Ketil note), but this is a tenuous connect
ion given the large number of waste estates in royal hands. The Cheshire Ketils were too distant, and too poor, to be plausibly linked with Bucknall (JP).}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,35\tab OAKLEY. This was a settlement in Mucklestone Ancient Parish. Like Mucklestone itself (17,8), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\insrsid5780933 Land at }{\i\insrsid5780933 Acclea}{\insrsid5780933  was given by Wulfric Spot to his daughter, with reversion to Burton Abbey, in his will (1002 x 1004): }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1536 }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 = }{\insrsid5780933 Whitelock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 
, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxvi no. 12). If it ever reached its destination, it had been alienated by 1066.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab AKI. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Achi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Achi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Achil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Aki}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aki}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
] - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aki}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 142. The Alecto edition has Aki.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,36\tab HEIGHLEY. This was a settlement in Audley Ancient Parish. Like Audley itself (17,13) it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On modern maps Heighley appears as an area name at SJ7747. Heighley Lane and the remains of Heighley Castle are at SJ772467. Heighley Castle Farm is at SJ772465.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALWARD. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aluuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eluuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aeluuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aluuart}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aluard}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Awart}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - could represent Old English \'c6}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 lfweard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  or Old English }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \'c6thelweard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , or even Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Halwarth}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
: von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 155-57, under }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Al-weard}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , and see also p. 142, under }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Al-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . JRM }{\insrsid5780933 
followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -ward for Old English }{\i\insrsid5780933 -weard}{\insrsid5780933 , as it reflected the majority of the Domesday spellings. }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Alward, Alfward, occasionally Aeth
elweard, and in Yorkshire Alweard; these have now been standardized as Alward. The Alecto edition has Alweard for those appearing under }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Al-weard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. Some of those called Alward in the present edition appear under Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \'c6lfweard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in von Feilitzen, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 181, but only because the forms in the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Liber Exoniensis}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  suggest this, or because of other evidence. Some also appear under Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \'c6thelweard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 in von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 188-89, as they do in the Alecto edition, but their Domesday forms lack the medial \-}
{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -d-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -g-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 that JRM thought necessary for inclusion under that form.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,37\tab MILLMEECE. This was a township of Eccleshall Ancient Parish. Like Eccleshall itself (2,10) it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.
\par \tab \tab In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Mulneceyeys}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 is held by the Bishop of Chester. It is possible that this was a later royal gift, but it may be that it had been alienated to the Crown in 1086 for it was}{\cf11\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 surrounded by lands belonging to the bishopric.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a space for the assessment of this holding to be added later; he did not put a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 punctus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 MESS}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFHERE. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlfer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlfhere}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wlfhere}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old English }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wulfhere}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 421. The Alecto edition has Wulfhere.
\par \tab \tab There are only four occurrences of this name in Domesday Book, the others being in SUS 10,10;66 and, described as Godman's man, in SUF 2,17. There is no evidence linking these 1066 holders.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,38\tab SHELTON. The Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Scelfitone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent. Like Stoke-upon-Trent itself, it probab
ly lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086. There is another Shelton in Pirehill Hundred, Shelton-under-Harley, which was a settlement in Swynnerton Ancient Parish (SJ8139). The identification with Shelton in Stoke-upon-Trent is due to }{
\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 77, and table between pp. 74-75. It was }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 168, who suggested Shelton-under-Harley. In favour of Shelton in Stoke-upon-Trent is the fact that in the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 594, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Selton'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is held by William }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Muriel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in the manor of Newcastle[-under-Lyme] by service of guarding the king's 'hay' of }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Clive}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [unidentified]. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 277, land at }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Shelton'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 is recorded as Ancient Demesne of the Crown and is a member of th
e royal manor of Penkhull (1,16). This makes it more likely that this Shelton lay in the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent, unless it was silently included by Domesday under some other estate. This was apparently the identification of }{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Ekwall, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Dictionary of English Place-Names}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , under Shelton. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
It had perhaps originated as a part of Penkhull, and is only separately listed here because it was waste.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab An apparent difficulty with an identification of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Scelfitone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 with Shelton-under-Harley is that Shelton-under Harley is chosen by }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5, to represent }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Chauelesdon}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and by }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279, to represent the similar }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Chaueledon'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , which are both places in Pirehill Hundred. However, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Chauelesdon}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Chaueledon'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  seem unlikely early forms of Shelton; Gelling, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names in the Landscape}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 187, evidently regards Shelton-under-Harley as a 'shelf-settlement' from Old English }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 scelf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 scielf }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 or }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 scylfe}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 tun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; see Duignan, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Staffordshire Place-Names}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 134. In fact, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Chauelesdon}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Chaueledon'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  look like the same place as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cerueledone}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (2,11), a member of the Bishop of Chester's manor of Eccleshall (2,10), which is usually identified with Hill Chorlton or Chapel Chorlton, for one of which Domesday supplies the form }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cerletone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (2,11). However, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cerletone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cerueledone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 do not appear to be the same name, and it seems likely that Hill Chorlton and Chapel Chorlton are divisions of a single 'Chorlton'. It seems therefore that either Domesday }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cerueledone}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is Shelton-under-Harley or it is an unidentified place a
nd Shelton-under-Harley does not appear in Domesday (it could be silently included in Swynnerton, 11,18), unless Wedgwood is right in identifying Domesday }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Scelfitone}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  with it. See 2,11 Chorlton note.
\par \tab \tab It should be noted that in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Chauelesdon}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is held from the barony of Stafford, which itself holds it from the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield. This clinches the identification with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cerueledone }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (2,11), held in Domesday by the Bishop of Chester; previously the bishopric was based at Lichfield and later at both Coventry and Lichfield.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALFGEAT. The Domesday forms - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aluiet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aluied}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aluet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alued}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
] - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \'c6lfgeat}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 173, who stated that where the sex of the tenant could not be ascertained, as here, derivation from Old English }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \'c6lfgyth}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was possible. JRM preferred the first element Alf- for the Old English}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  
\'c6lf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -, as the Domesday forms have no initial diphthong. The Alecto edition has \'c6lfgeat.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,39\tab HATTON. This was a settlement in Swynnerton Ancient Parish. Like Swynnerton itself, it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086. It was left unidentified by }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
Eyton, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , table vi, facing p. 75. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 On the identification, see Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History' p. 168; 
}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 40 note 17.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab It is represented by Upper Hatton (SJ830373) and Lower Hatton (SJ828367).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALFGEAT. On this name, see 1,38 Alfgeat note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,40\tab FULFORD. This was a chapelry of Stone Ancient Parish. Stone its
elf is not named in Domesday Book, but a number of Domesday places were in the Ancient Parish: Fulford (1,40), Hilderstone (1,44. 11,27), Aston-by-Stone (1,47. 11,9;23), Cotwalton (1,45. 8,21), Normacot (13,3), Darlaston (4,6), Meaford (5,1. 8,24), Modder
shall (8,21), Walton (11,8),}{\cf11\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Stoke(11,9), and Tittensor (11,33). Fulford probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 5, 12; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Fulford appears to have been acquired by Westminster Abbey after 1086. In 1284-85 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. p. 5) it was held by Richard }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Lee}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  from the prior of Malvern who held from the Abbot of Westminster.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALMER. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid5780933 Almar}{\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\insrsid5780933 us}{\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\insrsid5780933 Almer}{\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\insrsid5780933 us}{
\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\insrsid5780933 Elmer}{\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\insrsid5780933 us}{\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\insrsid5780933 Elmar}{\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\insrsid5780933 us}{\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\insrsid5780933 Aelmar}{\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\insrsid5780933 us}{\insrsid5780933 ),}{\i\insrsid5780933  Aelmer}{\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\insrsid5780933 us}{\insrsid5780933 )}{\i\insrsid5780933 , Aelmaer}{\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\insrsid5780933 us}{\insrsid5780933 ),}{\i\insrsid5780933  Almaer}{
\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\insrsid5780933 us}{\insrsid5780933 ),}{\i\insrsid5780933  Elmaer}{\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\insrsid5780933 us}{\insrsid5780933 )}{\i\insrsid5780933  }{\insrsid5780933 - could represent either Old English }{\i\insrsid5780933 \'c6lfm}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \'e6}{\i\insrsid5780933 r}{\insrsid5780933  or Old English }{\i\insrsid5780933 \'c6thelm}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \'e6}{\i\insrsid5780933 r}{\insrsid5780933 : }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p}{\insrsid5780933 p. 147-48, under }{
\i\insrsid5780933 Al-m}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \'e6}{\i\insrsid5780933 r}{\insrsid5780933 , and see also p. 142, under }{\i\insrsid5780933 Al-}{\insrsid5780933 . JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to
 the base form, but preferred the second element -mer for Old English }{\i\insrsid5780933 -m}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \'e6}{\i\insrsid5780933 r\-}{\insrsid5780933  as more of the Domesday forms had }{\i\insrsid5780933 -mer}{
\insrsid5780933  than }{\i\insrsid5780933 -maer}{\insrsid5780933 . }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Alecto edition has Alm\'e6r for those listed in von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 147-48, under }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Al-m\'e6r}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. However, a number of names rendered in the present edition as Almer (generally because under }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Al-m\'e6r}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 in von Feilitzen) appear in the Phillimore printed translations as Aelmer, whereas JRM apparently intended to reserve that name for those Domesday forms beginning }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aeil-}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ail-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eil-}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ai-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , which represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \'c6thelm\'e6r}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . Some also appear under Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \'c6thelm\'e6r}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in von Feilitzen, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 184-85, but their forms lack the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -d-}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -g}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 - that JRM regarded as a prerequisite for inclusion under Aethelmer.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,41\tab MILWICH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 4, 12 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Meluyz}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Mulewich}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278. In 11,30 Swein and "Rafwin" are
 given as the 1066 holders of '3 parts of 1 hide' in Milwich. According to }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 40 note 18, }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
it is possible that "Rafwin"'s portion of the 3 parts of one hide (pr
obably 1 virgate) is duplicated here. On the other hand, this 1 virgate is waste and the land of "Rafwin" and Swein in 11,30 is cultivated by Osbern under Robert of Stafford. The present virgate is probably separate, and with the '3 parts of 1 hide' (that
 is, \'be hide) makes a former single holding at Milwich of 1 hide.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab "RAFWIN". The name represented by the Domesday forms }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rafuuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rafuuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, which only occur in STS 1,41;45. 11,30, is unclear, though the second element is Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -wine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 345-46. It has therefore been decided to keep to the Domesday form. The printed Phillimore edition has Rafwin, as does the Alecto edition. However, see 2,22 Raven note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,42\tab COTON?. This was perhaps the settlement in Milwich Ancient Parish which, like Milwich itself (1,41), probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 40 note 19}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. The identity of these is not known.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab YLVING <OF COTON?>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eluing}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  here, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eluuinc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  for DBY 6,77, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Iluingus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  for the 1086 holder in NFK 9,152 - represent Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ylfingr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old Swedish }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ylving}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 429. The Phillimore printed translation for NFK 
9,152 has Ylfing, but Ilving for the DBY and STS occurrences; these have now been standardized as Ylving. The Alecto edition has Ylving for the DBY and STS examples, but Ylfing for the NFK one.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab It is unlikely that Ylving is the same individual as Henry of Ferrers' predecessor in DBY 6,77 or as the 1086 holder in NFK 9,152 (the fief of Roger Bigot).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,43\tab ENSON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Stafford St Mary. In the time of Queen Elizabeth I it was combined with Salt (11,12) to form a single township; see Youngs, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 423. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFHEAH. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlfac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlfah}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlfeg}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlfech}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlfag}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wlfah}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlfeih}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlfegh}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wulfheah}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 420-21. The Alecto edition has Wulfheah.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,44\tab HILDERSTONE. This was a settlement in Stone Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 4, 12; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 278. At 11,27 Dunning and Wulfric are given as the 1066 holders of 'the fifth part of 1 hide' in Hilderstone. According to }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 40 note 20, }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 it is possible that Wulfric's portion of the one-fifth of a hide is duplicated here as a \'bd
 virgate. On the other hand the estate at 11,27 is under full cultivation and not waste, so it is probable that the present \'bd virgate is a separate holding. Wulfric w
as a very common name, so it is not even certain that the Wulfric here is the same individual as the one in 11,27.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFRIC. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vluric(us)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlricus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlfric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wluric(us)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wlfricus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wlfuricus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlfriz}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 etc. - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wulfric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 423-24. The Alecto edition has Wulfric.}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,45\tab COTWALTON. This was a settlement in Stone Ancient Parish. Like other settlements in that Ancient Parish (for example, Hilderstone 1,44) 
it probably lay in Pirehll Hundred in 1086. For another part, which appears to be part of an estate cultivated in 1086, see 8,21.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Min lyttle land on Cotewaltune}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('my little land at Cotwalton') }{\insrsid5780933 
was given by Wulfric Spot to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002 x 1004): }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 
, no. 1536 = Whitelock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxviii no. 30). However, it was not confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{
\insrsid5780933 , no. 906 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 4
8-53 no. 28) and probably never reached it. There were apparently two estates at Cotwalton in 1086 (1,45. 8,21). The first was of 1 virgate, while the size of the other is not stated. It is not certain how Wulfric Spot's 'little land' relates to these.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab "RAFWIN" AND ALWIN. On the name-form "Rafwin", see 1,41 "Rafwin" note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of the name-form Alwin - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aluuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aluuine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\insrsid5780933 Aeluuin}{
\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\insrsid5780933 us}{\insrsid5780933 ),}{\i\insrsid5780933  Aeluin(us)}{\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\insrsid5780933  Aluin}{\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\insrsid5780933 us}{\insrsid5780933 )}{\i\insrsid5780933 , Eluuine, Eluuin}{\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\insrsid5780933 us}{\insrsid5780933 )}{\i\insrsid5780933 , Eluinus}{\insrsid5780933  - could represent Old English \'c6}{\i\insrsid5780933 lfwine, }{\insrsid5780933 Old English }{\i\insrsid5780933 \'c6thelwine}{\insrsid5780933 , Old English }{
\i\insrsid5780933 Ealdwine}{\insrsid5780933  or even Old English }{\i\insrsid5780933 Ealhwine}{\insrsid5780933 :}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p}{\insrsid5780933 p. 158-60, under }{\i\insrsid5780933 Al-wine}{\insrsid5780933 , and see also p. 142, under }{\i\insrsid5780933 Al-}{\insrsid5780933 
. JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -win to Old English }{\i\insrsid5780933 -wine}{\insrsid5780933 , as it reflected the form of the majority of instances in Domesday. }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Alecto edition has Alwine for those appearing under }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Al-wine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . }{\insrsid5780933 
Some of those called Alwin in the present edition appear under Old English }{\i\insrsid5780933 \'c6lfwine}{\insrsid5780933  in }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. }{\insrsid5780933 181, but the Domesday forms (}{\i\insrsid5780933 Aluuinus, Aluinus, Eluuius}{\insrsid5780933 ) do not contain the }{\i\insrsid5780933 -f- }
{\insrsid5780933 or}{\i\insrsid5780933  \endash v-}{\insrsid5780933  that JRM thought was necessary for inclusion under that name. Some also appear under Old English }{\i\insrsid5780933 \'c6thelwine}{\insrsid5780933  in }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p}{\insrsid5780933 
p. 190-91, but the Domesday forms (}{\i\insrsid5780933 Aeluuinus, Aluuine, Aluuin(us), Aluinus}{\insrsid5780933 ) do not contain the }{\i\insrsid5780933 -d-}{\insrsid5780933  or }{\i\insrsid5780933 -g-}{\insrsid5780933 
 which JRM thought was the requisite for inclusion under that name. In some of the Phillimore printed translations the forms Alwine and A(i)lwin appear, but these have now been standardized as Alwin.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,46\tab HILCOTE. This was a settlement in Chebsey Ancient Parish. Like Chebsey itself (10,9), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.
\par \tab \tab The grid reference is to Hilcote itself (SJ8429). Hilcote Hall is at SJ847296, Hilcote Farm at SJ842300 and Hilcote Cottages at SJ840301.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THORBIORN. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Turbern}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Turber}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Torber}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Torbern}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Torbern}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Thurb}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] - represent Old Danish }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Thorbiorn}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 392. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Thorbern and Thorbjorn; these have now been standardized as Thorbiorn. The Alecto edition has Thorbiorn.
\par \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,47\tab ASTON[-BY-STONE]. This was a settlement in Stone Ancient Parish and is sometimes known as plain Aston. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 3, 12; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 278. For other parts, both fully cultivated in 1086, see 11,9;23.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On modern maps Aston-by-Stone is represented by Aston Farm (SJ912314), Aston Hall (SJ915317) and Aston House (SJ913319).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 1 CARUCATE OF LAND AND 1 VIRG
ATE ... LAND FOR 1 PLOUGH. This is unusual in two ways. Firstly, it is the only case among this group of 'waste' estates (1,33-64) where assessment in carucates is combined with a plough estimate. Other entries here have one or the other, which tends to s
u
ggest that they are equivalent formulae. In the present entry, however, there seems to be no reason for both formulae, unless the 'Land for 1 plough' is a true plough estimate, referring only to the virgate, and that the carucate represents a more recent 
a
ssessment of land for which the hidage has been lost (see 1,5 carucate note). Secondly, it combines a carucate and a virgate. In the Danelaw areas, the bovate is the subdivision of the carucate; in Wessex and Mercia where the carucate is used to assess la
n
ds that have not been hidated, there is no subdivision; see 1,5 carucate note. However, it is more likely that the virgate here was a separate piece of land which survived from the assessment in hides, but that the former assessment was unknown for the re
s
t of the estate, which perforce was assessed as a carucate. In 17,17 Stramshall, although it is not waste, is assessed at '2 carucates and 1 virgate of land'. If this too had once been partly waste land, it is likely that the interpretation would be the s
ame as that of the present entry. It is unlikely that the carucate has crept in as an error for hide.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ODA. The Domesday forms of this 1066 holder - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ode}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Odo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Oda}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - probably represent Old English }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Od(d)a}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , though according to von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 333, these forms could also represent Old Norse/Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Oddi }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (Old Swedish }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Odde}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) or Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Odo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. The Phillimore printed edition has Oda for the earl and for STS 1,47. 11,29 (as has the Alecto edition), Odda for BRK 6,1 (
Alecto Oda), Oddi for the YKS examples (as Alecto except for 14E49 (Otti). It also has (plain) Odo for HAM 1,W1-2. 23,25. 51,2. WAR 22,22. WIL 66,6. WOR 12,2. BUK 26,5, for Odo, Brictric's man (BUK 26,5) and for Odo of Winchester (who also held in 1086), 
O
do (son of Edric/the Englishman: DEV 52,22-25), Odo the steward (HAM 6,16, perhaps a scribal error for Eudo the steward), Odo (the treasurer: DOR 1,21) and for Aldred's brother Odo; for these the Alecto edition has Oda, except for BRK 65. 10,1 (Odo of Win
chester) and WAR 22,22 (Old). These Phillimore forms have now been standardized as Oda.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,48\tab IN PIREHILL HUNDRED. [* IN TOTMONSLOW HUNDRED *]. The manuscript has }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 IN PEREOLLE h}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 undre}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 d}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 o}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] which is an error, bearing in mind the location of the following places (1,48-64).}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab It appears that King Edward had no estate in Totmonslow Hundred so it is probable that the following estates were held from Earl Algar and after him from Earl Edwin.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WOTTON. This was a township of Ellastone Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Wootton-under-Weaver. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281. For Ellastone, see 2,15. 11,39.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab LAND FOR 2, OR 3, PLOUGHS. Similar indecisions are noted at 1,51-53;61;63. They may be }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 rough}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  estimates 
applied to abandoned land, in which case it could suggest that no official survey was made on which to base a proper assessment for tax. Alternatively, the reading in the source used by the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
main scribe of Great Domesday may have been unclear: this is supported by his use of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 vel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('or') elsewhere in Great Domesday (e.g., LIN 4,35. HAM IoW 2,1), though see 2,22 outliers note. Although these interlineations here were not later additions, many of those including }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 vel}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  were done during a check of his source.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is not a plough estimate, but the equivalent of '2, or 3, carucates of land' and an assessment of the tax liability of this piece of waste land; see STS 1 king note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab SWEIN. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Suain}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Suen(us)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Suuen}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Suein}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Suuain}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Suan(us)}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Suuan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Suin}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] etc. - represent Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Sveinn}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old Danish/Old Swedish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Sven}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 380-81. JRM preferred the form Swein. In the Phillimore printed editions of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire th
is name appears as Sveinn, but has been standardized for the present edition. The Alecto edition also has Swein.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,49\tab STANTON. This was a township of Ellastone Ancient Parish. Like Ellastone itself (2,15. 11,39), it probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ARNKETIL. The Domesday forms of this name- }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Archil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Archel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Archetel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Archillus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old Danish}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Arnketil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old Norse}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Arnkell}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 163. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Arkell, Arketel and Arnketill (the last, in YKS and LIN, following Fellows Jensen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 14-16); these have now been standardized as Arnketil. The presence in Domesday Book of so many occurrences of the forms }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Archil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Archel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 may, however, suggest that these men were known by the Old Norse name. The Alecto edition has Arnketil.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,50\tab MUSDEN. Musden Grange was an extra-parochial area; see Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, ii. p. 417. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday name is represented by Upper Musden (SK122504) and Musden Grange (SK124513).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab UHTRED. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vctred}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Uthret}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Huthradus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vstredus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Uthredus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Uhtr\'e6d}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 398. JRM preferred the second element -ed for Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -\'e6d}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , as it reflected the Domesday spellings.}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Alecto edition has Uhtr\'e6d.
\par \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,51\tab SHEEN. This was perhaps originally an Ancient Parish, but later became a chapelry of Ilam; see 4,8 dependencies note; Youngs,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 414. Sheen probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.
\par \tab \tab One hide at }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Sceon}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\insrsid5780933 was given by Wulfric Spot to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002 x 1004): }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1536 = Whitelock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxviii no. 30). However, it was not confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 
, p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 906 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 48-53 no. 28) and probably never reached it. However, according to }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 the Bull of Pope Lucius III (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 42) Wulfric Spot's gift was of the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 capella de Scona cum tota decima}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('the chapel of Sheen, with the whole tithe'). This presumably reflects Burton Abbey's acceptance that it had lost the estate of Sheen, while retaining its chapel. This chapel depended on Ilam, a possession o
f the abbey; see 4,8 Okeover note; Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 224; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 202, vii. p. 246.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab After 1086 it presumably remained in the hands of the Crown, possibly as part of the manor of Leek, but like Rudyard (1,63) was held by Bertram }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
de Verdun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in the late twelfth century and descended in his family; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , vii. p. 243.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a space between the place-name and the plough estimate. It is not clear what this was for
, though he may have wanted to list these estimates under each other in these brief entries in Pirehill Hundred (1,48-64); compare his separation of the values in the similar entries in the king's land in Yorkshire (folios 300d-301c).}{
\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LAND FOR 2, OR 1, PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday may have originally interlined [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ve}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 l ii. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 here and then erased the first minim, as there is the remains of something before the existing }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 i.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  which is not a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . In four of the six occurrences where he was unsure o
f the number, he decided on '1' with 'or 2' as a possibility. See 1,48 land note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALWARD. On this name, see 1,36 Alward note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,52\tab STANSHOPE. This was a settlement in Alstonefield Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab After 1086, the estate remained in royal hands until granted, in 1227, to Henry de Audley; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , vii. p. 17.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LAND FOR 1, OR 2 , PLOUGHS. See 1,48 land note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WUDIA <OF STANSHOPE>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wodi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wodie}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wudia}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 417. In the Phillimore printed translations the name appears as Wodi. The Alecto edition has Wudia. This name only appears in DBY 6,56
 ('Fenton' and Sturston) and in STS 1,52, so it is possible that the same person had held them: 'Fenton' and Sturston are adjacent and Stanshope just over six miles from them.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,53\tab FARLEY. This was a township of Alton Ancient Parish. Like Alton itself, it probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LAND FOR 1, OR 2, PLOUGHS. See 1,48 land note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALWARD. On this name, see 1,36 Alward note. The main scribe of Great Domesday initially omitted the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 d}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  at the end of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aluuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, but later inserted it using the same dark ink he used for two other minor corrections in this county; see 2,5 holds note and 11,48 slave note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,54\tab ALTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 281. Alton included the township of Cotton which is not mentioned in Domesday.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In the mid-thirteenth century, Alton was held from the king by Roissa }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Verdun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 545), later by John }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Verdun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 and in 1274-75 (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 117) it was in the king's hands following John's death. Theobald }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Verdon}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  held }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alveton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13.
\par \tab \tab Alverton Hall Farm (SK0941) presumably represents the early spelling of the name, Domesday }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Elvetone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab IWAR <OF ALTON>. The Domesday form of this 1066 holder, who only occurs twice (1,54-55), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Juuar}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , represents Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Iwar }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (Old Norse }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ivarr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old Swedish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ivar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
): von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 300. The 1086 tenant in SHR 4,27,34 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Iward}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
]) probably shares this name: Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 286. The printed Phillimore edition has the form Ivar, though JRM's policy was to prefer the Old Danish over the Old Swedish name-form; it has therefore been altered for the present edition. The Alecto edition has Iwar.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab It is likely that the Iwar here is the same man as the Iwar who had held the adjacent estate of Denstone (1,55), but the Shropshire subtenant of Earl Roger is almost certainly a different person.}
{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,55\tab DENSTONE. This was a township of Alton Ancient Parish. Like Alton itself, it probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab IWAR <OF ALTON>. See 1,54 Iwar note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,56\tab CONSALL. This was originally an Ancient Parish, later a chapelry of Leek Ancient Parish but a township of Cheddleton Ancient Parish; see Youngs,}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 408. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 1 CARUCATE OF LAND. The main scribe of Great Domesday seems originally to have written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 t'ra uni' carucat\'ea}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('land consisting of 1 carucate'), but during a check he jotted something in the centre margin next to this entry and later erased it when he corrected his original to }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 t'rae una carucata}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('1 carucate of land'). On these marginal notes, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 124-26 (= Erskine and Williams, 
}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Story of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 190-91). For other corrections with erased notes in the margin next to them, see 2,21 villagers note, 2,22 l
eagues note, 7,2 plough note, 11,9 meadow note, 11,15 held note, 11,39 value note, 11,68 from note, 15,1 Ralph note. There is also an erasure of something interlined above the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 una carucata }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 which also removed the top of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 r}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in it, perhaps connected with t
his correction and done by the main scribe. The erasure at the end of this entry after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 tenuit}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 seems to be the top part of an erasure at the end of the next two entries.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This phrase appears to be the equivalent of the 'land for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ploughs' formula used in 
some entries in Domesday Staffordshire; see STS 1 king note. It might be relevant that at the end of two of the three entries in this section of waste lands (1,48-64) that are described in terms of carucates of land (whereas the rest have 'land for }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ploughs') there are erasures; these erasures might have been of 'Land for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 n}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ploughs' which, it was realized, were redundant because the 'carucate(s) of land' conveyed the same information; see 1,57 erasure note and 1,58 erasure note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFHEAH. On this name, see 1,43 Wulfheah note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,57\tab CHEADLE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 281. For other parts, both under cultivation in 1086, see 11,42 and (if correctly identified) 17,19.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 37 and table viii facing p. 96,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 identified Domesday }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cedla}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  with Checkley, as he did the estate with the same name-form held by Otto in 1086 (17,19). For the identification with Cheadl
e, see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 119; Bridgeman, 'Unidentified Domesday Vills' pp. 35-41; }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 41 note 24. See also 17,19 Cheadle note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Cheadle is probably the }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Chedle}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  held by Ralph Basset in Totmonslow Hundred in 1316 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 1 CARUCATE OF LAND. This appears to replace the plough estimate; see 1,5 carucate note and 1,47 carucate note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFHEAH. On this name, see 1,43 Wulfheah note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THERE IS AN ERASURE at the end of this entry, after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 tenuit}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , but 
none of the words originally there is now visible. On what they might have been, see 1,56 carucate note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,58\tab 
NEWTON. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Draycott-in-the-Moors. Draycott-in-the-Moors (SJ9840) does not appear in Domesday, but Newton may stand for it. Newton itself is represented by Lower Newton Farm (SJ987387), Upper Newton Farm (SJ98738
9) and Newton Park Farm (SJ988398). Totmonslow, the meeting place of the hundred, lies in the same Ancient Parish (SJ9939).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  Eyton, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
, p. 37, did not identify this place; the identification is due to Burne, 'Domesday }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Niwetone}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 '; see }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History',}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
 p. 167.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This estate appears to have passed to the Domesday holder William Malbank (on whom, see 8,28 William note) or to his heirs. It was granted }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 c}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
. 1160 by a later William Malbank to Hugh son of Nicholas of Draycott along with Draycott-in-the-Moors itself, Consall (SJ9648, part of Cheddleton, 8,30, held by William [Malbank] in 1086) and }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Leye}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 [unidentified], together with a salt-house in 'Wick Malbank' [Nantwich in Cheshire; see CHS 8,16]; see }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Chartulary III', pp. 223-24.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab 2 CARUCATES OF LAND. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 This appears to replace the plough estimate; see 1,5 carucate note and 1,47 carucate note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFGEAT. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vluiet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlfiet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vluuiet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ouiet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wluiet(us)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wluiat}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vluied}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vuiet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Oluiet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old English }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wulfgeat}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 419-20, though he suggested that derivation from the feminine Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wulfgyth}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 was formally possible for those people not identified as masculine. The Alecto edition has Wulfgeat.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALWARD. On this name, see 1,36 Alward note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THERE IS AN ERASURE at the end of this entry, after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 tenuit}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, but none of the words originally there is now visible. On what they might have been, see 1,56 carucate note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,59\tab "LUFAMESLEG". }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 37, left this unidentified, but }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bridgeman, 'Unidentified Domesday Vills', pp. 41-44, following Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 167, suggested Paynsley (in the Ancient Parish of Dra
ycott-in-the-Moors, at SJ9839) and he was followed in this by }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 41 note 26, and }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
by the Phillimore printed edition. However, Bridgeman's case is not compelling. It partly rests on the assumption that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lufamesleg}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 following, as it does, Newton in Draycott-in-the Moors should be close to it, but it largely rests on the notion that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lufamesleg}{\i\cf11\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 shares the element -}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ley}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  with his proposed identification. In fact, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -ley}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is too common a termination for this to be decisive.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In the Alecto facsimile this place-name appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 LVFAMESLES}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, though the final letter is clearly a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 G}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in the manuscript. }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
According to the Editors' note at the end of the Places Index in the Alecto edition of Staffordshire (}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Staffordshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 40), mis-reproductions such 
as this were caused by 'the continuous-tone process of reproduction employed for the facsimile ... where the red of the rubrication is either contiguous with or superimposed over the dark browns of the lettering'. }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 For other instances of misleading reproduc
tions of Staffordshire place-names and hundred names in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,1 Meaford note, 7,5 Tettenhall note, 11,2 Totmonslow note, 11,65 Levedale note, 12,4 Sedgeley note, 12,21 Moseley note, 12,23 Offlow note, 12,26 Rushall note, 12,29 Handsw
orth note, 13,1 Pirehill note, 13,7 Dimsdale note, 13,9 Cuttlestone note and 13,10 "Estendone" note. On other poor reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,13 hide note, 1,27 smallholders note, 2,6 [***] note, 2,10 villagers note, 11,66 him note, 12,8 \'a3
3 note, 17,1 Cynewin note and 17,15 land note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In the Ordnance Survey facsimile the last letter could be read as either a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 G}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  or an }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 S}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Farley, however, misread it as an }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 S}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . For other misreadings by Farley in this county, see 2,11 Chatcull note, 2,22 Yoxall note and 11,19 free note and compare 16,2 entry note.}{\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFGEAT. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,60\tab FORSBROOK. This was a settlement in Dilhorne Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab SWEIN. On this name, see 1,48 Swein note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,61\tab ENDON. This was a chapelry of Leek Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.
\par \tab \tab Endon almost certainly originated
 as a part of Leek (1,21) and is only given a separate listing because it is waste. It appears to have recovered and been reabsorbed by the manor and was granted as part of it in 1093 to the Earl of Chester. It was in the part of Leek that reverted to the
 Crown together with the Earldom of Chester in 1237 and subsequently became part of the manor of Horton created by the de Audleys; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, vii. pp. 78-80, 181; and 1,21 dependencies note. In 1274-75 (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 117) }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Endone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was held with }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aldithelee }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [Audley, 17,13] by Henry de Audley from the king. It was then said to be held of the manor of Alton (1,54).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LAND FOR 1, OR 2, PLOUGHS. See 1,48 land note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab DUNNING. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dunning}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dunninc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Donning}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dunniht}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Donninc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old English }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dunning}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 228. The Alecto edition has Dunning.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,62\tab ROWNALL. This was a settlement in Cheddleton Ancient Parish. Like Cheddleton itself (8,30), it probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFMER. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlmar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlmer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wlmer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ),}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Wlmar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlmaer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wulmarus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlfmer}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wlmaer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  etc. - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wulfm\'e6r}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 421-22. JRM preferred the second element -mer for Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -m\'e6r}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, as it reflected the spelling of the Domesday names. The Alecto edition has Wulfm\'e6r.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,63\tab RUDYARD. This was a township of Leek Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281. The grid reference (SJ9557) is to the settlement of Rudyard. Rudyard Hall is at SJ963597.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rudegeard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\insrsid5780933 was given by Wulfric Spot to Burton Abbey, his foundat
ion, in his will (1002 x 1004): }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1536 }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 = }{\insrsid5780933 Whitelock, }{
\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxxi no. 52). 
However, it was not confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 906 = Sawyer, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 48-53 no. 28) and probably never reached the abbey.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Rud
yard which, on the ground, is surrounded by members of the manor of Leek (1,21) almost certainly originated as a part of it, and probably never left it as Wulfric Spot's grant did not come to fruition. It is probably only given a separate listing in Domes
day because it is waste. It appears to have recovered and it was probably reabsorbed by the manor for a time, before being acquired (by the mid-twelfth century) by the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Verdun}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 s of Alton; see 1,21 dependencies note; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , vii. pp. 78-80, 217.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LAND FOR 1, OR 2, PLOUGHS. See 1,48 land note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFMER. On this name see, 1,62 Wulfmer note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 1,64\tab RUSHTON. This was a chapelry of Leek Ancient Parish. In later times the chapelry contained separate townships called Heaton, Rushton Jones and Rushton Spencer; see Youngs,}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 415. Like Leek itself, Rushton probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Rushton almost certainly originated as a part of Leek (1,21) and is only given 
a separate listing because it is waste. It appears to have recovered and been reabsorbed by the manor and was granted to the Earl of Chester in 1093, but was in that part of Leek that was not granted to the Abbey of Dieulacres. It reverted to the Crown in
 1237 together with the Earldom of Chester and it was later divided into 'Rushton Jones' and Rushton Spencer. The southern half of Rushton ('Rushton Jones') became part of the separate manor of Horton created by the de Audleys; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , vii. pp. 78-80, 221; and 1,21 dependencies note.
\par \tab \tab Representing Rushton on modern maps are Rushton Spencer and Rushton Bank (both at SJ9362) and Rushtonhall (SJ928614). This last is probably the site of 'Rushton Jones'.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFGEAT. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALL OF THIS LAND OF THE KING IS WASTE. This refers only to the estates listed in 1,33-64. Had the main scribe of Great Domesday wished to refer to all of the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Terra Regis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, he would have left a line's space before this sentence, rather than writing it on a new line. It is not clear, however, why he wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Regis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 in capitals and rubricated it, unless to emphasize that the king held all the land in this unusual section, as none of the entries in it begins }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rex ten}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 et}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ].}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 2\tab LAND OF THE BISHOP OF CHESTER. }{\insrsid5780933 The see of Mercia was fixed at Lichfield in Staffordshire by Ceadda (St Chad), bishop of the Mercians, the }{\i\insrsid5780933 Lindisfari}{
\insrsid5780933  (the inhabitants of Lindsey, later in Lincolnshire) and the Mid
dle Angles between 664 and 672. The church was built on land that had apparently been given earlier by King Wulfhere of Mercia (657-674) to Bishop Wilfrith of York for the foundation of a monastery. St Chad's original diocesan church was on a site adjacen
t to the later cathedral. A new church was constructed by Bishop Headda and consecrated in 700. It was apparently dedicated to St Mary, although Bede (}{\i\insrsid5780933 Ecclesiastical History}{\insrsid5780933 
, iv. 3, pp. 344-45) gives St Mary as the dedicatee of the original church and St Pe
ter as that of the new one. It was later dedicated to St Chad. In 822 there were 20 canons including a provost, that is 11 priests and 9 deacons. They were then living in accordance with the rule of Bishop Chrodegang of Metz.
\par \tab \tab The work of the bishops will
 have been disrupted by the Danish marauding and settlement of the late ninth century, since Lichfield itself would have lain just within the Danish part of Mercia, if the boundary between the kingdoms was Watling Street; see \{Introduction: History\}.}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The
 see was transferred by Bishop Peter to Chester in 1075. The cathedral church there was the church of St John the Baptist, a secular college, possibly founded by King Ethelred of Mercia in 689; more likely by the earl of that name in 906. It was repaired 
and endowed by Earl Leofric under Edward the Confessor. The see was moved to Coventry in 1102 by Bishop Robert de Lim\'e9
sy who had been consecrated in 1086, at which point the church of Chester reverted to being a college. Canons are mentioned in Domesday. See Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Medieval Religious Houses}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , pp. 413, 422.}
{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Unless there is other evidence, it is likely that the estates listed in Domesday had been held by the see from much earlier times. The initial endowment of the see, like the gift of Lichfiel
d itself, was probably due to King Wulfhere of Mercia; see \{Introduction; Ecclesiastical Organization\}; 2,16 Lichfield note;}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. pp. 140-41}{\insrsid5780933 .}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab At first sight this chapter seems to be in some disarray. There is no sign of any later additi
ons or of transposition signs linking scattered pieces of material together, yet the hundredal sequence is repetitive:}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 2,1-4 Cuttlestone Hundred}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 2,5-9 Pirehill Hundred
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 2,10-14 Pirehill Hundred
\par \tab \tab 2,15 Totmonslow Hundred
\par \tab \tab 2,16 Offlow Hundred
\par \tab \tab 2,17-21 [Pirehill Hundred]
\par \tab \tab 2,22 [Offlow Hundred]
\par \tab The Pirehill hundred heading at 2,10 is repeated without cause. Moreover, the survey of Lichfield is split into two portions (2,16;22) and there are signs that those of Haywood (2,5) and Eccleshall (2,10) are al
so in two parts. It is almost as if the main scribe of Great Domesday were working from loose parchment sheets or was abbreviating, but not editing, a confused exemplar. The number of spaces left for missing information - hidage on three occasions (2,3;6;
8) and a plough estimate in 2,10 - also suggest that his source was far from perfect.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Closer inspection suggests that an originally straightforward survey of six manors has become confused:}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Cuttlestone Hundred
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab \tab 2,1 Brewood
\par \tab \tab \tab 2,2-4 Baswich
\par \tab \tab Pirehill Hundred
\par \tab \tab \tab 2,5-9;17-19 Haywood}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab \tab 2,10-14;21 and probably 2,20 Eccleshall}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Totmonslow Hundred
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab \tab 2,15 Ellastone
\par \tab \tab Offlow Hundred
\par \tab \tab \tab 2,16;22 Lichfield.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab The detailed arguments for this proposed structure are given in the notes. The essential point is that 
section 2,17-22 contains material that should have been inserted earlier. Possibly in an attempt to clarify the layout the scribe a space (after 2,20), it would have been clearer if he had left spaces after 2,16 and after 2,21.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 2,1\tab BREWOOD. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Cuttlestone Hundred as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 2, 17; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 282. Brewood may well have been among the earliest grants to the see of Lichfield and may itself have originated in the royal manor of Penkridge (1,7).
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate was held by the bishops of Coventry and Lichfield until 1852; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, ii. p. 114; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 2, 17; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 25. A part was situated at Broom Hall (SJ8710) and this was granted to the dean and chapter of Lichfield between 1155 and 1159; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 27. Further members were Engleton (SJ8910), Gunstone (SJ8704), The Hattons (SJ8804), Horsebrook (SJ8810) and Somerford (SJ8908); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 969; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 2; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 31-34.
\par \tab \tab It seems very likely that Chillington (SJ8607) had been part of this estate. In 1086 it was entered in
 error in the Warwickshire folios (WAR 28,19), though under the heading of a Staffordshire hundred (Cuttlestone). It was then held by William son of Corbucion, though claimed by the Bishop of Chester. It appears to have been restored to the bishopric; see
 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 2; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282.

\par \tab \tab No church is mentioned at Brewood in 1086, but one there had been appropriated to a prebendal stall in Litchurch Cathedral before the last quarter of the twelfth century; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 40.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 
THE CHURCH. That is St Chad's of Lichfield, the cathedral of the see until its removal to Chester in 1075; see STS 2 Bishop note. In this fief the choice of 'the church' or of 'St Chad's' as 1066 holder appears to depend on the hundr
ed: places in Cuttlestone Hundred (2,1-2) and Offlow Hundred (2,16) are said to have been held by 'the church', those in Pirehill Hundred (2,5;10) and Totmonslow Hundred (2,15) by 'St Chad's'.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WOODLAND. In later times a forest named from the manor was attached to it; see \{Introduction: Forest\}.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 2,2\tab BASWICH. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known for ecclesiastical purposes as Berkswich with Walton; see Youngs,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 403. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate continued to be held until 1546 by the bishopric whether based at Lichfield or at Coventry; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 114; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 4.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE CHURCH HELD IT. See 2,1 church note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab A PRIEST. The church of Bednall (2,4), which is said to belong to Baswich, had (by 1255) been appropriated to the prebend of Baswich in Lichfield Cathedral; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 7.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WALTON[-ON-THE-HILL]. This was part of the township of Baswich, Milford and Walton in Baswich Ancient Parish. The 
Ancient Parish was sometimes known for ecclesiastical purposes as Berkswich with Walton; see Youngs,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, ii. p. 403. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Walton was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 968, 975, and in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 6.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab VALUE. This refers to both Baswich and Walton-on-the-Hill.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 2,3\tab ACTON [TRUSSELL]. This was a chapelry and township of Baswich Ancient Parish It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab No }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 holder is given, but as Brocton and Bednall (2,4) are said to belong to Baswich (2,2) it is possible that Acton Trussell, which is adjacent on the ground, was also part of Basw
ich and had therefore belonged to the bishop. Like Brocton and Bednall, it was later regarded as being part of the episcopal manor of Haywood (2,5) and the bishop remained overlord into the sixteenth century; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ROBERT [* OF STAFFORD *]. The identity of this Robert is shown by the fact that his successors, the barons of Stafford, held under the bishop in later times; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Red Book of the Exchequer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 263; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 967, 975; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote it over the erasure of a slightly longer name; the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 d}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  looks as if it may have been overwritten because of the erasure.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [*** HIDES]. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ibi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and
 then left a space for the hidage of this holding to be inserted later, as he also did in 2,6;8;19 and 17,7. In the left, inner, margin, level with it, he wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 r}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 require}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , 'enquire'); }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
on these requests for information, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 124-26 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 The Story of Domesday Book}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 190-91). See also 2,6 hides note and 8,29 land note. As often happened, the missing material was never found or entered.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 2,4\tab IN PIREHILL HUNDRED. [* IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED *]. The h
eading for Pirehill Hundred belongs above the next entry (2,5) and should have been written at the end of its first line or on the final line of the present entry (2,4). However, there was no room in this entry and the fact that it overran onto some of th
e
 space occupied by the first line of 2,5 probably persuaded the main scribe of Great Domesday to write this hundred head in a convenient space at the end of the entry for Acton Trussell (2,3). This 'misplacement' of a hundred head occurs elsewhere in Grea
t Domesday; compare 11,34 Totmonslow note and 17,6 Pirehill note; see also NTH 2,7 Hartwell note. }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 In the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Phillimore printed edition this head appears above 2,5 with a note; in the Alecto edition its position is as in the manuscript.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab A Cuttlestone hundred head has been inserted because that was where Brocton and Bednall lay, terminating a list of places in that hundred that began at 2,1.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BROCTON. This was a township of Baswich Ancient Parish. Like Baswich itself (2,2) it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.
\par \tab \tab After 1086 Brocton recovered from its waste state and formed part of the bishop's manor of Haywood (2,5). The bishop's overlordship continued into the sixteenth century; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 4-5. It is held as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Brocton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ' with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bodenhale}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Bednall] by the bishop in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 6.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BEDNALL. This was a chapelry and township of Baswich Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 6; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.
\par \tab \tab After 1086 Bednall recovered from its waste state and formed part of the bishop's manor of Haywood (2,5). The bishop's overlordship continued into the sixteenth century; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 4, 13. It is held as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bodenhale}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Brocton}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ' [Brocton] by the bishop in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 6.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THEY BELONG TO BASWICH. That is, to the estate at 2,2.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 2,5\tab [* IN PIREHILL HUNDRED *]. On the misplacement of this head in the manuscript, see 2,4 Pirehill note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HOLDS. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 n }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 of }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ten'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in the same dark ink he used for two other minor corrections in this county; see 1,53 Alward note and 11,48 slave note. The }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was not over an erasure (see 2,5 Haywood note) and as there is no obvi
ous reason for its initial omission and as the abbreviation sign after it is not in darker ink too, it is possible that there was an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 here originally, but for some reason it was very faint and that he overwrote it.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HAYWOOD. Great Haywood and Little Haywo
od were settlements which lay in the Ancient Parishes of both Colwich and Stowe. Neither Colwich nor Stowe appears by name in Domesday. The Ancient Parishes of Colwich and Stowe also shared Hixon (2,6). In addition Colwich Ancient Parish contained the Dom
esday settlements of Wolseley (2,7), Fradswell (2,8), Coley (2,17), Moreton (2,18) and Bishton (17,6), while Stowe Ancient Parish contained Drointon (2,19) and Amerton? (8,13).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In 1086 Haywood lay in Pirehill Hundred as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 5, 13; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 277. The Pirehill hundred head was written at the end of the entry for Acton Trussell (2,3); see 2,4 Pirehill note. According to 2,9, Haywood was a manor.
\par \tab \tab After 1086, the estates of Acton Trussell, Brocton and Bednall (2,3-4) were regarded as part of the bishops' manor of Haywood. The episcopal overlordship continued into the sixteenth century; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 968; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 6, 13; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 4-5, 13. However, in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 975, the Bishop of Chester is said to hold }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Heywod'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 from the Earl of Ferrers, a descendent of Henry of Ferrers.
\par \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 HAIWODE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  over the erasure of a longer place-name: he made the middle bar of the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 E }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 longer and continued the
 red-lining up to the end of the original name to cover the erasure. Neither of these devices appears in the Ordnance Survey facsimile, presumably because the red-lining was applied to it by hand as a separate exercise. This replacement was done before he
 rubricated the county.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ST CHAD'S [* OF LICHFIELD *]. See 2,1 church note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab A PRIEST. His church may have been at Colwich; see Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History' p. 172.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab A MILL AT 5s. Following this would normally be details on meadow and woodland. T
hey were evidently omitted by accident and then added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in 2,9 during his initial writing up of this county. Similar brief omissions occur elsewhere in this chapter, such as the dimensions of the woodland of Eccleshall g
iven within the entry for Seighford (2,21), though a space may have been left in 2,10 for them, and the woodland and further members of Lichfield in 2,22 (rather than in 2,16).}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE FOLLOWING LANDS BELONG TO HAYWOOD. This refers to the estates listed in 2,6-8.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 2,6\tab HIXON. This was a township of Stowe Ancient Parish according to }{\insrsid5780933 Kain and Oliver, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Historic Parishes}{\insrsid5780933 , }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 but it also extended, like Haywood (2,5), into Colwich Ancient Parish. Neither Stowe nor Colwich appear in Domesday. Hixon probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This was a member of Haywood (2,5).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab PICOT. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Picot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Picotus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - derive from the Old French word }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 picot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . This is probably a diminutive of Old French }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 pic}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('a point', 'pointed object', 'pointed weapon' or 'pointed tool'), from Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 pica}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . As a nickname it was 'perhaps metaphorically applied to a (tall and) thin person': Tengvik, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Old English Bynames}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 379. However, examples in Dauzat, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dictionnaire des Noms et Pr\'e9noms de France}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, under Pic, Pique, Pichon, all suggest that it is an occupational name, sometimes affectionate, sometimes demeaning: 'a man who uses a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 pic}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ' ('
pickaxe', 'crowbar' etc.). This seems inappropriate to a man of Picot's status, a subtenant. Reaney, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, under Pike, mentions another Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 pic}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 picus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), 'a woodpecker', perhaps applied to physique or a personal mannerism; under Pickett he suggests that Picot may well be a diminutive of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 pic}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , already used simply as a personal name, without association with a weapon, tool, trade or bird; see Hanks and Hodges, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dictionary of Surnames}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , under Pike. The Alecto edition also has Picot.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Nigell}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), is a Latinization (by an incorrect association with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 niger}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , 'black') of the Old Irish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Niall}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , which was 'carried to Iceland by the Scandinavians as }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Njall}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, taken to Norway, then to France and brought to England by the Normans. It was also introduced direct into north-west England and Yorkshire by Norwegians from Ireland' (Reaney, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Dictionary of British Surnames}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , under Neal). The Alecto edition also has Nigel.
\par \tab \tab The likelihood that this Nigel is Nigel of Stafford rests on the assumption both that the holder of Moreton (2,18) under the bishop is the same man (Nigel of Stafford) who holds the other part on chief (16,3) 
and that all the subtenants of the bishop called Nigel in this chapter (2,6-7;17-19;22) are the same man. For Nigel of Stafford's fief in this county, see STS 16.
\par \tab \tab Nigel holds from Picot who holds from the bishop. It is rare for the main scribe of Great D
omesday to include such a lower level of tenancy, though they were probably quite common. It is interesting that in another occurrence of this in Domesday Staffordshire (15,2) Nigel (of Stafford) also held land from a tenant of Ralph son of Hubert. See al
so 2,20 men note and LEC 2,2 Herbert note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [*** HIDES]. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ibi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 and then left a small space for the hidage of this holding to be inserted later. In the left, inner, margin, level with it, he wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 r q}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 uan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
um}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 er}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 rae}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  
('enquire into how much land'). The Alecto facsimile does not reproduce this marginal note at all, though it is actually clearer than the marginal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 r}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 next to the space left for the hidage in Acton Trussell (2,3) further up this column; on other poor reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note. On these requests for information, see 2,3 hides note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 2,7\tab WOLSELEY. This was a settlement in Colwich Ancient Parish. Colwich itself does not appear in Domesday; see 2,5 Haywood note. In 1086 Wolseley probably lay in Pirehill Hundred as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 277.
\par \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wollele}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 g, presumably this place, was held from the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 6.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. On the name Nigel and his identification, see 2,6 Nigel note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WHICH BELONGS TO HAYWOOD. That is, to the manor surveyed at 2,5.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 2,8\tab FRADSWELL. This was a chapelry of Colwich Ancient Parish. Colwich itself does not appear in Domesday; see 2,5 Haywood note. Fradswell probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 7; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 277.

\par \tab \tab After 1086, this estate continued to be held by and from the church together with 'Tymmor' (2,22) and Freeford (2,22), these last two being parts of Lichfield in Domesday; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xiv. p. 253, and for Fradswell, see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 7, where }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tymmor}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Frest}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Frodeswell}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  are held from the bishop. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Frest}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 could be a misreading of an abbreviated form of Freeford.
\par \tab \tab There is no village of Fradswell. Fradswell Hall is at SJ991313, with the church adjacent. Fradswell Hall Farm is at SJ990311. Fradswell Lower Farm is at SJ993305.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab ALFHELM. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aelfhelm}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Elfelm}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alfelm}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \'c6lfhelm}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 174. JRM preferred the first element Alf- for the Old English }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \'c6lf-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , as it reflected the spelling of more of the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has \'c6lfhelm.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [*** HIDES]. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ibi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 and then left a space for the hidage of this holding to be inserted later before continuing the sentence on its belonging to Haywood. He did not jot down an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 r}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 require}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , 'enquire') in the
 margin next to it, as he did for the other two spaces left for the hidage in this column (2,3 hides note and 2,6 hides note), though not for the space left in 2,19.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WHICH BELONG TO HAYWOOD. That is, to the manor surveyed at 2,5.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab FOR THE SPACE left after the meadow and woodland details and before the value statement, see 1,8 after note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 2,9\tab IN THE MANOR OF HAYWOOD. The details of meadow and woodland which follow were omitted from the main entry for Haywood (2,5); see 2,5 mill note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 2,10\tab 
IN PIREHILL HUNDRED. This head is unnecessary because the main scribe of Great Domesday had already provided one at 2,4. If this survey of Eccleshall were on a separate sheet, the hundred might have been transferred mechanically from it.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ECCLESHALL. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Pirehill Hundred as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 5,13; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 278. The estate is described as a manor in 2,11.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab It seems likely that Eccleshall, which was the head of a large parish, had been part of the endowment of the see of Lichfield since early times. The first element of the name is probably }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ecles}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('church'), the second element }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 halh}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('a corner' or 'angle' or 'hidden place'). However, in the will of Wulfric Spot, founder of Burton Abbey (}{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 39 = Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{
\insrsid5780933 , no. 1536 = Whitelock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 53-56 no. 29), he gave to his foundation an estate called }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eccleshale}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , which is taken by Sawyer in }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, p. xxxiv, to be Eccleshall in Staffordshire. Further, an entry in the }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Burton Annals }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Annales Monastici}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 185) reads: }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
1087. Obiit Willelmus rex Bastardus}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 .}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  Hic dedit nobis videlicet monasterio Burtoniensi Ufram majorem et minorem, tempore suo, cum tota terra }{\i\insrsid5780933 de ultra}{\insrsid5780933  }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Dova et Eccleshall}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  ('1087. King William the bastard died. In his time, he gave to us, that is to the monastery of Burton, greater and lesser Over [Mickleover and Littleover] w
ith all [its] land on the other side of}{\cf11\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 the [River] Dove and }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eccleshall}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
'). The 'land on the other side of the Dove' clearly lay in Derbyshire, and probably stands for the dependencies of 'Over' already mentioned, which was the only Derbyshire estate given 
to Burton Abbey by King William. It is across the river from Burton-upon-Trent. However, the annalist did not locate }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eccleshall}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 .}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
There are at least three other places in England, not all sharing the same etymology but of which }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eccleshale}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  might be an early 
form: one (Ecclesall) in the West Riding of Yorkshire and two (Exhall) in Warwickshire. The Yorkshire place is not in Domesday Book, nor, apparently is Exhall near Coventry, but Wulfric Spot's estate could be Exhall near Alchester in Warwickshire (WAR 28,
12). If so, it was among the several estates that never reached its destination, or was subsequently alienated. See STS 4 Burton note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Eccleshall and its members are surveyed in two parts (2,10-14;21 and probably 2,20). In addition to these extensive name
d estates, later evidence suggest that Eccleshall accounted also for Pershall (SJ8129); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 968, 975; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5. Standon (SJ8134) was probably another member; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 7. For Eccleshall itself, see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 5, 13.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ST CHAD'S [* OF LICHFIELD *]. See 2,1 church note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LAND [FOR *** PLOUGHS]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a space after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T[er]ra \'e7}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  for the later insertion of the rest of the plough estimate. On such spaces, see 1,7 land note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 14 VILLAGERS. In the manuscript the number of villagers is clearly }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 xiiii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 with no ink blots or other marks. In the Alecto facsimile it appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 xiui}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, as it also does in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. On other misleading reproductions in the Alecto facsimile, see 
1,59 "Lufamesleg" note. Although the Ordnance Survey facsimile was touched up by hand occasionally (compare 1,24 furlongs note and 1,27 Kinver note), in this case the odd mark may have been caused during the curing of the photographic plates outside in So
uthampton.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab FOR THE SPACE left after the meadow and mills details and before the value statement, see 1,8 after note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 2,11\tab [BISHOPS] OFFLEY. This was a township of Adbaston Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Historic Parishes}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Bishops Offley was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 968, 975 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Offele}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Offileg' Ciprian}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), and in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bissopst}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 o}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ffeleg}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ).
\par \tab \tab The members of the manor of Eccleshall given next are waste and only plough estimates are provided for them. However, although Bishops Offley which also belongs to Eccleshall, is cultivated, no hidage is given.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LEOFNOTH. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Leuenot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Leuenod}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Leueno}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Leofnoth}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 313. The Alecto edition has Leofnoth.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab IN LORDSHIP HE HAS LAND 
FOR 3 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote 'In lordship he has 3 ploughs', which is the expected information at this point in an entry, though the plough estimate which normally precedes it is missing. Scribe B then interlined }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 m}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] above the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .iii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , extending the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 down before it to make the reading }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 In dominio habet terram .iii. carucis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. He used a pen with a fine tip and ink that was darker than that used by the main scribe; both pen and ink were used for his other correction in this entry 
(2,11 ploughs note). There is an erasure at the end of the previous line of this entry, which may have been done by scribe B. The main scribe may have written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ra }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 there, leaving the rest of the line for the later insertion of the estimate: the plough e
stimate of the manor to which Bishops Offley belonged was similarly missing and he left a space for its later completion (see 2,10 land note).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the first of eight contributions by scribe B to Domesday Staffordshire, five of which are concerned wit
h the size of the holding, one with the resources, this one with the demesne and one is the provision of brief details of a holding; see 2,11 ploughs note; 2,16 hides note; 5,1 hide note; 7,11 entry note; 11,48 hides note; 11,64 hides note; 12,2 woodland 
note. It would seem from the differing pens and ink used that they were not done in one campaign of addition, but perhaps on as many as four or five occasions.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This apparent conversion of a statement about the ploughs in lordship apparently into one about
 land in lordship is unusual, as the scribe did not regularly give the amount of land held in lordship, though it was recorded in the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Liber Exoniensis}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , the direct predecessor of Great Domesday for the south-west counties, and was probably in the other putative circuit volumes. In DOR 2,2 Alton Pancras paid tax for 6 hides }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 and there was land for 6 ploughs, but besides this the Bishop of Salisbury has 'land for 2 ploughs in lordship which has never paid tax'. The fact that in Sherborne (DOR 2,6) the bi
shop also has ('besides the said land') 'in lordship 16 carucates of land' suggests that the 'land for 3 ploughs' in the present entry is another way of saying '3 carucates of land', like the 'land for }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ploughs' that are given after the other members of E
ccleshall listed in this entry (see STS 1 king note). See also DOR 3,10-11. SOM 2,1 etc. That this is not an attempt by scribe B to turn a lordship plough statement into a plough estimate is further supported by the entry for Wistow in HUN 6,4 where the A
bbot of Ramsey has 'besides these [9 taxable] hides land for 3 ploughs in lordship', yet land for 16 ploughs is recorded there, as well as 2 ploughs in lordship; see also HUN 6,5-6. BDF 19,1 etc. and LEC 44,1 land note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab ALSO TO THE MANOR ^[ECCLESHALL]^. The layout and translation of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 eund}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 em}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ]}{
\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  m}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 anerium}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ] in the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Phillimore printed edition }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
might suggest that the manor was Bishops Offley, but that is explicitly said to belong to }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Eccleshall}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  (2,10), to which also belong the following members. Normally the emphatic adjective }{
\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 idem}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  is translated as 'this/he also' in the Phillimore edition, following its most common use at the beginning of an entry referring to the previous holder. See 2,20 belong note.}{
\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab FLASHBROOK. This was a township of Adbaston Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Historic Parishes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Flashbrook was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 968, 975, and in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LAND FOR 2 PLOUGHS. This is probably not an estimate of plough potential, but the equivalent of '2 carucates of land'; see STS 1,1 king note and compare 2,11 land note. Similarly
 for all the other 'land for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ploughs' statements after the names of the other members of Eccleshall here.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab CHARNES. This was a township of Eccleshall Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Historic Parishes}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Charnes was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 968, and in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab CHATCULL. This was a township of Eccleshall Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Historic Parishes}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Half of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Clutculne}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , held by William of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Chatkulne}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5.
\par \tab \tab In the manuscript Chatcull is clearly }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cetquille}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . Farley read the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 q}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ceteruille}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), but there is a small, smudged 'tick' on the descender of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 q}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 and the main scribe of Great Domesday did not extend his }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 r}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
s so far below the line and they always extend to the right at the top. Moreover, the forms of Chatcull given above support the manuscript reading. For other misreadings by Farley, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab 'DORESLEY'. This lay near Sugnall and Little Sugnall, and the name survived at least until the late sixteenth century; see Parker, 'Chetwynd's History of Pirehill Hundred with Notes' (part 2); }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bridgeman, 'Unidentified Domesday Vills',}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  pp. 32-35; }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 42 note 33. The site of the lo
st village is given as SJ800333 in }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bate and Palliser 'Suspected Lost Village Sites in Staffordshire', p. 35.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Derweslowe}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is a fee of the Bishop of Chester in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab "CERUELEDONE" ... CHORLTON. The Domesday name-forms are successively }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cerueledone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cerletone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{
\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 36, hesitated as to whether the first was an unidentified place or whether both were forms of Chorlton. Chapel Chorlton and Hill Chorlton were chapelries of Eccleshall Ancient Parish. }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 They probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as they did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5; 
}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278. If each Domesday form refers to a different Chorlton it is not pos
sible to say which form refers to which place. However, since it is likely that Chapel Chorlton and Hill Chorlton are differentiated parts of the same 'Chorlton', it would be expected that the Domesday forms of each would be similar, if indeed they repres
ent them.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The fee of the Bishop of Chester at }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cherlecot'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 968), is presumably the same as that at }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Charlton'}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 975, and at }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cherleton}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5, that is, at Chorlton. However, the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Chaueledon'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 968, 975, which is the }
{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Chauelesdon}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. p. 5, appears to be a different name and to correspond to the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cerueledone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 of Domesday because the latter is held from the barony of Stafford which itself holds from the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield (1,38 Shelton note). On the face of it, the name-form makes it unlikely that it is Shelton-under-Harley (as identified by }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281, following the index of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , which identifies 'Shilton in Swynnerton' (the same place as}{\cf11\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Shelton-under-Harley). Shelton-under-Harley looks like a proper }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 scylf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 tun}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('farmstead on a shelf'). It is not certain, however, whether the Domesday }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Scelfitone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 (1,38) is Shelton-under-Harley or Shelton in Stoke-upon-Trent Ancient Parish, though the latter seems more likely; see 1,38 Shelton note. The matter requires further investigation; meanwhile "Cerueledone" has been left as an unidentified place.}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab COTES. This was a settlement in Eccleshall Ancient Parish. Like Eccleshall itself (2,10) it probably lay i
n Pirehill Hundred in 1086. A separate Ecclesiastical Parish (Cotes Heath) was formed in 1844; see Youngs,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 410.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab COLDMEECE. This was a township of Eccleshall Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Historic Parishes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab COLDMEECE LAND FOR 2 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote 'land for 1 plough', but scribe B added an extra minim with a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
punctus }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 after the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .i.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  to make }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .ii.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , but did not remove the original }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  written by the main scribe.}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
He used the same pen and ink that he had used for his other correction to this entry (2,11 land note). For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Staffordshire, see 2,11 lan
d note. On the phrase 'land for 2 ploughs' being the equivalent of '2 carucates of land', see STS 1 king note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BADEN HALL. This was a settlement in Eccleshall Ancient Parish. Like Eccleshall itself (2,10) it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.

\par \tab \tab Baden Hall was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 968, 975, and in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab SLINDON. This was a township of Eccleshall Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Historic Parishes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.
\par \tab \tab Slindon was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 968, 975.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BROCKTON. This was a settlement in Eccleshall Ancient Parish. Like Eccleshall itself (2,10), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 6; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALL THESE LANDS. That is, presumably, the 'members', beginning with Flashbrook, at the end of whose list this sentence is written.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 2,12\tab BROUGHTON. This was a settlement in Eccleshall Ancient Parish. Like Eccleshall itself (2,10), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278. It was presumably a member of Eccleshall (2,10), like Bishops Offley (2,11) and Aspley (2,13).
\par \tab \tab The church stands isolated on the B5026 road at SJ765337. Broughton Hall is at SJ766339.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 2,13\tab ASPLEY. This was a township of Eccleshall Ancient Parish. Like Eccleshall itself (2,10), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday should have written this place-name earlier in the entry and then rubricated it; the plough estimate should then have followed, as in the next entr
y (2,14). His source may have been confused or the wording of this member of Eccleshall may have been different.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab IT BELONGS TO ECCLESHALL. That is, to the manor there (2,10). Aspley was later a part of the manor of Coven (11,62); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 27.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 2,14\tab CROXTON. This was a settlement in Eccleshall Ancient Parish. Like Eccleshall itself (2,10), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab IT BELONGS TO ECCLESHALL. That is, to the manor there (2,10).}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 2,15\tab ELLASTONE. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Totmonslow Hundred as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281. For another part, see 11,39.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Ellastone was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. p. 7. It is represented by Ellastone itself (SK1143), Upper Ellastone (SK1143) and Lower Ellastone (SK1142).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ST CHAD'S [* OF LICHFIELD *]. See 2,1 church note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE FOURTH PART OF 1 HIDE. This presumably means a virgate. There is a further virgate here (11,39).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LAND FOR 5 PLOUGHS. This appears to be a beneficial hidation.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab VALUE 12s; VALUE BEFORE 1066, 9s. The main scribe of Great Domesday normally gave the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  value before the 1086 value; he may h
ave initially thought that only the 1086 value was provided for this holding, but then discovered his error at once. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Phillimore printed edition fails to translate the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ualebat}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 2,16\tab LICHFIELD. There were two Ancient Parishes here, Lichfield St Chad and Lichfield St Mary; see Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 416. In 1086 Lichfield lay in Offlow Hundred, as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 7, 15. In }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 277, it is classed as a borough.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The early history of Lichfield connects it with the Roman fort of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Letocetum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, sited at SK0806 in what is now the village of Wall, close to the important junction of Watling Street and Ryknild Street. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Letocetum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 is a Latinization of Celtic }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Letocaiton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('grey wood'), which latter name evolved to give }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Luitcoit}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  whch is the first element in Lichfield. The second element is Old Englsh }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 feld}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('open land') and the name Lichfield appears to mean 'open land near the grey wood' or 'open land related to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Letocetum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
'. There was a seventh-century battle at Caer Lwytgoed, which may have been in this area.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 
It appears that Wulfhere, King of Mercia (657-674), gave land here and in other places to Wilfrith, Bishop of York (664 x 669 to 678) who had some responsibility for the Christianization of Mercia. On these lands, Wilfrith founded a series of monasteries.
 
Lichfield was possibly chosen because there was no settlement there (only woods and fields) yet it was close to major lines of communication. When Ceadda was appointed Bishop of the Mercians, the Lindisfari and the Middle Angles in 669, he chose Lichfield
 
as his seat, possibly for the same reasons, and additionally, perhaps, because there was already a church there. Ceadda's church was probably on a site adjacent to the present cathedral, but he was also reputed to have preached regularly at Stowe, half-a-
mile to the north, where a medieval church was dedicated to St Chad. In his cathedral church King Wulfhere was probably buried, and King Ceolred certainly was.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Lichfield would have lain on the Danish side of Watling Street if that formed the late ninth-ce
ntury line of division between the English and the Danish parts of Mercia. It is possible that the cathedral was despoiled by the Danes and the episcopal succession disrupted. However, the church and the diocese will have recovered in the tenth century. B
ishop Peter (1072-1085) moved his seat to Chester in 1075 and his successor }{\insrsid5780933 Robert of Lim\'e9sy (1085-1117) transferred it to Coventry in 1102. After 1075 the church became a minster, but a major rebuilding was begun by Robert of Lim\'e9
sy and completed by Bishop Roger de Clinton (1129-1148).
\par }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 
There is no sign that Lichfield was other than a rural estate in 1066 and 1086. However, a town was laid out there in the twelfth century and it is first described as a borough between 1149 and 1159; see Savage, 'Lichfield 
Cathedral Register', p. 87 no. 186; Thorpe, 'Lichfield'; Taylor, 'Origins of Lichfield'; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gelling, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 West Midlands}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 152}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 . On the history of the town of Lichfield and of the diocese, see}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xiv. pp. 1-9, 57, 67-73, 134-35.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The survey of the manor here omits woodland and a number of dependencies which are included in a continuation in 2,22.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Lichfield continued to be held by the Bishops of Chester; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. pp. 7, 14-15.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH ITS DEPENDENCIES. Two groups are listed, one here and 
one in the continuation of Lichfield in 2,22. Within the area occupied by the multiple estate were no doubt other settlements that Domesday does not name, but which had some importance later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xxiv. p. 135, names Haselour (SK2010), Statfold (SK2307), Whittington (SK1608), Farewell (SK0811), Chorley (SK0710) and Longdon (SK0814); see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 968, 975; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 7-8, 14. All these dependencies owed dues to Lichfield in the Middle Ages. Further estates were }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pipa}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 968, 975), divided into }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Magna Pipa}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Parva Pipa}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in 
}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 7-8, that is presumably Pipehill (SK0908) and Little Pipe (SK0710), also }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 La Wal}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Wall, SK 0906], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Coldecote}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [unidentified], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Curbor'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Curborough, SK1212], }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Esmeresbrok}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [unidentifdied], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Stowe}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Stowe, SK1210], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Elinhurst}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  or }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Elmehurs}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 t [Elmhurst, SK1112] and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Fisareswik}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Fisherwick, SK1709]: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 968-69; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 8. A considerable number of them were later regarded as members of Longdon which became a manor, and 
displaced Lichfield which itself became a town and borough. The members of Longdon listed in the Offlow Hundred Roll of 1254-55 (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108) are: Fisherwick (see above), 'Horton' (2,22), Handsacre (2,22), Whittington
 (see above), Hints (2,22), Tipton (2,22), Packington (2,16;22), Weeford (2,22); Haselour, (see above), Statfold (see above), Tamhorn (2,22), Little Wyrley (2,16), Freeford (2,22), Harborne (2,22), Hammerwich (2,16) and Pipe (see above).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE CHURCH. That is, St Chad's of Lichfield; see 2,1 church note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 25 \'bd HIDES AND 1 VIRGATE OF LAND. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 xxv. hid\'ea 7 una v}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 irgata}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  t}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 r\'ea}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and then scribe B interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7 dimid}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ia}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] in correction; he extended the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  down after the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 hid\'ea }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 to in
dicate that the 'half' referred to the hides not the virgate. He did not use the same pen and ink that he had used for his two previous corrections to Staffordshire (2,11 land note and 2,11 ploughs note), but a pen with a thicker point and paler ink, the 
l
atter similar to the ink used by the main scribe here. This correction was probably done at the same time as his interlined hidages in 11,48;64 (11,48 hides note and 11,64 hides note). For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Staffordshire, see 2,11
 land note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 
5 CANONS HAVE 3 PLOUGHS THERE. These will have been members of the cathedral church of St Chad. Their holding appears to be a five-fold division perhaps in the form of prebends of what had formerly been communal property. There were five preben
ds in the sixteenth century (Freeford, Stotfold, Longdon, Handsacre and Weeford), but it is uncertain how ancient these were; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 140-41.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 2 MILLS. On these, see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xiv. p. 114.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab FOR THE SPACE left after the meadow and mills details and before the value statement, see 1,8 after note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab PACKINGTON. This was a hamlet lying in Weeford Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 8; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279. For an
other part, which similarly has 'land for 4 ploughs' and may be a duplicate, see 2,22.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Packington was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 968, 975, and in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 8.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The grid reference is to Packington Hall (SK163062). Packington Moor is at SK147057 and Packington Hall Farm at SK158064.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LAND FOR 4 PLOUGHS. This is the equivalent of '4 carucates of land', and is not a plough estimate; see STS 1 king note. The fact that
 three of the members of Lichfield here are described as having }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 'n }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 carucates of land', while two have 'land for }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ploughs' strongly suggests that the phrases meant the same.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE TWO [ESTATES CALLED] HAMMERWICH. Hammerwich was a chapelry within the chapelry of Lichfield St Michael, which itself lay in the Ancient Parish of Lichfield St Mary; see Youngs,}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 412. Like Lichfield (2,16), Hammerwich probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 280.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The 'two Hammerwiches' were probably two estates at Hammerwich, rather than two separate settlements there. The alternative in Latin would be }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Humeruuich et alia Humeruuich}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ('Hammerwich and another Hammerwich') with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 alia}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  used to mean 'another esta
te called Hammerwich'; see }{\insrsid5780933 Thorn, 'Manorial Affixes'.
\par \tab \tab Like other 1086 members of Lichfield, Hammerwich was later regarded as part of the manor of Longdon. Part was given to Farewell Priory by Bishop Roger de Clinton (1129-1148); }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xiv. p. 262.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab 5 CARUCATES OF LAND. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 main scribe of Great Domesday seems to have begun to write }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 t}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ra }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .v. car}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ucis}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]) ('land for 5 ploughs'), the formula he had used for the preceding member, Packington, and was to use for the next one, Stytchbrook. For 
some reason he changed his mind and added a diphthong squiggle to the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 a}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 t'ra}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  to make it genitive ('of land'). }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 As elsewhere in Staffordshire where land was abandoned, carucates were probably used to replace a forgotten hidation; see 1,5 carucate note.}{
\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab STYTCHBROOK. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Lichfield St Chad. Like Lichfield itself (2,16), it probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LAND FOR 1 PLOUGH. This is the equivalent of '1 carucate of land'; see STS 1 king note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab NORTON [CANES]. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Norton-under-Cannock. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 280.
\par \tab \tab Norton Canes is at SK0208. Also embraced by the name are Norton East (likewise at SK0208) and Norton Green (SK0107).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [LITTLE] WYRLEY. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Norton Canes. Like Norton Canes itself, it probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 8; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 280. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 8, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wirley}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 is coupled with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Longenouere}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 [Longnor, SJ8614] and held from the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield. Great Wyrley lay in Cuttlestone Hundred, and was a township of Cannock Ancient Parish. It is presumably included silently in Cannock (1,25. 17,5) by Domesday; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ROWLEY. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Hamstall Ridware. Like Hamstall Ridware itself (5,2. 8,26. 11,50), it probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086. It is represented by Rowley Farm
s (SK118212) and Lower Rowley (SK119206).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 2,17\tab 
[IN PIREHILL HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of the next five places (2,17-21). Lands in Pirehill Hundred have already been entered (in 2,5-14) among them est
ates held under the bishop by Nigel [of Stafford]. These present estates are not additions to Great Domesday, but they could have been misplaced in a precursor document. For none of these places is a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 holder given. This may be a simple omission, or a sign that these estates were in fact members of others. Certainly Coley, Moreton and Drointon (2,17-19) look as if they were or had been parts of Haywood (2,5) because of their location and their parochia
l connection (see 2,5 Haywood note). Seighford and the other estates in 2,21 are said to be part of Eccleshall (2,10) and it is possible that the situation of Sugnall (2,20) was similar; see 2,20 Sugnall note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab COLEY. The Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Scoteslei}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  which}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 37,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 left unidentified. Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 168, suggested Coley. This was a settlement in Colwich Ancient Parish. Colwich itself does not appear in Domesday. However, Coley probably lay in Pi
rehill Hundred in 1086, like Haywood, another part of Colwich Ancient Parish; see 2,5 Haywood note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 
The link with Haywood suggests that this may not be an independent estate but like Moreton and Drointon (2,18-19) should join the list of members of Haywood given in 2,6-8. Those estates (Haywood, Hixon, Wolseley and Fradswell) are interlaced with the pre
sent three on the ground.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 2 CARUCATES OF LAND. }{\cf11\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
hese carucates are not waste, but under cultivation. If it is correct to say (see 1,5 carucate note) that these carucates are an assessment of land whose earlier hidage has been lost because it was abandoned 
for a substantial period, then this land must have been waste but has begun to recover. For a similar occurrence, see 2,18. It is perhaps for this reason that in this case only one value (the present one) is given, though a single value (for 1086) is not 
uncommon in Domesday Staffordshire (see \{Introduction: Layout and Content\}).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. On the name Nigel and his identification, see 2,6 Nigel note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab IN LORDSHIP 1 PLOUGH. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 car}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 uca}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] because no plough estimate was provided for this entry, to which the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 una}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  would refer back: without this correction, the meaning would be 'In lordship 1 [carucate]'. In the next entry (2,18) he included }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 car}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 uca}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 at the outset in the lordship statement.}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 2,18\tab MORETON. Like 
Coley (2,17) and Haywood (2,5), this was a settlement in Colwich Ancient Parish (see 2,5 Haywood note) and probably, like them, lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 6; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 277. Another holding in Moreton appears in 16,3.

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab No }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 holder is given and this was probably not an independent estate, but part of Haywood itself; see 2,17 Pirehill note and 2,18 Coley note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Moreton was held from the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 6.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. On the name Nigel and his identification, see 2,6 Nigel note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 2 CARUCATES OF LAND. See 2,17 carucates note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab MEADOW, 2 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of acres from '1' by turning the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 i}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ibi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  into a minim and adding a new }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  before it and then inserting a rather kinked and tall new }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 i}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ibi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . He then interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (the last letter of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 duae}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, '2') in clarification; compare 1,32 slaves note and 1,11 meadow note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 2,19\tab DROI
NTON. This was a settlement in Stowe Ancient Parish. Stowe itself is not named in Domesday, but Drointon, like Hixon (2,6), another member of that Ancient Parish (though shared with Colwich Ancient Parish), was probably in Pirehill Hundred in 1086; see 2,
5 Haywood note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab No }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 holder is given and this was probably not an independent estate, but part of Haywood itself; see 2,17 Pirehill note and 2,18 Coley note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. On the name Nigel and his identification, see 2,6 Nigel note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [**
*]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the first line of this entry after the subtenancy, almost certainly for the hidage or carucage to be inserted later. However, he did not jot down an }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 r}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 require}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, 'enquire') in the margin next to it as he had done beside the similar spaces left in 2,3;6 (though not 2,8); see 2,3 hides note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 2,20\tab SUGNALL. Great Sugnall and Little Sugnall were townships of Eccleshall Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Historic Parishes}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . Like Eccleshall itself (2,10), Great Sugnall and Little Sugnall probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as they did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 5-6; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab No }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 is given by Domesday, but Sugnall may well not have been an independent estate, but a p
art of Eccleshall. This notion is supported by the fact that this section of the fief (2,17-22) appears to consist of additions to manors previously entered (see 2,17 Pirehill note), the next entry (2,21) contains further members of Eccleshall and Sugnall
 itelf was in the Ancient Parish of Eccleshall.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Sogenhul}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 968, 975, and in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. pp. 5-6, two estates (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Magna Sennhall}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Parva Segenhull}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) are distinguished.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab FRANI. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Frane}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Fran}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Frano}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Frani}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent the hypothetical Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Frani}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 252. In the printed Phillimore edition the forms Frani and Fran appear; these have now been standardized as Frani. The Alecto edition has Frani.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab FARGRIM. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Fargri}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 m}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] for YKS 13E5, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Fragrin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 for STS 2,20 - represent the hypothetical Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Fargrimr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 250, though he mentioned that the Staffordshire example stood for the hypothetical }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Fargrin}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . JRM preferred not to include the final -r in Old Norse names, as it did not appear in the Domesday forms. The pri
nted Phillimore edition has the forms Fargrimr and Fragrin; these have now been standardized as Fargrim.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THESE MEMBERS ALSO BELONG TO THE MANOR. The layout of the text might suggest that the 'manor' is Sugnall (2,20). In a parallel instance, the estate of
 Bishops Offley (2,11) is followed by a list of estates headed by 'Also to the manor belong these members'. However, there the text has explicitly said of Bishops Offley itself that it belongs 'to this manor', referring to Eccleshall, the previous entry. 
In both cases, the main scribe of Great Domesday used a part of Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 idem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('the same'; see 2,11 manor note) not a part of }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 hic}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('this'): }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ad eundem manerium pertinent haec membra}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (2,11), and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 haec membra pertinent ad eundem manerium}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 (2,20). However, when introducing the members of Lichfield (2,16) he wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ad hoc manerium pertinent haec membra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . Both }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 eundem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 hoc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 are translated by 'this' in the Phillimore printed edition for these three entries, but the distinction is crucial: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 eundem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 amounts to 'previously mentioned' and excludes a manor mentioned immediately before, while }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 hoc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 is used for a manor just described, as in the case of Lichfield (2,16) and of Bishops Offley itself (2,11). (It should be noted in passing that the scribe treated }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 manerium}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 as both masculine and neuter.) Thus it seems that the members here are not those of Sugnall (2,20) which is in the same entry, but of a manor mentioned earlier. Logically, this manor could be Lichfield (2,16), or Haywood, to which the estates 
listed in 2,17-19 probably belonged. However, the location of the members in the present entry and the fact that the lands in 2,21 belonged to Eccleshall suggest that the manor is Eccleshall and that a sentence such as 'It belongs to Eccleshall' was omitt
ed from the details of Sugnall. See }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
, p. 79. Even if Sugnall was by this time a manor, it probably originated as a grant out of Eccleshall and its members were likely to be of Eccleshall. Moreover, the fact that the dep
endencies of Eccleshall (2,10-14) and Sugnall and these members (2,20) are interlaced on the ground further strengthens the argument that they were most probably members of the same manor (Eccleshall) in 1086. The use of the term }{
\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 bereuuicae}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  ('berewicks', 'outliers') for these members emphasises the fact that these are the scattered lordship of a great estate: not of Sugnall, which was of minor importance, but of Eccleshall.
}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [GERRARDS] BROMLEY. This was a settlement in Eccleshall Ancient Parish. Like Eccleshall itself, it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 12 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bromleye Bagot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ); }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab PODMORE. This was a township of Eccleshall Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Historic Parishes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. Like Eccleshall itself (2,10), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. p. 5, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Poddemer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was a fee of the Bishop of Chester.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LAND FOR 3 PLOUGHS. On the likelihood that this statement, and similar ones after the names of the other members, are the same as '}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 n}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  carucates of land', see STS 1 king note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab TUNSTALL. This was a settlement in Adbaston Ancient Parish. Like Adbaston itself (2,20), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279.
\par \tab \tab Tunstall was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 968, 975, and in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab There was another Tunstall in this hundred at SJ8651. It lay in Wolstanton Ancient Parish and
 was probably part of Wolstanton (1,15) in 1086. It was incorporated into the borough of Stoke-upon-Trent in 1910; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , viii. p. 80.}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab SWINCHURCH. The Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Suesneshed}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 and the form 'Swineshead' survived until the nineteenth century, but was replaced by Swynchurch or Swinchurch; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 42 note 40. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
This was a settlement in Eccleshall Ancient Parish. Like Eccleshall itself (2,10), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The grid reference is to Swinchurch Farm (SJ809371).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ELLENHALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Ellenhall was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 968, 975, and in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WALTON.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 This was a township of Eccleshall Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Historic Parishes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . Like Eccleshall itself (2,10), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 6; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 .}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The grid reference is to Walton Farm (SJ859279).}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ADBASTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WOOTTON. This was a settlement in Eccleshall Ancient Parish. Like Eccleshall itself (2,10), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab KNIGHTON. This was part of the township of Knighton with Adbaston in Adbaston Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Historic Parishes}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . Like Adbaston itself (2,20) it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 6; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Knytton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab 4 FRENCHMEN. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 These Frenchmen (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 francigenae}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), like the thanes, were not part of the village population, but were presumably subtenants of the bishop. They are comparable to the thanes, Frenchmen etc. who hold directly from the king in the final chapters of many Domesday counties.}{
\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab THESE 8 OUTLIERS. There are nine names here, but Gerrards Bromley and Podmore formed a single estate. The use of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 bereuuicae}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
 ('berewicks', 'outliers') gives the status of these members: these were outlying pieces of lordship land of the great estate of Eccleshall.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab OTHER MEN FROM THEM. On this rare lower level of tenancy, see 2,6 Nigel note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab BETWEEN THEM ALL. Despite the fact that the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 i}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 inter omnes}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
 as a small capital and put a }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 punctus}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  after the preceding word, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 car' }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
('ploughs'), this phrase probably refers to the villagers and smallholders: they shared the ploughs. There are many other 
instances of this in Domesday and this is the translation in the Phillimore printed edition and in the Alecto edition. It is just possible, however, that the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 omnes}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
 refers to the outliers (two lines previously in the text) and that the details of the lordship ploughs, the population with their ploughs and, probably, the meadow were a combined figure for these outliers; compare 2,20 all note and 2,22 all note.}{
\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab BETWEEN THEM ALL. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 inter omnes}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  and presumably refers to the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 berewicae }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ('outliers') in t
he text three lines above: the 1086 value is that of the members, as is the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  value, though the inclusion of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 totum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
 ('the whole') with that means the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 inter omnes}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  is redundant. It may have been automatically transferred from the predecessor document by 
the main scribe of Great Domesday, which is especially likely if there the 1086 value was given before the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  value (as in the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Liber Exoniensis}{
\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , the direct predecessor of the south-west counties in Great Domesday).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 2,21\tab THIS ENTRY is marked off from wh
at precedes by a space equivalent to a line or so of text, the only such space between entries in this fief. Its significance is unclear, but see STS 2 bishop note. This account of some dependencies of Eccleshall and of the woodland of that manor is mispl
aced: it should have been written with the main manor (2,10) and with its other members (2,11-14).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab SEIGHFORD. The Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cesteforde}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; see }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 79}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is not a manorial entry in which Seighford is a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 caput}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 with members, but a further list of dependencies of Eccleshall (2,10).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ASTON AND DOXEY. Both were settlements in Seighford Ancient Parish, and, like Seighford, both probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Doxey was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 968; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 6.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On the modern map, Aston, Aston Hall and Aston Hall Farm are at SJ8923; Lower Aston Farm is at SJ8823.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LAND FOR 3 PLOUGHS. On the likelihood that this statement, and similar ones after the names of the other estates belonging to Eccleshall, are the same as '}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  carucates of land', see STS 1 king note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BRIDGEFORD. Great}{\cf11\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Bridgeford and Little Bridgeford were settlements in Seighford Ancient Parish. Like Seighford itself, they probably lay in Pirehll Hundred in 1086 as they did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279. Little Bridgeford is at SJ8727; Great Bridgeford at SJ8826. Bridgeford Hall is at SJ8827.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab COTON [CLANFORD]. This was a settlement in Seighford Ancient Parish, and, like Seighford itself, it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LAND FOR 2 OXEN. That is, land for a quarter of a plough, assuming there were eight oxen to a plough-team. On this phrase, see 2,21 land note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 2 FRENCHMEN. See 2,20 Frenchmen note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THEY BELONG TO ECCLESHALL. The 'they' is probably the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 has terras}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 'these lands' rather than the men. The lands belong to the bishop's manor (2,10).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 10 VILLAGERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the number of villagers over an erasure. In the central margin level
 with this he had jotted down this replacement figure and then erased it when he had inserted the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .x.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  On these marginal notes, see 1,56 carucate note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THEY HAVE MEADOW, 5 ACRES. It is unusual for the meadow to be the preserve just of the villagers and smallholders.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 
THE WOODLAND OF THIS MANOR, ECCLESHALL, HAS [IS]. Woodland is missing from the details of the manor of Eccleshall given at 2,10 and is inserted here at the end of the survey of its dependencies, none of which has any woodland attributed to it. 
This vast area is therefore a notional rectangle composed of many smaller and dispersed pieces.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab For the use of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 habet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('has') instead of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 es}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 t ('is'), see }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 1,7 woodland note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Echeshelle}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; he then altered the first }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 h}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  to make an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 l}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 by erasure, but failed to make a foot for it.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 2,22\tab [* IN OFFLOW HUNDRED *]. This heading is deduced from the location of Lichfield and its identifiable members. Lichfield itself appears below an Offlow hundred head at 2,16.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LICHFIELD. See 2,16 Lichfield note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DESCRIBED BEFORE. That is, at 2,16. Only the woodland and additional members are given here.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WOODLAND. As with Eccleshall (2,21), this woodland is no doubt an engrossment of all the individual woods attached to the manor and its members; see 2,21 woodland note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 8 \'bd LEAGUES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7 d}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  of }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 viii. leuu' 7 dim'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  over erasure; in the central margin level with this something has been erased, perhaps a note. On these marginal not
es, see 1,56 carucate note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab TO THE MANOR ITSELF BELONG THESE MEMBERS. These are additional to those given in 2,16 and not waste. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ipsum}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('itself') is rendered by 'this' in the Phillimore printed edition. However, it does not refer to the mention of Lichfield here (2,22) but to that at 2,16. In this, its usage is similar to that of }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 eundem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; see 2,20 belong note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 'HORTON'. JRM in the Phillimore printed edition identified it as 'Horton' and noted: '}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 near Tamhorn, perhaps in Fisherwick'. Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesda
y Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , table facing p. 59, stated that it lay in St Michael's Lichfield and in Fisherwick. }{\insrsid5780933 Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 168, has it 'attached doubtfully to either Endon or Leek'. Bate and Palliser, 'Suspected Lost Village Sites in Staffordshire', p. 35, place it near Tamhorn}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 . }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, iv. p. 43, has it as 'now lost'. The place survived into the Middle Ages. It appears in Offlow Hundred as }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Herton}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ' in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279, coupled with Tamhorn, by which it may have been subsequently absorbed.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LAND FOR 2 PLOUGHS. On the likelihood that this statement, and similar ones after the names of the other members, are the same as '}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 n}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  carucates of land', see STS 1 king note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALWIN. On this name-form, see 1,45 Alwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BEFORE EACH of the subsequent members of Lichfield the main scribe of Great Domesday drew a 'gallows' sign, probably because of his inclusion 
of their 1086 holders, who might otherwise be taken to be the holders of the estate mentioned next in the list.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab PACKINGTON. This was a hamlet lying in Weeford Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 8; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 279. For another part, which similarly has 'land for 4 ploughs' and which may be a duplicate, see 2,16.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Packington was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 968, 975, and in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 8.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ULFKIL. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlchil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlchel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlchetel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlchet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ulketel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlketel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 l)us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ulfchetel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ulfketel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Olketel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ofchetel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  etc. - represent Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ulfkell}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ulfkil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 399-400. 
As the Phillimore printed translations include Ulfkell, Ulfketel, Wulfketel and Ulfketill, it has been decided for the present edition to use the Old Danish form for them all, although the presence of }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -chetel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -ketel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 in a number of Domesday forms may suggest that the name Ulfketil or Ulfketel was also current then. The Alecto edition has Ulfkil.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab TAMHORN. This was an extra-parochial area which became a Civil Parish in 1858; see Youngs,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Local Administrative Units}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 425. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. p. 7; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Like other parts of the 1086 manor of Lichfield, Tamhorn is later regarded as part of the manor of Longdon, promoted to manori
al status from a part of Lichfield unnamed in 1086; see 2,16 dependencies note; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xiv. p. 246.
\par \tab \tab Tamhorn was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 968, and in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5.
\par \tab \tab The grid reference is to Tamhorn Park Farm (SK180071). Tamhorn Cottages are at SK178074.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. This identification is drawn from the fact that Nigel of Stafford's successors, the de Gresleys, held this estate until at least 1241; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xiv. p. 246. On the name Nigel, see 2,6 Nigel note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HANDSACRE. This was a settlement in Armitage Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 7; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 280
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Handsacre was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 968, 975, and in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 7.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ROBERT. On this name, see B6 Robert note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HINTS. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 7, 14; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Hints was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 968, 975, and in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 7.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab OSWALD. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Osuuold(us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Osuuald}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Osuuald}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Osuuol\- }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
- represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Osweald}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal
 Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 340. As this name has survived into modern times, JRM preferred the form Oswald. The Alecto edition has Osweald.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab YOXALL. Farley transcribed this place-name as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Locheshale}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, but in the manuscript it is clearly }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Iocheshale}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : the initial letter has no foot. He mistook an }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 I}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  for an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 L}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 elsewhere in Domesday Book. For his other misreadings in Staffordshire, see 2,11 Chatcull note. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 969, Yoxall is spelt }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Iokeshale}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Yoxall was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 15; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 280.
\par \tab \tab Yoxall later appears among estates held of the Ferrers barony; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 542, 969; W
rottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 15.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab RAVEN. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rauen}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rauene}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rauan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rauuen}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rauaius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  etc. - represent Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hrafn}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rawn}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 292-93, though Fellows Jensen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 210-12, gives the Old Danish form as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rafn}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . JRM preferred Raven as it is closer to the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Rawn.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The printed 
Phillimore edition has Rafwin here, but that does not seem to be the same name; see 1,41 "Rafwin" note. However, Raven's co-tenant in Yoxall is Alwin, and a person with that name had held Cotwalton with "Rafwin" in 1066 (1,45). It is possible that }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rauen}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  here is a corruption of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rafuuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) or vice versa.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALWIN. On this name, see 1,45 Alwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [PIPE] RIDWARE. This was a chapelry of Alrewas of Ancient Parish. Like Alrewas itself (1,11) it probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 1; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 280.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Ridware was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 968. There it is coupled with }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Acovere}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Okeover, 4,8] held by Burton Abbey in 1086 and apparently later.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALRIC. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid5780933 Alric}{\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\insrsid5780933 us}{\insrsid5780933 )}{\i\insrsid5780933 , Elric}{\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\insrsid5780933 us}{
\insrsid5780933 )}{\i\insrsid5780933 , Aelric}{\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\insrsid5780933 us}{\insrsid5780933 )}{\i\insrsid5780933 , Alrich, Alrist}{\insrsid5780933  (a scribal error) - could represent Old English }{\i\insrsid5780933 \'c6thelric}{
\insrsid5780933  or Old English }{\i\insrsid5780933 \'c6lfric}{\insrsid5780933 : }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp.}{\insrsid5780933  150-51, under }{\i\insrsid5780933 Al-ric}{\insrsid5780933 , and see also p. 142, under }{\i\insrsid5780933 Al-}{\insrsid5780933 
. JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, as does }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
the Alecto edition. However, occasionally some of the people here rendered Alric appear in certain Phillimore printed translations as Aelfric or Aethelric, but their name-forms do not include the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -u-}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -f-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  required by JRM for inclusion under Aelfric, or the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -d-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -g-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  required by him for inclusion under Aethelric.
}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WEEFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 7; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 280.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Weford}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ' was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 968. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 7, it is }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Weford}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Thykbroum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Thickbroom, SK1303].}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab "BUROUESTONE". }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 34, left this place unidentified, but suggested that it lay near Weeford. }
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 170, suggested that the name was represented by Borrowcop hill near Lichfield. }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, iv. p. 43, followed Eyton and has the place as 'now lost'. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 It was identified as 'Burweston' in the Phillimore printed edition, but this may simply be an updating of the Domesday form. }{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 According to }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bate and Palliser, 'Suspected Lost Village Sites in Staffordshire', p. 34, it lay near Swinfen or Longdon.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab "LITELBECH". The site is unknown. }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, p. 34, left this place unidentified, as "Litelbech", but suggested that like }{\insrsid5780933 "Borouestone"}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  it lay near Weeford. He was followed by }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, iv. p. 43, which has the place as 'now lost'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; see Bate and Palliser, 'Suspected Lost Village Sites in Staffordshire', p. 35.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab RALPH. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Radulfus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Radulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Radolf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old German }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Radulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , from which Norman }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Radulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and Old French }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Raoul}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  were derived: von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 345. Ralph, which also derives from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Radulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Raoul
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (Reaney, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), was chosen by JRM. The Alecto edition also has Ralph, for both 1086 and 1066 holders, except for the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 holders in WIL 55,2 and CON 5,1,6 where it has Radulf, perhaps in error.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab FREEFORD. This was an extra-parochial area which became a Civil Parish in 1858; see Youngs,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Local Administrative Units}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 411. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 280.

\par \tab \tab Freeford was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 968. It is represented by Freeford Manor (SK135076), Freeford Farm (SK129077) and Freeford Home Farm (SK143071).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LAND FOR 6 PLOUGHS. There is an erasure between }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 t'ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 vi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , probably of an ink blot, as also after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Horeborne}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 two lines below in the manuscript. They were presumably done by the main scribe of Great Domesday as he wrote round them. Another ink blot, imperfectly erased, obscures the first two letters of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 car'}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 t'ra .i. car'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in the next line.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab RANULF. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ranulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rannulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ran}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 n}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 )}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 211-12. The Alecto edition has Ranulph. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 'TYMMOR'. Shaw, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 History of Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, i. p. 375, locates 'Tymmor' 'on the right side of the road between Whittington and Elford, opposite to Fisherwick Park'.}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  It is left unlocated by }{\insrsid5780933 Beresford, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Lost Villages of England}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 386, and Beresford and Hurst, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Deserted Medieval Villages}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 203. In the latter it is tentatively suggested that it is Tamhorn. This is unlikely to be so as Tamhorn is }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Tamahore}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  in Domesday and 'Tymmor' and Tamhorn occur separately as }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Tymmor}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Tamenhorn}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  in }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 57. }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 The site of the lost village is given as SK178082 in }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bate and Palliser, 'Suspected Lost Village Sites in Staffordshire', p. 36.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tymmor}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is held from the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 7.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HARBORNE. For the erased blot after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Horeborne}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in the manuscript, see 2,22 land note.}{
\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Harborne was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 7; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 279. It included, in Warwickshire, the chapelry of Edgbaston (WAR 27,4), which became a separate Ancient Parish before 1658; see Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 413. Harborne was taken into Birmingham (Warwickshire) in 1912.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Harborne was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 968, and in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. p. 7. In 1166 it was held by Henry Fitz Gerold from the bishop. The heir of his son Warin was Warin's daughter Margaret, who gave Harborne to Halesowen Abbey which held it until the Dissolution, notionally under the bishop; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Warwickshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , vii. p. 72.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ROBERT. On this name, see B6 Robert note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab SMETHWICK. This was a settlement in Harborne Ancient Parish. Like Harborne itself, it probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 7; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279. It remained with the Bishops of Coventry and Lichfield until 1546; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xvii. p. 98. Together with Harborne it was taken into Birmingham (Warwickshire) in 1912.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Smethwick was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 7.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab TIPTON. The Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tibintone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and the fuller form 'Tib
bington' lasted until modern times; see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 43 note 46. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Tipton St Martin was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 7; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Tipton was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 968, and in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 7.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WILLIAM }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 HOLDS IT. Either 'it', referring to Tipton, or 'them', referring to Smethwick and Tipton (JRM), as no 1086 holder is given for Smethwick.}{
\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On the name William, see B8 William note.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab IN THESE LANDS OR OUTLIERS. They have already been described as 'members'. It is possible that not all were outliers, so the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 main scribe of Great Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 used the alternative, lands or outliers. It is more likely that Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 vel}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  (connected with the verb }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 volo}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 and having the meaning 'if you like') introduces a more precise word in substitution: 'In these lands or rather outliers'. On the scribe's use of }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 vel}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 where he was unsure of the reading in his source, see 1,48 land note.}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 If all were outliers, then Lichfield like Eccleshall had a very large and dispersed lordship; see 2,20 outliers note.}{\insrsid399784 

\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab BETWEEN THEM ALL, MEADOW ... MILL. The Latin }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 omnes}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  refers to the 'lands or outliers' of the previous line and emphasises that the meadow and m
ill details are those of these members of Lichfield, like the details of lordship ploughs and population which are prefaced by 'in these lands or outliers are'. Because mills and meadow are recorded in Lichfield itself (2,16) it was especially necessary t
o clarify that the meadow and mill were in its members. Thus, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Inter omnes}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
 does not refer to the villagers and smallholders as it probably does in its first occurrence in 2,20 (see 2,20 between note).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE VALUE [OF THESE MEMBERS] IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN [THAT OF] THE MANOR. This sentence replaces the usual value clause (which uses the Latin }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 valet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  'it is worth'), because this composite entry is really an appendix to that for Lichfield at 2,16 where a value (\'a3
15) is given. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 valentia}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is simply the noun derived from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 valeo}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (probably via its present participle }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 valens}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ). }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Valentia}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is wrongly taken to be a place-name in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Domesday Geography of Midland England
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 164, 169, 170; see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 43 note 47.}{\cgrid0\insrsid8996282 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 main scribe of Great Do
mesday left blank the remaining third of the column (folio 247b), perhaps in case further members of the multiple manors should be found later. With one exception he did not leave such large spaces between fiefs in this county and he could easily have wri
tten at least the land of St Peter's of Westminster (STS 3) here.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 3\tab LAND OF ST PETER'S OF WESTMINSTER. }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 This was the Benedictine Abbey of St Peter refounded by Dunstan }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 c}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
. 959 in succession to a church or monastery that was perhaps founded in the seventh century and destroyed by the Danes in the ninth. It was richly endowed and rebuilt by Edward the Confessor.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab Westminster Abbey held a single estate in Staffordshire, in Seisdon Hundred}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 3,1\tab [IN SEISDON HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Perton.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [OLD] PERTON. This was a settlement in Tettenhall Ancient Parish. Like Tettenhall itself (1,2. 7,5) it probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 9, 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283. The affix 'Old' is recent, provoked by the growth of (New) Perton at SO8699. Old Perton, Perton House, Perton Court and South Perton Farm are all at SO8598.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Perton was given to Westminster Abbey by King Edward the Confessor late in his reign (on 28th Dec
ember 1065) and had probably been a part of the royal manor of Tettenhall originally. For the grant, see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 100-101 nos. 29-30, 90-98 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , nos. 1040, 1043, 1140). Of these charters, one addressed to Bishop Leofwine, Earl Edwin and all his thanes in Staffordshire (}{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 
, p. 100 no. 97 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1140 = Harmer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Writs}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 96, 
pp. 360-61, 516) is regarded as authentic. The others are forgeries. Perton was also confirmed on Westminster Abbey by King William between 1066 and 1071: }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bates, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 883 no. 292}{\insrsid5780933 . That confirmation is similarly addressed amon
g others to Bishop Leofwine of Lichfield and Earl Edwin and confirms Perton on the monks 'as fully as King Edward held it'. Perton is also among the possessions of Westminster Abbey confirmed in a forged writ of William I: }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bates, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 945-55 no. 324.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par \tab \tab The monks lost }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Perton in 1162 but it was restored to them by King Richard I in 1189-90. However, they immediately farmed it to Hugh de Nonant, Bishop of Coventry, for his lifetime and it ceased thereafter to be in the abbey's l
ordship, and was held by a lay tenant by military service. In 1198 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 7) it was a serjeantry, held by Ranulf of Perton by archery service. By 1212 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 142) it was another serjeantry, held for serving the king with horses and arms in Wales; see also }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 348, 382, 594, 1185, 1245, 1331; }
{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 9; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 114. By 1236 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 594) it had absorbed Trescott (7,4). However, it was still notionally held by the monks at the Dissolution; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Valor Ecclesiasticus}{\insrsid5780933 , }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 i. p. 417; }{\insrsid5780933 Harvey, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Westminster Abbey Estates}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 357; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xx. p. 24.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 3 HIDES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .iii. h}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  of the }{
\i\f703\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .iii. hid\'ea}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  over an erasure.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab FOR THE SPACE left after the meadow and woodland details and before the value statement, see 1,8 after note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a small space before beginning the next chapter (STS 4).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 4\tab LAND OF ST MARY'S OF BURTON. }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 This was the Benedictine Abbey of St Mary and St Modwen at Burton-upon-Trent in Staffordshire, founded }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 c}{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 .1002 by Wulfric Spot, a king's thane.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The first known church here was dedicated to St Andrew and situated on an island in the River Trent which was subsequently called 'Andresey' 
('Andrew's island'). Legend has it that St Modwen, returning to Ireland from a pilgrimage to Rome, built this chapel dedicated to St Andrew, and lived on the island for some years as an anchoress. Though she died in Scotland, she is said to have been buri
e
d on 'Andresey'. She was also credited with building a second church, on the east bank of the river. It is not known to which century Modwen belonged, and it is more likely that this church was established by Wilfrith I, who before and after his appointme
n
t as Archbishop of York (in 669) had some responsibility for Mercia and who is credited with founding various unnamed monasteries. It is likely that the establishment was sacked by the Danes in the late ninth century. It is not certain whether any church 
w
as re-established here in the tenth century, before Wulfric Spot founded a Benedictine Abbey in Burton, on the west bank of the river, at the beginning of the eleventh century. The abbey was dedicated in 1008 to St Benedict and All Saints but by 1086 to S
t Mary, and by the late twelfth century to St Mary and St Modwen. The supposed bones of Modwen were subsequently brought from 'Andresey' to be buried in the new abbey. The first abbot and monks came from Winchester.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The abbots who spanned the period from 1066 to 1086 were:
\par \tab ?1051-1066 Leofric (who seems to have been Abbot of Peterborough at the same time)
\par \tab 1066/1067-?1085 Brihtric II; he had previously been Abbot of Malmesbury
\par \tab 1085-1094 Geoffrey }{\i\insrsid5780933 de Mala Terra}{\insrsid5780933 , a monk of Winchester
\par \tab On Burton Abbey, see }{\i\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\insrsid5780933 , iii. pp. 199-201; }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Knowles &: Hadcock, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Medieval Religious Houses}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 52, 61;}{\insrsid5780933 
 Knowles, Brooke and London, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Heads of Religious Houses}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 30-31.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The majority (4,1;4-10) of the nine estates listed in Domesday were given to the abbey by Wulfric Spot, its founder and a king's thane, in his will (1002 x 1004): }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{
\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1536 = Whitelock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 53-56 no. 29). Others were intended for the abbey but either did not reach it or were alienated from it by 1066. In Staffordshire these estates were Elford (1,26) and Oakle
y (1,35) which Wulfric gave to his daughter but with reversion to Burton Abbey, as well as Gailey (11,59), Rudyard (1,63), Cotwalton (1,45 or 8,21), Cauldon (11,4) and Sheen (1,51). Wulfric Spot also gave an estate called }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Eccleshale}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , which is taken by Sawyer in }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, p. xxxiv, to be Eccleshall in Staffordshire (2,10). It is more probably Exhall near Alchester in Warwickshire (WAR 28,12); see 2,10 Eccleshall note. According to an excerpt from the Burton Annals printed in }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Monasticon Anglicanum}
{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 43 (see }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Annales Monastici}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 185), Wulfric gave to the abbey all of his paternal inheritance: }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
deditque ei omnem haereditatem paternam appretiatam septingentas libras}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  ('and he gave it all his }{\insrsid5780933 paternal}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  inheritance valued at \'a3700'). However,
 his will does not allude to this and the will contains, moreover, a number of estates that were not intended for his abbey. Wulfric himself died in 1010 and was buried in the abbey cloister. }{\insrsid5780933 See}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. pp. 29, 199-201, ix, pp. 106-09, xx. pp. 4-6; Deanesby and Jeayes, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Burton Abbey}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab The estates in this fief lay in four hundreds, although none of these is provided in the text, and are entered as follows:}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 4,1-4 [Offlow Hundred]
\par \tab \tab 4,5-6 [Pirehill Hundred]
\par \tab \tab 4,7-8 [Totmonslow Hundred]
\par \tab \tab 4,9-10 [Cuttlestone Hundred]}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 4,1\tab IN THE MANUSCRIPT a bracket or excerpting mark, resembling a misshapen }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 c}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, was written in very pale black ink at the beginning and end of this entry, as also, in darker black ink, at the beginning and end of 6,1. Both entries are apparently concerned with Stafford, although }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Stadford}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in the present entry is an error for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Burtone}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (see 4,1 Burton note). There is also a set of these marks in the very pale black ink next to the reference to Stafford in 8,19 (8,19 Stafford note), but tw
o small crosses are written in the margin next to it in the same ink as well and in the margin next to a further reference to Stafford in this county (11,7) is another cross in the same pale black ink, though there is no sign of the excerpting marks there
.
 The crosses probably had the same function as the other marks. It is impossible to tell exactly when in the Middle Ages these and other marginal marks and signs were made or by whom, although the present marks might have been done by someone making a cop
y of entries for Stafford. However, there are no marks beside the references to Stafford in Marston (8,9) or in Chebsey (10,9). On such checking marks, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 131-33 (= Erskine and Williams, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Story of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp
. 197-99). These excerpting marks are only sometimes visible in the Alecto facsimile, but do not appear at all in the Ordnance Survey facsimile.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of the three est
ates, Branston, Wetmore and Stretton (4,2-4) and assumes that in 4,1 Stafford is an error for Burton-upon-Trent; see 4,1 Burton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab IN THE VILLAGE OF STAFFORD [* BURTON-UPON-TRENT *]. The attribution by the main scribe of Great Domesday of this land to 
Stafford cannot be dismissed out of hand. There was certainly agricultural land at Stafford, held by the canons of that place (6,1). Stafford is there described as a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 civitas}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('city') but as a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 burgus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('borough') at B1. At first sight }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 villa}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is inappropriate for a borough or city, but Stamford (in Lincolnshire) is alternatively described as a }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 burgus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (LIN S1) or a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 villa}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 (LIN S7). Moreover, in the bull of Pope Lucius III confirming the possessions of Burton Abbey (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 42) is a list of 
the gifts made by King William I, which include the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 terram quam habet in Staffordia}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('the land which it [the abbey] has in Stafford'). Further, if no mention were made of land in Burton-upon-Trent, this could be because its land was a tax-free area of spec
ial privilege like those of the abbeys of Ramsey, Thorney and others, similarly not mentioned in Domesday.
\par \tab \tab However, there is no other mention of Burton Abbey land in Stafford (see }{\i\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\insrsid5780933 , vi. p. 206) and }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 the five abbreviations of the abbey's lands (see 
\{Introduction: Related or 'Satellite' Texts\}) are unanimous in placing this land not in Stafford but in Burton-upon-Trent, and in citing either Domesday or a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Liber Regis}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in doing so. The Latin, checked against the manuscripts or a facsimile of them, in the relevant parts of these texts has been expanded silently and the tironian }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 nota}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) has been replaced with Latin }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 et}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; the pencil foliation has been used for the Burton Cartulary extracts:}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Burton Cartulary, folio 10ra (Walmsley, 'Another Domesday Text', p. 112; Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', p. 7):}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab Sic continetur super Domusday apud Wintoniam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab Ecclesia sancte mariae de Burtune in Staffordsire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab In ipsa uilla habet unam hidam et dimidiam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Terra est .ii. carucis}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  valet .xl. solidos}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab (' This is what is contained in Domesday at Winchester.
\par \tab The church of St Mary of Burton[-upon-Trent] in Staffordshire.
\par \tab In the vill itself it has 1 \'bd hides. There is land for 2 ploughs. It is worth 40s.')}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Burton Cartulary, folio 36v (Walmsley, 'Another Domesday Text', p. 112):
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab Ecclesia sancte marie de Burtona in Staffordscira}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
In ipsa villa Burtone habet unam hidam et dimidiam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Terra est .ii. carrucis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Valet .lxx. solidos}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .
\par \tab ('The church of St Mary of Burton[-upon-Trent] in Staffordshire. In the vill of Burton[-upon-Trent] itself it has 1 \'bd hides. There is land for 2 ploughs. It is worth 70s.')}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Peniarth Cartulary, p. 362 (Walmsley, 'Another Domesday Text', p. 112):
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab Ecclesia sancte marie de Burthune in Staffordscire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Sic scribitur in Domusday}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 In ipsa villa habet unam hidam et dimidiam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Terra est .ii. carucis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Valet .lxx. solidos}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .
\par \tab ('The church of St Mary of Burton[-upon-Trent] in Staffordshire. This is what is written in Domesday. In the vill itself it has 1 \'bd hides. There is land for 2 ploughs. It is worth 70s.')}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Burton Muniment 1, endorsement (Walmsley, 'Another Domesday Text', p. 112):
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ECCLESIA SANCTAE MARIAE DE BIRTONE IN STADFORDSCIRE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 In ipsa uilla habet unam hidam et dimidiam}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Terra est .ii. carucis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Valet .lxx. solidos}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .
\par \tab ('The land of St Mary of Burton[-upon-Trent] in Staffordshire. In the vill itself it has 1 \'bd hides. There is land for 2 ploughs. It is worth 70s.')}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Burton Muniment 1925, a roll fragment (Walmsley, 'Another Domesday Text', p. 112):}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab SCRIPTURA SICUT CONTINETUR IN LIBRO REGIS}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ECCLESIA SANCTAE MARIAE DE BERTONE IN STADFORDSCIRE}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 In ipsa uilla BERTONAE habet unam hidam et dimidiam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Terra est .ii. carrucis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Valet .lxx. solidos}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .
\par \tab ('A written entry as it is contained in the 'King's Book'. The church of St Mary of Burton[-upon-Trent] in Staffordshire. In the vill of Burton[-upon-Trent] itself it has 1 \'bd hides. There is land for 2 ploughs. It is worth 70s.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The unanimity and the close relationship of these texts is striking; for the discrepancy in the value of the first text, see 4,1 value note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The same land reappears in the two surveys of Burton Abbey lands dating from the twelfth century ((see \{Introduction: Related or 'Satellite' Texts\}
).The Latin has been expanded silently and the tironian }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 nota}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) has been replaced with Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 et}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; the pencil foliation has been used:}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Survey A, folio 28ra (Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 212):
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab In Burtona est Inlanda ad .ii. aratra in dominio}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  terra hominum se defendit pro hida et dimidia ...
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab (' In Burton[-upon-Trent] is Inland for 2 ploughs in lordship. The men's land answers for 1 \'bd hides ... ')}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Survey B, folio 32ra (Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 212):}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab In Burtona est inlanda aratrorum .ii. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ... }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Terra hominum se defendit pro hida et dimidia}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab (' In Burton[-upon-Trent] is Inland for 2 ploughs ... The men's land answers for 1 \'bd hides ... ')}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Finally, the bull of Pope Lucius III confirming the possessions of Burton Abbey (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Monasticon Anglicanum}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 42) is: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 locum ipsum in quo idem mo
nasterium situm est cum omnibus pertinentiis suis et villam de Burthonia cum ecclesia et omnibus pertinentiis suis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('The actual place in which this same monastery is sited, with all its appurtenances and the vill of Burton[-upon-Trent] with the church and all its appurtenances').}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab Byrtun}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  'on which the monastery stands' was given by Wulfric Spot to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002 x 1004): }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , no. 1536 = Whitelock, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, }{
\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxviii no. 30). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , no. 906 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 48-53 no. 28). The land granted probably corresponded to the areas of Burton and Burton Extra; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ix. p. 46.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab A charter of 1012 by which King Ethelred gave 5 }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 cassati}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 aet Burtune}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  to his
 man Theodulf is unlikely to refer to Burton-upon-Trent, which by that time was held by Burton Abbey, but possibly to Burton Hastings in Warwickshire; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 85 no. 70 (= Sawyer, }{
\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 929)}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 .}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab An early name for Burton was }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Modwennestow}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, named from St Modwen, who was said to have established a church there; see STS 4 Burton note. The name Burton ('fortified farm' from Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 burh}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 tun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) is first attested in the eighth century. The establish
ment of the abbey here early in the eleventh century seems to have led to the growth of a town, which became a borough by 1197. The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Historia Fundatoris et Abbatum}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  of the abbey (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 48), says of Abbot Nicholas (1187-97): }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hic fecit primum burgum de Burton videlicet villam et novum vicum de Burton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('He made the first borough of Burton [-on-Trent], that is, the town and the new street of Burton'). Of his successor, William Melburne (1200-1213) it is said that: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hic burgum a magno ponte
 de Burtone usque ad novum pontem versus Horninglowe fecit et dedit burgensibus cartam inde et tenuit ibidem forum et feriam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('He made the borough from the great bridge of Burton[-upon-Trent] as far as the new bridge towards Horninglow and gave the burgess
es a charter about this and held a market and a fair there'). Burton-upon-Trent survived as a possession of the abbey until the Dissolution; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Valor Ecclesiasticus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 144.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The enormous growth in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries has led to t
he town's expansion across the River Trent into what was Derbyshire; Winshill and Stapenhill, which were Domesday estates (DBY 3,3;5, both held by Burton Abbey) were transferred to Burton-upon-Trent and so to Staffordshire in 1894; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ix. pp. 4, 31, 46.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Eyton (}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 49-50 and table between pp. 58-59) was inclined to identify Burton-upon-Trent with the }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Burtone }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 held by Henry of Ferrers (10,2), and even to attribute it a castle on the basis of that entry. }{\insrsid5780933 Br
idgeman and Mander, 'Staffordshire Hidation', p. 176, while accepting that Stafford (4,1) was an error for Burton[-upon-Trent] included the half-hide of 10,2 in their total for Burton-upon-Trent. However, that }{\i\insrsid5780933 Burtone}{\insrsid5780933 
 appears to have been adjacent to Tutbury; see 10,2 "Burtone" note.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Burton was a lordship estate of the abbots; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, ii. p. 116; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108. The abbey held it until its dissolution.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab VALUE BEFORE 1066, 60s; NOW 70s. In the first abbreviation of this entry in the Burton Cartulary (see 4,1 Burton note) the (1086) value is given as 40s (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .xl. solidos}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ). It seems likely that this is a miscopying of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E. }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 value in Domesday (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .lx. solidos}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) - such reversals of }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 lx}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 xl}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 are very common - rather than a revised figure. The other four abbreviations have '70s' as in Domesday.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 4,2\tab BRANSTON. This was a township of Burton-upon-Trent Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 280.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This appears to have been the only Staffordshire estate that the abbey did not hold before the Conquest. }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Land at }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Brontiston }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
with other places amounting to 40 hides had been granted to Wulfsige the black (}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Wulfsye prenomine Maur'}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ) by King Edmund in 942: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 90-91 no. 82 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 479 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 9-13 no. 5). Although Wulfsige appears to have been a kinsman of Wulfric Spot, it seems that this particular estate did not pass to hi
m, or if it did, he did not himself give it to Burton Abbey. It appears to have come to the abbey after the abolition of the Earldom of Mercia or after Countess Godiva's death, that is, during the reign of King William I; }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ix. p. 167.
 It was held by the abbey until the Dissolution; see Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', pp. 18-19; 25 (= Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', pp. 215-17); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Valor Ecclesiasticus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 144; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab For an attempt to identify the 40 hides, see 1,11 Alrewas note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab COUNTESS GODIVA. }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Countess (Lady) Godiva was the wife of Leofric, Earl of Mercia 1018-1057, mother of Earl Algar and grandmother of Earls Edwin and Morcar; she died some time between 1066 and 1086.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Domesday forms of Godiva - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Godeua}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Godeue}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Godiua}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Godgeua}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  etc. - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Godgifu}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 264. JRM preferred the form Godiva as it reflected most of the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Godgifu.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab IN LORDSHIP 1 \'bd . The Phillimore printed edition has 'In lordship 1 \'bd ploughs', though the 'ploughs' are only implied from the ploughs in the preceding plough estimate.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE DETAILS of hidage, plough estimate and 1086 value given in the five abbreviations of Burton Abbey lands, cited in 4,1 Burton note, agree with those in this entry (the verb }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 valet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 is missing from the value statement in the first abbreviation in British Library, Loan 30, folio 10ra). In the Burton Abbey surveys for Branston (fo
lio 28rb for Survey A and folio 32va for Survey B = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 215) the men's holding is given as 1 \'bd
 hides (as here), but Survey A has 'there is as much inland as is enough for 2 ploughs in lordship' and Survey B has 'inland, \'bd hide, where there can be 3 ploughs'; there is land for 5 ploughs in Domesday and 1 \'bd ploughs in lordship.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 4,3\tab WETMORE. This was a settlement in Burton-upon-Trent Ancient Parish. Like Burton-upon-Trent itself, it probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab An estate of 1 \'bd }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 mansae}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  at }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Withmere}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was purchased in 1012 by Wulfgeat, the Abbot of Burton, from King Ethelred for \'a370 in gold and silver: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 99 no. 94 (= Sawyer, }{
\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 930 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 67-69 no. 35). The charter is spurious, but Burton Abbey certainly held this estate at the Conquest, and the information it contains may be genuine. It included the estate of Horninglow (SK2425);}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 see Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', pp. 20, 26 (= Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', pp. 219-22 = Walmesley, 'Another Domesday Text', pp. 118-19); Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 201, ix. p. 181.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab No }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  holder is given, but the estate appears to have been in the abbey's hands in 1066.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 
WITH ITS DEPENDENCIES. Among them were probably Horninglow (SK2425) and Anslow (SK2125); see Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 219 (= Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', p. 41); Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108; and }{
\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 43 note 50. Wetmore, Horninglow and Anslow all survived as possessions of the abbey until the Dissolution: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Valor Ecclesiasticus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 144.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab WOODLAND 1 LEAGUE. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 main scribe of Great Domesday's interlineation of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 una}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  may have been done during the initial writing of this entry as it is in the same colour ink as the rest of it.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LATER 20s. The questions purported to have been those asked by the 'king's barons' in their enquiry, which are given in the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Inquisitio Eliensis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (Hamilton, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Inquisitio Eliensis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 97), state that the answers should be for three periods: 'in the time of King Edward, when King William gave it and as it is now'. Great Domesday generally has very little information at two dates, let alone at three,
 though the value was usually given for when King Edward held it (or at an undisclosed time in the past) as well as 'now' and sometimes an intermediate value was given, such as 'later' or 'when acquired', especially in the returns for circuits I and III, 
but see also SHR 4,3,9 acquired note. (On the use of 'when acquired' in the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Liber Exoniensis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 for the value 'formerly' in the corresponding entries in Great Domesday - usually when acquired by the tenant-in-chief but occasionally by his subtenant - see CON 1
,4 value note and DEV 2,14 formerly note.) In Domesday Staffordshire the only occurrences of this intermediate value are here and in 4,4;6 and 8,4. It is possible that his source had these values, but that the main scribe of Great Domesday abbreviated the
m out. It is perhaps interesting that the value at three dates here and in 4,4;6 contrasts with that at only one date in 4,8-9.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE DETAILS of hidage, plough estimate and 1086 value given in the five abbreviations of Burton Abbey lands, cited in 4,1 Burton
 note, agree with those in this entry. In the Burton Abbey surveys for Wetmore (folio 29ra for Survey A and folio 33ra for Survey B = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 219) the men's holding is given as 1 \'bd
 hides (as here), but Survey A has 'there is as much inland as is enough for 2 very strong ploughs in lordship' and Survey B has 'as much inland where there can be 3 ploughs' (in Domesday there is land for 7 ploughs and 2 ploughs in lordship).}{
\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 4,4\tab STRETTON. This was a township of Burton-upon-Trent Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 280.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Land at }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Stretton }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 with other places amounting to 40 hides was granted to Wulfsige the black (}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Wulfsye prenomine Maur'}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ) by King Edmund in 942: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 90-91 no. 82 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 479 = Sawyer, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 9-13 no. 5). }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 For an attempt to identify the 40 hides, see 1,11 Alrewas note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Wulfsige appears to have been a kinsman of Wulfric Spot who subsequently gave }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Straet}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 tu}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{
\insrsid5780933 to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002 x 1004): }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1536 }{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 = }{\insrsid5780933 Whitelock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\insrsid5780933 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxviii no. 31). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 
, no. 906 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 48-53 no. 28).}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab After 1086, Burton Abbey continued to hold Stretton until the Dissolution; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
see Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', pp. 19, 25-26 (= Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', pp. 217-19 = Walmesley, 'Another Domesday Text', pp. 117-18); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Valor Ecclesiasticus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 144; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ix. p. 192.}{
\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 No }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  holder is given, but the estate appears to have been in the abbey's hands in 1066.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab MEADOW, 28 ACRES. There is a black ink blot on the second }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 x}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  of }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 xxviii}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  in the manuscript, but the reading is clear.}{\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab FOR THE SPACE left after the meadow details and before the value statement, see 1,8 after note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LATER 20s. See 4,3 later note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE DETAILS of hidage, plough estimate and 1086 value given i
n the five abbreviations of Burton Abbey lands, cited in 4,1 Burton note, agree with those in this entry. In the Burton Abbey surveys for Stretton (folio 28va for Survey A and folio 32vb for Survey B = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 217) the men's 
holding is given as 1 \'bd
 hides (as here), but Survey A has 'there is as much inland as is enough for 2 very strong ploughs in lordship' and Survey B has 'as much inland where there can be 3 ploughs' (in Domesday there is land for 2 ploughs and 1 plough in lordship).}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 4,5\tab 
[" IN PIREHILL HUNDRED *]. Both Abbots Bromley (4,5) and Darlaston (4,6) were later in Pirehill Hundred, and although Abbots Bromley lies on the Pirehill-Offlow border, Darlaston is far from there. They were probably both in Pirehill Hundred in 1086; see 
\{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Hundreds\}.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [ABBOTS] BROMLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 4, 12; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 277.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Land at }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Bromleage }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 with other places amounting to 40 hides was granted to Wulfsige the black (}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Wulfsye prenomine Maur'}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
) by King Edmund in 942: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 90-91 no. 82 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 479 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 9-13 no. 5). In this charter, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Bromleage}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 may have accounted for both the later Bromleys, Abbots Bromley and Kings Bromley (1,12), although they are some distance apart and the names may have arisen independently. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
For an attempt to identify the 40 hides, see 1,11 Alrewas note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
An estate here was later held by Wulfric Spot's mother (which suggests that Wulfsige and Wulfric Spot were related) and given by her to Wulfric Spot, a gift confirmed as his own by King Ethelred to Wulfric, described as his }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 ministe
}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 r, in 996: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 91 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 878 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 45-48 no. 27). It is said in the charter that this estate had been held by Wulfsige the black. The size of the e
state given in the latter charter, regarded as authentic, is 3 hides, though the bounds are evidently those of Abbots Bromley alone which in Domesday is assessed at \'bd
 hide. There may have been a reduction in the tax liability (and thus of the hidage) betwe
en 996 and 1066, or the 3 hides could be the assessment of the other part of Bromley (King's Bromley, 1,12) carried over in error, or a rough assessment of both estates, which in 1086 amounted to 3 \'bd hides.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bromleage}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\insrsid5780933 was subsequently given by Wulfric Spo
t to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002 x 1004): }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1536 = Whitelock, }{
\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see pp. xxviii-xxix no. 32). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{
\insrsid5780933 , no. 906 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 48-53 no. 28).}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 No }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  holder is given, but the estate appears to have been in the abbey's hands in 1066.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab After 1086, Burton Abbey continued to hold Abbots Bromley until the Dissolution; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 see Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', pp. 20, 26-27 (= Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surve
ys', pp. 222-23); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 4, 12; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Valor Ecclesiasticus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 144. It is possible that Bagot's Bromley (SK0625) began as a subinfeudation to the earls of Stafford, or that the estate was included under some other entry or omitted from Domesday
. It is said to be part of the barony of Stafford in }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 966, 975, and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 3.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. At the Dissolution Burton Abbey held Bentilee (SK1122) and Bromley Hurst (SK0822-SK0922). These were probably among the dependencies; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Valor Ecclesiasticus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 144.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab FOR THE SPACE left after the woodland details and before the value statement, see 1,8 after note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE DETAILS of hidage, plough estimate and 1086 value given in the five abbreviations of Burton Abbey
 lands, cited in 4,1 Burton note, agree with those in this entry. In the Burton Abbey surveys for Abbots Bromley (folio 29rb for Survey A and folio 33rb for Survey B = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 222) the men's holding is given as \'bd
 hide (as here), but Survey A has 'inland for 2 ploughs in lordship' and Survey B has 'as much inland where there can be 2 ploughs' (in Domesday there is land for 1 plough and 1 plough in lordship).}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 4,6\tab DARLASTON. This was a settlement in Stone Ancient Parish. Stone its
elf is not named in Domesday, but a number of Domesday estates lay in its large parish; see 1,40 Fulford note. Darlaston probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 12; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278. Another place of the 
same name, not mentioned in Domesday, was an Ancient Parish which lay in Offlow Hundred: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Deorlafestun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\insrsid5780933 
was given by Wulfric Spot to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002 x 1004): }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 
, no. 1536 = Whitelock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxxi no. 51). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 
, no. 906 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 48-53 no. 28).}{\cf1\insrsid399784 \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 An earlier stage of Darlaston's history is given by a charter of 956 in which King }{
\insrsid5780933 Edwy}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  grants the estate to Aethelnoth described as his faithful }{\i\insrsid5780933 minister}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  ('assistant', 'servant'), translated by Hart as 'faithful thegn': }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 94 no. 86 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 601 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 26-29 no. 17). An endorsement says that 1 hide was at Darlaston and 1 hide at Stableford (SJ8138); see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 176-77. The Domesday assessment of Darlaston is 3 virgates. }{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 The charter is not regarded as authentic and, if it contains no authentic information, it may have been invented to reinforce Burton Abbey's claim to the estate.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 No }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  holder is given, but the estate appears to have been in the abbey's hands in 1066.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Burton Abbey continued to hold Darlaston after 1086 and until the Dissolution; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
see Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', pp. 22, 28 = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', pp. 227-228); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Valor Ecclesiasticus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 144.}{\insrsid5780933 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The grid reference is to Darlaston Home Farm (SJ8834). Darlaston Grange is at SJ885339.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 2 VILLAGERS [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday did not put any punctuation after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 uill}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 an}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 i}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , but left blank the rest of the line, presumably for the later inclusion of the villagers' ploughs or any smallholders too. See also in 4,10 and 17,19.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab VALUE BEFORE 1066, 30s; LATER 10s; NOW 27s 4d. In the five abbreviations of Burton Abbey lands, cited in 4,1 Burton note, the (1086) value is given as 30s (the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 solidos}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is missing in the first abbreviation in B.L. Loan 30, folio 10ra). The abbreviator probably gave the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 value instead of the 1086 one, rather than that this is a revised figure. On 'later', see 4,3 later note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE DETAILS of hidage and plough estimate given in the five abbreviations of Burton Abb
ey lands, cited in 4,1 Burton note, agree with those in this entry. In the Burton Abbey surveys for Darlaston (folio 304a for Survey A and folio 34ra for Survey B = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 227) the men's holding is given as 3 virgates (as he
re), but Survey A has 'there is as much inland as is enough for 2 strong ploughs in lordship' and Survey B has 'there is as much inland where there can be 2 ploughs' (in Domesday there is land for 2 ploughs and no lordship ploughs are recorded).}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 4,7\tab [IN TOTMONSLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Leigh and Okeover (4,7-8).}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LEIGH. This was an Ancient Parish and incorporated the settlements of Upper Leigh (SK0136), Lower Leigh (SK0136), Church Leigh (SK0235) and Dods Leigh (SK0134); see }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 44 note 52}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . Leigh probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 280. It later included the township of Field (SK0233) not mentioned in Domesday, but its relationship to Leigh is mentioned in Burton B (Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 227): }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Felda se defendit pro i carrucata et iacet ad Lege hidam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (' Field answers for 1 carucate and is an adjunct of the hide at Leigh'). }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 This }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 feld}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933  ('open land') was probably created and put under cultivation after 1086.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lege}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and 'all that pertains thereto' }{\insrsid5780933 
was given by Wulfric Spot to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002 x 1004): }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1536 =}
{\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\insrsid5780933 Whitelock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see pp. xxxi-xxxii no. 54). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{
\insrsid5780933 , no. 906 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 48-53 no. 28).}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 No }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  holder is given, but the estate appears to have been in the abbey's hands in 1066.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Leigh and Field continued to be held by the abbey after 1086 and until the Dissolution; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
see Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', pp. 21, 27 (= Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', pp. 225-27); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Valor Ecclesiasticus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 144.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab After the account of Field in Burton A there are details of a holding in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dadesleia}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 (Dods Leigh), but its connection with Leigh and Field is not mentioned (Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', p. 21 = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 227). However, it seems probable that this is a later subinfeudation of Leigh.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE DETAILS of hi
dage, plough estimate and 1086 value given in the five abbreviations of Burton Abbey lands, cited in 4,1 Burton note, agree with those in this entry. In the Burton Abbey surveys for Leigh (folio 29vb for Survey A and folio 33vb for Survey B = Bridgeman, '
Burton Abbey Surveys', pp. 225-26) the men's holding is given as 3 virgates (as here) but for 'Leigh and Field' (see 4,7 Leigh note) in Burton A, but as '1 hide, less the fifth part' in Burton B (the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
quinta}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  perhaps a scribal error for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 quarta}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , 'fourth'). Sur
vey A has 'there is as much inland as is enough for 2 strong ploughs in lordship' and Survey B has 'inland which can be ploughed by means of 2 ploughs' (in Domesday there is land for 3 ploughs and 1 plough in lordship).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 4,8\tab OKEOVER. This was a chapelry, probably of Ilam Ancient Parish, possibly of Blore Ancient Parish; see Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 418. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Acofre}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  'with all that pertains thereto, that is }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hilum }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [Ilam, SK1350] and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Celfdun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 [Cauldon, SK0749; see 11,4] and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Caetesthyrne}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Castern, SK1252] }{\insrsid5780933 
was given by Wulfric Spot to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002 x 1004): }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1536 =}
{\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\insrsid5780933 Whitelock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxxii nos. 55-58). According to }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 the Bull of Pope Lucius III (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Monasticon Anglicanum}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 42), the gift of Ilam included its church, and that of Okeover, its chapel. In the same source, the gift of Castern included the chapel of Blore (SK1349) and its appurtenances. }{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 Okeover and Ilam were confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 
, no. 906 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 48-53 no. 28). It seems probable that in Domesday Okeover alone stands for Okeover and Ilam and possibly for Castern; }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, iii. p. 201. However, Cauldon (11,4), appears to have been alienated; see 4,8 dependencies note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 No }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 holder is given, but the estate appears to have been in the abbey's hands in 1066. The abbey continued to hold it until the Dissolution: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Valor Ecclesiasticus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 144.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The grid reference is to Okeover Hall (SK158481).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH ITS DEPENDENCIES. Okeover will have included Ilam because their later joint assessment (3 virgates) is the same as that given for Okeover alone in Domesday: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 terra hominum et in hilum et in acoura se defendit pro .iii. virgatis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 (' the land of the men both in Ilam and in Okeover answers for 3 virgates'); see Walmesley, 'Another Domesday Text', p. 120 (= Wrottesley, ' Burton Chartulary', pp. 21, 27 = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', pp. 224-25); see also }{
\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 44 note 53}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. Cauldon and Castern were given by Wulfric Spot at the same time and said to be parts of Okeover. Castern is not in Domesday but may have been included under Okeover. Cauldo
n, however, may never have reached the abbey as it was held by Godiva in 1066 and by Robert of Stafford in 1086 (11,4). In the Bull of Pope Lucius III (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Monasticon Anglicanum}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 42), Wulfric Spot's gift is said to consist only of the chapel of Cauldon.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In later times Ilam grew to pre-eminence and had as its chapelries Okeover, Cauldon and Sheen (1,51).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EDWULF. The Domesday forms of Edwulf - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eddulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Iadulfus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Edulf}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Edeulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hedul}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eadwulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 240. JRM preferred the first element Ed- for Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ead-}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  as it reflected more closely the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Eadwulf.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab FOR RENT. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ad censum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . It appears that Edwulf is a }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 censarius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , that is, a 'tributary' or 'rent-payer': he pays }{\insrsid5780933 
'rent' or 'tribute', in place of labour-service. These rent-payers are rare in Domesday and may be an alternative for, or a sub-category of, the }{\i\insrsid5780933 liberi homines}{\insrsid5780933  ('free men'), but }{\i\insrsid5780933 censarii}{
\insrsid5780933  are later common on
 the Burton Abbey estates, and there were possibly more in 1086 than Domesday mentions; see DBY 1,37 tributaries note. It was translated as 'at dues' in the Phillimore printed edition and as 'at rent' in the Alecto edition.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE DETAILS of hidage, plough e
stimate and 1086 value given in the five abbreviations of Burton Abbey lands, cited in 4,1 Burton note, agree with those in this entry. In the Burton Abbey surveys for Okeover (folio 29va for Survey A and folio 33va for Survey B = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey
 
Surveys', p. 224) the men's holding (in Okeover and Ilam; see 4,8 dependencies note) is given as 3 virgates (as here), but Survey A has 'there is inland for 1 plough' and Survey B has 'as much inland where there can be 1 plough' (in Domesday there is land
 for 2 ploughs and no lordship ploughs are recorded).}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 
However, in Burton B there is a second mention of Okeover, after the details of the holding in Ilam (folio 33va = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 225): 'Okeover, with its dependencies, answers for \'bd
 hide and 1 virgate. Orm holds this for 20 "orae" and with it, Ilam, except for [its] church and the land attached to it, which church and land is the abbot's'. The roll fragment, which perhaps contains the working copy of Burton B (see \{Introduction: R
elated or 'Satellite' Texts\}), breaks off after the account of Ilam. There is no second mention of Okeover in Burton A, but the last sentence in the first account is 'Orm holds this land, that is Okeover and Ilam, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ad firmam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  for 26s 8d'.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 4,9\tab [IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Whiston and 'Bedintone'.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WHISTON. This was a township of Penkridge Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Historic Parishes}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. p. 17; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282. For the identification, see Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 167.}{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Witestan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\insrsid5780933 
was given by Wulfric Spot to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002 x 1004): }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 
, no. 1536 = Whitelock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxix no. 35). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 
, no. 906 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 48-53 no. 28).}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 No }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  holder is given, but the estate appears to have been in the abbey's hands in 1066.
 It continued to be held by the abbey until the Dissolution; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 see Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', pp. 22, 28 = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 228); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Rotuli Hundredorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 114; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 1 (where is appears as }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Weston}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Valor Ecclesiasticus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 144; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 12.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab "NAWEN". The Domesday form of this 1086 subtenant, who only appears in STS 4,9. 5,1, is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Nawen}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. JMcD suggested in the Phillimore }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Index of Persons}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  that it might be an error for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hawen}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , deriving from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Heahwine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. The Alecto edition has Nawen. However, he may be the same as the holder recorded in the Burton Abbey surveys: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Nablus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in Burton B}{
\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Nauenus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 in Burton A; see Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', pp. 22, 28 (= Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 228); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 123.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 
VALUE 4s. The value in all five abbreviations of Burton Abbey lands, cited in 4,1 Burton note, is given as '5s'. This is probably a scribal error on the part of the abbreviator, rather than a revised figure.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE DETAILS of hidage
 and plough estimate given in the five abbreviations of Burton Abbey lands, cited in 4,1 Burton note, agree with those in this entry. In the Burton Abbey surveys for Whiston (folio 30ra for Survey A and folio 34ra for Survey B = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey S
urveys', p. 228) the men's holding is given as 1 hide (as here). In Survey A there is no mention of ploughs on the inland, but on the 1 hide of warland which consists of 6 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 warae}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 three of the six are in lordship and on them there can be 2 ploughs; similarly
 for Burton B (in Domesday there is land for 1 plough and 1 plough 'is there').}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 4,10\tab 'BEDINTONE'. In the twelfth century }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bedintona}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is coupled with }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pilatehala}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (Pillaton, SJ9413); see Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', pp. 22, 28 (= Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Su
rveys', pp. 228-29). It seems probable that 'Bedintone' was adjacent to Pillaton and was either depopulated or merged with it; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 44 note 54; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 91-92; and 4,10 details note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Pillaton was a settlement in Penkridge township in Penkridge Ancient Parish. Both 'Bedintone' and Pillaton probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as Pillaton itself did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281. In}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Rotuli Hundredorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, ii. p. 115, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Palateh'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is held from the barony of Burton. The Phillimore printed edition simply identifies }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Beddintone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  as Pillaton.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bendintun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\insrsid5780933 
was given by Wulfric Spot to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002 x 1004): }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1536 }{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 = }{\insrsid5780933 Whitelock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60)}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\insrsid5780933 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxix no. 33). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 
, no. 906 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 48-53 no. 28).}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab There also exists a charter purporting to be of King Ethelred and dating from 996 in which he gave land at }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Bedintun}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  to his faithful }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 minister}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933  ('assistant', 'servant') Wulfric [Spot]: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 92 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 879 = Sawyer, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 43-45 no. 26}{\insrsid5780933 ). This charter appears to have been forged to replace one that had been lost and to lend authority to an unattached but authentic set of bounds.}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 No }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  holder is given, but the estate appears to have been in the abbey's hands in 1066.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the line after the hidage
. The reason for this is unclear, unless it was for the later insertion of a hundred head, which in Staffordshire was regularly entered at the end of the first line of the entry which it governs; on such spaces, see 1,7 hundred note.}{\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 1 VILLAGER [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the remaining half a line before writing the woodland on the next line. Despite the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 uills'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 the space was probably left for the details of the villager's plough(s) and/or of another category of population, as in 4,6 and 17,19.}{
\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab VALUE ... NOW 7s 4d. The (1086) value in all five abbreviations of Burton Abbey lands, cited in 4,1 Burton note, is given as '10s'.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE DETAILS of hidage and plough estimate given in the five abbreviations of Burton Abbey lands
, cited in 4,1 Burton note, agree with those in this entry. In the Burton Abbey surveys for 'Bedintone' (folio 30ra for Survey A and folio 34ra for Survey B = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 228) the assessment of }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bedintona et Pilatehala}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (see 4,10 'Bedintone' note) is given as \'bd
 hide (as here); there is no mention of a plough estimate in Burton B, but in Burton A there is 'inland for 1 plough, that is 8 bovates' in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bedintona}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and likewise for the warland in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pilatehala}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (in Domesday there is land for 2 p
loughs and no lordship plough is recorded).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Burton B says: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Bedintona et Pilatehala se defendit pro dimidia hida. hanc quia uasta est tenet Edwinus pro .iiii. solidis, que si esset hospitata redderet .v. horas. Alteram quia hospitata est habet idem Edwinus pro .vi. horis. }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (' 'Bedintone' and Pillaton answers for \'bd
 hide. This, because it is waste, Edwin holds for 4s, but if it were inhabited it would render 5 "orae". The other, because it is inhabited, the same Edwin has for 6 "orae"'). Strictly speaking, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 hanc}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  should refer to the nearest place-name (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pilatehala}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) and mean 'the latter'. However, the use of }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 alteram}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('the other', 'the second') rather than }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 illam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('the former') suggests that it is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bedintona}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  that is waste and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pilatehala}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  that is inhabited. If this is so, it explains the disappearance of 'Bedintone'. It may be that the scribe used }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 hanc}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  because he momentarily thought that he was referring to the last noun, the (half) hide, which is the combined extent of both }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bedintona et Pilatehala}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . There is no mention of any of this in Burton A which merely records that 'Edwin has this land (referring to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bedintona et Pilatehala}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ad firmam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('at a revenue', 'at farm') for 20s'.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a small space before beginning the next chapter (STS 5).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 5\tab LAND OF [THE CHURCH OF] SAINT-REMY. This was the cathedral church of St Remigius at Reims (formerly known as Rheims) in the French d\'e9partemen
t of Marne. The church also held Lapley (including Wheaton Aston) in Cuttlestone Hundred and Marston (in Church Eaton) in the same hundred, but, probably as a result of misallocation of estates to counties in the circuit volume, they are entered in the fo
lios for Northamptonshire (NTH 16,1-2); see \{Introduction: Places Entered in the Wrong Domesday County\} and \{Introduction: Circuit and Ruling Pattern\}; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 94.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab It is unusual for a foreign church to be found holding English land before the conquest, but the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Annals of Lapley}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 appear to give an authentic explanation: Edward the Confessor had intended to visit Rome, but in the event sent Archbishop Aldred of York who took with him some English nobles. Among them was Burchard, son of Earl A
lgar of Mercia, who on his return fell ill and died in Rheims, but not before asking to be buried in the church of Saint-R\'e9
my and granting it land out of his patrimony in England. Archbishop Aldred reached England in 1061 and these gifts were subsequently approved by Earl Algar and King Edward; see }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 42. In a charter of }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 c}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
. 1061 of doubtful authenticity, but whose content is probably authentic, Earl Algar [of Mercia] gave Lapley to St Remigius of Rheims: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 100 no. 96 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1237). The church of Saint-R}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \'e9my eventually established a priory at Lapley; see NTH 16,1 Lapley note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab The two estates entered in this chapter lay in two hundreds, both provided in the text:
\par \tab \tab 5,1 Pirehill Hundred
\par \tab \tab 5,2 Offlow Hundred.
\par \tab Two further estates in Cuttlestone Hundred, Lapley and Marston, are entered erroneously in the Northamptonshire folios (NTH 16,1-2).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 5,1\tab HOLDS \'bd HIDE. The main scribe of Great Domesday probably wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ten' .i. hid'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 here, but scribe B erased the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 en'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  as well as the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .i.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 to make room for the insertion of the longer }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 dimd'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
; there was no space for him to interline anything here because of the closeness of the rubricated chapter head to this first line of the entry. He wrote the abbreviation }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 dimd'}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , rather than the usual }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 dimid'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, elsewhere when he was short of space, as in his correction to the tax assessment of Sompting (SUS 13,40) and to the hidage in Charwelton (NTH 18,36). Because this correction was written ove
r an erasure it is hard to tell whether the pen and ink used for it were used for any of his other contributions to Domesday Staffordshire, on which see 2,11 land note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab MEAFORD. This was a township of Stone Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Historic Parishes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. In 1086 it lay in Pirehill Hundred as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 12. For another part, held by Earl Roger see 8,24.
\par \tab \tab This place-name is lined through in vermilion in the manuscript, but this does not appear in the Alecto facsimile. For other misleading or poor reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab "NAWEN". On this name-form, see 4,9 "Nawen" note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 5,2\tab [HAMSTALL] RIDWARE. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Offlow Hundred as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 14; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 280. For other parts, held by Earl Roger and Robert of Stafford, see 8,26. 11,50.
\par \tab \tab Hamstall Ridware followed the descent of Lapley, the head manor (NTH 16,1): it was held by the prior of Lapley in 1254-55: Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODRIC. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Godric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Goddric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gadric}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Codricus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Godric}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 266-69. The Alecto edition has Godric.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR GAVE THESE 2 LANDS TO SAINT-REMY. On Earl Algar, see 1,11 Algar note. On the gift of these two lands, see STS 5 Saint-R\'e9my note. See also, }{\insrsid5780933 Fleming, }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 239 no. 1466.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 6\tab [THE CANONS OF STAFFORD]. There is no chapter headi
ng in Domesday although 'The Canons of Stafford and of Wolverhampton' appear in the Landholders' List next to the figure VI on folio 246a. Here the same chapter number (VI) is placed against the first line of the first entry. The main scribe of Great Dome
s
day appears to have hesitated about how to deal with the holdings of these two sets of canons. It would have been better if he had included them in a single chapter with a more general title since chapter 7 also contains lands held by Samson and by the co
llegiate churches of Tettenhall, Penkridge and Gnosall; see STS 7 Wolverhampton note. In the Landholders' List Samson appears next to number VII; on these discrepancies between List and text, see L6 canons note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In fact it seems probable that the contents
 of chapters 6 and 7 were originally in a single schedule, arranged hundredally: Pirehill Hundred (6,1); Seisdon Hundred (7,1-6); Offlow Hundred (7,7-11); Cuttlestone Hundred (7,13-18). This schedule would have been similar to the one entitled 'Land (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 sic}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) which have been given to the Saints in Alms in Somerset' in the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Liber Exoniensis}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (Exon folios 196a-198b) which groups together the lands held by various churches in 1086 and some almslands and which the main Domesday scribe separated into five chapters (SO
M 11-13;15-16). These Somerset lands generally have in common the fact that they originated in grants from royal lands and a number were collegiate foundations, mostly royal. The case of Wolverhampton is more complex since it was founded by Wulfrun, thoug
h
 from a grant of royal land, possibly from the king's estate of Tettenhall (1,2). By the time of King William and perhaps of King Edward, it was regarded as a royal church; see STS 7 Wolverhampton note. Two at least of the holdings in these chapters (6,1.
 7,5) were royal grants of almsland and others might also have been.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The church of Stafford was collegiate. Though first evidenced in Domesday Book, it was no doubt founded well before 1066; see 6,1 canons note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 6,1\tab FOR THE excerpting marks written at the beginning and end of this entry, see 4,1 manuscript note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [IN PIREHILL HUNDRED]. This heading depends on the location of the land of the canons of Stafford and the court to which it answered; see 6,1 hides note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab IN THE CITY OF STAFFORD. Stafford has earlier been called a borough (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 burgus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
) at B1. The latter is a better designation, since }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 civitas}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 is normally applied to more ancient (especially Roman), larger and more important places. In 4,1 Stafford is ostensibly called a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 villa}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('village'), though the place-name is probably an error for Burton-upon-Trent; see 4,1 Burton note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 13 PREBENDARY CANONS. These canons are presumably the same as 'the priests of the borough' (B10) and would have served the collegiate church. The existence of this church is first imp
lied by Domesday, but its dedication to St Bertelin (later to St Mary) suggests that it was a pre-Conquest foundation, perhaps the work of Aethelflaed ('Lady of the Mercians', sister of King Alfred) who constructed the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 burh}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  at Stafford in 913. The parish o
f this church occupied most of the borough of Stafford, leaving only a small area, east of Greengate Street, for the parish of St Chad which was probably carved out of that of St Mary after 1086. St Bertelin-St Mary was an important mother church: in the 
early fifteenth century, the dead of the parishes of Cresswell, Ingestre, Tixall and of the townships of Marston, Salt, Coton and Whitgreave (all in the parish of St Mary) were buried at St Mary's. See Knowles and Hadcock, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Medieval Religious Houses}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 418, 483; }{\i\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\insrsid5780933 , vi. p. 238.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The church was given by King Stephen to Roger de Clinton, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield (1129-48). S}{\insrsid5780933 ee}{\i\insrsid5780933  VCH Staffordshire}{\insrsid5780933 
, iii. p. 303. In 1226-28, it was held by Bartholemew, archdeacon of Winchester, by gift of King John (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 385). }{\insrsid5780933 
It remained collegiate until the Dissolution; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\insrsid5780933 , vi. p. 239.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 3 HIDES. Domesday says that the canons were 'in' Stafford, but does not say that the hides were. Many boroughs in Domesday have agricultural 
land in them or attached to them. It seems, however, that the three hides held by the canons in alms may were actually situated at Whitgreave (SJ8928) and Butterton (SJ8242). This becomes apparent from an }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Assize Roll}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  of 21 Edward I where it was presented t
hat after the church of Stafford had become exempt from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, by the consent of King Henry III, the vills of Whitgreave and Butterton, amounting to three hides, had withheld payments due to the king and 
to the bailiff of the Hundred of Pirehill; see }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Wrottesley, 'Plea Rolls of the Reign of Edward I',}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  p. 287; }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Swynnerton, 'Domestic Cartulary', }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 pp. 219-222; and see also }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 12; }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 303, iv. p. 44 note 60. By the mid-thirte
enth century, the church had tenants in Stafford, 'Orberton', Worston (SJ8727) and Whitgreave in its own parish as well as at Butterton in Trentham parish; see }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , vi. pp. 238-39.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The implication of this is that the three hides do not contribute to the borough's revenue (and are not therefore 'in' the borough) but were in the hundred of Pirehill.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab IN ALMS. Like most almslands this is a portion of royal land (of STS B 1-12) granted b
y the king for the sustenance of an individual or group, without the obligations normally associated with the tenure of land.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab NOW 60s. The main scribe of Great Domesday initially wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 xx }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
and then imperfectly erased the first }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 x}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 l}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  over the right-hand half of it in darker ink.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a small space before beginning the next chapter (STS 7).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7\tab LAND OF THE CLERICS OF WOLVERHAMPTON. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 The monastery of 'Hampton', dedicated to St Mary, and from the twelfth 
century to St Peter, was founded or refounded and endowed by Wulfrena or Wulfru}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 n. Her name was later prefixed to it, giving 'Wulfrunhampton' or Wolverhampton}{\cf11\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 .}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
 She was possibly the mother of Wulfric Spot and the same person as the Wulfrun captured by the Danes at Tamworth in 943; }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 see Whitelock, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , pp. 45, 152}{
\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 . In 985 Wulfrun had received 10 }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 cassati}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
 from King Ethelred (7,1 hide note) and her endowment of her monastery, totalling three times this amount, was confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury: }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , no. 1380 = Bridgeman, 'Staffordshire Pre-Conquest Charters', pp. 105-15). In her endowment, }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Wulfrun gave 10 }{
\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 jugera cassatorum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  (that is, '10 hides') for
 her soul and that of her husband, ten more for her kinsman Wulfgeat and a further ten for her daughter Aelfthyth. The lands listed correspond to the Domesday estates of Bilston (1,4), Upper Arley (7,2), "Haswic" (7,6), Wednesfield (7,7), Willenhall (7,8)
,
 Pelsall (7,9), Hilton (7,10), "Hocintune" (7,11), Hatherton (7,13), Kinvaston, (7,14) a second Hilton (7,15) and Featherstone (7,16). Only one estate (Bilston, 1,4) had certainly been alienated from this endowment, although it is possible that another pa
rt of Willenhall (1,10) had as well.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Under Edward the Confessor, this monastery became a collegiate church. A dubious writ of 1053 x 1066 addressed to Bishop Leofwin and Earl Leofwin grants to the priests of Wolverhampton freedom for their minster with ju
risdiction as full as he himself had once possessed it: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 99 no. 95 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1155 = Harmer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Anglo-Saxon Writs}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 403-407). See}{\i\insrsid5780933  }{\insrsid5780933 Knowles and Hadcock}{\i\insrsid5780933 , Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 419, 444;}{\i\insrsid5780933  VCH Staffordshire}{\insrsid5780933 
, iii. p. 321.
\par \tab \tab The heading of the chapter is 'Land of the Clergy of Wolverhampton'. However, in 1086, Samson, the future Bishop of Worcester, held 1 hide (in Wolverhampton) (7,1) and some of its lands and the canons had other estates. Do
mesday does not make entirely clear the division of tenure nor the relation between Samson and the canons nor who actually controls the lands of Wolverhampton church. Leaving aside the estates that belonged to the collegiate churches of Tettenhall, Penkri
dge and Gnosall (7,5;17-18), it could be that Samson was head of the church of Wolverhampton, and controlled its lands and that all others were holding from him. A genuine writ of William I to 'Samson the chaplain' survives (Bates, }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid5780933 
, p. 796, no. 265). It can be dated between 1072 and 1085 and is addressed to 'Archbishop L[anfranc], G[eoffrey] Bishop of Coutances, Bishop P[eter of Lichfield], and to R. the sheriff and all his other faithful men of Staffordshire'. The crucial pas
sage runs: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Sciatis me dedisse Sampsoni capellano meo ecclesiam sancte Marie de Wlurenehamtona cum terra et omnibus aliis rebus et consuetudinibus sicut melius predicta ecclesia habuit tempore regis Edwardi}{\insrsid5780933 
 ('You should know that I have gi
ven to Samson, my chaplain, the church of St Mary of Wolverhampton with [its] land and all other things and customs, as prosperously as the aforesaid church had it in the time of King Edward'). Unfortunately it is not clear from this whether Samson was be
ing given only the church of Wolverhampton with the land appurtenant there (}{\i\insrsid5780933 terra}{\insrsid5780933 
 is singular) or whether he is being given the church and all its possessions in several different vills. On the face of it, the former may be more likely, despite the assertion of }{\i\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\insrsid5780933 
, iii. p. 322, that William I gave the church and its possessions to his chaplain, Samson, and the priests hold ten estates from him. William's writ does not appoint Samson to head the church. Thus the situation could be exactly as Do
mesday says: Samson holds Wolverhampton and Hatherton only (7,1;13), probably as a personal favour of the king to give his chaplain an income, while the canons }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
are the holders of all the other estates with which they were credited: Upper Arley, Bushbury, T
rescott, "Haswic", Wednesfield, Willenhall, Pelsall, Hilton and "Hocintune" (7,2-4;6-11). They also hold Tettenhall (7,5) which is not rightly theirs and Lutley in Worcestershire (WOR 13,1). All these estates, except Lutley, are given a global value at 7,
12. Whether or not Samson was head of the church, it could be that in effect there had been a division of income, some going to Samson, some remaining with the canons. A parallel case could be the}{\cf11\insrsid5780933  }{\insrsid5780933 
several cathedral churches in Domesday where the bishop holds some estates and the canons or monks others, although all the lands belong to the same establishment, the church.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab There exists a writ of King Edward granting protection to his priests of Wolverhampton: Harmer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Writs}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , no. 114, pp. 403-407. T
he writ is unlikely to be genuine, but it may have been composed after 1086 to provide a form of proof that the church was royal (it later became a royal free chapel, although it was not founded as such) and that it was the priests of Wolverhampton who ha
d held the church under King Edward, a fact that had become confused by the grant to Samson.
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab It certainly does not look as if the church of Wolverhampton was going through difficult times, as its endowment was almost completely intact.
\par \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Samson was appoin
ted Bishop of Worcester in 1096 and gave the church of Wolverhampton to Worcester Cathedral. Before 1139 however, it had been seized by Roger, Bishop of Salisbury. It was granted by King Stephen to the church of Lichfield, but had been restored to the chu
rch of Worcester by 1152. Soon afterwards, however, it was lost to Henry Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, the future King Henry II, and it soon became a royal free chapel; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, vi. p. 1443; Shaw, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 History of Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 152; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 384; }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Medieval Religious Houses}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 419, 444; }{\i\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 322}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 .}{\insrsid5780933 
\par \tab \tab The later history of this holding is involved with Wolverhampton itself; see 7,1 hide note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab This chapter is numbered VII in the text but is
 in fact a continuation of chapter VI which appears in the Landholders' List on folio 246a as 'The Canons of Stafford and of Wolverhampton'; see L6 canons note and STS 6 canons note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Even so, the headings are misleading as chapters 6-7 are really part of a composite schedule which consists of:
\par \tab \tab Land of the canons of Stafford (6,1)}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Land of the canons of Wolverhampton (7,1-4;6-12). The first of these (7,1) is held by them from Samson, the others are ostensibly held entirely by them. They also}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 hold land belonging to the priests of Tettenhall (7,5), a quite separate foundation.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Land held by Samson himself and from him by two priests Edwin and Alric. In 1086}{\insrsid399784  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
it belonged or had belonged to the church of Wolverhampton (7,13).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Lands apparently held by the canons (7,14-16); one estate (7,14) is said to}{\insrsid399784  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 have belonged to the church of Wolverhampton }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , but all three had, in fact,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
been part of its endowment.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Land in Penkridge held by the clerics of Penkridge (7,17)
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Land in Gnosall, held by the clerics of Penkridge or of Gnosall (7,18).}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab The cause of this confusion of holders is that t}{\insrsid5780933 he estates in this chapter are arranged in hundredal groups:
\par }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 7,1-6 [Seisdon Hundred]
\par \tab \tab 7,7-11 [Offlow Hundred]
\par \tab \tab 7,13-18 Cuttlestone Hundred
\par \tab Thus it seems that hundredal arrangement is likely to have been the main principle although the hundreds and the holders happen largely to coincide. It was natural to begin with land in Wolverhampton, which presumably led to the rest of the holdin
gs in Seisdon Hundred being inscribed. Samson holds Wolverhampton, but also Hatherton (7,13). Thus the arrangement is by hundred not by holder. On the division of lands between Seisdon and Offlow Hundreds,}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 see 7,7 Offlow note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab On the copy of this chapter that appears in Hemming's cartulary, see \{Introduction: Related and 'Satellite' Texts\}
 and, for the three discrepancies between it and Great Domesday, see 7,17 villagers note, 7,18 virgates note and 7,18 smallholders note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7,1\tab [IN SEISDON HUNDRED]. This heading is supplied from the location of Wolverhampton (7,1) and the following four places.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 1 HIDE [* IN WOLVERHAMPTON *]. This unnamed hide evidently lay at Wolverhampton itself; see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 44 note 61. }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Wolverhampton St Peter was originally the parish of the collegiate church of Wolverhampton and continued as the parish of the succeeding royal free chapel. It subsequently became an Ancient Parish. Wolverhampton probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as 
it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 15; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab It is not certain if any religious foundation preceded Wulfrun's. Traditionally it is said that Wulfhere, King of Mercia (657-674), founded a monastery here in 659. He is certainly reco
rded as founding monasteries in Mercia, but the locations are unknown. There was also a tradition that King Edgar granted the land in 963 to Wulfgeat a kinsman of Wulfrun, but it seems more likely that the grant was in fact made in 985 when King Ethelred 
gave to the lady Wulfrun 10 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 cassati }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 in two places, 9 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 aet Heantune}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Wolverhampton, named from her] and 1 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 aet Treselcotum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Trescott, 7,4]: }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 97 no. 89 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 860 = Bridgeman, 'Staffordshire Pre-Conquest Charters', pp. 101-104)}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. The charter does not say that the land was given to Wulfrun to found or refound a monastery, but she used it for that purpose. In Domesday, Wolverhampton is only rated at 1 hide, but the other 8 hides may have lain at pl
aces named in the confirmation charter of Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 994. Possibly the 1 hide of Domesday was an act of beneficial hidation, bearing in mind the number of ploughs that the estate supported. See STS 7 Wolverhampton note; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 321; Knowles and }{\insrsid5780933 Hadcock}{\i\insrsid5780933 , Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 419, 444}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . The royal grant of Wolverhampton may have been made from the manor of Tettenhall (see 1,2 Tettenhall note).}{\insrsid5780933 
\par \tab \tab A provision of the will of Wulfgeat of Donington (in Shropshire) dating from the late ninth century (Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1534 = }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of the West Midlands}{
\insrsid5780933 , no. 122, pp. 60, 118, 143, 149 = Whitelock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 19, pp 55-56, 163-67) was the gift of 4 bullocks to }{\i\insrsid5780933 Heantune}{\insrsid5780933 , presumabl
y Wolverhampton. The will cannot be dated precisely so it is uncertain whether the gift was to Wulfrun's church or to a preceding establishment, if one existed.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Domesday does not mention any royal land in Wolverhampton itself in 1086, but several authors
 have asserted that there was such an estate in existence though it had been omitted from Domesday Book. This, it is stated, was the land recognized in later times as Ancient Demesne of the Crown; see Eyton, 'Staffordshire Pipe Rolls', pp. 131, 133; }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 44 note 61}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. In 1242 (Wedgwood, 'Liberate Rolls', p. 11) and again in 1249 (Wedgwood, 'Inquisitions', pp. 143-44) surveys were made of Wolverhampton which the king had assigned to Henry of Hastings and his wife Ada. Dunstall, Willenhall 
and Bilston were among its dependencies. Of these, Dunstall (SJ9000) does not appear in Domesday, while Bilston appears there (1,4) to be associated with Tettenhall (1,2; see 1,2 Tettenhall note); Willenhall (1,10) is not there related to any other estate
, and appears to have lain in the adjacent hundred of Offlow. In 1254-55 (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', pp. 115-16) Wolverhampton was held in chief from the king by Guy de Roches by reason of the minority of Henry of Hastings. In }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 15, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wolverneh}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 a}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 )}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 mton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 is held by John de Everdon, presumably from the king, but the estate is not listed as Ancient Demesne among others in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 277. Instead it appears there (p. 283) as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wolvernehampton cum membris}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in Seisdon Hun
dred, the members being: Pelshall (7,9), Wednesfield (7,7), Bilston (1,4), Willenhall (1,10, 7,8), Hatherton (7,13), Featherstone (7,16), Kinvaston (7,14), Hilton (7,10 or 7,15) and Codsall (17,1). Most, but not all, of these lands were held by the church
 of Wolverhampton in 1086, but by 1334 Wolverhampton was a royal free chapel, so the distinction between royal holdings and church holdings may have become blurred. }{\insrsid5780933 
Bridgeman and Mander, 'Staffordshire Hidation', pp. 167-68, 170, also suggest that a royal estate was omitted from Domesday and allocate 3 hides to it}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 p. 133, suggested that Wolverhampton like Upper Arley (7,2) came to the crown 'by early deprivation of the Church of Wolverhampton'.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The difficulty is tha
t it is not certain whether a royal manor is missing or whether it was surveyed in Domesday under other places such as Bilston or Willenhall or whether the Crown subsequently resumed the present 1 hide. For the moment it seems more likely that a king acqu
i
red the lands of the church of Wolverhampton after 1086 than that a royal manor of Wolverhampton was in existence in 1086 but omitted from Domesday. It would appear from his grant of the 'church of Wolverhampton' to Samson before 1086, that even then King
 
William was controlling some or all of its lands. Moreover, Wulfrun had founded her church on what had been royal land and it appears that King Edward or King William regarded the church as, in effect, a royal foundation; see STS 6 canons note. However, t
he matter requires further investigation.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This and the following estates (7,1-11) are given a single value at 7,12.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab SAMSON ^[THE CLERIC]^}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 . Chaplain to King William, later Bishop of Worcester, 1096-1112 (JRM). He is called 'Samson the cleric (}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 clericus}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 )' in the Landholders' List on folio 246a. He had been a canon and treasurer of the church of Bayeux and held Templecombe (SOM 4,1) under Bishop Odo of Bayeux. The title }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 capellan}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 us}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ] appears in a repeat of that entry in the section in the }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Liber Exoniensis}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  entitled 'Lands of French Thanes in Somerset' (Exon folio 467a); see SOM \{Exon Appendix
\} 4,1 Samson note. His brother was Archbishop Thomas of York.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab JRM added to his note: 'He was probably the editor, compiler, and writer of the Domesday Book' and cited Galbraith, 'Samson, Bishop of Worcester', p. 86, and Galbraith, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Domesday Book in Administrative History}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 50, 110. There is little of any consequence to support this supposition and more recently William of St Calais, Bishop of Durham has become a more 
probable candidate for 'the man behind the Survey' and the writer of Great Domesday might have been either his scribe or was later associated with the Durham scriptorium; see Chaplais, 'William of St Calais'; Thorn, Thorn and Gullick, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 The Scribal History of Great Domesday Book}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  (forthcoming). (This corrects SOM 4,1 Samson note.)}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Sanson}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Sansone }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (ablative) - represent the Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Sanson}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Samson}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , 'the name of a Welsh bishop (fl. 550) who crossed over to Brittany and founded the abbey of Dol. ... Whether his name is the Biblical }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Samson}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  or one of Celtic origin is uncertain': Reaney, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dictionary of British Surnames}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . The Alecto edition has Samson.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BEFORE 1066 THERE WERE 8 PLOUGHS. The Phillimore printed translation ('Before 1066, 8 ploughs') might mislead since it follows 'land for 3 ploughs'. These 8 ploughs were the number present }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  not an estimate of plough-potential; see LEC 9,1 1066 note. The phrasing in 10,2 ('\'bd hide ... on which there were 12 ploughs before 1066') f
urther supports this view. See also 14,1 'There were 11 ploughs'.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7,2\tab THEMSELVES. This indicates that they do not hold this estate from Samson, whereas they hold 1 hide (in Wolverhampton) (7,1) from him. This may suggest that Samson was not head of the col
legiate church of Wolverhampton and all its lands, but has merely been given some of its land and revenues; see STS 7 Wolverhampton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [UPPER] ARLEY. The main scribe of Great Domesday failed to rubricate }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ERNLEGE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, as he did with the place-name }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 MORTONE }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 on folio 248a (8,7) and sometimes elsewhere in Great Domesday.
\par \tab \tab This was an Ancient Parish, usually known as plain Arley for ecclesiastical purposes. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 9, 15; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 283. It was transferred to Worcestershire in 1895. The affix 'Upper' is}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 probably to distinguish this place not from some adjacent lost 'Nether' or 'Lower Arley' but from Areley Kings or Nether Areley, close to Stourport, part of the royal manor of Martley in 1086 (HEF 1,39. WOR X 3); see }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Place-Names of Worcestershire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 29-30; }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Worcestershire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 5.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In 963 King Edgar, by a charter thought to be authentic, gave to his }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 minister}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('assistant', 'servant') Wulfgeat three }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 cassati}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  at }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Duddestone}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Duddlestone, Warwickshire] and three at }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ernlege}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Arley]. The latter was thought by }{\insrsid5780933 
Ekwall, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Dictionary of English Place-Names}{\insrsid5780933 , under Arley,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  to be Arley also in Warwickshire, but the bounds show that the estate was at Upper Arley: }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Early Charters of the West Midlands}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 111-112 no. 287 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 720)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. It seems probable that Wulfgeat was a kinsman of Wulfrun who inherited Upper Arley from him and gave it to her foundation at Wolverhampton. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Earnleie}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 appears among the estates confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, as her endowment of Wolverhampton: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1380).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  On the kinship of Wulfgeat and Wulfrun, see Whitelock, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 164-65; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 366; Sawyer, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. xl.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab After 1086 Upper Arley was held by the king. In 1212 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 143) it was held by Thomas }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Burgo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  from the king and recorded as an ancient escheat of Adam }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
de Port}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , and as a gift of King John. Henry }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Burgo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  held from the king in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 384, and John }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Burgo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 similarly in 1254-55; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 114.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab IN LORDSHIP 1 PLOUGH. It would seem that the main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 In d}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 omi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 nio s}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 un}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 t .ii. car}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ucae}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
] ('In lordship 2 ploughs'), but then during checking he jotted down the correct number of lordship ploughs in the central margin level with this statement and erased }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 s}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 un}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 t .ii.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Later, when the surface of the parchment had been re-prepared (though it might not have been, or was done poorly, as the writing is blurred), he wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \'e7}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 u }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 una}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (most of which is in the inner margin) over the erased }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 un}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . He also overwrote the }
{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 o}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 d}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 omi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 nio}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. He then erased his memo; on these marginal notes, see 1,56 carucate note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ANOTHER ARLEY. According to }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 45 note 63,}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab this Arley is 'Lower Arley', a place no longer extant. However,
 this may be a guess based on the twin assumptions that the existence of the name Upper Arley requires there to be or to have been a Lower Arley and that Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 alia }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ('another') refers to a separate settlement. However, Upper Arley seems to be so named to distinguish it from Areley Kings (7,2 Upper note) and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 alia}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  means another estate called Arley, rather than a separate settlement or village; see Thorn, 'Manorial Affixes'. It seems most likely that this \'bd hide was in fact part of Upper Arley. Osbern son of R
ichard appears to have held nothing nearby in Worcestershire to which this part of Arley could have been annexed.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab OSBERN SON OF RICHARD. }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Osbern son of Richard was son of a Norman, Richard Scro
b or Richard Scrope, who settled on the Welsh border in the time of Edward the Confessor and who built Richard's Castle in Herefordshire. This is his only appearance in Domesday Staffordshire.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of Osbern - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Osbern}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Osber}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Asbiorn}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Esbiorn}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) normanized or anglicized, or Old Low German }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Osbern}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 338-39. The Alecto edition has Osbern. The Domesday forms of his father Richard - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ricard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ricard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old German }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ricard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Richard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : Forssner, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 213-14; see also von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 349. The Alecto edition also has Richard.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab HAS TAKEN AWAY FROM THE CANONS ^[OF WOLVERHAMPTON]^ BY FORCE. The Latin is compressed. }{\i\insrsid5780933 Tollit}{\insrsid5780933 
 means 'to lift' (in both the normal and colloquial senses), 'to remove' or ' to take away'. It is in the present tense ('is taking away') but clearly implies a past event ('has taken away') and the }{\i\insrsid5780933 vi}{\insrsid5780933 
 ('by force', 'by violence') probably refers to the moment at which Osbern son of Richard took the estate. Thus the Latin implies; 'Osbern son of Richard has taken away another [holding in] Arley by force from the canons and continues to withhold 
it from them'. On this idiomatic use of the present tense, see HUN 1,2 and LEC 42,5.
\par \tab \tab The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Phillimore printed edition has 'took' for the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 tollit}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , but }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 tollit}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is the present tense, although in a context such as this it suggests the continuation of a past action: 'has taken away [and continues to take away]'.
}{\insrsid5780933 
\par \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
The immediate outcome of the dispute is not clear, but neither the canons nor the barons of Richards Castle retained Upper Arley which was an escheat to the Crown in or before the reign of Henry II, being granted to Adam de Port. On this, see }{
\insrsid5780933 Fleming, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 239 no. 1467.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7,3\tab BUSHBURY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 10, 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p.
 282. For another part, held by William son of Ansculf, see 12,19.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The name means bishop's }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 byrig }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
('bishop's fortified place'), and had presumably been, at some time, a possession or part of a possession of the bishops of Lichfield although it is not evidenced as such. The grid reference is to Bushbury Hall (SJ925024).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 1 FREE MAN WITH 1 PLOUGH. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 lib}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\f710\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  h\'f4}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 over an erasure; it is compressed, so the original details must have taken less space. He overwrote the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 un}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (but not its abbreviation sign)}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 before it and the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 c\'fb }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
after it in darker ink. In the central margin next to this correction is an erased memo; on these marginal notes, see 1,56 carucate note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7,4\tab TRESCOTT. The Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cote}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 35, left this place unidentified, but in a subsequent note suggested that it was 'Cotes' on the boundary of Penn. It was identified by }{\insrsid5780933 
Bridgeman, 'Staffordshire Pre-Conquest Charters', p. 105, and by }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History' p.
 171, as 'Trescott in Wrottesley near Little Penn'. This was a settlement in Tettenhall Ancient Parish, later in Wrottesley Civil Parish when that was created out of Tettenhall Ancient Parish. Like Tettenhall itself (1,2. 7,5) it probably lay in Seisdon H
undred in 1086.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In 985 King Ethelred gave to the lady Wulfrun 10 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 cassati }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 in two places, 9 }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 aet Heantune}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [later Wolverhampton, named from her] and 1 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 aet Treselcotum}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Trescott, 7,4]: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 97 no. 89 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 860)}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . The charter does not say that the land was given to Wulfrun to found a monastery, but she used it for that purpose.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab By 1236, if not earlier, Trescott had become part of Westminster Abbey's estate of [Old] Perton (3,1); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 594; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xx. pp. 25-26.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7,5\tab 
TETTENHALL. This was originally a collegiate area, dependent on the church holding (7,5, a gift of the king in alms), then an Ancient Parish. Ecclesiastically it was sometimes known as Tettenhall Regis from the
 royal holding here; civilly it was known as plain Tettenhall. The ecclesiastical portion is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tetenhale decen' clericorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283. Tettenhall probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later:}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 15; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283. In}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 277, a portion is still classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown. For this other part, see 1,2.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This estate, known as 'Tettenhall Clericorum' was no doubt granted out of the royal manor of Tettenhall
 (1,2) for the endowment of the collegiate church and royal free chapel of St Michael here. This church is first mentioned in Domesday, but its establishment was ascribed in an Inquisition of 1401 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Calendar of Miscellaneous Inquisitions}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , vii. p. 821) to Ki
ng Edgar (959-975) who was said to have endowed it with 100 acres and a rent of 10 shillings. The manor included Aldersley (represented by Aldersley Farm, SJ899012) and 'Barnhurst' (lost). As an ecclesiastical estate it continued until its dissolution in 
1548; see }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Medieval Religious Houses}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  pp. 418, 441; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. pp. 315-16, xx. pp. 18-19.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In the manuscript this place-name is clearly }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 TOTENHALE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. However, in the Alecto facsimile it appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 TOTENHOLE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
; on other misleading reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THIS LAND DOES NOT BELONG TO ^[THE CANONS OF]^ WOLVERHAMPTON. That is, 
it is not a possession of the church of Wolverhampton. However, it is not clear whether this corrects the opening statement ('In Tettenhall they (the canons) have 1 hide'), as }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 46, appeared to think or whether the 
canons are in fact holding Tettenhall, although it is not theirs. In favour of this second interpretation is that the first eleven entries in this chapter appear to be lands of the canons of Wolverhampton of which the annual value is totalled at 7,12. Thu
s this land may have been seized by the canons of Wolverhampton or they have asserted mother-church rights over Tettenhall, which was adjacent.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab BUT IS [A] ROYAL [GRANT OF] ALMS. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 sed est elemosina regis}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , translated literally in the Phillimore p
rinted edition as 'but is the King's alms'. 'Royal' has been preferred here, as no specific king seems intended. An alternative would be 'but is a king's [grant of] alms'. The Alecto edition has 'but it is [part of] the king's alms'.}{
\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab TO THE CHURCH OF THIS VILLAGE ^[TETTENHALL]^. The Phillimore printed translation has 'town' for }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 uillae}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
, possibly implying Wolverhampton (7,1). The first edition of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Domesday Explorer}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  has '[Wolverhampton]' inserted after 'town'. The place is, however, clearly Tettenhall. The chu
rch was still described as being 'in the king's gift' in 1226-28: }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 384.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 In the copy of STS 7 included in Hemming's cartulary (see \{Introduction: Related or 'Satellite' Texts\}) there is no sign of }{
\i\f703\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 eiusdem uill\'ea}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('of this village').}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BILBROOK. This was a settlement in Codsall chapelry of Tettenhall Ancient Parish. Like Codsall (17,1) and Tettenhall (1,2. 7,5) it probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086.}{
\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7,6\tab "HASWIC". This estate is no doubt the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eswich}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  given by Wulfrun to endow the church of W
olverhampton. Trysull (12,15), which lay at SO8594, is mentioned in its bounds. The estate was waste in 1086 and had been taken into a royal forest (presumably that of Kinver) which no doubt accounts for its failure to survive. Although the area where "Ha
s
wic" lay is known, attempts to connect it with Ashwood (SO8788) near Kinver and Kingswinford (Bridgeman, 'Staffordshire Pre-Conquest Charters', pp. 111-12; Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', pp. 168-69; Wrottesley, 'Pleas of the Forest: Staffordshir
e', pp. 158-60; }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 321, iv. p. 45 note 65}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) are speculative and essentially based on the fact that }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Haswic}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and Ashwood may share the same first element, Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 aesc}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('ash tree'), which is very common. }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 36-37, left this place unidentified. Erdeswick, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Survey of Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , placed it near Newcastle-under-Lyme.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eswich}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 was one of the estates confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, as Wulfrun's endowment of her monastery at Wolverhampton: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, }{
\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1380).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BECAUSE OF THE KING'S FOREST. Forest is not necessarily wooded. The word derives from Medieval Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 foresta}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , itself originating from Classical Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 foris}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, meaning land 'outside [the manor]' although royal forests increasingly intruded on the land of manors. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Foresta}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 is in effect a royal chase and an area subject, in due course, to forest-law.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the roya
l forest of Kinver, which had also intruded on Chasepool (12,3), Enville (12,10) and "Cippemore" (12,11). The woodland of Kinver is mentioned as early as 736 (see 1,27 Kinver note), but the forest was probably established by William I; see \{
Introduction: Forest\}.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HALF OF THE WOODLAND, WHICH IS IN THE FOREST, BELONGED THERE. This sentence could be read in several different ways. It could mean, as in the Phillimore printed edition (which does not translate }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 qu\'e6 \'e7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , 'which is'), 'half of the woodland in the For
est belonged there', in other words that half of all the woodland in the forest had been part of "Haswic". Alternatively, the clause 'which is in the forest' could be parenthetical: 'half of the wood(land) belonged there; it is (now) in the forest'. In th
i
s case, there was a wood split between adjacent estates in 1066 and the part belonging to "Haswic" was subsequently taken into the forest. If this interpretation is correct, the other half does not appear. Moreover, the fact that "Haswic" has not been ide
n
tified makes it difficult to identify another estate with which it might have shared a wood. A third possibility, and the simplest one, is that there was still woodland in "Haswic", but only half of what there had been, as half had since been taken into t
he forest. The translation could then be 'The half of [its] woodland, which is [now] in the forest, belonged there'. Once the main scribe of Great Domesday had begun }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ibi pertinuit}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  he was forced into writing an opaque sentence; it would have been better (assuming this is the meaning) if he had written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Ibi silua cuius mediatas modo est in foresta}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('There is woodland, half of which is now in the forest'). For this last meaning there are parallels (but involving land of the manor rather than its woodland) in WIL
 27,27 and WIL 67,79 ('Half of this land is in the king's forest'), referring to two separate estates in Milford, and in WIL 13,20 ('A quarter of this land is situated in the king's forest'), referring to Laverstock.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On the forest, see 7,6 forest note.}{\insrsid8996282 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7,7\tab 
[IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. The four identifiable places (7,7-10) before the Cuttlestone hundred head at 7,13 later lay in the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter and in Seisdon Hundred. While Willenhall and Wednesfield lay near the boundary of Offlow an
d Seisdon Hundreds, Pelsall and Hilton did not. Later in the Middle Ages it is not unusual for most or all the holdings of a church to have been drawn out of their original hundreds and placed in an ecclesiastical hundred that consisted of disconnected pi
e
ces. The actual process of creating such a scattered one-owner hundred can be seen in the lands of the church of Wells in Somerset in 1086 (SOM 6). On the other hand, in the majority of cases where such a dispersed hundred is found later, it is not eviden
c
ed in Domesday Book. In the present case, there is no evidence either way: the estates could have been in a Seisdon Hundred (head supplied at 7,1) that had detached parts or they could have been in the hundred where they lay geographically, that is in Off
l
ow Hundred. A straw in the wind is that the other part of Willenhall (1,10) may well have lain in Offlow Hundred in 1086. In favour of the opposite view, that these places (7,7-10) like those in 7,1-6 lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086, is that 7,1-11 are tre
ated as a unit and given a joint value (in 7,12) whereas the estates of the canons in Cuttlestone Hundred (7,13-18) are given individual valuations. On balance it has been preferred to place an Offlow hundred heading here, following }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 45.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WEDNESFIELD. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter. Like Wolverhampton itself (7,1) it may have in lain in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283. However, it lies on the Offlow Hundred side of the putative boundary; see 7,7 Offlow note.}{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wodnesfeld}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 was one of the estates confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, as Wulfrun's endowment of her monastery at Wolverhampton: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, }{
\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1380).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the first line of the entry after the plough estimate, probably for the later insertion of a hundre
d head (one for Offlow Hundred is required: 7,7 Offlow note). The space is rather small but the inner margin could have been used. On other spaces left for hundred heads, see 1,7 hundred note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 6 PLOUGHS. [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank
 the rest of the line after the villagers and smallholders and their ploughs, perhaps for the later inclusion of details of other resources, such as meadow or mills; compare 1,8 after note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  In the Phillimore printed edition, this phra
se is translated as 'woodland pasture', as it is in the Alecto edition. However, this is to reverse the force of the Latin where }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 silua}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  is a noun and }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 pastilis}{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  an adjective. The main scribe of Great Domesday was here writing primarily about woodland, then adding details that described or defined it. This is obvious when in DBY 1,13 he recorded }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
silua pastilis 7 minuta iii leugas longa 7 ii lata}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  ('pasturable underwood 3 leagues long and 2 wide'); see also in YKS 11E1 and LIN 13,4. In these cases both }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 pastilis}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  and }{
\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 minuta}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  are adjectives that describe the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 silua}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
, literally 'woodland, pasturable and low-growing'. It is also evident where he noted different types of woodland as in HUN 20,8 where he recorded }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 silua pastilis }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ... }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 7}{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 alia silua }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ... ('pasturable woodland ... and other woodland ... '): clearly the other woodland was not pasturable. Pasture (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 pastura}{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ) was not recorded as such in Domesday Staffordshire (but see 12,30 pasture note) and the nine occurrences of 'pasturable woodland' go some way towards rectifying its omission (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 quot pascuorum}{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , 'how many grazing-lands', was among the questions thought to have been asked for the Domesday Survey, as reported in the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Inquisitio Eliensis}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ; see Hamilton, }{
\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 97). See DBY 1,1 woodland note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7,8\tab WILLENHALL. This was a chapelry and township of the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter. Like Wolverhampton itself (7,1) it may have lain in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283. However, it lies on the Offlow 
Hundred side of the putative boundary and another part (1,10) may have been there in 1086; see 7,7 Offlow note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Willenhale}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 was one of the estates confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, as Wulfrun's endowment of her monastery at Wolverhampton: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, }{
\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1380). It is not certain whether the whole of Willenhall was then given and part subsequently alienated, or whether only a part was in the original grant.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  For this other part of Willenhall see 1,10.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7,9\tab 
PELSALL. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 (see 7,7 Offlow note) though it was later with other of the canons' holdings in an enlarged and scattered Seisdon Hundred: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 1; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 2.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Peoleshale}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 was one of the estates confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, as Wulfrun's endowment of her monastery at Wolverhampton: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, }{
\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1380).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7,10\tab HILTON. This was a township of Shenstone Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 (see 7,7 Offlow note) though it was later with other of the canons' holdings in 
an enlarged and scattered Seisdon Hundred: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 1; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The canons of Wolverhampton held two places called Hilton (7,10;15) both of which were part of Wulfrun's foundation grant; see STS 7 Wolverhampton note. In her grant they appear as }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hiltun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alia Hyltun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 alia}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('another') means 'another estate called ... ' and draws attention to two estates of the same name in a list. It can refer to two estates that share the name of the same vill of which they are par
ts or estates in quite different places with the same name; see Thorn, 'Manorial Affixes'. In this case, there seem to have been two quite different places called Hilton in different hundreds, one in the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter, the other
 
in the Ancient Parish of Shenstone, respectively in Cuttlestone Hundred and Offlow Hundred originally, though both were later in the scattered hundred of Seisdon. The present Hilton will have been the Hilton in Shenstone, since Shenstone (8,32) is geograp
hically and tenurially in Offlow Hundred and entries 7,7-11 seem to have lain in that hundred; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 45 note 67}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, citing Bridgeman, 'Staffordshire Pre-Conquest Charters', pp. 112-113). However, }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , 
table facing p. 70, has both Hiltons as parts of the same place in }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 the Ancient Parish of }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Wolverhampton St Peter; see }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History' p. 169.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hiltun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was one of the estates confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, as W
ulfrun's endowment of her monastery at Wolverhampton: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1380).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HAVE. The copy of STS 7 included in Hemming's cartulary (see \{Introduction: Related or 'Satellite' Texts\}) has the present participle }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
hn'tes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (= }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 habentes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) for the main verb }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 h'nt}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (= }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 habent}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
); the scribe was probably influenced by }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 h'ntes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in several of the previous entries (7,5;7-8).}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \-}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7,11\tab THIS BRIEF ENTRY was inserted by scribe B in a space left by the main sc
ribe of Great Domesday at the end of the entry for Hilton (7,10). He wrote larger than he normally did and not well; none of his other contributions to Domesday Staffordshire (see 2,11 land note) were done at the same time. For entries added by the main s
cribe to this county, see 12,30 entry note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab "HOCINTUNE". }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, p. 35, left this place unidentified, pointing out that it was waste and without value and it may simply have disappeared. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History' p. 169, and }{\insrsid5780933 
Bridgeman, 'Staffordshire Pre-Conquest Charters', p. 112,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  suggested Ogley Hay, followed without comment by }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 45; see also}{
\i\insrsid5780933  VCH Staffordshire}{\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 321}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 . The identification rests on the possible similarity of the firs
t element in each name, but there is insufficient place-name and other evidence to clinch the identification. For the bounds of Ogley Hay given in a perambulation of the Forest of Cannock in 1300, see Wrottesley, 'Pleas of the Forest: Staffordshire', pp. 
177-78.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 
Since the place is unlocated, its hundred is uncertain. It seems probable, however, that the entry at 7,12 sums up the value of the lands in the two hundreds in which they apparently lay, and that "Hocintune" was in the second of these, Offlow Hun
dred. If "Hocintune" was indeed in the Forest of Cannock, the bulk of that lay in Cuttlestone Hundred, though its eastern part was in Offlow Hundred.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ocgintun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 was one of the estates confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, as Wulfrun's endowment of her monastery at Wolverhampton: }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, }{
\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , no. 1380).
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation this place-name appears incorrectly as "HOCINTURE".}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7,12\tab VALUE OF T
HE WHOLE OF THIS LAND OF THE CANONS. This is clearly meant as a summing up of the value of the preceding holdings of the canons, but it is complicated by the fact that Wolverhampton (7,1) is not held directly but from Samson, part of Upper Arley and the w
hole of Bushbury and Trescott (7,2-4) are given values and Tettenhall (7,5) really belongs to the canons of that place.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7,13\tab IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED. This heading governs the final batch of estates that had belonged to the church of Wolverhampton (7,13-16). 
It is repeated above 7,17. Like the places that have been assumed to have been in Offlow Hundred in 1086 (7,7-10), this group is later listed in Seisdon Hundred which seems to have been enlarged so that the estates of that church could be in a single hund
red. Two of the estates, Kinvaston and Featherstone (7,14;16), could never have been in Seisdon Hundred, unless they were detached parts of it. See 7,7 Offlow note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab SAMSON [* THE CLERIC *] HOLDS. His holding begins the account of this hundred as another of
 his did Seisdon Hundred at 7,1. However, according to 7,14, the land had belonged to the collegiate church of Wolverhampton, even though Domesday expressly says that Samson is holding from the king.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote Samson's name 
in capitals and rubricated it, as he did for the first entry in a new fief. This, and the position of the Cuttlestone hundred head at the end of an otherwise blank line and the space left before that line, as well, perhaps, as the inclusion of }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de rege}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (nor
mally used for the first entry in a fief), suggest that the scribe initially thought this holding was the start of a new chapter (as indeed it appears in the Landholders' List on folio 246a). He obviously changed his mind as he did not write }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 TERRA SANSON CLERICI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 in vermilion in this space when he rubricated the rest of Staffordshire. This may have been because he realized that Samson only held one estate, the places in the succeeding entries (7,14-18) being held by canons/clerics.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On the name Samson and his title, see 7,1 Samson note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 
HATHERTON. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter. In 1086 it is clearly designated as lying in Cuttlestone Hundred. However, it was later with other of the canons' holdings in an enlarged and scattered Seisdon Hundred: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hagenthorndun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 was one of the estates confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, as Wulfrun's endowment of her monastery at Wolverhampton: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, }{
\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1380).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE PRIESTS. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Canonici }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 and }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 presbyteri}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  are sometimes interchangeable; for example the canons of St Petroc's Church in Bodmin (in the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Liber Exoniensis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  entry corresponding to CON 4,4) 
are the same as the priests of Bodmin (DEV 51,15-16). These two priests could be canons of Wolverhampton who are holding this estate from Samson, rather than having a share in the other estates belonging to that church; see 7,13 Samson note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EDWIN AND ALRIC. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined these names using a finer pen than he had used for the main body of this entry.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EDWIN. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eduuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eduin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eduuine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aeduuinus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eaduinus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Edduinus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eduun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] etc. - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eadwine}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 238-40. JRM preferred the first element Ed- for Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ead- }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 and the second element -win for Old English }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -wine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , as they were closer to the Domesday forms; moreover, the name Edwin has survived into modern times. The Alecto edition also has Edwin.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALRIC. On this name-form, see 2,22 Alric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7,14\tab THEY THEMSELVES HOLD. As the land held jointly by the canons of Wolverhampton seems to have been summed 
up at 7,12, the 'they' of this entry could be the priests Edwin and Alric, who may nonetheless be canons, but only two of a corporation. On the other hand, the 'they' are here represented by Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ipsi}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  which in 7,9-10 clearly means }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ipsi canonici}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('the cano
ns themselves'). Domesday does not say that whoever 'they' are were holding from Samson as it does for the priests in 7,13; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 45 note 68.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 46, suggested that this apparent holding of f
our estates by two priests under Samson may have represented a project for a new collegiate church, although none was founded. This appears to be a mere guess and assumes, contrary to what is said in Domesday Book, that the priests were holding from Samso
n.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 
KINVASTON. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter. In 1086 it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred (hundred head above 7,13). However, it was later with other of the canons' holdings in an enlarged and scattered Seisdon Hundr
ed: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Kinwaldestun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 was one of the estates confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, as Wulfrun's endowment of her monastery at Wolverhampton: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, }{
\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1380).
\par \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The grid reference is to Kinvaston Hall Farm (SJ908122).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab VALUE NOW 10s. The Phillimore printed edition fails to translate }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ual}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 et}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], probably because the verb is regularly not given in the 1086 value statement if it appears in the }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 one.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ST MARY'S OF WOLVERHAMPTON HELD THESE 2 LANDS. That is, Hatherton and Kinvaston (7,13-14). Both appear in Wulfrun's grant (STS 7 Wolverhampton note).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7,15\tab THEY THEMSELVES HOLD. That is, probably the canons of Wolverhampton;; see 7,14 they note. It is not said that they hold from Samson.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 
HILTON. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter. In 1086 it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred (hundred head at 7,13). However, it was later with other of the canons' holdings in an enlarged and scattered Seisdon Hundred: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Like Hatherton and Kinvaston (7,13-14) Hilton had also been part of Wulfrun's grant to found a monastery at Wolverhampton, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alia Hyltun}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  being one of the estates confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, as Wulfrun's endowment: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, }
{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1380). The monastery was given two places called Hilton and the church was holding them both in 1086; on the distinction, see 7,10 Hilton note.
\par \tab \tab The grid reference (SK9505) is to the moated site in Hilton Park.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a space after the villagers and their plough and before the value statement, probably for the lat
er insertion of the resources of this holding, as he also did in 7,17. On spaces left before the value statement in other entries, see 1,8 after note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7,16\tab THEY HAVE. That is, probably the canons of Wolverhampton; see 7,14 they note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab FEATHERSTONE. This wa
s a township of the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 (hundred head at 7,13), though it was later with other of the canons' holdings in an enlarged and scattered Seisdon Hundred: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Like Hatherton and Kinvaston (7,13-14) Featherstone had also been part of Wulfrun's grant to found a monastery at Wolverhampton; see STS 7 Wolverhampton note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feotherstan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was one of the estates confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, Archbishop of Cant
erbury, as Wulfrun's endowment of her monastery at Wolverhampton: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1380).}{\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7,17\tab THIS ENTRY has no place among the lands of the canons of Wolverhampton. Like Tettenh
all (7,5) this was the land of a separate collegiate church. Unlike Tettenhall, there is no reason to believe that it was subject to Wolverhampton in 1086.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED. The heading is unnecessarily repeated, since 7,13-18 were all in this hundr
ed (JRM). However, such repetition of a hundred head is not uncommon when information is combined from different sources at some stage in the Domesday process. The previous four entries for this hundred (7,13-16) have related to lands of Wolverhampton Chu
rch, whereas the present entry for land of the church of Penkridge is entirely unconnected; see 7,17 entry note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In the Phillimore printed edition this hundred head appears above the entry for Featherstone (7,16) and JRM's note is at 7,16. In the manuscri
pt it occupies the rest of the line after the details of Featherstone and clearly relates to the next entry, Penkridge (7,17). On the position of hundred heads in Domesday Staffordshire, see 11,34 Totmonslow note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The copy of STS 7 included in Hemming's cartulary (see \{Introduction: Related or 'Satellite' Texts\}) has }{
\i\f710\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ... Ferdestan .i. hid\'e2 wast\'e2 in coluestan hund'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 (' ... Featherstone 1 hide, waste, in Cuttlestone Hundred'). As Featherstone was in Cuttlestone Hundred (head at 7,13) the meaning has not been altered.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab PENKRIDGE. This was originally a chapelry in the collegiate church of Penkridge, then an Ancient Parish by 1551: Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 419. In 1086 it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred, as it did later:}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 2, 16;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 281. For another part, from which this portion probably originated, see 1,7.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The collegiate church of St Michael at Penkridge, a royal free chapel, was reputed to have been founded by Edred, King of the West Saxons (94
6-955), or by King Edgar (957-975). It was certainly in existence by the late ninth century when, under the terms of the will of Wulfgeat of Donington (Shropshire), the church received two bullocks }{\insrsid5780933 (Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1534 = Early Charters of the West Midlands, no. 122, pp. 60, 118, 143, 149 = Whitelock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 
, no. 19, pp 55-56, 163-67); see Bridgeman, 'Staffordshire Pre-Conquest Charters', pp. 119-120; and 7,1 hide note.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This estate at Penkridge, given to the church of Wolverha
mpton, had no doubt been granted from the royal manor of Penkridge (1,7). It was given in 1136 by King Stephen to Roger de Clinton, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield. The college survived until the Dissolution: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Valor Ecclesiasticus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 99. See }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Medieval Religious Houses}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, pp. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 417, 434; Sayles, 'Early History of Penkridge Church', p. 3 note 1; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, iii. 298, v. p. 130.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The church of Lapley had been dependent on that of Penkridge before the former was given to Saint-R\'e9my of Rheims; see NTH 16,1 Lapley note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 9 CLERICS. These are the clergy of the collegiate church of Penkridge.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab FROM THE KING. This makes it clear that there is no connection between the church of Penkridge and that of Wolverhampton or with Samson the chaplain. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Rege}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  during the initial writing of this county.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 7 VILLAGERS. The copy of STS 7 included in Hemming's cartulary (see \{Introduction: Related or 'Satellite' Texts\}) has }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .iii. uillani 7 .i. bord'}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('3 villagers and 1 smallholder'). JRM, in his note to chapter 7 in the Phillimore printed edition, suggested that the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 iii}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was a misreading of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 vi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , giving 6 villagers and 1 smallholder for the 7 villagers of Great Domesday.}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the line after the details of the population, probably for the later inclusion of the resources; compare the similar space in 7,15.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7,18\tab THE CLERICS THEMSELVES. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ipsi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 strongly suggests that these are the clerics of Penkridge (7,17), though not necessarily nine in number. It is not certain if there was a collegiate church in Gnosall in
 1066 or in 1086, or whether the priests of Penkridge were holding this land as part of their endowment of Penkridge. Certainly a secular college with a dean and four prebendaries existed here at the time of King Henry I. King Stephen granted it to the ch
urch of Lichfield; see }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Medieval Religious Houses}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  pp. 414, 426; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 113. The latter is inclined to the view that there was probably a small Anglo-Saxon minster church here by 1066 and suggests that the four prebend
aries evidenced later might be the successors to four priests, each with one of the four ploughs; see also }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, iv. p. 128. This assumes that the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 clerici}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  here are not the same as the nine }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 clerici}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  who held Penkridge and that they numbered four.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 3 VIRGATES. The copy of STS 7 included in Hemming's cartulary (see \{Introduction: Related or 'Satellite' Texts\}) has }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .i. uirgam}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , though the manuscript is discoloured by smoke at this point and not all of this is visible, but that is what is in the transcript that Hearne used, which was made before the fire.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GNOSALL. This was an Ancient Parish, originally a Norman free chapel and then a collegiate church; see Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 412. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate passed to the bishops of Coventry and Lichfield, successors to the bishops of Chester. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 114, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gnousal cum membris}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was assessed at 6 carucates and did not pay tax. It 
was then held by the bishop and had formerly been a royal chapel. The college survived until the Dissolution: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Valor Ecclesiasticus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 99.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 4 SMALLHOLDERS. The copy of STS 7 included in Hemming's cartulary (see \{Introduction: Related or 'Satellite' Texts\}) has }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .iii. bord'}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . There is no sign in the manuscript that the 'first stroke of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 iiii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
' was inserted in correction, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 pace}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  JRM's note for chapter 7 in the Phillimore printed edition.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8\tab LAND OF EARL ROGER. }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 On the name Roger, see B4 Roger note. He was th
e son of Roger I of Montgommery, which is represented by the adjacent settlements of Sainte-Foy de Montgommery and Saint-Germain de Montgommery, in the French d\'e9
partement of Calvados (arrondissement Lisieux, canton Livarot). The name was transferred by Ear
l Roger to Montgomery now in Powys (SO2296) just over the Welsh border. In 1086 it was the name of a castle, the centre of an important group of Earl Roger's lands; see SHR 4,1,15. 4,1,35-36, and 4,1,15 Montgomery note. Roger is never called Roger of Mont
gommery or of Montgomery in Domesday, though his son Hugh was; see STS 9.
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In Normandy Roger was }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 vicomte of the Hi\'e9mois. }{\insrsid5780933 He was married to Mabel, daughter of William Talvas of Bell\'eame. His children by Mabel were Robert of Bell\'ea
me, Roger of Poitou, Hugh, Arnulf, Philip, Matilda (who married Count Robert of Mortain), Mabel (who married Hugh of Ch\'e2teauneuf) and Sibil (married to Robert son of Hamo). After Mabel's murder }{\i\insrsid5780933 c}{\insrsid5780933 
. 1077 Roger married Adelaide du Puiset and by her had a son, Everard.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Roger supplied ships for Duke William's invasion of England, but did not come himself until }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 1067. }{\insrsid5780933 He was a loyal supporter of Duke and King William}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 to whom he was related by the marriage of his father to a niece of Gunnor(a), William's great-grandmother. In England he was 
granted the Rapes of Arundel and Chichester in Sussex and had a castle at Arundel, but there is no reason to think that he was ever styled Earl of Arundel. On the death of Earl Edwin of Mercia }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 c}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 .}{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 1071, he received most of Shropshire, becoming Earl of Shrewsbury.}{\insrsid5780933  Roger founded the Abbeys of Saint-Martin de S\'e9es and of Almenesches (both in Normandy) and also St Peter's of Shrewsbury.

\par \tab \tab He rebelled against William II in 1088 but managed to extricate himself. In 1094 he retired to his abbey in Shrewsbury Abbey 
just before his death. His English lands passed to his second son, Hugh of Montgomery, and on Hugh's death in 1098 to Roger's eldest son, Robert of Bell\'ea
me, who forfeited the fief in 1102 for rebellion. His third son, Roger of Poitou, was given an important fief of his own by the Conqueror.
\par \tab \tab See }{\i\insrsid5780933 VCH Middlesex}{\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 110; Loyd, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 68; Keats- Rohan, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 399.}{\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab The chapter begins with the lands that Earl Roger held in lordship, then tak
es the land of each of his tenants in turn, under whom the lands are grouped hundred by hundred. The result is that some hundreds appear four times:}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 8,1-3 [Seisdon Hundred] lordship land}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ___________________________________}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 8,4 place unidentified, hundred uncertain. Reginald}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 8,5-8 Cuttlestone Hundred. Reginald (8,5-6); Benedict (8,7); Sain}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 t-Evroult}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  (8,8)}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 8,9 [Pirehill Hundred]. Sain}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 t-Evroult
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab ___________________________________
\par \tab \tab 8,10-11 [Cuttlestone Hundred]. Roger
\par \tab \tab 8,12-16 Pirehill Hundred. Robert (8,12); Wulfric and Gosbert (8,13); Ascelin (8,14-
\par \tab \tab \tab 16)}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 8,17 [Offlow Hundred]. Ascelin
\par \tab \tab 8,18 [Totmonslow Hundred]. Ascelin
\par \tab ____________________________________
\par \tab \tab 8,19-25 [Pirehill Hundred]. William Pandolf (8,19-22); Henry of Ferrers (8,23);}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab \tab Helgot (8,24); Geoffrey (8,25)
\par \tab \tab 8,26 [Offlow Hundred]. Walter
\par \tab ____________________________________
\par \tab \tab 8,27 [Pirehill Hundred]. Roger
\par \tab \tab 8,28-31 [Totmonslow Hundred]. William
\par \tab \tab 8,32 Offlow Hundred. Robert d'Oilly}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab If, as seems likely, in the putative circuit volume Earl Roger's holdings were listed hundredally (as was the case with the Count of Mortain's large fief in Cornwall in the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Liber Exoniensis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , the direct predecessor of Great Domesday for the south-west counties), rather than by subtenant, the main D
omesday scribe's procedure appears clear. He began with the land of the first of Earl Roger's subtenants in his source (Reginald) and gave his holdings which were only in Cuttlestone Hundred; he then continued with the other two subtenants in that hundred
 
(Benedict and Saint-Evroult), but the latter's lands were also in Pirehill Hundred, so, as subtenant took precedent over hundred, he put them next. He then returned to Cuttlestone Hundred for the subtenancy of Roger [of Lacy]. It would seem that lands in 
P
irehill Hundred followed those in Cuttlestone in his source, for the Domesday scribe next gave the holdings of Robert, Wulfric and Gosbert, and Ascelin, but because Ascelin held in two other hundreds he did not return to Pirehill Hundred until he had deal
t
 with them. The remaining subtenants with land in Pirehill Hundred were then recorded, after which the scribe went on to the account of the next hundred, Offlow, for Walter's holding. He then seems to have found a further holding of Roger [of Lacy] in Pir
e
hill Hundred, which should have been entered at 8,12 after Roger's other lands. The next hundred (after Offlow) in his source would seem to have been Totmonslow, so he wrote William's subtenancy there, though it is possible that William's four lands were 
l
ater additions in the putative circuit volume. The final entry, for Robert d'Oilly, in Offlow Hundred may also, like that for Roger at 8,27, be the result of an immediate check of his source as he had already given the subtenant in that hundred (8,26). It
 is possible, however, that the holdings of both Robert d'Oilly and Roger [of Lacy] were additions to his source out of hundredal order.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Earl Roger held a large fief in Shropshire, where his position was quasi-palatine, and there too the arrangement in Do
mesday was by subtenant after Roger's lordship land, and within each subtenancy largely by hundred; see SHR 4 arrangement note. However, there is some similarity between the two accounts in the order of subtenants, although it is not always possible to id
e
ntify Roger's Staffordshire tenants who have common names such as Robert or William, with the identifiable individuals in Shropshire. Thus the order in which four subtenants common to both counties (Reginald the sheriff, Roger of Lacy, William Pandolf and
 
Helgot) are listed is the same, as the table below shows. Only the land of William [Malbank] in STS 8,28-31 is not in the same relative position as in Shropshire, but it is among a group of holdings which may have been misplaced or added to his source. Th
i
s similarity might suggest that in his return Earl Roger (or those acting for him) had listed his lands by subtenant across these two counties, Reginald the sheriff's holdings in Shropshire followed or preceded by those in Staffordshire, for example. A re
sum\'e9 of this schedule may have survived and been used by the Domesday scribe, or he may have looked back at the order of tenants in Shropshire (assuming that it was written up before Staffordshire; see \{Introduction: Circuit and Layout\}
) and reproduced it w
here the tenants were common to Staffordshire. Alternatively, the order in which Roger listed his subtenants in his own return may have largely survived intact the process of conversion to a hundredal arrangement needed for the county court sessions (whic
h was retained for the circuit volume) and the subsequent reversion to an arrangement by tenant for Great Domesday.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts39\trgaph108\trleft-108\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 
\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr
\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4428\clshdrawnil \cellx4320\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4428\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\pard\plain 
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid8589712\yts39 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid525747\charrsid12996949 Shropshire\cell Staffordshire\cell 
}\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid525747\charrsid12996949 \trowd \irow0\irowband0
\ts39\trgaph108\trleft-108\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 
\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr
\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4428\clshdrawnil \cellx4320\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4428\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\row }\pard\plain 
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx0\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid8589712\yts39 \cbpat8 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\cf1\insrsid525747\charrsid12996949 4,1* lordship}{
\fs20\expnd0\expndtw3\cf1\insrsid525747\charrsid12996949  land of Earl Roger
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid8589712\yts39 {\fs20\expnd0\expndtw3\cf1\insrsid525747\charrsid12996949 4,2* Earl Hugh [of Chester]
\par 4,3* Reginald the sheriff
\par 
\par 
\par 4,4* Roger son of Corbet
\par 4,5* Robert son of Corbet
\par 4,6* Robert the butler
\par 4,7* Roger of Courseulles
\par 4,8* Roger of Lacy
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par 4,9* Robert son of Theobald
\par 4,10* Ranulf Peverel
\par 4,11* Ralph of Mortimer
\par 4,12* Richard [of Montgaroult]
\par 4,13* William of Warenne
\par 4,14* William Pandolf
\par 
\par 4,15* William Malbank
\par 4,16* Walkelin
\par 4,17* Osbern [son of Richard]
\par 4,18* Odo [of Berni\'e8res]
\par 4,19* Thorold [of Verley]
\par 4,20* Picot [of Sai]
\par 4,21* Helgot ^[of Holdgate]^
\par 
\par 
\par 4,22* Hugh son of Thorgisl
\par 4,23* Gerard [of Tournai-sur-Dive]
\par 4,24* Nigel [the doctor]
\par 4,25* Norman [the hunter]
\par 4,26* Roger the hunter
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par 4,27* Various minor French and English tenants
\par 4,28* Further lands held by Earl Roger
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid8589712\yts39 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid525747\charrsid12996949 \cell 8,1-3 lordship land of Earl Roger
\par 
\par 8,4-6 Reginald [the sheriff]
\par 8,7 Benedict
\par 8,8-9 Saint-}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\highlight7\langnp2057\insrsid525747\charrsid6454769 E}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid525747 vroult}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid525747\charrsid12996949 
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par 8,10-11 Roger [of Lacy]
\par 8,12 Robert 
\par 8,13 Wulfric and Gosbert
\par 8,14-18 Ascelin
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par 8,19-22 William Pandolf
\par 8,23 Henry of Ferrers
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par 8,24 Helgot ^[of Holdgate]^ 
\par 8,25 Geoffrey
\par 8,26 Walter
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par 8,27 Roger\'86 [of Lacy] 
\par 8,28-31 William\'86 [Malbank]
\par 8,32 Robert d'Oilly\'86
\par \cell }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid525747\charrsid12996949 \trowd \irow1\irowband1\lastrow 
\ts39\trgaph108\trleft-108\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 
\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr
\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4428\clshdrawnil \cellx4320\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4428\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\row }\pard 
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx284\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid525747 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid525747\charrsid12996949 *}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid525747  }{
\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid525747\charrsid12996949 Chapter 4 is divided into 28 sub-chapters according to tenant, with almost every sub-chapter having a }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid525747 
number of entries within it; see SHR \{Introduction: Content and Layout of Entries\}.
\par \'86
 The Roger who holds 8,27 appears to be Roger of Lacy, two of hose lands have already been entered (8,10-11), while the identity of William (8,28-31) can be deduced from later evidence as William Malbank. William Malbank's lands are certainly not in the s
ame relative place in the sequence to those that he held in }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid525747\charrsid525747 Shropshire. It could be that these entries were late additions to the circuit volume.}{
\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid525747\charrsid8005689 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid399784 {\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Between 1086 and the forfeiture of the earldom in 1102 Earl Roger or his sons, drew a number of manors into S
hropshire, perhaps attempting to consolidate for themselves a semi-kingdom dependent on the Shropshire manors of Morville and Eardington (SHR 4,1,5;32) with the boroughs and castles of Quatford and Bridgnorth. Eardington, in the south-east of Shropshire, 
h
ad been acquired by exchange with Wenlock Priory and was a focal point of their power: within its bounds Quatford borough had been established by 1086 on the Staffordshire side of the river. The great manor of Morville with its numerous dependencies (incl
u
ding Chawson in Worcestershire and Bridgnorth borough and castle) lay not far to the north-west. The Staffordshire manors drawn into Shropshire were Claverley, Kingsnordley, Alveley and possibly "Cobintone" (8,1-4) held by Earl Roger, and Worfield (9,1) h
e
ld by his son Hugh of Montgomery, and to these were added Quatt, Romsley, Rudge and Shipley, also held by Earl Roger and also in Staffordshire in 1086, though listed erroneously in the Warwickshire folios (WAR 8-11). These eight or nine manors were interl
a
ced on the ground. In addition part of Sheriffhales (8,5), which formed a separate pocket of land on the border, was transferred, no doubt at the same time. The rest of the Ancient Parish of Sheriffhales, however, which included Brockton Grange, held in S
taffordshire in 1086 by the Shropshire sheriff, Reginald [}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 of}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  Bailleul] (14,1), was only transferred to Shropshire in 1895; see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 VCH Shropshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
, iii. p. 43; }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , iv. pp. 1, 45-46, 48.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,1\tab [IN SEISDON HUNDRED]. Claverley, Kingsnordley and Alveley
 (8,1-3) were early transfers to Shropshire, so their Staffordshire hundred is unknown. However, they lay on the western edge of the area occupied by Seisdon Hundred, and there is no other hundred in which they could have lain in 1086.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab CLAVERLEY. Claverle
y lay in Staffordshire in 1086, probably in Seisdon Hundred. It was transferred to Shropshire, almost certainly before 1102 (see STS 8 Roger note) and became an Ancient Parish in that county. Its chapelry, Bobbington (11,43; see also 8,4 "Cobintone" note)
, was long divided between Staffordshire and Shropshire; see Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, ii. p. 383. Claverley is perhaps entered first as being Earl Roger's largest and most important Staffordshire manor.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 After 1086, this estate was sometimes treated as a separate manor, sometimes as a member of Bridgnorth Liberty, sometimes as a part of Brimstree Hundred (Shropshire).}{
\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Earl Roger had given the tithes of the church to his church at Quatford (SHR 4,1,32 Quatford note) before his son Robert forfeited
 the fief. From the time of Henry II onwards the manor was gradually broken up. Robert }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 de Girros }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 was enfeoffed in a part of the manor called }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Burctone }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 or }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Buretone\rquote  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 [Broughton?, SO8091] by 1210-1212 (}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Red Book of the Exchequer}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 511; }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 14
6) and he gave it to Haughmond Abbey before 1235. In 1255 (}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 61) }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Claverlag\rquote  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
was surveyed as a composite manor. Claverley itself was held by John son of Philip; Peter }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 de Rivall' }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 held \'bd hide in }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Luddesdon\rquote  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
[Ludstone, SO8094]; William }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 de Mortuo Mari }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 held 1 hide in }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Schipleg\rquote  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 [Shipley, WAR 12,11]; John son of Philip 1 hide in }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Witim\rquote 
e }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 [Whittimere, SO8292]; the Abbot of Haughmond held 1 hide in }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Bebrug\rquote  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 [Beobridge, SO7991] and 1 \'bd virgates in }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Burcton\rquote }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
; Peter }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 de Rivall\rquote  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 held 1 \'bd virgates in }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Witim\rquote e }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 and in }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Burcton\rquote }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 while Stephen }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 de Gatacre }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 held 1 hide in }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Gatacre }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 [Gatacre, SO7990] and }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Lucton }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 [unidentified]; see 
}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , ii. pp. 59, 88, 90, 91; }{\i\insrsid5780933 Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem}{\insrsid5780933 ,}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  ii. no. 17, iii. no. 565, iv. no. 355, v. no. 594, vi
. no. 428, viii. nos. 400, 469; and Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Antiquities of Shropshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, iii. pp. 62-65. It appears that the main manor of Claverley was only 'farmed' by John son of Philip as it is said to be in the king's hands in }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 88, and in }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Feudal Aids}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 234.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Whittimere had originally been a member of Bobbington (11,43; see 8,4 "Cobintone" note). On Bobbington also see }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
xx. pp. 64, 70; Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Antiquities of Shropshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 160. Whittimere came into Shropshire while part of Bobbington itself stayed in Staffordshire.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WOODLAND. This extensive tract was later considered part of Morfe Forest; see \{Introduction: Forest\}.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,2\tab KINGSNORDLEY. Kingsnordley lay in Staffordshire in 1086, probably 
in Seisdon Hundred. It was transferred to Shropshire, almost certainly before 1102 (see STS 8 Roger note) and was later recorded as a settlement in Alveley Ancient Parish in that county. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
'Kings' distinguishes this Nordley from one that was part of Morville (SHR 4,1,5) in 1086.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab After 1086 Kingsnordley }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 was counted variously as a part of Stottesdon Hundred or of Bridgnorth Liberty or as independent manor. It}{\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
went to the king when Roger's son Robert forfeited the earldom in 1102. One part of Nordley called }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Estleye }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 [Astley, SO7885] was given to a family named from the place: in }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Rotuli Hundredorum}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 73, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 144, and }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 219, John }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 de Estleg' }{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 held \'bd hide there by serjeantry and he also held }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Northlegh\rquote }{\cf1\insrsid5780933  by fee farm; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 88; }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Feudal Aids}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. pp. 219, 231; }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , ii. no. 103; Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Antiquities of Shropshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 146.}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,3\tab ALVELEY. Alveley lay in Staffordshire in 1086, probably in
 Seisdon Hundred. It was transferred to Shropshire, almost certainly before 1102 (see STS 8 Roger note) and became an Ancient Parish in that county.
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In 1102 Alveley was forfeited to the Crown by Robert of Bell\'eame's rebellion. Although Kingsnordley (8,2) 
was part of Alveley Ancient Parish, manorially Alveley was considered to be a part of Kingsnordley and was given by King Henry II to Guy }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Lestrange}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{
\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 being held under the Lestrange family by various tenants including the Hospitalers of Bridgnorth and the Abbot of Haughmond; see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , ii. pp. 73, 83; }{
\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Red Book of the Exchequer}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 276; }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  pp. 147, 384; }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
, iv. pp. 231, 242; }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , iii. no. 565, iv. no. 87; Eyton, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Antiquities of Shropshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 121.

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 The Forest of Morfe was appurtenant to this estate according to Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Antiquities of Shropshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 212.}{\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,4\tab [* ? IN *** HUNDRED *]. Since "Cobintone" has not been identified it is not certain whether it la
y in Seisdon Hundred (head inserted in 8,1) or in some other hundred; 8,4 "Cobintone" note and 8,4 [***] note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab "COBINTONE". }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Cobintone }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 is possibly Cubbington in Warwickshire, near Leamington}{\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
(WAR 6,7. 16,53. 20,1). It is not however listed in Earl Roger's Warwickshire lands, and the three Warwickshire entries between them constitute two 5-hide units. It might be a lost place in Staffordshire, though probably not Kibblestone (JRM).}{
\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The identification with Kibblestone (in Stone Ancient Parish) is due to Harwood, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Survey of Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 36 (based on Erdeswick, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Survey of Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ), followed by Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 30, 82. However, Eyton cites as a later form of }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Cobintone}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 the name }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Cublesdon}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , which, while it may be a predecessor of Kibblestone, does not look like a descendant of }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Cobintone}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
. Moreover, as Eyton himself points out, there is no trace of Kibblestone's following other lands held by Reginald into the hands of the Fitz Alans. Kibblestone may well have been part of Moddershall (8,21) in 1086; see 8,21 Moddershall note.}{
\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid399784 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Cubbington was proposed in }{\insrsid5780933 Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 p. 169; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, iv. p. 46 note 76; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bate and Palliser, 'Suspected Lost Village Sites in Staffordshire', p. 34}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
. However, there seems to be no trace in the later history of Cubbington of any estate that might have been held by Earl Roger; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Warwickshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, vi. p. 75. It is worth noting that apart from the initial letter }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Cobintone}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  could be the ancestor of Bobbin
gton, which lay in Claverley Ancient Parish (see 8,1) and was divided between Staffordshire and Shropshire, and therefore lay in the same area as these other estates that were soon transferred to Shropshire. However, the change of initial consonant needs 
an explanation; it is unlikely that a }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 B}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  could have been misread as a }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 C}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
. Moreover, the space left at the end of the first line of this entry may be for a hundred head (8,4 [***] note), suggesting that "Cobintone", unlike Bobbington, was not in Seisdon Hundred. An estate in Bobbington (Domesday }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Bubintone}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ) was held in 1086 by Robert of Stafford (11,43). It remained in Staffordshire.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 
In view of these difficulties it seems safest to leave this place unidentified. This means that it was not necessarily in Seisdon Hundred (hundred head inserted at 8,1) and the space left by the main scribe of Great Domesday at the end of the first line o
f this entry (8,4 [***] note) suggests that he might have intended to insert a different hundred head.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab REGINALD [* THE SHERIFF *]. This man is }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Reginald of Bailleul, the sheriff of Shropshire; see STS 14 Reginald note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rainaldus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Renoldus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Raynold}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Reinaldus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Raginald}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Reginald}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rainald}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  etc: Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 208. Although the majority form, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rainaldus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , suggests that in 1086 the person was called by the Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rainald}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, JRM preferred the name Reginald, as it has survived into modern times. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Reginald, Rainald and Reynold; these have now been standardized as Reginald. The Alecto edition has Reginald, except for th
e present entry, where it has Reynold.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab [***]. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the first line of this entry after the details of Reginald's tenancy. As the hidage and plough estimate are given in the next line, the most likely reas
on for this space was so that a hundred head could be added at a later stage. On other spaces left for hundred heads in similar positions, see 1,7 hundred note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab ALMUND [* FATHER OF ALWARD *]. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Elmund}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Elmund}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ],}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Almund}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Almund}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aelmund}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - could represent either Old English}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  \'c6thelmund}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  or Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ealhmund}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 149, under }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Al-mund}{\insrsid5780933 
, and see also p. 142, under }{\i\insrsid5780933 Al-}{\insrsid5780933 . JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, as does the Alecto edition.
\par \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 It appears that this Almund was the same as the predecessor of Reginald of Bailleul, Earl Roger's tenant, in SHR 4,3,45;47-48;63;67 and in WAR 12,3-4;7 and that he was 
the father of Alward who was also one of Reginald's predecessors in Shropshire (SHR 4,3,68;70) as well as holding five other estates from the earl there, once with Almund (SHR 4,27,17-21); see Williams, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
The English and the Norman Conquest}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 90. See also Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, p. 188, who gives just one folio reference, corresponding to SHR 4,27,17. It is not certain that the other predecessors of Earl Roger called Almund (8,11;14-15;23, the only other occurrences of this name-form in }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Domesday Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
) were the same as Almund father of Alward, as Reginald was not Roger's subtenant in those entries and at least one other Almund was Earl Roger's predecessor according to Williams (SHR 4,20,3). However, see }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 149, note 2.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LATER 2s. See 4,3 later note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,5\tab SHERIFFHALES. The Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Halas}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. The affix refers to Reginald of Bailleul, Earl Roger's subtenant here and the sheriff of Shropshire, or to his predecessor Warin; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Shropshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 262.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab She}{\cf11\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 r}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
iffhales lay in Staffordshire in 1086. Part of it was transferred to Shropshire (to 'Bradford' Hundred) almost certainly before 1102 (see STS 8 Roger note) and became an Ancient Parish which was sometimes known as Sheriff
 Hales and which was partly divided in the Middle Ages between Shropshire and Staffordshire, then placed entirely in Shropshire in 1895; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Shropshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 204, iii. p. 43, xi. p. 95; }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 46; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 383. In 1086 it lay in Cuttlestone Hundred, in Staffordshire, as part did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. pp. 2, 17; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282. The part that remained in Staffordshire }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
included Brockton Grange (14,1) which was only transferred to Shropshire in 1895, but since a 1965 boundary change is again in Staffordshire; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 56 note 87.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Sheriffhales,}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 like other of Reginald's lands, went to the Fitz Alans. It is held in }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iii. no. 172, from Richard, Earl of Arundel, and is }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Shireshales }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 with }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Brokeston }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 [Brockton Grange] in }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , Old Series iii. p. 223; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 969, 974}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 ; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 114.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Land at }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Halen}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was }{\insrsid5780933 
given by Wulfric Spot to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002 x 1004): }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 
, no. 1536 = Whitelock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxxi no. 46). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 
, no. 906 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 48-53 no. 28). }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Halen}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  has sometimes been identified as Sheriffhales (as hesitantly by Hart in }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Early Charters of Northern England}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ), but is more probably Halesowen in Worcestershire where the settlement Hawne (SO960848) preserves the name; see Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, pp. xxx-xxxi.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab REGINALD }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [* THE SHERIFF *]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . See 8,4 Reginald note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab MEADOW, 8 ACRES. [***]. WOODLAND. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a space suitable for six or so letters after the meadow details and before the vertical scor
e delimiting the inner edge of the column (folio 248a). This may have been for the later inclusion of another resource such as a fishery, or he might have preferred to give the woodland details on a new line. He left a similar space in "Burtone" (10,10).}
{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab [THE ABBEY OF] SAINT- EVROULT. }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 This was a Benedictine Abbey refounded }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 c}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
. 1050 by the future King William and Robert of Grandmesnil, farther of Hugh of Grandmesnil, the Domesday tenant-in-chief. It lay at Saint-Evroult-Notre-Dame-du-Bois in the French d\'e9par
tement of Orne, in Normandy. The chronicler and historian Orderic Vitalis entered the abbey as an oblate and remained there.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab A PRIEST. The historian }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Ordericus Vitalis was born and baptized at Atcham, by}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
the Roman town of Wroxeter, east of Shrewsbury, and 
entered the monastery of Saint-Evroult, near Lisieux, in youth. The priest at Sheriffhales, 13 miles east of Atcham, was the only dependent of the monastery in the locality, and may therefore have influenced the decision of Ordericus and his father to sen
d the boy there (JRM).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\insrsid5780933 
The fact that the abbey of Saint-Evroult had a plough with a priest who had 2 oxen makes it probable that the abbey also held the church at Sheriffhales and this supposition is supported by the fact that Warin, (Reginald's predecess
or as sheriff of Shropshire, gave the church of Sheriffhales to Saint-Evroult's with the consent of Earl Roger, a gift confirmed by the king in 1081:}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Bates, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 770-73, no. 1081; see Orderic Vitalis, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Ecclesiastical History}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (Chibnall, vi. pp. 234-35). It is }{\insrsid5780933 just possible that the church itself was superior; see \{Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\}.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The holding remained a possession of the Abbey of Saint-Evroult; see }{\insrsid5780933 Round, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Calendar of Documents}{\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\insrsid5780933  France}{\insrsid5780933 , }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
p. 228 no. 652. Further holdings by Saint-Evroult in this fief are 8,8-9.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab 2 OXEN. That is, a quarter-share in a plough at 8 oxen to the plough.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab THE SHERIFF CLAIMS THIS MANOR FOR THE KING'S REVENUE. The sheriff's argument is presumably that the manor belonged in the king's hands along with others held by Earl Algar (1,11;13}{\cf11\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 -}{
\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 32). Earl Algar's manors had briefly passed to his son Earl Edwin before the Conquest, but in many instances it is Earl Algar who is said to have held them }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
, although Earl Edwin is mentioned in the present entry. The manors will have passed to the king }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 c}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
. 1071 after Earl Edwin's death although they may have been forfeited shortly before because of his rebellion. What the sheriff appears to ignore is that King
 William had granted a number of Earl Algar's manors to others; in Staffordshire alone six or seven other estates (8,1-3. 9,1. 12,1;6;14, the last held by two of Earl Algar's men) were not in the king's hands, yet there is no suspicion of encroachment. It
 may be that documentary evidence was lacking for this particular transaction.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The sheriff is presumably the sheriff of Stafford, rather than the sheriff of Shropshire, who was the subtenant of this estate, that is Reginald [of Bailleul]. It is not clear 
who the sheriff was in 1086, although he is probably the same as the Nicholas who is claiming 3 hides in Thorpe Constantine for the king's revenue in Clifton Campville (16,1). This Nicholas may in turn be the son of Robert of Stafford, himself possibly a 
former sheriff; see \{Introduction: Administration of the Shire\}.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL EDWIN HELD IT. }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 He was the son of Earl Algar and grandson of Earl Leofric. He succeeded his father as Earl of Mercia on his death at some date between 1062 and 1066}{
\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 . He rebelled and made peace with King William at least twice and was finally killed by his own followers }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 c}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 .}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{
\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 1071}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 . Although he inherited his father's estates and title, it is Algar who is often said to be the }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  holder. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
However, Edward the Confessor's writ granting [Old] Perton to Westminster Abbey, and King William's confirmation are both addressed, among others, to Earl Edwin; see 3,1 Perton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{
\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 As Edwin held briefly in succession to his father Earl Algar (see 8,5 claims note), the 'county' does not appear to be contradic
ting the sheriff concerning the pre-Conquest tenure of the manor. It appears that whether Algar or Edwin is said to hold a manor }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
 depends on the particular fief: Earl Algar is credited as the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  holder in chapters 1, 5, 8, 9 and 12 and Earl Edwin in chapter 11.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab JRM noted that '}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Tenuerit }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 may be an error for }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 tenuerat}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
or may be intended to mean that}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Edwin, Earl Algar's son, should have held the place, but did not'. Leaving aside the possibility of scribal error as unlikely, that note is based on a 
misunderstanding of the Latin. 'Should have held' or 'might have held' would be rendered by a pluperfect subjunctive (}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 tenuisset}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ). }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Tenuerit }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
here is a perfect subjunctive, the subjunctive being required in Medieval Latin for an indirect statement after }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 quod}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  
(the Classical usage was accusative and infinitive). The subjunctive is frequently used here throughout Medieval Latin as well as by the Domesday scribe himself. It is a mark of subordination or harks back to the Classical use of the subjunctive in any su
bordinate clause that is in }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 oratio obliqua}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  ('reported speech'). It has exactly the same meaning as the perfect indicative (}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 tenuit}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ): 'he held'.}{\insrsid5780933 

\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\insrsid5780933 Fleming, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 239 no. 1468, perhaps influenced by JRM's note translates: 'The sheriff, 
however, claims this manor for the King's farm, and the county attests that Earl Edwin may have held it'. There is no word corresponding to 'however' in the Latin, but the translation of }{\i\insrsid5780933 tenuerit}{\insrsid5780933 
, apart from being erroneous, gives a curious sense: that the county is testifying to a possibility, rather than to a fact.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On the name Edwin, see 7,13 Edwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,6\tab KNIGHTLEY. This was a settlement in Gnosall Ancient Parish; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 156. Like Gnosall itself (7,18), it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 17; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab After the forfeiture in 1102 of the Earldom of Shrewsbury by Robert of }{\insrsid5780933 Bell\'eame, Earl Roger's 
son, it appears that the subtenant, Reginald of Bailleul may have become tenant-in-chief as he seems to have done on those manors that he held from Earl Roger in Shropshire. The estate descended to his successor as sheriff of Shropshire, Alan Fitz Flaad, 
ancestor of the Fitz Alans; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 119. In }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, ii. p. 114, it appears as held from the barony of Stafford (descent from Robert of Stafford, STS 11), but by service at the Fitz Alan castle of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Album Monasterium}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Oswestry]. This is possibly an error; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 107.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab REGINALD }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 [* THE SHERIFF *]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . See 8,4 Reginald note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BERNWULF. The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bernulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), probably represents Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Beornwulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , though derivation from Old Norse }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Biornulfr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is possible: von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 200. JRM preferred the first element Bern- for the Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Beorn-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Bernwulf and, in YKS, Bjornulfr (following Fellows Jensen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 55-56); these have now been standardized as Bernwulf. The Alecto edition has Beornwulf.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,7\tab MORETON. This was a settlement in Gnosall Ancient Parish. Like Gnosall itself (7,18), it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 2, 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 282.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended to }{\insrsid5780933 Alan FitzFlaad, ancestor of the FitzAlans; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 544, 969, 975; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 2; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 120. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 544, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Morton'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is coupled with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Kingesley}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 which might be a confusion for Knightley (8,6), though in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 969, 975, the Fitz Alan holding is at }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Kingeston'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Kingstone, SK0629], presumably part of Uttoxeter (1,19) in 1086. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 114, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Morton'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is held from the Fitz Alan barony of Oswestry.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This descent might suggest that Benedict forfeited the estate at the time of Robert of Bell\'eame's rebellion and that i
t was granted to Alan Fitz Flaad, or that Benedict was in fact holding it from Reginald the sheriff, the tenant of Earl Roger in 8,4-6, whose lands passed to Alan Fitz Flaad, his successor as sheriff; see 8,4 Reginald note and 8,7 Benedict note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BENEDICT <OF DAWLEY>. The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Benedict}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], is from the Latin adjective meaning 'blessed'. He was probably named after St Benedict, the founder of the Benedictine order of monks.}{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 
Apart from Abbot Benedict of Selby, the only other occurrence of this name in Domesday is as a subtenant of the sheriff Reginald of Bailleul, who held from Earl Roger in Dawley (SHR 4,3,28), probably the same man as the Benedict here. If so, he may have b
een holding under Reginald the sheriff here, rather than directly under Earl Roger. For examples of the rare inclusion of a lower level of tenancy, see 2,6 Nigel note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [***]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the first line of this e
ntry after the details of Benedict's tenancy. As the hidage and plough estimate are given in the next line, the most likely reason for this space was so that a hundred head could be added at a later stage. On other spaces left for hundred heads in similar
 positions, see 1,7 hundred note. However, Moreton appears to have been in the same hundred (Cuttlestone) as 8,5-6. Compare 8,8 [***] note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALFGEAT. On this name, see 1,38 Alfgeat note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITHOUT FULL JURISDICTION. The phrase does not mean that he had parti
al jurisdiction, but that he had none. It probably indicates Alfgeat did not have a hall and a court and that Moreton was not a manor. On 'full jurisdiction', see B11 jurisdiction note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,8\tab SAINT-EVROULT'S CHURCH. See 8,5 Saint-Evroult note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [HIGH] ONN. The Domesday form (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Otne}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) is erratic, as is that for Little Onn (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Anne}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , 17,16); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 141.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab High Onn and Little Onn (17,16) were settlements in the Ancient Parish of Church Eaton; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 141. Like Church Eaton itself (11,65) they probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as they did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 17; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282.
\par \tab \tab High Onn was given to Saint-Evroult by Earl Roger, a gift confirmed by King William in 1081: Bates, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 770-73 no. 255; see Orderic Vitalis, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ecclesiastical History}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (Chibnall, vi. pp. 234-35).
\par \tab \tab On the forfeiture of the Earldom of Shrewsbury by Robert of}{\insrsid5780933  Bell\'eame, Earl Roger's son, in 1102, the Abbey of Saint-Evroult be
came the tenant-in-chief. In later times High Onn was held of the manor of Ware in Hertfordshire from which Saint-Evroult's English estates were managed; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid5780933 
, ii. p. 114 (where the prior of Ware holds from the barony of Bell\'eame);}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Hertfordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, iv. pp. 455-57; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 94.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [***]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the first line of this entry after the details of Reginald's tenancy. As the hidage and plough estimate are given in the next line, t
he most likely reason for this space was so that a hundred head could be added at a later stage. On other spaces left for hundred heads in similar positions, see 1,7 hundred note. However, High Onn appears to have been in the same hundred (Cuttlestone) as
 8,5-8. Compare 8,7 [***] note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab SWEIN. On this name, see 1,48 Swein note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,9\tab [IN PIREHILL HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Marston (8,9).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THIS CHURCH ^[OF SAINT-EVROULT]^. See 8,5 Saint-Evroult note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab MARSTON. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Stafford St Mary. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 4, 12; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 278. This place in Pirehill Hundred is surrounded by places that lay in Cuttlestone Hundred. From this point of view, Marton in Church Eaton would suit better. However, the identity is established from the entry in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 4, where }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Merston juxta Staff}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ord}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] in Pirehill Hundred is held by the prior of Ware by gift of Robert of Bell\'ea
me, Earl of Shrewsbury. Ware belonged to Saint-Evroult and its English estates were administered from there. However, this chapter is not arranged by hundred, but by subtenant; see STS 8 Roger note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Marston was in fact given to Saint-Evroult not by Robert of Bell\'eame but by his father, Earl Roger, a gift confirmed by King William in 1081: Bates, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 770-73 no. 255; see Orderic Vitalis, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ecclesiastical History }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (Chibnall, vi. pp. 234-35).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFGAR. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlgar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Wlgar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wulfgar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 419. The Alecto edition has Wulfgar.
\par \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 18 BURGESSES IN STAFFORD. That is, in the borough of Stafford (STS B). These non-resident burgesses will have benefited their manor by having a number of rights including the right to trade. Even }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 c}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .1199, 2 burgages in Stafford were still described as 
of the fee of Saint-Evroult. The prior of Ware, Saint-Evroult's representative in England, held the lordship of the Foregate of Stafford (near the north gate) in 1306; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\insrsid5780933 , vi. p. 206.}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ONE WALTER. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 quidam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('a', 'a certain') indi
cates that nothing more is known about this individual. There is no evidence of a link between him and Earl Roger's subtenant of that name in 8,26.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Walterius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Walterus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Galter}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Walter}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gaultier}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 243-44. The Alecto edition has Walter.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,10\tab [IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Norbury and Walton (8,10-11).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab NORBURY. The Domesday name means the 'northern fortified place' and might be so by reference to Stafford if the name originated after the construction of a }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 burh}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  at the latter in 913; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. pp. 173-74; and\{Introduction: History].}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Norbury was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 1, 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab After the forfeiture in 1102 of the Earldom of Shrewsbury by Robert of }{\insrsid5780933 Bell\'eame, Earl Roger's 
son, it appears that the subtenant, Roger [of Lacy], became the tenant-in-chief, for the manor descended within the Lacy family; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 967 (one knight's fee held by Walter of Lacy);}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 545; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 1; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 156. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Rotuli Hundredorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 114, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Norbur'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 is recorded as held from the barony of Stafford, but this is presumably an error; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 107. }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, p. 71, shows that the undertenants were the de Kilpecks who were the royal foresters of Herefordshire and successors to Roger the hunter, who was also a tenant of Earl Roger in Shropshire (SHR 4,26). They held, however, under the de Lacys.}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab ROGER [* OF LACY *]. Of the Domesday form }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Reger}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , JRM said; 'perhaps in error for Roger, as in 8,11'. It would have been very easy for an }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 o }{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 to be misread as an }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 e}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  at some stage in the Domesday process, especially if poorly-written.}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 The descent of Norbury shows that not only was }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Reger}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  a Roger, but Roger of Lacy, a Domesday tenant-in-chief in his own right and a named subtenant of Earl Roger in Shropshire (SHR 4,8); see 8,10 Norbury note.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Roger of Lacy was son and heir of Walter of Lacy (died 1085) and his wife Ermelina (Emma). They originated from}{\insrsid5780933  Lassy, }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 in the French d
\'e9partement of }{\insrsid5780933 Calvados (arrondissement Vire, canton Cond\'e9-sur-Noireau). Roger's brother, Hugh of Lacy, and his nephew, Ilbert of Lacy, were both Domesday tenants-in-chief. Both the lands he held in chief an
d those he held under Earl Roger}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  became part of the Lacy barony whose }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 caput }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 was Weobley in Herefordshire and whose chief Shropshire manor was Stanton Lacy (SHR 7,4). }{\insrsid5780933 
As a supporter of Robert Curthose against William II, he rebelled in 1088 and in 1094, lost his English lands and was banished. He returned to Normandy where he served Robert until his fall in 1106. }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
His forfeited lands passed to his brother, Hugh, then to Roger's son Gilbert of Lacy, descending in the Lacy family until the death of another Walter of Lacy in 1241.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab AUTI <OF LEEBOTWOOD>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Auti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Outi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Auti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 169. The Alecto edition has Auti. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The name Auti occurs on 39 holdings spread mainly across Midland England; but the Auti holding the six holdings in Shropshire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire can be identified with a degree of confidence as one 
individual (SHR 4,5,3. 4,27,12-13. 7,4. STS 8,10. WAR 12,8). Five of the six people called Auti held from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury or his tenants; in three instances an Auti held both in 1066 and 1086 (JP).
\par }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Leebotwood in Shropshire is one of Auti's holdings (SHR 4,27,13).}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 2 PRIESTS. They were possibly resident in a small minster church; see \{Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\}.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,11\tab WALTON. This was a settlement in Gnosall Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Walton Grange. Like Gnosall itself (7,18), it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086. For the identification, see }{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 70-71. The 'Grange' element of the place-name is derived from the later possession by the Shropshire Abbey of Buildwas; there never a
ppear to have been separate settlements of Walton and Walton Grange. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The name is represented by Walton Cottages (SJ809170), Walton Grange (SJ808171), Walton Wood (SJ806167) and Walton Fields (SJ813165).}{
\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 84-86, 
has shown how Walton, like Norbury and Blithfield (8,10;27), must have descended from Roger of Lacy; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, iv. p. 156. Early in the twelfth century it was held by Herman, then by William Fitz Herman and subsequently a relative, Walter Fitz Herman, gave a half of it to Buildwas Abbey, his son Hamo later giving the other half; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 122.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ROGER [* OF LACY *]. See 8,10 Roger note and 8,11 Walton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALMUND. On this name-form, see 8,4 Almund note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,12\tab YARLET. This was an extra-parochial area which became a Civil Parish in 1858; see Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 430. In 1086 it lay in Pirehill Hundred as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. p. 12 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Erlyde}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ).
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Yarlet lies at SJ9128. Yarlet Hall is at SJ913292.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 
ROBERT. The descent of Yarlet is unclear and the identity of this Robert unknown. If the correspondence between the order of Earl Roger's subtenants in Shropshire and those in Staffordshire can be relied on (STS 8 Roger note), then this Robert 
would be Robert son of Theobald whose four Shropshire lands (SHR 4,9,1-4) fell to the Crown and were granted to two different families.
\par \tab \tab On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. None is known.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LAND FOR 6 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally gave the number of ploughs as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 iiii}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , but then erased the first three minims and wrote a large }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 v}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 in darker ink over them; he retained the original }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  before and after the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
iiii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,13\tab GAYTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 4, 12; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Gayton appears to have come into the king's hands after 1086. It was held from him by six men in 1284-85 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 4).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab AMERTON?. The Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Mersetone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 which might be expected to yield 'Marston'. It was identified with the Marston near Stafford (that is the same Marston as 8,9) by Eyton. }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 83-84}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 46 note 87}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . H
owever, Amerton is close to Gayton (8,13) although it was in Stowe Ancient Parish. Stowe itself does not appear in Domesday but the Ancient Parish contained Drointon (2,19) and part of Haywood (2,5).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Amerton probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086. If the identification is correct, it assumes that the Domesday form has lost an initial }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 A}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday had initially omitted this place-name, but probably as a result of a check later interlined it, at the same time as he added its ten
ant, Wulfric, and probably corrected the number of villagers and their ploughs and the number of smallholders.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GOSBERT. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Goisb}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gosb}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gosb}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] - represent Old German 
}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gosbert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Gausbert}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Gautbert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 etc., Romance }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Josbert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 124. The Alecto edition has Gosbert.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFRIC. On this name, see 1,44 Wulfric note. On the later inte
rlineation of this name by the main scribe of Great Domesday, see 8,13 Amerton note. The Phillimore printed edition reversed the order of Gosbert and Wulfric, but it is clear from the additions of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
7 Mersetone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7 Vluricus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  that Wulfric held Amerton? in 1086.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 10 VILLAGERS HAVE 4 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the number of villagers over the second half of an erasure, perhaps of an original }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 vi }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 vii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 x}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is in darker ink and written emphatically. He also corrected the number of their ploughs, probably from }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 iiii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 by adding a third and fourth minim and inserting a new }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  after them, as well as interlining }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 or}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (the last two letters of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 quattuor}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , '4') above it in clarification (compare 1,11 meadow note); the final minim is in darker ink than the third minim and the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 or}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , suggesting that he had to dip his pen in ink again for it, rather than that it was an even later addition. These alterations were part 
of a series of corrections and additions in this entry; see 8,13 Amerton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 6 SMALLHOLDERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday probably altered their number from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 v}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  by adding a minim. This was part of a series of corrections and additions in this entry; see 8,13 Amerton note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALMER. On the name-form Almer, see 1,40 Almer note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALRIC. On the name-form Alric, see 2,22 Alric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,14\tab 'COTON'. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Stafford St Mary, forming part of the township of Hopton and Coton
 there. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 4; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This estate passed to the Fitz Alans; it is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Kotes juxta Stafford}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 544; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 969. It is presumably the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Coten' Mauveysin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 974, and the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Coton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  that is held by Serle }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Mauverys}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (i.e. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Mauveysin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) from Richard Fitz Alan in Pirehill Hundred in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 4.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The place has since disappeared but was represented by Coton Hill Farm (SJ9323) and Coton Field (SJ9324) on the first series Ordnance Survey map (sheet 72 of 1836, reprinted as sheet 34 in 1970).}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 
ASCELIN <OF 'COTON'> HOLDS. Nothing is known about this tenant of Earl Roger, but his lands appear to have passed to the Fitz Alans and in the case of 'Coton' here and Mavesyn Ridware (8,17) to have been held under the Fitz Alans by the Mavesyn family, al
t
hough it is not certain what connection, if any, Ascelin had with them. It is likely that all Earl Roger's tenants called Ascelin (8,14-15;17-18) were the same individual: this chapter was arranged by subtenant (STS 8 Roger note) and there are no other pe
ople with this name in this county. Keats-Rohan, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 159, links this Ascelin in Staffordshire with the only occurrence of the name in Shropshire (SHR 7,4), but he is a tenant of Roger of Lacy, not of Earl Roger of Montgomery, and it is very unlikely that he is the same individual.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Azelin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) and (once) }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aselinus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Azelin}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ascelin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 38-39. The Old French form seems mo
re likely, despite the predominance of -z- in the Domesday forms. In the Phillimore printed translations both Ascelin and Azelin occur, but here they have been standardized as Ascelin. The Alecto edition has Azelin.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 1 PLOUGH AND 6 OXEN. That is one plough and two-thirds of a plough at 8 oxen to the plough. The remaining 2 oxen do not appear.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALMUND. On this name-form, see 8,4 Almund note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,15\tab COLTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 3, 4, 12; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 277. For another part see 11,29.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab It might be expected that this estate would descend to the Fitz Alans, as 'Coton' (8,14) and Mavesyn Ridware (8,17) did. It might be the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Kouton}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 544, a fee of John Fitz Alan, the -}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 u
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 - representing a 'dark -}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 l}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -', although that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Kouton}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  might be 'Coton' (8,14). Colton was held in two parts in Domesday (8,15. 11,29) and the present part is presumably that held from the heir of John }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
de Marchall}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 4, with no mention of a Fitz Alan overlordship; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 12.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ASCELIN <OF 'COTON'>. See 8,14 Ascelin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALMUND. On this name-form, see 8,4 Almund note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab MEADOW, 19 ACRES. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 xiiii }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
('14') for the number of acres of meadow, but later joined the first two minims to form a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 v }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
and interlined another two above the remaining two minims, to make }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 xviiii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. He used a pen and ink very similar to those he had used for the rest of the entry, suggesting that this correction may have been immediate.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,16\tab "COLT". JRM noted: '}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 probably Littlehay in Colton'. This appears to be derived from a more cautious statement in }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, iv. p. 46 note 90, which says: 'this possibly represents the manor of Littlehay wit
hin the manor of Colton', citing Parker, 'Chetwynd's History of Pirehill Hundred' (part 2), pp. 153-156. This, however, appears to be a conjecture based only on the facts that "Colt" was associated with Colton in Domesday and the manor of Littlehay has no
 other Domesday representative. The flaw in this reasoning is that many later manors arise by the partitioning of existing estates. For the present, "Colt" is best left unidentified as it was by Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 37.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BELONGS TO COLTON. That is, to the preceding estate there (8,15).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALMER HELD IT. On the name-form Almer, see 1,40 Almer note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,17\tab [IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Maveysyn Ridware.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [MAVESYN] RIDWARE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 7, 14; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 280.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This particular Ridware can be identified because the Mavesyn family were Ascelin's successors and they held from the Fitz Alans who were the later holders of some Montgomery lands; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 544, 969, 974, 975; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 7; }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 47 note 91.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ASCELIN <OF 'COTON'>. See 8,14 Ascelin note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,18\tab [IN TOTMONSLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Loxley.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LOXLEY. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 LOCHECLEI }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
and then corrected the second }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 C}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  to an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 S}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; the result is poor with the lower bowl of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 S}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 below the rest of the line. He made the same mistake and corrected it in the same way in 11,44 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pecleshella}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ).}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This was a settlement in Uttoxeter Ancient Parish, represented by Loxley and Lower Loxley.
 Like Uttoxeter itself (1,19), it probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086. It is represented by Loxley Green (SK066307), Upper Loxley Farm (SK066309), Loxley Bank (SK067313) and Lower Loxley (SK056320).
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate appears to have passed to the honour of Tutbury, held by the Ferrers, Earls of Derby; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 542. In 1274-75 (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 117), it was held by Thomas }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Ferars}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  from Edmund (Earl of Lancaster), the king's brother, and was recorded as a member of the manor of Uttoxeter, a connection that may have dated from much earlier.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ASCELIN <OF 'COTON'>. See 8,14 Ascelin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab IT WAS AND IS WASTE. This 
is the only occurrence in Domesday Staffordshire of land being described as waste previously as well as in 1086. Despite the estate being waste it has most of the usual manorial resources, though no population is recorded. Generally only the assessment an
d, often, the 1066 holder is provided in entries said to be waste in 1086, though occasionally (as in 12,2. 13,4) woodland is mentioned and the land is given a value twice (11,53. 13,4). On the use of the word }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 vasta}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in Domesday, see B1 unoccupied note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EDMUND HELD. }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Edmund}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 us}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ), }{
\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Aedmund}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 us}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ) - represent Old English }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Eadmund}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 233. JRM preferred the first element Ed-}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 for Old English }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Ead-}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
 as it reflected the majority of the Domesday forms; moreover, the name has survived into modern times. The Alecto edition also has Edmund.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,19\tab [IN PIREHILL HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of the next seven p
laces (8,19-25). Of these Meaford (8,24) is directly under a Pirehill Hundred head at 5,1.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab CRESWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 4, 12; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended in the Pandolf barony of Wem: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 545, 970, 975; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 4.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WILLIAM PANDOLF. On the name William, see B8 William note. His byname, probably a patronymic - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pantul}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pantulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represents Old German }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pandulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pandolfus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : Tengvik, 
}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Old English Bynames}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 223; Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 203.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 pantul}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 using a slightly paler ink than he had used for the rest of this entry and writing quickly and not very well: he misjudged his space as the descender of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 p}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is obscured by the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 W}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Will's}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in the line below.
\par \tab \tab William Pandolf also held from Earl Roger in Shropshire (SHR 4,14) and was one of his principal tenants in that county. In Staffordshire, th
e tenants called William in 8,20-22 are probably William Pandolf, but those in 8,28;30 are a different man.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab William was lord of Noron in the Hi\'e9mois in Earl Roger's vicomt\'e9 of the Oximin. Noron is now Noron-L'Abbaye, in the French d\'e9partement of Calvados
 (arrondissement Caen, canton Falaise-Nord). He was a great benefactor of the Abbey of Saint-Evroult , to which in 1073 he gave, among other things, St Peter's Church and Priory at Noron which he had founded; see Orderic Vitalis, }{
\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Ecclesiastical History}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  (Chibnall, iii. pp. 154-59). Saint-Evroult is where he sought refuge after he was accused by Earl Roger's son, Robert of Bell\'ea
me, of the murder of Earl Roger's first wife, Mabel; see Orderic Vitalis, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Ecclesiastical History}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  (Chibnall, iii. pp. 160-63). He was 
reinstated by King Henry I. His English lands formed the barony of Wem}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
and passed to his second son Robert in 1112, then continued in the family to William Pandolf (died 1233) whose heirs were Maud and Elizabeth. Elizabeth's share went on her death to Maud
 who married Ralph Butler, then Walter de Hopton. After her death the barony descended in the Butler family. See Sanders,}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  English Baronies}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , pp. 94-95; Loyd, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 76; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 494.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab IN STAFFORD. That is, in 
the borough (B1-12). In the outer margin of folio 248b are written two small crosses, the first level with the statement on Stafford, the second just below it. There are also a set of the excerpting marks, the first superimposed on the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7 In}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  before Stafford and the second after the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 fuit}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 at the end of the entry. It would appear that both these are a form of excerpting or checking mark, similar to the cross beside 11,7 and the marks in the margins on folio 247c,d beside other entries mentioning Stafford; see 4,1 manuscript note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 1 UNOCCUPIED MESSUAGE. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 masura}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , apparently no different from the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 mans}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 iones}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
] mentioned frequently in the borough entry (B1-9). In both cases, the meaning is of a messuage or house-site, with or without an actual house.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODWIN HELD. The Domesday forms of this name- }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Goduuinus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Goduin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Goduine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 God}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 d}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 )}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 euuinus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gotwinus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Couinus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 etc. - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Godwine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 269-73. JRM preferred the second element -win to Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -wine}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , as the vast majority of Domesday forms lacked the final }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. The Alecto edition has Godwine.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,20\tab DERRINGTON. The Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dodintone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 This was a settlement in Seighford Ancient Parish. Like Seighford itself (2,21), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: 
}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 4, 11, where it is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dodinton}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dodyton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279, where it is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dodynton'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. The change to Derrington appears to be quite late; see }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Ekwall, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Dictionary of English Place-Names}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , under Derrington}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended in the Pandolf barony of Wem; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 545, 970, 975;}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 4.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WILLIAM [* PANDOLF *]. Because of the descent of Derrington and because this chapter is arranged by subtenants, it i
s probable that this William is the same man as the Williams in 8,19;21-22, that is William Pandolf; see 8,19 William note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH 1 PLOUGH. There is an ink blot on the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 c\'fb}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 in the manuscript, but the reading is clear. In the Alecto and Ordnance Survey facsimiles most of this word is obscured.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab SWEIN HELD. On this name, see 1,48 Swein note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,21\tab MODDERSHALL. This was a township in Stone Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Historic Parishes}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . Stone itself is not named in Domesday, though several parts of the later Ancient Parish are; see 1,40 Fulford note. Moddershall probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The Pandolf barony of Wem later held }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Klissbillesdun'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  or }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cublesdon}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Kibblestone, SJ9136], which was probably part of Moddershall in 1086; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 545;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 6.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab WILLIAM. [* PANDOLF *]. See 8,20 William note.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab COTWALTON. This was a settlement in Stone Ancient Parish. Like other settlements in that Ancient Parish (for example, Hilderstone 1,44) it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 
1086. For another part, see 1,45. For Wulfric Spot's gift of his 'little land' here to Burton Abbey, see 1,45 Cotwalton note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab WHICH BELONGS THERE, [***]. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote }{\i\f710\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \'e7 t'ra }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (= }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 est terra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : 'there is land') after }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 p}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 tin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 et}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
], probably intending to give a plough estimate for this dependency of Moddershall, but he later erased the words imperfectly (the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 t'ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 is clearer than the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \'e7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) and put a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 punctus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 p}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 er}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 tin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 et}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]. Presumably the 5 ploughs in the plough estimate earlier in the entry covered Cotwalton. Compare 8,29 land note. However, as in Staffordshire the phrase 'land for }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ploughs' sometimes seems not to be a true plough estimate, but the equivalent of '}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 n
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  carucates of land' (see STS 1 king note), it is possible that the scribe originally intended to provide an assessment for Cotwalton.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODIVA <OF MADELEY>. On the name Godiva, see 4,2 Godiva note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The holdings held by a Godiva around Moddershall have the appearance of having belonged to one individual. They form a g
roup; and apart from Moddershall itself, all devolved upon the same tenant-in-chief. Moddershall was held by Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, the predecessor of Countess Godiva in Shropshire; but the Godiva at 11,37 'could not withdraw', and she of 11,13 was bou
nd to make a customary payment. It seems unlikely these Godivas were the countess. Clarke, }{\i\insrsid5780933 English Nobility}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 218, assigns Cauldon (11,4) but not Moddershall to the countess (JP).
\par \tab \tab See also 11,37 Godiva note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,22\tab ALMINGTON. This was a township of the An
cient Parish of Drayton-in-Hales, also known as Market Drayton. The majority of the Ancient Parish, including Market Drayton itself, lay in Shropshire (SHR 4,14,9). Almington probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 5, 11, where it appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alkmounton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
.
\par \tab \tab The estate descended in the Pandolf barony of Wem; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 970, 975;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5.
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid399784 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Adjacent to Almington, b
ut lying in Shropshire in 1086, was Tyrley (SHR 4,14,5) also held by William Pandolf. Tyrley, now represented by Tyrley castle (SJ 6733), was subsequently transferred to Staffordshire, probably in the reign of King Henry I, to join Almington. The exact li
e of the 1086 boundary between Almington and Tyrley cannot now be certainly determined as the modern civil parish of Tyrley incorporates both Tyrley and Almington. It seems likely, however, that the Coal Brook marked the 1086 boundary between them.}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid399784 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WILLIAM }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
[* PANDOLF *]. See 8,20 William note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. It is not clear what these were.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODWIN HELD. On this name, see 8,19 Godwin note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,23\tab TIXALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 3, 12; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 277. For another part, held by Robert of Stafford, see 11,31. No trace of a descent of this estate within the Ferrers barony has been found and it is possible that it was absorbed by Robert of Stafford's estate after 1086; see }{
\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 84.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HENRY OF FERRERS. He is a tenant-in-chief in STS 10; see STS 10 Henry note. On the name Henry, see B9 Henry note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALMUND. On this name-form, see 8,4 Almund note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,24\tab MEAFORD. This was a township of Stone Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Historic Parishes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. Stone itself is not in Domesday, although various other members of the Ancient Parish are; see 1,40 Fulford note. In 1086, Meaford lay in Pirehill Hundred; another portion (5,
1) is directly below a Pirehill hundred heading. It was in the same hundred later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 12.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HELGOT <OF HOLDGATE> HOLDS. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Helgot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Helgod}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Helgaud}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Helgot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : Forssner, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 146. The Alecto edition has Helgot, except for SHR 4,11,1, where it has Helgod, the same as the Domesday form there.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This man is no doubt the same as the subtenant of Earl Roger in Shropshire (SHR 4,21; see also 4,11,1 Helgot note). }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Helgot probably came from R\'e9senlieu in the French d\'e9
partement of Orne (arrondissement Argentan, canton Gac\'e9), close to Earl Roger's vicomt\'e9 of the Hi\'e9mois. His lands went on to form the barony of Castle Holdgate, named from Holdgate in Shropshire (Domesday }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Stantune}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 :}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 SHR 4,21,5-6) which is itself named from him. On Helgot and the barony, see Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Antiquities of Shropshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 52; Sanders, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 English Baronies}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 28; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 246}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The Helgot who was a tenant of Robert of Stafford in this county was a different person; see 11,24 Helgot note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab SWEIN. On this name, see 1,48 Swein note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HE WAS FREE. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 lib}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  fuit}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 (as also in 8,25), perhaps at a later stage, as both he and scribe B did with other phrases concerning the type of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
 tenure (possibly having received instructions on the importance of this information). The interlined }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 lib}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 er}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ]}{
\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  ho}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 mo}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ] ('a free man') in 11,8;52 might also have been later additions.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,25\tab ASHLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 4, 11; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Asseley}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is held by Philip de }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Burwardesl'}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 594, by service of finding a horse-s
oldier for service at the castle of Shrawardine (Shropshire). Shrawardine (SHR 4,3,50) was held in 1086 by Reginald the sheriff under Earl Roger, and later by the Fitz Alans. The same estate probably appears as }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Asseleg}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 4.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GEOFFREY [* THE SHERIFF *]. He could be the same person as the Geoffrey who held under two of Earl Roger's tenants in Shropshire (SHR 4,3,27. 4,4,20) and might be the same as the Geoffrey of SHR 6,8}{
\insrsid5780933  , one or more of whom may have been Geoffrey the sheriff}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; see SHR 4,3,27 Geoffrey note. However, according to }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 227, he is the same person as Geoffrey de Ria, 'probably named from Ri, Orne, canton Putanges-Pont-Ecrepin'. She calls him a tenant of Roger of Poitou and also has references to the
 two occurrences of Geoffrey in CHS R1,43 and R5,6 (where he is a tenant of Roger of Poitou). She does not have any references to the subtenants of Earl Roger in Shropshire who are called Geoffrey, who are more likely to have been the same person as the p
resent Geoffrey than Roger of Poitou's tenants.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of Geoffrey - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Goisfridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Gosfridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gaufridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gaufridus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gaosfridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 etc. - represent 'two or, possibly, three Old German names usually latinized in early documents as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Galfridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  or }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gaufridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Goisfridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gosfridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ' (Reaney, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, under Jeffray etc.). }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Goisfridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gosfridus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gosfrid}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Romance }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Josfrid}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
: Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 125-26. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gaufridus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  apparently could represent one of a series of Old German names such as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gaufrid}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gautfred,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Waldfrid}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Walfrid}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ibidem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 101-102. Forssner commented on the confusion of these two names and also that between the latter and Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 God}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 )}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 frid}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (on whom, see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ibidem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 118-19). The modern name Geoffrey, chosen by JRM and also used in the Alecto edition, derives from ME }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Geffrey}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , from Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Geuffroi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Jeufroi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  or Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Jefroi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (Reaney, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ibidem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ). See also Dodgson and Palmer, 'Introduction', }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Index of Persons}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. ix.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 2 HIDES [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday did not put a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  after the }{
\i\f703\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 hid\'ea}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 and left the rest of the line blank (suitable for only three or four letters), either an error or the space was left for a fraction or one or more virgates.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 2 VILLAGERS AND 2 SMALLHOLDERS [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday did not put a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  after }
{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 bord'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and left the rest of the line blank, probably for the later insertion of their ploughs; although there was room for only about six letters before th
e vertical score delimiting the outer edge of the column (folio 248b) he could have used the margin.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFMER HELD. On this name, see 1,62 Wulfmer note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HE WAS FREE. On the interlineation of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 lib}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 er}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  fuit}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  by the main scribe of Great Domesday, see 8,24 free note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,26\tab [IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Hamstall Ridware and from the fact that another part (5,2) is directly below an Offlow hundred head.
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [HAMSTALL] RIDWARE. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Offlow Hundred; another portion (5,2) is directly below a Offlow hundred heading. It was in the same hundred later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 14; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 280. For other parts, held by the church of Saint-R\'e9my of Rheims and by Robert of Stafford, see 5,2. 11,50.
\par \tab \tab This particular holding appears to have been at Nethertown (SK1017); see }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Jeayes and Wrottesley, 'Rydeware Cartulary',}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  pp. 231-32, 234-35, 260, 263; }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 47 note 1.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WALTER HOLDS. His identity is unknown. On this name, see 8,9 Walter note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EDMUND HELD. On this name, see 8,18 Edmund note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,27\tab [IN PIREHILL HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Blithfield.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BLITHFIELD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 277. The grid reference is to Blithfield Hall (SK044239) and Blithfield Park (SK046237).}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Land at Hampton in Blithfield was given to Burton Abbey in the twelfth century by one Meriet, according to Burton B: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Hamptona quam dedit Ecclesiae nostrae Meriet pater noster}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('Hampton which Meriet, our father, gave to our church'): Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', pp. 223-24 (= Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', p. 20); 
}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 202. Wrottesley has }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 presbyter}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('priest') in error for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 pater}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, which is written in full in the manuscript (B.L. Loan, 30, folio 29va). In his transcription of a later agreement concerning Hampton, which mentions Meriet, Wrottesley ('Burton Chartulary', p. 32) extended}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  pr' nr'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 presbiter}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 noster}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . Although the usual abbreviation of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 presbiter}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is }
{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 p'b'r}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , the description of Meriet as a priest makes better sense and it is possible that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 pater}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was a wrong extension by the scribe of the Burton Abbey survey. It is not certain whether the grant of Hampton was of part of this estate.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The overlordship of Blithfield appears to have passed to the Earls of Ferrers: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 542; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5. However, in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 969, following a list of holdings of the barony of the Earl of Derby (a Ferrers fee), is an entry to the effect that Jacob }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Blithfeud}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  holds \'bd fee in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Blithefeud}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , of the fee of Warin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
de Montekainisio}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 84-86, }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
established a connection between this Warin (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Munchensi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) and Roger of Lacy.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Since lands held by Roger of Lacy under Earl Roger have already been entered (8,10-11), it appears that this entry is displaced; see STS 8 Roger note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ROGER [* OF LACY *]. For the identification, see 8,27 Blithfield note, and for Roger of Lacy, see 8,10 Roger note. On the name Roger, see B4 Roger note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab THE WOODLAND HAS [IS]. See 1,7 woodland note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab EDMUND HELD. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 On this name, see 8,18 Edmund note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,28\tab [IN TOTMONSLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of the next four places (8,28-31)}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALSTONEFIELD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 14; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab It is possible that Alstonefield was first given by King William to Hugh of Avranches, Earl of Chester, who was the son of William's half sister; see }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Wrottesley and Eyton, 'Liber Niger Scaccarii, Staffordscira', }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 p. 231. However, by 1086 it was held by Earl Roger of Shrewsbury. After the forfeiture in 1102 of the Earldom of Shrewsbury by Robert of }{
\insrsid5780933 Bell\'eame, Earl Roger's son, the overlordship of the estate was in the hands of the Crown until 1215. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alstonefield appears to have passed to the Ferrers barony and it }{\insrsid5780933 
ultimately became part of the Earldom of Lancaster}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 14; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , vii. p. 12; and STS 10 Henry note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par \tab \tab Alstonefield 
comprised 7 townships, three of them being Alstonefield itself, Longnor (SK0864) and the joint township of Warslow (8,29) and Elkstones (represented by Upper Elkstone, SK0659 and Lower Elkstone, SK0758). The remaining four townships lay in the forest of A
l
stonefield, first mentioned in 1227, and also known as the forest of Mauban from the Malbank family, descendants of the Domesday subtenant William (Malbank). These townships were Fawfieldhead (SK0763), 'Heathylee' (now a Civil Parish named from a settleme
n
t represented by Heathylee House at SK054656 on the first series Ordnance Survey one-inch map), Hollinsclough (SK0666) and 'Quarnford' (now only the name of a Civil Parish, Quarnford on the first series Ordnance Survey one-inch map at SK001662 being now c
alled Manor Farm ). Although Warslow was listed separately in Domesday (8,29) it was a part of Alstonefield manor until the sixteenth century and Domesday appears to give them a joint value. See}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , vii. pp. 1-5, 58. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281, Stanshope is regarded as a member of Alstonefield; it is separately listed in Domesday (1,52).}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab No church is mentioned in Domesday, but it appears that the church of Alstonefield is pre-Conquest; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , vii. p. 21.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WILLIAM [* M
ALBANK *]. The identity of this William is established by the fact that he and his son Hugh Malbank gave half of Alstonefield to Combermere Abbey, probably the estate that became known as Gateham Grange (SK1156); see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , vii. pp. 12, 17.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\insrsid399784\charrsid399784 \tab }{\insrsid399784 \tab }{\insrsid5780933 W
illiam Malbank was a tenant of Earl Hugh of Chester in Cheshire (CHS 8), and probably also in Dorset (DOR 27,2-11) and of Earl Roger in Shropshire (SHR 4,15). His heir was his son Hugh who founded the Cistercian Abbey of Combermere in Cheshire in 1133 (}{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 321}{\insrsid5780933 ) as a dependency of the Abbey of Savigny; see }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Medieval Religious Houses}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 112, 117}{\insrsid5780933 . William's lands formed the barony of Wick Malbank, later Nantwich. }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 See Farrer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Honors and Knight's Fees}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , ii. pp. 261-68; Keats-Rohan, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 492. On the byname 'Malbank' (Great Domesday }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Malbedeng }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 from Old French }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 mal banc}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 :}{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 'bad bench') see Tengvik, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Old English Bynames}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 349-50. On the name William, see B8 William note.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [VALUE ***]. The value given at 8,29 is almost certainly for both Alstonefield and for Warslow; see 8,29 meadow note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 8,29\tab R. See 8,29 land note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WARSLOW. This was part of the chapelry and part of the township of Warslow and Elkstones in Alstonefield Ancient Parish; see 8,28 Alstonefield not
e. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 28.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Warslow had no descent separate from that of Alstonefield; see 8,28 Alstonefield note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab A rare appearance of the estate in later records is in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 1331, where half of }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Werfelaw'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (presumably an error for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Werselaw'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
) was held by the wife of John }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Cumbray}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , probably from the Earl of Lancaster.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BELONGS TO THIS MANOR ^[ALSTONEFIELD]^. That is, to the manor surveyed at 8,28.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LAND [FOR *** PLOUGHS]. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\f710\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \'e7 T'ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 (= }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 est terra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
: 'there is land') and then a space for the rest of the plough estimate to be inserted later; see 1,7 land note. When he came to rubricate this county he noted the missing information and wrote in vermilion a large }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 r }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 require}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, 'enquire') beside it in the outer margin of folio 248b. On these marginal requests for information, see 2,3 hides note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab MEADOW ... WOODLAND. These are almost certainly the resources of Alstonefield
 (8,28) as well as of its dependency Warslow. The main scribe of Great Domesday had probably got as far as detailing the villagers of Alstonefield before he found details of Warslow and then decided to include Alstonefield's resources (or combine them wit
h Warslow's) after giving the population of Warslow. The details of value and }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 T.R.E. }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
holder also almost certainly relate to both places. In the next two entries (8,30-31) which are similarly those of a manor and its appurtenance, he separated the manorial details, but gave a joint value and details of their }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}
{\cf1\insrsid5780933  holder.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab VALUE 40s. This is probably the joint value of the manor of Alstonefield and its appurtenance at Warslow; see 8,29 meadow note..}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODWIN HELD IT. No }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  holder is given for Alstonefield
, so it is probable that Godwin held both; see 8,29 meadow note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On the name Godwin, see 8,19 Godwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,30\tab CHEDDLETON. This was an Ancient Parish in Tudor times; however, before 1535 it was a chapelry in Leek Ancient Parish: Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local
 Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 408. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WILLIAM [* MALBANK *]. It seems likely that this is the same William as the man who held Alstonefield
 from Earl Roger, that is William Malbank; see 8,28 William note. The descent of Cheddleton is unclear, but its association with Leek (1,21) granted to the Earl of Chester after 1086, suggests that on the forfeiture of the Earldom of Shrewsbury by Robert 
of Bell\'eame, Cheddleton and Basford went to the king and were then granted to the Earl of Chester and joined to Leek, the undertenants remaining the Malbanks.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par \tab \tab }{\insrsid5780933 On}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  the name William, see B8 William note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,31\tab BASFORD. This was a settlement in Cheddleton Ancie
nt Parish. Like Cheddleton itself (8,30), it probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086. There is another Basford (SJ8646) in Wolstanton Ancient Parish in Pirehill Hundred.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This Basford is represented by Basford Hall and Basford Hall Farm (both at SJ9851). Basford Green is at SJ9951.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BELONGS TO THIS MANOR ^[CHEDDLETON]^. That is, to the estate surveyed at 8,30.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab VALUE OF THE WHOLE, 15s. In view of the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 totum ualet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, this is no doubt the joint value of the manor of Cheddleton and its appurtenance at Basford. Compare 8,29 meadow note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODWIN HELD IT. No }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 holder is given for Cheddleton, so it is probable that Godwin held both. Like the value, this information is probably intended for the manor and its appurtenance. Compare 8,29 meadow note.
\par \tab \tab On the name Godwin, see 8,19 Godwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 8,32\tab SHENSTONE. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Offlow Hundred as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 14; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279.
\par \tab \tab For the possibility that land granted in 957 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 aet Eastun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was at Aston in Shenstone, see 12,25 Barr note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid399784 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid5780933 \tab 
ROBERT D'OILLY. He came from from Ouilly-le-Basset, in the commune of Pont-d'Ouilly in the French d\'e9partement of Calvados (arrondissement Caen, canton Falaise-Nord). He was a close friend of Roger d'Ivry and he distin
guished himself at the battle of Hastings. By his marriage to Aldith, daughter of Wigot of Wallingford, he acquired many of Wigot's estates and his holding was increased by the Conqueror. He was castellan of the castles of Oxford and Wallingford which he 
built, and sheriff of Berkshire and of Oxfordshire and Warwickshire. He died }{\i\insrsid5780933 c}{\insrsid5780933 .
 1091-1092 and was buried at Abingdon Abbey. His daughter Matilda married the Domesday tenant-in-chief Miles Crispin. His wife's estates later formed part of the honour of Wallingford; his own became the barony of Hook Norton (Oxfordshire) and went to his
 brother Nigel of Ouilly. These estates subsequently became part of the honour of Warwick. See Farrer, 'The Honour of Wallingford'; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 378.
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid399784 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 
Probably following the forfeiture of the Earldom of Shrewsbury, Robert d'Oilly, the subtenant of Shenstone, became a tenant-in-chief, for the manor was later held by his successors, the earls of Warwick; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 544, 970; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Chartulary III', pp. 197-98. In }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 544, it is coupled with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Stanhale}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 [Upper Stonnall, SK0603, and Lower Stonnall, SK0803] held by the Abbot of Osney. In Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Chartulary III', pp. 197-98, it is coupled with Swinfen (SK1305). Stonnall and Swinfen were no doubt unnamed parts of the estate in 1086.

\par \tab \tab On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 21 VILLAGERS. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 uill}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 anu}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 is singular as it always is after '21', '31' etc. The main scribe of Great Domesday, however, briefly forgot this: he added the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  rather hurriedly over a 
}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  after the original }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 uill'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODWIN HELD. On this name, see 8,19 Godwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 9\tab LAND OF HUGH OF MONTGOMERY. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .VIII. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
in vermilion beside the chapter heading, in error for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 IX}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . He perpetuated his mistake with the next fief (writing }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 IX}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 X}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), but then realized this and omitted the number 
}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 X }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 and put }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 XI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 correctly beside the 'Land of Robert of Stafford' on folio 248d. He made similar mistakes in several other counties and often corrected them, so
metimes by omitting a number, as here and in Nottinghamshire and Devon. He used new ink with a denser structure for this chapter.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On the name Hugh, see B5 Hugh note. }{\insrsid5780933 He was the second son of Roger of Montgommery and Mabel of Bell\'eame and was himself Earl 
of Shrewsbury from 1094 until his death in 1098. Though he supported Robert Curthose against William Rufus in 1094, he was pardoned. His heir was his elder brother Robert of Bell\'ea
me who forfeited the fief for rebellion in 1102. Whereas Earl Roger, Hugh's f
ather, was from Montgommery in France (see STS 8 Roger note), it is not certain if Hugh was named from Montgommery or from its namesake, Montgomery (Castle), established by his father in Wales just over the Shropshire border. In favour of the latter is th
at after Earl Roger's death in 1094, his elder son (Robert of Bell\'eame) appears to have inherited his possessions in France and his younger son, Hugh, his English fief. See Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 266.

\par \tab \tab In 1086, his fief consisted of a single estate.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 9,1\tab 
[IN SEISDON HUNDRED]. Like Claverley, Kingsnordley and Alveley (8,1-3), held by Hugh's father, Earl Roger, Worfield was an early transfer to Shropshire, so its Staffordshire hundred is unknown. However, it lay on the western edge of Seisdon Hundred,
 and there is no other hundred in which it could have lain in 1086.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WORFIELD. Worfield lay in Staffordshire in 1086, probably in Seisdon Hundred. It was transferred to Shropshire, almost certainly before 1102 (see STS 8 Roger note) and became an Ancient P
arish in that county; see Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 398.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 After Robert of Bell\'ea
me's forfeiture of the Earldom of Shrewsbury in 1102, Worfield was in the hands of Henry II and Richard I and was given by the latter to Henry of Hastings' wif
e Ada, in partial satisfaction of claims on the honour of Chester. It descended in the Hastings family and was counted both in Brimstree Hundred (Shropshire) and in the Liberty of Bridgnorth (likewise in Shropshire) in the Middle Ages; see }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , ii. pp. 59, 88; }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 234; }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, iv. no. 354, v. no. 412, vi. no. 612; Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Antiquities of Shropshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 104. Half a}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
virgate at Roughton (SO7594) was part of the manor, held for keeping part of the forest of Morfe: }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , vi. no. 15, ix. no. 152; see Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Antiquities of Shropshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 114. The church with tithes and half a fishery in the River Severn was granted to the Abbey of La Sauve Majeure between 1095 and 1098: Round, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Calendar of Documents}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  France}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 447 no. 1238.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab A FISHERY. This was no doubt the fishery on the River Severn, half of which was given to the }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Abbey of La Sauve Majeure (9,1 Worfield note). The River Severn forms the western boundary of }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
the estate. The only other fishery recorded in Domesday Staffordshire was in Alrewas (1,11) with a render of 15,000 eels, rather than the money render here.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WOODLAND. This large wood was later considered part of Morfe Forest; see \{Introduction: Forest\}.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 10\tab LAND OF HENRY OF FERRERS. }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 On the misnumbering of this chapter by the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 main scribe of Great Domesday as }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 IX}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  instead of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 X}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, see STS 9 land note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Henry came from Ferri\'e8res-Saint-Hilaire, in the French d\'e9partement of Eure, arrondissement Bernay, canton Broglie. In Normandy he was lord of Longueville. His father, Walkelin de Ferri\'e8
res, died before 1040. In England Henry held a large fief in more than a dozen counties. His principal English manor was at Tutbury (in Staffordshire) where, with his wife, he founded a priory dependent on Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives in Normandy. He died }{
\i\insrsid5780933 c}{\insrsid5780933 . 1101. His third son Robert inherited and became first Earl of Derby in 1138. His descend
ants held the honour of Tutbury and were Earls of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. After Robert II of Ferrers lost the barony in 1266, it passed to Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, then to Thomas, likewise earl. Following his execution in 1322 the castle of Tutb
ury and the honour were granted to John, Earl of Cornwall, younger son of King Edward II. See }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 292; }{\insrsid5780933 Loyd, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{
\insrsid5780933 , p. 42; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 247.}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\insrsid5780933 On the name Henry, see B9 Henry note.
\par \tab \tab The chapter b
egins with two unusual entries, for the castle of Tutbury and for the land of "Burtone" on which, ostensibly, it was built. However, the broad division of estates in this fief is between those held in lordship (10,1-5) and those that were subinfeudated (1
0,6-10).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 
The entry at 10,10, apparently for another part of "Burtone" (in Offlow Hundred), appears misplaced. It is not postscriptal in Great Domesday, but in a precursor document it is possible that it did not lie in the schedule of Offlow Hundred, but w
ith the details of Tutbury Castle (10,1-2). The main scribe of Great Domesday had already entered both the lordship land and the subinfeudations for Offlow Hundred at 10,1-8.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab The order of the chapter is:}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 10,1-2 [Offlow Hundred]. The manuscript has Pirehill Hundred in error. These two}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab \tab entries concern Tutbury Castle and are in lordship.
\par \tab \tab 10,3-8 Offlow Hundred. Lordship land (10,3-5) is followed by subinfeudations (10,6-
\par \tab \tab \tab 8).
\par \tab \tab 10,9 [Pirehill Hundred]. A subinfeudation.
\par \tab \tab ____________________________________________
\par \tab \tab 10,10 [Offlow Hundred]. Further land (subinfeudated) connected with Tutbury Castle.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 10,1\tab IN PIREHILL HUNDRED. This heading is clearly an error, in view of the location of Tutbury (10,1). The cause of the mistake is not entirely obvious, a
s the hundreds in Staffordshire do not appear to be entered in each fief in a standard order, although Pirehill Hundred does sometimes come first; see \{Introduction: Standard Order of Hundreds\}
. However, the next fief (that of Robert of Stafford, STS 11) b
egins (correctly) with the same heading, and the main scribe of Great Domesday may have glanced ahead in the bare list of holders, hundreds and villages that he may have been using to convert and abbreviate his material.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab [IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. This heading has been inserted to replace the erroneous }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 IN PIREHOLLE HVND}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 REDO}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
] of the manuscript; see 10,1 Pirehill note. The correct hundred head appears above Rolleston-on-Dove (10,3), the first two entries in this fief being unusual. In some counties, for example H
erefordshire, castles and their associated land appear to stand outside the hundredal administration. The borough of Tutbury (10,1) renders \'a34 10s from its merchants and "Burtone" (10,2) has \'bd
 hide (which no doubt paid tax) and a valuation, so the borough (possibly) and the \'bd
 hide (probably) were involved in a hundred. If that is so, then, on geographical grounds, the hundred can only have been Offlow Hundred. In the schedules of land that preceded Domesday, however, these two places may have been listed se
parately and so were not available to be abstracted from places that were listed in Offlow Hundred and which were abbreviated into Great Domesday at 10,3-9.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab It cannot, however, be assumed from the presence of a hundred head (though erroneous) in the text
 that the main scribe of Great Domesday was allocating Tutbury Castle to a hundred. It may be that the castle should be treated separately (and [castle] inserted above it in the translation), with the 'In Offlow Hundred' being inserted above "Burtone" at 
10,2.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab TUTBURY CASTLE. Tutbury was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 15; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 280. Tutbury Castle is at SK209291.
\par \tab \tab It appears that the estate on which the castle was built had originally been called "Burtone" (see 10,2 "Burtone" note) and that in the course of time Tutbury effaced the former name. According to Orderic Vitalis, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ecclesiastical History}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (Chibnall, ii. pp. 264-65), King William had initially given Tutbury to Hu
gh of Avranches (later Earl of Chester) and it was he who had founded the castle: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Henrico Gualchelini de Ferrariis filio castrum Stutesburiae}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  quod Hugo de Abrincis primus tenuerat}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  concessit}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('he granted to Henry, son of Walkelin of Ferrers, the castle of Tutbury which Hugh of Avranches had first held'). It is not certain that this is true, but Domesday only says of Henry of Ferrers that Tutbury is 'his castle' not that he built it.
\par \tab \tab If the estate was originally called "Burtone", Tutbury presumably already lay within it. The name means 'the stronghold of a man called Tutta (or Stut)' and contains Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 burh}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and an uncertain personal name; early forms begin both with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tut}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 - and with }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Stut}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -. Tutbury was thus a fortified site already.
\par \tab \tab }{\insrsid5780933 In the castle at Tutbury, Henry of Ferrers established a church dedicated to St Mary which became Tutbury Priory. Its initial endowment consisted of two estates in Derbyshire, the }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
manors of Marston[-on-Dove] and Doveridge (DBY 6,24-25) which are both said 
to be held by 'monks' in 1086. Tutbury Priory was colonised from Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives in Normandy but it is not certain when the priory itself was founded. The foundation charter itself dates from after the Conqueror's death: it was made in the presence
 of William II at Marlborough (Wiltshire) and is assigned the dates 1087 x 1100 in the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, p. 63). Even so, some sort of monastic establishment may have been in existence here for a few years previously. See }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 391 }{\insrsid5780933 no. I}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ; }{\i\insrsid5780933 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid5780933 , i. pp. 302-303; the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, pp. 62-66 nos. 51-52); }{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Medieval Religious Houses}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 57, 78; }{\i\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 331; }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 and DBY 6,24 monks note.}{
\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 The Derbyshire Domesday entries (DB
Y 6,24-25) are possible evidence for the existence of the priory in 1086. However, it is not certain whether there were yet monks at Tutbury in 1086 or whether the monks of the Abbey of Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives were merely enjoying the profits of the estate
 from a distance and only came to Tutbury a few years later. Thus the monks mentioned by Domesday might be 'of Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives' or 'of Tutbury'.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Tutbury became head of the barony of that name held by the earls of Derby; see STS 10 Henry note; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108;}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 15.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab IN THE BOROUGH. This is the first mention in history of a borough at Tutbury, which had probably, as Domesday implies, grown up around the Norman castle. On its regulation, see Bateson, 
'Laws of Breteuil'.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BY THEIR TRADING. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de mercato suo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Mercatum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is a neuter noun of the second declension derived from the deponent verb }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 mercor }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
('I trade'). It is used in Domesday as ' a market', but here it appears to need the verbal force of its fourth declension relation }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 mercatus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('trading'). This is partly because Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 suo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('their') would be unlikely to be used if }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 mercato}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  were a 'market' since the market would almost certainly belong to Henry of Ferrers. Secondly, the actual market occurs later in the sentence in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 cum foro}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('with the market'), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 forum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  being the Classical Latin word for a market among other things.}{\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 10,2\tab "BURTONE". JRM's note in the Phillimore printed edition reads: '}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Burtone }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 might conceivably be an error for }{
\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Burg Tone}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 the 'town' of the}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 castle of Tutbury: }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 48 note 7. But since the castle itself has already been distinguished from its surrounding }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 burgus }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
(as with other newly founded castles, e.g. Rhuddlan}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 (CHS FT2), Berkhamstead (HRT B11) and elsewhere, with varying terms for}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 burgus}{
\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ),}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 the description of a cultivated }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 tun}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
'village', around the castle walls, within the}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
Borough, seems improbable. It is possible that Henry also had a castle at Burton-upon-Trent, with the land entered in 10,10, or possibly at another Burton'.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Eyton, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\insrsid5780933 , table facing p. 59, identified "Burtone" with an outlying
 part of Burton-upon-Trent. Despite these suggestions, the natural interpretation of this entry is that "Burtone" was the name of the estate on which Tutbury castle was built and that, by its building, the estate was reduced to a rump, here held partly by
 Henry of Ferrers himself and partly by a subtenant (10,10). If this is so, the effacement of "Burtone" would be similar to that of "Merestun" in Herefordshire by Wigmore castle (HEF 9,1).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ON WHICH THERE WERE. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 In qua}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  refers to the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 dimidia hida}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (feminine), not the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 castellum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 (neuter). The Phillimore printed edition has 'where'.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 12 PLOUGHS BEFORE 1066. See 7,1 ploughs note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 10,3\tab ROLLESTON[-ON-DOVE]. This was an Ancie
nt Parish. A portion, lacking population, lay in Derbyshire in the nineteenth century and probably earlier. That portion was transferred to the Derbyshire Ancient Parish of Marston-on-Dove in 1903, so that Rolleston-on-Dove was entirely in Staffordshire a
fter that; see Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 420. In 1086 Rolleston-on-Dove lay in Offlow Hundred as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 15; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 280.}{
\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Land at }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Rothulfeston }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 with other places amounting to 40 hides was granted to Wulfsige the black (}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Wulfsye prenomine Maur'}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ) by King Edmund in 942: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 90-91 no. 82 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 479 = Sawyer, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 9-13 no. 5).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  For an attempt to identify the 40 hides, see 1,11 Alrewas note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Wulfsige appears to have been a kinsman of Wulfric Spot to whom the land probably passed and who gave l}{\insrsid5780933 and at }{\i\insrsid5780933 Rolfestun}{
\insrsid5780933  to his brother Aelfhelm in his will (1002 x 1004): }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1536 = Whitelock, }{
\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxiv no 4). In 1008 it was given to Burton Abbey in exchange for two of the abbey's remote estates (Aldsworth and Arlington) in Gloucestershire when it was rated at 2 \'bd hides: }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 99 no. 93 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 920 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 58-60 no. 31). It was not in the abbey's hands in 1066 or in 1086.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Rolleston-on-Dove descended in the Ferrers barony and was part of the Liberty of the Earl of Lancaster in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 15; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL MORCAR.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  He was the son of Algar }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 and his wife Aelfeva, grandson of Earl Leofric and brother of Earl Edwin}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
. Algar was Earl of East Anglia 1051-1052, later of Mercia from about 1057. Morcar was }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 chosen as earl by the Northumbrians when they had deposed Earl Tosti }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
(King Harold's brother) in 1065. He submitted to King William, but rebelled twice and was in custody in Normandy at the time of the Domesday Survey.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Morcar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Morcharus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old Swedish }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Morkar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 329-30. JRM preferred the form Morcar as it reflected the majority of the Domesday forms; also the earl's name is normally spelt that way now. The Alecto edition has Morcar.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 2 \'bd HIDES. This is a very small assessment in view of the number of ploughs at work (4 in lordship and 14 for villagers); see 10,3 arable note. It is, however, the assessment given in the charter.}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LAND FOR 8 PLOUGHS. There is an erasure in the manuscript above the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .viii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , bu
t it is unclear whether it was of a figure or word or of a blot. A dot before the erasure is still visible.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 1 FEMALE SLAVE. This is the only mention in Staffordshire.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND. See 7,7 woodland note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ARABLE LAND 2 LEAGUES LONG AND 1 WIDE. Thi
s is an unusual, but not unparalleled, mention. In the context, it appears to be an assessment of the whole arable of the estate and to be an explanation of the discrepancy between the hidage and the number of ploughs.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 10,4\tab MARCHINGTON. Marchington was a c
hapelry of Hanbury Ancient Parish and Marchington Woodlands was a township of the same Ancient Parish. Hanbury does not appear by name in Domesday, but a number of constituents of the later Ancient Parish do so: Marchington, Agardsley, Draycott-in-the-Cla
y, Fauld and Moreton (10,4-8). Marchington probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 15; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 280.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Land at }{\i\insrsid5780933 Maercham}{\insrsid5780933  was given in 951 by King Edred to the thane Wulfhelm:}{\i\insrsid5780933  Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 93-94 no. 85 (= Sawyer, }{
\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 557 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 17-18 no. 11. The same man appears to have been the recipient of land in 'Aston' (possibly Aston in Birmingham, }{\insrsid5780933 SP0889}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ) and in Barr (12,25;28); see 12,
25 Barr note. It seems likely that this estate passed to Wulfric Spot for }{\insrsid5780933 land at }{\i\insrsid5780933 Maerchamtune}{\insrsid5780933  was given by him to his nephew Wulfheah (son of his brother Aelfhelm) in his will (1002 x 1004): }{
\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1536 }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 = }{\insrsid5780933 Whitelock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills
}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxiv no. 7).}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Marchington descended in the barony of Ferrers; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 542, 969. It was part
 of the Liberty of the Earl of Lancaster in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 15; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab AGARDSLEY. This was a settlement in Newborough which was a chapelry carved out of Hanbury Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow H
undred in 1086. Newborough has effectively replaced Agardsley as the administrative name; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 280. The name Agardsley survives in that of Agardsley Park (SK134273) and Agardsley Farm Cottages (SK138269).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFRIC <OF SUDBURY>. This predecessor of Henry of Ferrers may be the same as his predecessor Wulfric in Derbyshire (DBY }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
6,26;30;46;50), one of whose holdings was Sudbury.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  On the name Wulfric, see 1,44 Wulfric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND. See 7,7 woodland note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 10,5\tab DRAYCOTT[-IN-
THE-CLAY]. This was a township of Hanbury Ancient Parish. Hanbury does not appear by name in Domesday; see 10,4 Marchington note. Draycott-in-the-Clay probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Newborough (SK1325) was held as part of the Liberty of the Earl of Lancaster in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. p. 15, and had presumably earlier been a Ferrers fee. It was a chapelry in Hanbury Ancient Parish and was perhaps established within the bounds of Draycott-in-the-Clay.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 10,6\tab FAULD. This was a township of Hanbury Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Historic Parishes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. Hanbury does not appear by name in Domesday; see 10,4 Marchington note. Fauld probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 280. The grid reference is to Fauld Manor (SK 181285). Fauld Hall is at SK185289 and Fauld House at SK178286.
\par \tab \tab Fauld descended in the barony of Ferrers; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 542, 969.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HUBERT [* OF COURSON *]. The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hubertus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (often abbreviated to }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hub't'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) represents Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hugubert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hubert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 156. The Alecto edition also has Hubert.
\par \tab \tab For his identification, see Loyd, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 37; }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 256 [under Hubert De Curcun] and }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 256 (JP).}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab His place of origin is said to be Notre-Dame-de Courson, in the French d\'e9partement of Calvados (arrondissement Lisieux, canton Livarot). Some families called Curzon, Curson, Cursons
, Corson probably derive from this place, but there is also a French nickname Old French }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 courson}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  ('the foreshortened, truncated, lopped, little one'), a diminutive of }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 curt}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933  from Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 curtus}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ; see Reaney, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , under Curzon.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [***].
 The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the first line of this entry after the hidage. Often spaces left in this position in an entry were for the later insertion of a hundred head; see 1,7 hundred note. However, in 1086 Fauld was probab
ly in the same hundred as it was later, Offlow, and the scribe had entered an Offlow hundred head three entries before (10,3).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 10,7\tab IN THE SAME VILLAGE ^[FAULD]^. See 10,6 Fauld note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Fauld here probably stands for part of Hanbury. On this apparent alienation, see }{\insrsid5780933 Fleming, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 240 no. 1469.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab ROGER. On the name Roger, see B4 Roger note.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab A PRIEST. His church may have been at Hanbury; see }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 172.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab 1 HIDE THERE, WHICH THESE 2 HOLD. 'These 2' might be the 2 smallholders just mentioned. In the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Liber Exoniensis}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
, the direct predecessor of the south-west counties in Great Domesday, the total hidage for the estate is regularly broken down into hides in lor
dship and hides held by the 'men' (the villagers, smallholders etc.) and it is possible that this statement is a chance survivor from the source of the counties in circuit IV. However, the hide that 'these 2' hold exceeds the total for the estate (\'bd
 hide). Thus, for this interpretation of the holders' identity to be correct, this would have to be additional land or the '1 hide' is a mistake for '1 virgate'.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab An alternative is that the hide is made up of the two half-hides in Fauld (10,6-7), held respective
ly by Hubert and Roger from Henry of Ferrers. It is possible that in the putative circuit volume the details for Fauld were combined and this statement was inappropriately transferred from that text. This might be supported by the appearance of Latin }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 isti}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  which was rarely used by the main scribe of Great Domesday, who preferred to use }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 hic}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  or }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 ipse}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 as a demonstrative adjective or pronoun. However, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 isti}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  is more commonly used in Little Domesday, a circuit volume.}{\insrsid8996282 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND. See 7,7 woodland note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ST WERBURGH'S OF CHESTER. }{\insrsid5780933 
This church in Chester was founded as a college for secular canons probably by Aetlhelflaed, the wife of Ealdorman Aethelred of Mercia and the daughter of King Alfred of Wessex, shortly after 907 when the town of Chester was itself
 being rebuilt. The remains of St Werburgh were enshrined there. Werburga or Werbyrgh or Werburgh was traditionally said to be the daughter of King Wulfhere of Mercia (657-674). After his death, she became a nun at Ely but was recalled by her uncle, King 
A
ethelred of Mercia (674-716), to occupy herself with some nunneries in the West Midlands. She is credited with founding, or reforming, Hanbury in Staffordshire, Threekingham in Lincolnshire and Weedon in Northamptonshire. At her own request, she was burie
d at Hanbury, but her remains were enshrined in the college at Chester after its foundation. See Bradshaw, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Life of St Werberge}{\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\insrsid5780933  }{\insrsid5780933 pp. xii-xx; Tait, }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Chester Abbey Cartulary}{\insrsid5780933  i. pp. viii-xi; Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 53, 62, 413, 422; }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 48 note 11}{
\insrsid5780933 ; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 518.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE WHOLE OF THIS VILLAGE. That is, both parts (10,6-7).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 10,8\tab MORETON. This was a township of Hanbury Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Historic Parishes}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . Hanbury does not appear by name in Domesday; see 10,4 Marchington note. Moreton probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Moreton descended in the barony of Ferrers; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 542, 969.}{\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALCHERE <[OF ASTON]>. }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Alcher}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 us}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
), represents Old English }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Ealhhere}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
, p. 242. JRM preferred Alchere as it reflected the Domesday spellings. The Alecto edition has Ealhhere.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire. However, a}{\insrsid5780933 
 man called Alchere was also Henry of Ferrers' subtenant in DBY 6,28 (Aston); 30;32;50: Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\insrsid5780933 
, p. 134, though she has two references to folio 275a when there is only one (DBY 6,50) on it (on her system
 of referencing, see 11,11 Gilbert note). She also includes a reference to ESS 27,11 (folio ii. 053b) where the tenant-in-chief is Hugh of Montfort, not Henry of Ferrers, as she states.
\par \tab \tab The name Alchere occurs 15 times in Domesday Book, probably represen
ting four individuals. The five holdings held by Alchere from Henry of Ferrers form a group on either side of the county boundary between Derbyshire and Staffordshire and almost certainly belonged to the same individual (JP).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 10,9\tab [IN PIREHILL HUNDRED]. This heading is supplied from later information concerning the location of Chebsey.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab CHEBSEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 4, 13; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Included in Chebsey was Cold Norton (SJ8732); see}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  Parker, 'Chetwynd's History of Pirehill Hundred',}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  pp. 64-65; }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 48 note 12.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Chebsey descended in the barony of Ferrers; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 542, 969, 975; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 4. It is part of the Liberty of the Earl of Lancaster in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HUMPHREY [* HAST}{\cf11\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 A}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 NG *]. He can be identified from a royal writ of }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 c}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . 1120-1133}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 280 no. 1857) where it is stated that the churches belonging to St Oswald
's of Nostell [Nostell Priory, West Yorkshire] held by Salomon the cleric, son of Humphrey Hastang, are to be free from gelds, pleas and all customs as they formerly were. The churches concerned were Chebsey in Staffordshire and Leamington Hastings in War
wickshire (WAR 39,1).}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hunfrid}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Humfrid}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hunfrid}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Humfrid}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 158-59. JRM preferred the modern form of this name. The Alecto edition also has Humphrey.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab A PRIEST. On his church, see 10,9 Humphrey note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND. See 7,7 woodland note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab TO THIS MANOR BELONGED LAND AT STAFFORD. Chebsey is 5 miles from Stafford and other named estates intervene, especially parts of the great episcopal manor of Eccleshall }{
\cf11\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (2,21)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, so this land must have been an outlying portion of the manor. However, if Chebsey had once been head of a multiple estate that had broken up by 1086, its lands might once have stretched to the outskirts of Stafford; see \{
Introduction: Manorial Organization\}.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 terra de Stadford}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('land of Stafford') is idiomatic. The }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  does not mean 'belonging to' (since it belongs to Chebsey), nor does
 it mean 'land in', since the castle was constructed outside the borough; see 10,9 castle note. }{\insrsid5780933 In fact the }{\i\insrsid5780933 de}{\insrsid5780933 
 indicates only a loose association with Stafford, and it was no doubt for that reason that JRM in the Phillimore printed translation used the phr
ase 'Stafford land', rather in the way that one would use 'Stafford castle'. The Alecto edition has 'the land of Stafford'.
\par \tab \tab Fleming, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 240 no. 1470, has: 'Land in the borough of Stafford, upon which the King ordered a castle t
o be built belonged to this manor. The castle is now destroyed'. 'Land in the borough of Stafford' is rather definite for the Latin }{\i\insrsid5780933 terra de Stadford}{\insrsid5780933 .}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab A CASTLE ... IT HAS NOW BEEN DESTROYED. It seems probable that the three castles evidenced at Stafford (King William's, the one held by William Pandolf for the king against Robert of Bell\'ea
me in 1102 and the later castle of the earls of Stafford) were all on the same site; see \{Introduction: Castles\}.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 est destructum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is the opposite of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
est constructum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('has been constructed') and does not necessarily imply violent destruction through siege or assault. It could simply mean 'dismantled' or 'demolished'. The circumstances are unknown.}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 10,10\tab [IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. This heading has been suggested by the probable identity of "Burtone".}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab "BURTONE". Identification with Burton in Castle Church was suggested by Eyton, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , table 4 facing p. 70. A second possibility is identification with 
a part of Burton-upon-Trent. In neither place, however, is there evidence of a Ferrers' holding later. The absence of hidation and value suggested to the editor of }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 that this land was an encroachment, and the mention that it was a }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 villa}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  was felt to lend some support to the notion that this was a part of Burton-upon-Trent, since Burton in Castle Church chapelry of }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 the Ancient Parish of }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Stafford St Mary (11,6) was not a village, but an outlier of Robert of Stafford's manor of Bradley. Further, the use of }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 villa}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933  was felt to rule out identification of this }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Burtone}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  with the }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Burtone}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  that was the site of Tutbury castle; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 49 note 13.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab However, there is no reason to think that }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 villa}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  is used here
 (or often elsewhere) as a technical term. This being the final entry in the fief, it could well have been an addition out of sequence to the putative circuit volume. In fact it could well refer to the subinfeudated part of the "Burtone" of 10,2. It is ar
gued there (10,2 "Burtone" note) that "Burtone" was the estate on which Tutbury castle was built and which was in part effaced by the latter. However, the castle will not have occupied the whole estate; there was still \'bd
 hide there and ploughs working the l
and (10,2). It is possible that this man-at-arms (who may have had some responsibility for castle-ward) was also cultivating a portion of the same rump estate. Apart from the absence of a value (perhaps accidentally omitted, as elsewhere) the entry reads 
l
ike one of many for a rural estate. It has also been suggested (10,1 Offlow note) that the first two entries of the fief were scheduled separately in a predecessor document. This portion of "Burtone" may have been missed, or held back because it was a sub
infeudation, as some fiefs (for example, STS 11 and the present one) are divided into land held in lordship and land subinfeudated.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab RALPH. On the name Ralph, see 2,22 Ralph note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab MEADOW, 20 ACRES. [***]. WOODLAND. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a 
space suitable for ten or so letters after the meadow details before the vertical score delimiting the inner edge of the column (folio 248c). This may have been for the later inclusion of another resource such as a mill or a fishery, or he might have pref
erred to give the woodland details on a new line. He left a similar space in Sheriffhales (8,5).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [VALUE ***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday may have intended to return later to insert the value statement after the details of woodland, which do not occupy the whole line.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 
AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the column (folio 248c), room for about seven lines of text, before beginning the large fief of Robert of Stafford (STS 11) at the top of the next column (folio 248d).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11\tab LAND OF ROBERT OF STAFFORD. }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
He was the younger son of Roger of Tosny and brother of the Domesday tenant-in-chief Ralph of Tosny, who himself was the standard-bearer of Normandy at the battle of Hastings. The family came from Tosny in the French d\'e9
partement of Eure (arrondissement Les Andelys, canton Gaillon-Campagne). In Normandy Robert founded the Abbey of Conches, also known as St Peter's }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 de Castellione}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
. In Domesday he is known as Robert of Stafford to distinguish him from a relative Robert of Tosny who was lord of Belvoir in Leicestershire. His estates descended in his family and formed the barony of Stafford. See Keats-Rohan, }{
\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 381. On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 In Staffordshire he had more extensive estates than an
y other holder. His estate of Bradley (11,6) with its many appendages gave him a vast tract of territory near the borough of Stafford; he held 54 messuages in the borough and had part of its revenue (B6-7;12). There is no reason to think, however, that he
 was Earl of Stafford. The first earl with that title took office in 1351.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab In this chapter the estates held in lordship (11,1-7) are entered first, then those that were subinfeudated. The order of those hundreds that appear in both halves is the same:
\par \tab \tab 11,1 Pirehill Hundred}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 11,2-4 Totmonslow Hundred}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 11,5-6 [Cuttlestone Hundred]}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 11,7 Robert's revenue from the borough of Stafford}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ___________________________________________
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 11,8-33 Pirehill Hundred}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 11,34-42 Totmonslow Hundred (the heading is at the end of 11,34, but appears to\tab \tab \tab \tab govern it).}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 11,43-46 Seisdon Hundred
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 11,47-50 [Offlow Hundred]}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 11,51-68 Cuttlestone Hundred.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,1\tab TILLINGTON. This was an extra-parochial area which became a separate Civil Parish in 1858; see Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 426. VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 49, places it in the parish of Stafford St Mary. In 1086 it lay in Pirehill Hundred as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 4; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab After 1086, Tillington descended within the barony of Stafford; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 544, 967, 974; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 4. It seems to have been regarded as a member of the manor of Bradley; see 11,6 Bradley note.}{\insrsid5780933 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Tillington has now become a suburb of Stafford but was represented by Tillington Cottage
 (SJ9124), Tillington Ley (SJ9025) and Tillington House (SJ9025) on the first series Ordnance Survey map (sheet 72 of 1836, reprinted as sheet 34 in 1970).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THOLF. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tol}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Toul}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tolf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tou}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Toulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tof}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Thol}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tholfr}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tholf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 389-90. Some of the people named Tholf in the present edition appear as Tholfr, Tulf and Toli in some of the Phillimore printed translations; these have now been standardized as Tholf. The Alecto edition has Tholf.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,2\tab TOTMONSLOW. In the manuscript this hundred is clearly }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 TAMENASLAV}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, as it is the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile, however, it appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 TAMENISLAV}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; on other mi
sleading reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab TEAN. The Domesday estate is represented by Lower Tean and Upper Tean which were settlements in Checkley Ancient Parish. In 1086 Tean lay in Totmonslow Hundred as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 280.}{
\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see}{\i\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 966.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFGEAT. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFMER. On this name, see 1,62 Wulfmer note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH 3 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('and') before the number of ploughs, but then erased it and interlined }{\i\f710\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 c\'fb}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . The ink of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 iii.
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is dark, so he may have overwritten it at the same time.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab VALUE 30s. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 id'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  of }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 solid'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  over an erasure. He could not provide the }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  value, however.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,3\tab GRINDON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 14; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 966, 974. In }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 543, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Blore}{\insrsid5780933  [Blore, 11,40] and }{\i\insrsid5780933 Grenedun'}{\insrsid5780933  [Grindon] and }{\i\insrsid5780933 Adlacston'}{\insrsid5780933 
 [Ellastone, 11,39] are all held by William de Audley from the barony of Stafford.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE THIRD PART OF 1 HIDE. It would be expected that the other two-thirds would appear. However, of the nearest estates to Grindon, that is, Warslow (8,29), Sheen (1,51), Al
stonefield (8,28) and Stanshope (1,52), the assessment is missing from Warslow, Sheen is waste and assessed only at 'land for 2 or 1 ploughs', Alstonefield consists of 3 virgates and Stanshope is also waste and is assessed only at 'land for 1, or 2, ploug
hs'.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFGEAT. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,4\tab CAULDON. This was a chapelry of Ilam Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 14; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 28. The connection with Ilam, c
oncealed in Domesday under Okeover (4,8), may originate from the fact that Okeover, Ilam and Cauldon were all granted to Burton Abbey in the will of Wulfric Spot (1002 x 1004), see 4,8 Okeover note. However, Cauldon either did not reach the abbey or was s
ubsequently alienated and after 1086 descended within the barony of Stafford; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 966, 974.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In later times Burton Abbey held Waterfall (SK0851), 2 bovates, adjacent to its land at Ilam. Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History' p. 168
, regarded it as a Domesday omission, but it possibly originated as a grant out of Cauldon; see Bridgeman, 'Unidentified Domesday Vills', p. 44. However, it is more likely to have been part of the royal manor of Rocester (1,17) of which it was a chapelry;
 see 1,17 dependencies note. It was given to Burton Abbey in the twelfth century by Aschetill }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 dispensator}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('the bursar'); see Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', p. 21 (= Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 225); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 202.}{\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODIVA <OF MADELEY>. On the name Godiva, see 4,2 Godiva note. On the possible identification by JP, see 8,21 Godiva note. See also 11,37 Godiva note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,5\tab [IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED]. This head is supplied from the presumed location of Brough Hall (11,5) and Bradley (11,6).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BROUGH HALL. The Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bughale}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . Like }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Halstone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  to which it belonged, it was left unidentified but located in Totmonslow Hundred by }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{
\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 37. Eyton rejected the view of Erdeswick, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Survey of Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , 
that the place was Brough Hall, but his reasons were not compelling. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 167, suggested that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bughale}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was an error for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rugehal}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 e, that is, Rownall (SJ9549). }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
Bridgeman and Mander, 'Staffordshire Hidation',}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  pp. 157-58, a
nd Bridgeman, 'Unidentified Domesday Vills', p. 44, resurrected Brough Hall from Erdeswick. Philologically, there is not a serious problem with the identification if it is assumed that Domesday }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Bughale}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is an error for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Burghale}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, i. p. 155. Brough Hall was a settlement in Gnosall Ancient Parish. Like Gnosall itself (7,18) it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WHICH BELONGS TO HAUGHTON. Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 167, suggested that this was Alton, but Alton appears in Domesday as }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Elvetone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (1,54). On the identification with Haughton, see Bridgeman, 'Unidentified Domesday Vills', p. 41. For Haughton, see 11,52.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFMER. On this name, see 1,62 Wulfmer note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,6\tab BRADLEY. This was an Ancient Parish sometimes known as Bradley or Bradeley near Stafford or Bradley or Bradeley by Stafford. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }
{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 2, 17; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282. See also B6.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 
The manor of Bradley corresponded to Bradley Ancient Parish, but also with the township of Castle Church which was part of the Ancient Parish of Stafford St Mary. Burton (11,6), 'Silkmore' (11,6), Rickerscote (11,67) and "Monetvile" (11,68) were in 
Castle Church which was named from the castle of the Stafford barony which was constructed on one of these lands, possibly in "Monetvile"; see 11,68 "Monetvile" note. Bradley and its members (11,6) together with Rickerscote and "Monetvile" (11,67-68) made
 
a 20-hide unit, and formed the later Liberty of Bradley. This was Robert of Stafford's principal manor in the shire and his castle, not mentioned in Domesday, was built on a part of its lands. This castle may have been on the same site as King William's '
destroyed' castle and the one held by William Pandolf for the king against Robert of Bell\'eame in 1102; see \{Introduction: Castles\}and 10,9 Stafford note.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This castle is represented by the remains of a motte and bailey castle (at SJ901221). It contained a chapel; see Wrottesley, 'Plea Rolls temp. Henry III', p. 113; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. p. 95. The advowson of this chapel had originally belonged to the royal free chapel of St Mary in Stafford, but was given in the reign of Henry II by Robert of Stafford to Stone Priory; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, i. p. 355, v. p. 84. The castle with its chapel named the township of Castle Church. The estate was called 'Castell' by 1208 and known as Stafford Manor or Forebridge or Castle-near-Stafford or Castle Manor; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. p. 86. The area near the Meece Brook which would be crossed by those passing the castle and arriving at Stafford from the west is now known as Castletown.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate with many of its members descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. p. 2; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. pp. 76-77.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 
WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. This phrase is often used in Domesday without specifying the dependencies. However, in this instance, they appear to be the same as the 'outliers' and 'members' and to be listed beginning with Barton.
\par \tab \tab Bradley is a rare example in Staffordshire of a multiple estate. It remained a large manor with many members, although with some change of composition. In 1372 the members were Barton (11,6); Billington (11,6); Longnor (11,6); Shre
dicote (SJ8716, not named in Domesday; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, iv. p. 77); Woollaston (11,6) with Castle Forebridge (SJ9123, not named in Domesday); tenements in Stafford (B6); Tillington (11,1); Coppenhall (11,63), including The Hyde (represented by Hyde L
ea, SJ9119) and Butterhill (SJ8919, not named in Domesday); Dunston (1,7); and Stretton (11,57); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, iv. p. 76. Of these, Tillington and Dunston seem to have been added to the manor after 1086. Stretton and Coppenhall (11,57;63) were, ho
wever, held by subtenants and may well have been part of the manor in 1086, though separated from it by the division of this chapter between land in lordship and land subinfeudated. This same division of material seems to have separated Rickerscote and "M
onetvile" (11,67-68) from their parent manor. A further member was probably Reule, represented by Upper Reule (SJ8420) and Lower Reule (SJ8419); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 82.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL EDWIN. See 8,5 Edwin note, and on the name Edwin, see 7,13 Edwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 
IN BRADLEY 1 HIDE ONLY. This is a commentary on the previously mentioned 'land for 44 ploughs'. That figure is the total capacity of the multiple estate, whereas the hidage is distributed among the dependencies.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab A MILL. It was possibly situated near marshland in 'Holney', in Reule, more precisely near Reulemill pools (SJ842190) in Lower Reule; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 84.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BARTON. The Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bernertone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{
\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 35, left it unidentified, but judged it to be near Bradley. }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 49, following }
{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 169,}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  identified it as Barton. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
This Barton was a settlement in Bradley Ancient Parish. Place-names in Barton usually develop from Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 bere}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 tun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , but }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 134, accepts that the derivation must be different, though itself uncertain. Later forms are }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Becterton}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (1242), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bertherton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (1305-1423) and variants. }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Berton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  occurs first in 1472 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Barton}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in 1695. It seems that an obscure name has been assimilated to a well-known one. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. p. 2 (where the form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bertherton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 77. It is represented by Upper Barton and Lower Barton (both at SJ8718).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab APETON. This was a settlement now in the Civil Parish of Church Eaton, the successor to the Ancient Parish of that name. However, Alstone (in Bradley Anc
ient Parish) and Apeton were regarded as a division of Bradley Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Historic Parishes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. Apeton lies close to the boundary of Bradley Ancient Parish; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 134. It probably lay in Cuttlestone 
Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 974; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 116.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LITTYWOOD. This was a settlement in Bradley Ancient Parish; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 135. Like Bradley itself (11,6) it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 77.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BILLINGTON. This was a settlement in Bradley Ancient Parish; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 135. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 2; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This estate descended within the barony of Stafford see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 2, 10; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 77. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 2, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Billington}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is coupled with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bradeleg}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Bradley, 11,6], }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Mutton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Mitton, 11,6], and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 La Hide}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 [probably represented by Hyde Lea, SJ9120].}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab BURTON. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 This was a settlement in the chapelry of Castle Church in the Ancient Parish of Stafford St Mary; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 75. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 967; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 88.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 'SILKMORE'. This was a settlement in the chapelry of Castle Church in the Ancient Parish of Stafford St Mary; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 75. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086. It has now been a
bsorbed by the growth of Stafford and is represented only by Silkmore Lane, Silkmore Drain and Silkmore Crescent. Silkmore and Silkmore Farm appear on the first series Ordnance Survey map (sheet 72 of 1836, reprinted as sheet 34 in 1970).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 89.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LONGNOR. This was a settlement in Bradley Ancient Parish; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, i. p. 136. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 2; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282.
\par \tab \tab This estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 544, 967; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 2; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 77.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab MITTON. This was a township of Penkridge Ancient Parish; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Place-Names of Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, i. p. 86. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 2, 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282. Mitton itself, Upper Mitton Farm and Lower Mitton Farm are all at SJ8815.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 966; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 2; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 116.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALSTONE. This was a settlement in Bradley Ancient Parish; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 133. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 16.}{
\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On the modern map Alstone and Alstone Hall Farm are at SJ8518; Lower Alstone, Alstone Farm and Alstone Cottages are at SJ8618.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WOOLLASTON. Lower Woollaston (SJ8516) and Upper Woollaston (SJ8515) were settlements in Bradley Ancient Parish; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Place-Names of Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 137. Woollaston probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 77.}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,7\tab [* BOROUGH *]. This entry concludes the lordship of Robert of Stafford, by giving his revenue from the borough of Stafford. There is no reas
on to think that Stafford lay in any hundred; see B1 Stafford note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab IN THE CENTRAL MARGIN next to this entry is a small cross written in pale black ink; see 8,19 Stafford note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab STAFFORD. The borough is surveyed on the first folio of the county, folio 246a (B1-12).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab 70s FROM HALF OF THE KING'S PART. See B12 part note.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,8\tab WALTON. This was a township of Stone Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Historic Parishes}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . In 1086 it lay in Pirehill Hundred as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 4, 12; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 544, 967, 974. In }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 4, it is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Waleton juxta Stanes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('Walton near Stone').}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Walton has greatly expanded in recent years, but the nineteenth-century centre was at SJ899330: Ordnance Survey map sheet 72 of 1836, reprinted as sheet 34 in 1970.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ARNOLD <OF WALTON> HOLDS. Arnold's son, Enisan of Walton, gave the church of Stone with some land in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Waletone}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  to Geoffrey de Clinton under Henry I; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, ii. p. 259 no. 1744; Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary II', pp. 199-210; }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 49 note 18. See also Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, p. 191, who also has a reference to the Arnold of WOR 17,1.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ernald}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ernold}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Arnald}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] - represent Old German }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Arnald, Arnold}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Arnolt}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  etc:}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 33-34. For the only occurrence of this name as a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  holder (KEN 5,203), von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 248, gives the Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ernald}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. The Alecto edition has Arnold, except for KEN 5,203 and DEV 23,4 (Ernald).}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab A PRIEST. His church may have been at Stone; see }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 172}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 . There had been a secular college at Stone }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 c}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 . 670, and a pre-Conquest establishment for nuns. An Augustinian priory was established there }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 c}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 . 1135; see Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Medieval Religious Houses}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 483.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab AKI, A FREE MAN, HELD IT. On the name Aki, see 1,35 Aki note. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 lib}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ho}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 mo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
], perhaps at a later stage, though the pen and ink are very similar to those of the rest of the entry; see 8,24 free note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HE GAVE 1 CARUCATE OF THIS LAND TO HIS SISTER. This carucate might be new land, obtained by clearance of woodland or scrub, or it m
ight be waste land whose former hidage was unknown; see 1,5 carucate note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Aki's sister may have been connected with the community of nuns established at Walton at about this time; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Monasticon Anglicanum}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , vi (I). p. 226; }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 49 note 20. On the gift, see }{\insrsid5780933 Fleming, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Domesday Book and the Law}{
\insrsid5780933 , p. 240 no. 1471.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,9\tab ASTON[-BY-STONE]. This was a settlement in Stone Ancient Parish and was sometimes known as plain Aston. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 3, 12; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278. For other parts, see 1,47. 11,23. On modern maps Aston is represented by Aston Farm (SJ912314), Aston Hall (SJ915317) and Aston House (SJ913319).}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab For the possibility that land granted in 957 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 aet Eastun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was at this Aston, see 12,25 Barr note.}
{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 544, 967, 974; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 10. In three of these sources,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
it is coupled with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Burexton'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Boreyeleston'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  or }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bureweston}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Burston, SJ9330] presumably a member.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 
STOKE. Stoke, including Stoke Grange (both SJ9133) and Little Stoke (SJ9132), were settlements in Stone Ancient Parish. They probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 with other parts of the later Ancient Parish; see 1,40 Fulford no
te. Stoke is sometimes known as Stoke-by-Stone to distinguish it from Stoke-upon-Trent.
\par \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7 Stoca}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, but did not rubricate it, probably because it was a subordinate holding rather than that it was added after the county had been rubricated.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab MEADOW. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 p'ti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 over an erasure, perhaps of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 sil'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  as there would not have been room for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 silu\'ea }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ('of woodland') in full. Although he had already given the woodland, his source may have detailed
 the meadow before the woodland. In the central margin level with it he had probably jotted down the replacement word and then erased it when he had inserted }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 p'ti}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . On these marginal notes, see 1,56 carucate note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THREE PARTS OF 1 HIDE. There is a further 
hide at Aston-by-Stone (11,23) and a virgate (coupled with a carucate) at 1,47. If the 'three parts' are in fact three-quarters, as they are frequently in Great Domesday (compare 11,30 parts note), they make up a second hide here}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab CADIO <OF ASTON> HOLDS. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cadio}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gadio}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cadiou}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 - probably represent the Breton diminutive name }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cadio}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cadiou}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , which derives from the word }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 cad}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('combat'), the owner of the name being either 'a minor fighter' or 'not very aggressive': Dauzat, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dictionnaire des Noms et Pr\'e9noms de France}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, under Cadiou (2). The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Cadio, Cadiou, Gadio; these have now been standardized as Cadio. The Alecto edition has Cadio, except for OXF 27,7, where it has Gadio, reflecting th
e Domesday form, though, as Gadio was a subtenant of Robert of Stafford, like Cadio here and in 11,10, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gadio}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is probably a scribal error for 
}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cadio}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . The only other occurrences of this name in Domesday are as a subtenant of Baldwin the sheriff in DEV 16,16 a
nd of Count Alan in LIN 12,47, almost certainly different people.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,10\tab 'LITTLE SANDON'. It is}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
 no longer known as such. Since Cadio held it, it probably adjoined his Aston-by-Stone and Stoke holdings, north-east of modern Sandon. Sandon}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 may therefore be the Domesday 'Little Sandon' (}{
\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 parua Sandone}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ), and Sandon Hall the site of Domesday Sandon (1,13) (JRM); }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 49 note 23. Despite his note, JRM located Sandon at SJ9524 and 'Little Sandon' at SJ9429, which does not lie to the north-east of Sandon.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
'Little Sandon' lay in Sandon Ancient Parish and like Sandon itself (1,13) it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086. However, there is no other evidence of its location. In Sandon Ancient Parish there are the village of Sandon, an isolat
ed church, a moated site which was Sandon Old Hall and Sandon Hall. There is also a Sandy Leys Farm at }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 SJ949310 which may or may not be a 'Sandon' name. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
One of these may have been 'Little Sandon' or its site may have entirely disappeared; see 1,13 Sandon note}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab CADIO <OF ASTON> HOLDS. See 11,9 Cadio note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALWIN. On this name-form, see 1,45 Alwin note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ^[ANOTHER]^ ALWIN. On this name-form, see 1,45 Alwin note. The succeeding statement that 'two of them were free' means that there were two }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 holders called Alwin, rather than that Alwin had held two parts of 'Little Sandon'.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WIHTRIC <OF SUNDON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wihtric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wictric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wicstricus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wistricus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wistrinc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Witric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wihtric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Pers
onal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 414. In the Phillimore printed translation for DBY 6,7 and for BRK 31,6 the form Wictric was used; it has been standardized for the present edition. The Alecto edition has Wihtric.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Note on his identification to be supplied (JP).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab COULD NOT LEAVE WITH HIS LAND. In other words he was tied to his lord and could not commend himself to another, in contrast to the two holders called Alwin.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,11\tab HOPTON. This was part of Hopton and Coton township of the Ancient Parish of Stafford St Mary. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 3, 12; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 544, 966, 974; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 3.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALWARD HELD THEM. On this name-form, see 1,36 Alward note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab A WOOD OF MEDIUM-SIZE [TREES]. }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 The Latin }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 silua modica}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  is infr
equent in Domesday. It occurs in CHS 8,43. DOR 3,7;9. SHR 4,3,21. STS 11,11. 13,4. SOM 1,26. 5,12;17. YKS 5W30. 25W9. 28W33. }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Silua pastilis modica}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  is found in YKS 3Y10-11. }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
Ibi modicum siluae}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  occurs in CHS 2,23 and }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 siluae minutae modicum}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  in NTT 1,10.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The use of }{\i\insrsid5780933 modicum}{\insrsid5780933  as a substantival adjective should be distinguished from that of }{\i\insrsid5780933 modica}{\insrsid5780933 , simply used adjectively. The former (}{\i\insrsid5780933 
modicum}{\insrsid5780933 ), followed by a partitive genitive means 'a modest or moderate amount of' and is in a sequence with such uses as }{\i\insrsid5780933 siluae aliquantulum}{\insrsid5780933  ('some small quantity of woodland') in GLS 30,3, }{
\i\insrsid5780933 siluae minutae aliquantulum}{\insrsid5780933  ('some small quantity of underwood') in NTT 1,3, }{\i\insrsid5780933 paululum siluae}{\insrsid5780933  ('very little woodland') in HEF 9,3 and }{\i\insrsid5780933 parum silvae minutae}{
\insrsid5780933  ('a small amount of underwood') in DBY 1,32;34.2,2. 6,60;80;94. 9,1;4. 10,18. 17,15-16.
\par \tab \tab On the other hand,}{\i\insrsid5780933  modica}{\insrsid5780933 , like }{\i\insrsid5780933 minuta}{\insrsid5780933 , seems to refer to the size of the trees. That }{\i\insrsid5780933 minuta}{\insrsid5780933 
 has this meaning is shown firstly by the occasional appearance of separate details for }{\i\insrsid5780933 silua}{\insrsid5780933  and for }{\i\insrsid5780933 silua minuta}{\insrsid5780933  in
 the same entry (for example in DEV 1,3;43. 12,1. DOR 3,13. SOM 5,16. 8,1); secondly, by the fact that the dimensions of }{\i\insrsid5780933 silua}{\insrsid5780933  and of }{\i\insrsid5780933 silua minuta}{\insrsid5780933 
 cover the same range and the extent of some }{\i\insrsid5780933 siluae minutae}{\insrsid5780933  is large as in DEV 1,43. 52,34 where in each case a }{\i\insrsid5780933 silua minuta}{\insrsid5780933  is 1 league by \'bd league; many }{\i\insrsid5780933 
siluae}{\insrsid5780933  are measured in small numbers of acres. In SOM 5,17 there is a }{\i\insrsid5780933 silua modica}{\insrsid5780933  \'bd league by \'bd league and in the same entry there is a }{\i\insrsid5780933 silua }{\insrsid5780933 
1 furlong by 1 furlong. Moreover, in three entries for which there are corresponding entries in the }{\i\insrsid5780933 Liber Exoniensis}{\insrsid5780933  (Exon), that is, SOM 1,26. 5,12;17 (= Exon folios 113a, 140a, 141a) the term used in Exon is }{
\i\insrsid5780933 nemusculum}{\insrsid5780933 , which was more normally converted to }{\i\insrsid5780933 silua minuta}{\insrsid5780933  by the main scribe of Great Domesday (on over 70 occasions in Somerset alone). The }{\i\insrsid5780933 Liber Exoniensis
}{\insrsid5780933  also contains two entries relating to the same estate of Abbas Combe (SOM 4,1). In one of them (Exon folio 467a) an Exon scribe uses }{\i\insrsid5780933 nemusculum}{\insrsid5780933 
, in the other (Exon folio 153b) which was written by the main scribe of Great Domesday, }{\i\insrsid5780933 silua minuta}{\insrsid5780933  is used.
\par \tab \tab Theoretically }{\i\insrsid5780933 minuta}{\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\insrsid5780933 modica}{\insrsid5780933  have different meanings ('small', 'thin' for th
e first, 'of moderate, medium, average size' for the second). However, since it is unlikely that the main scribe of Great Domesday was able to find out whether any particular }{\i\insrsid5780933 nemusculum}{\insrsid5780933 
 had small trees in it or medium-size ones, it looks as if the two terms are equivalent. They have, however, here been distinguished in translation, }{\i\insrsid5780933 silua minuta}{\insrsid5780933  as 'underwood' and }{\i\insrsid5780933 silua modica}{
\insrsid5780933  as 'a wood of medium-size[trees]'.
\par \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 86, refers }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 modica}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 to the size of the trees, suggesting that they are larger than 'underwood' but not full grown. }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 49, translates }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 silua modica}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 as ' Wood(land) of small trees', but this was altered for t}{\insrsid5780933 he Alecto edition to 'scrubland', }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 its usual translation of }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 silua minuta }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
(translated in Phillimore by 'underwood').}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\insrsid5780933 The Phillimore printed edition has 'a small wood', the translation usually reserved for }{\i\insrsid5780933 silua parua}{\insrsid5780933 , where the }{\i\insrsid5780933 
parua}{\insrsid5780933  describes the extent of the woodland, not the size of the trees in it (see SHR 4,1,4 wood note).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GILBERT <OF ASTON> HOLDS. The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gislebertus }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (often abbreviated as }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gisleb't'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), represents Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gisilbert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gislebert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gillebert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gilbert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gislebert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 l}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 )}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
ebert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 115-16. The Alecto edition has Gilbert.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This man is probably the father of a Robert and a William and of Ilbert Fitz Gilbert, also known as Ilbert of Tean, named from Tean (11,2) alth
ough Gilbert did not hold it in 1086; see Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary II', p. 217; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 215. She has four references to folio 248d, but Gilbert was Robert of Stafford's subtenant only in 11,11-13 on this folio, though he was also his subtenant in 11,53. }{\insrsid5780933 
It is possible that, despite her assertion on p. 121 ('Several references to the same folio may be given, but each will relate to a separate occurrence of the subject in the Domesday text'), the extra reference is to}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Robert's holding in Cheswardine and Chipnall (11,13), as would also seem to be the case for her three references to this folio for Robert's subtenant Brian (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 171, under Briend) in 11,15-16.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 215, does not includ
e the Gilbert who was Robert of Stafford's subtenant in Middle Aston (OXF 27,10), although this was held by the only other Gilbert on the 116 tenanted holdings of Robert of Stafford (JP).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,12\tab SALT. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Stafford St Mary. In the time of Queen Elizabeth I it was combined with Enson (1,43) to form a single township; see Youngs, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 423. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 3, 12; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 544, 966, 974; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 3.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab BISHOP LEOFWIN. He was Bishop of Lichfield 1053-1067 (JRM). He was presumably holding his part of this joint tenure in a personal capacity.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Leuuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Leuuine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lefuuinus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Leuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Liuuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] etc. - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Leofwine}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 317-19. JRM preferred the second element -win for Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -wine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 as it is closer to the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Leofwine.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab ORDMER. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ormar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ordmaer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ormer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ordmer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ordmar }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
- represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ordm\'e6r}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 336. JRM preferred the second element -mer for Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -m\'e6r}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  as it reflected most of the Domesday spellings. The Alecto edition has Ordm\'e6r.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab THESE. }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Has}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 referring to the hides (JRM). The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Phillimore printed edition has 'them'.}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 
BUT THE KING HAD THE FULL JURISDICTION OF THIS ORDMER. Full jurisdiction ('sake and soke') normally applies to the relationship of a lord to his land, and by extension to his tenants. It is possible that the scribe has mechanically written }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 sacam 7 socam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  instead of plain }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 socam}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('jurisdiction', 'soke'), and that this man was subject to the king's jurisdiction. This jurisdiction was perhaps exercised in the royal borough of Stafford itself. On 'full jurisdiction
', see B11 jurisdiction note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab AND 2 [***]. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7 ii. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
and then left a space before giving the mill details. The '2' may be the number of slaves or of another category of population and he may have hoped to add the ploughs of the 'villagers' too, despite the size of the gap.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,13\tab CHESWARDINE AND CHIPNALL. Because of the order of estates here and on geographical grounds, it seems probable that both were in Pirehill Hundred in 1086. }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Cheswardine later became an Ancient Parish in Shropshire and Chipnall a township within it. Both estates passed into Henry I's hands, then to Henry II under whom they were granted to John }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Le Strange }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Extraneus}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ) and probably at about the same time were moved from Pirehill Hundred, Staffordshire, to Bradford Hundred, Shropshire; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Shropshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iii p. 49; and 
\{Introduction: County Boundary\}.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The manor of Cheswardine, like Ness (SHR 4,1,17) with which it is associated in }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 146, continued to be held by the Lestrange family; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Rotuli Hundredorum}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 58; }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 964; }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. pp. 222, 237; Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Antiquities of Shropshire}
{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , x. p. 28; Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 7. The }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Bradford Hundred Roll}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  (p. 114) gives the members of the manor as }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Magna Sowdeley }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 and }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Parva Sowdeley }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 (Great and Little Soudley, SJ7128, SJ7228 respectively), }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Westumscete }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
(Westcott? SJ7028), }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Chepernoll' }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 (Chipnall) and }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Hull }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ('Hill Hall', SJ7230 on the first edition Ordnance Survey one-inch map, now Cheswardine Hall). }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Little Soutley }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 is held from John son of Roger Lestrange in }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. no. 200, and }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Cheseworthyn }{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 and }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Westanescote }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 in }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, vi. no. 439. For an extent of Cheswardine (with half of Childs Ercall, SHR 4,3,23), taken in 1280, see Fletcher, 'Extent of the Manor of Cheswardine', pp. 361-67.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GILBERT <OF ASTON>. See 11,11 Gilbert note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODIVA <OF MADELEY> HELD IT. On the name Godiva, see 4,2 Godiva note. On the possible identification by JP, see 8,21 Godiva note. See also 11,37 Godiva note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab TO ST CHAD'S CHURCH. That is, to the cathedral church at Lichfield; see STS 2 Bishop note and \{Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\}.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
 This probably indicates that this was church land leased to Godiva, but subsequently alienated.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,14\tab [HIGH] OFFLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 11; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford, being held from it by the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Halcton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Halghton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Haughton] family; see}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 544, 967, 974; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 3 (}
{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hosyleye}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ). It is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alta Offyleye}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 11.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab "URFER" <OF HAUGHTON> HOLDS. It is not certain what name is represented by the Domesday form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vrfer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, which only occurs as the name of a 1086 subtenant of Robert of Stafford here (11,14;51-52) and in WAR 22,24. It is not in Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . The Alecto edition has Urfer.
\par \tab \tab The Warwickshire "Urfer" is probably the same individual as the Staffordshire one. He has been 'identified' as <of Haughton> because his holdings in 11,51-52 (the latter in Haughton) were later held b
y the Haughton family, as was the present estate.
\par \tab \tab See also WAR 22,24 "Urfer" note (JP).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFRIC HELD. On the name Wulfric, see 1,44 Wulfric note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab WOODLAND HAS [IS]. See 1,7 woodland note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,15\tab STANDON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 3, 11; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 967, 974. In }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 967, it is held with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Weston' }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
[Weston, 11,16]}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab RUDGE. This was a settlement in Eccleshall Ancient Parish. Like Eccleshall itself (2,10) it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BRIAN <OF RAUCEBY> HOLDS. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Brien}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Brienus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Briend}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Brienz}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent the Breton surname }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Briand}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Briant}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : Dauzat, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Dictionnaire des Noms et Pr\'e9noms de France}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. JRM preferred the modern form Brian. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Brian, Bryant; these have now been standardized as Brian. The Alecto edition has Brian.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab A Brian is also Robert of Stafford's subtenant in 11,16;66 and in WAR 22,16 and is called Robert's man in LIN 59,14 (Rauceby) and 59,15.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\insrsid5780933 The name Brian occurs without a byname on a dozen holdings in Domesday Book. Given the uncommon name and the geographical and tenuri
al patterns, there were probably three individuals bearing the name, the tenant of Robert of Stafford, ancestor of the de Stanton family, being one of them. See also Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 171 (JP).}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab SIWARD. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Siuuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Seuuard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Seuuar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Seiard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Seiar }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
- represent either Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Sigeweard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  or, probably in most of the Danelaw counties, the Old Danish }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Sigwarth}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 361-63. JRM preferred the form Siward as it is in regular use. The Alecto edition also has Siward.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HELD. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 tenuit}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  over an erasure. Level with
 it in the central margin is also an erasure, almost certainly of a note jotted down concerning this correction. On these marginal notes, see 1,56 carucate note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab A GROVE. Apart from in Domesday Oxfordshire, where it occurs in 16 entries, Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 graua}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('a g
rove') occurs only here and once each in Hampshire and Warwickshire (HAM 4,1. WAR 29,1). Normally two dimensions are given, except here and in HAM 4,1 and OXF 6,13. 35,23. Woodland is not recorded in any of the entries containing 'a grove'. The Phillimore
 printed edition translates }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 graua}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  as 'copse', but that implies that the trees in it were coppiced, whereas }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 graua}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is merely a relatively small wood. The Alecto edition has 'grove'.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,16\tab WESTON. This was a settlement in Standon Ancient Parish. Like Standon itself (11,15), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 4. There }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Weston}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is held from Robert }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Standon}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  who holds from the barony of Stafford; see also }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 967; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 4.
\par \tab \tab Weston is represented by Weston Hall (SJ803367), Weston House Farm (SJ806365), Weston House Cottages (SJ808364).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BRIAN <OF RAUCEBY> HOLDS. See 11,15 Brian note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODWIN HELD. On this name, see 8,19 Godwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab VILLAGERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 uill'i}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  over 
an erasure: he probably originally wrote another category of population here, perhaps }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 bord'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('smallholders') and discovered this during checking.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,17\tab MAER. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 4, 11; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279.
\par \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 544, 967, 974. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 4, it is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 More juxta Weston}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , that is, near Weston (SJ8036).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFGEAT HOLDS. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,18\tab SWYNNERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 3, 11; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.
\par \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 544, 967, 974;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 3.
\par \tab \tab No church is mentioned here in Domesday, but in a deed of 1155 x 1159 one is mentioned as subject to the priory of Stone; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Chartulary III', p. 185.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ASLEN HOLDS. This name only occurs here; it is not clear what name is represented by the Domesday form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aslen}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , unless it is a corrupt or abbreviated form of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aselinus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (= Ascelin). The Alecto edition has Aslen.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BROTHIR <OF OAKEN> HELD. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Broder}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Brodre}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Brodor}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Brotho}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Brothir}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 208. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Broder and Brother; these have now been standardized as Brothir. The Alecto edition has Brothir.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Brothir was also Robert of Stafford's predecessor in Patshull (11,44) and Oaken (11,45).}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\insrsid5780933 The name occurs seven times in Domesday Book and was probably borne by four individuals. The Staffordshire holdings were probably held by one man. Apart from the
 rarity of the name and the descent of all three properties to a single tenant-in-chief, two also devolved upon the same tenant and were a few miles apart, while the third, Swynnerton, was about twenty miles from them, though still within easy reach (JP).
}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,19\tab NORTON[-IN-THE-MOORS]. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 3, 12; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 544, 967, 974. In}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 3, it is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Norton super le Mores}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab IN [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. It is not certain what or where these were.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODRIC AND WULFGEAT HELD THEM AND THEY WERE FREE. The manuscript has }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Godric' 7 Vluiet tenuer' lib'iq; fuer'}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , the semi-colon abbreviation mark after the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 q}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  indicating the enclitic }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -que}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 meaning 'and'. Farley misread this abbreviation sign as an elongated 3-shape and left a space before it, which led to the translation in the Phillimore printed edition 'who were free', as it had previously in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 50. The main scribe of Great Domesday used both these abbreviation marks after a }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 q }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 for an omitted }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ue}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 in words such as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 usque}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('until'), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 neque}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('nor') etc. but he did not abbreviate the relative pronoun }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 qui}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. The Alecto edition has 'and they were free'. On other of Farley's rare errors in this county, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On the name Godric, see 5,2 Godric note. On the name Wulfgeat, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,20\tab MADELEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 3, 11; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 279. The Domesday name is represented by Madeley (SJ775443), formerly Great Madeley, Little Madeley (SJ7
78453), Middle Madeley (SJ775451), Madeley Heath (SJ783457) and Madeley Manor (SJ775459). The remains of Old Madeley Manor are marked at SJ772422. JRM appears to be in error in saying (note to 11,37 in the Phillimore printed edition) that Madeley Holme wa
s also known as Little Madeley; see 11,37 Madeley note.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Three }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 mansae}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  at }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Madanlieg}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  were granted in 975 by King Edgar to Bishop Aethelwold of Winchester: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 95-97 no. 88 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 
, no. 801). The bounds are more or less those of the parish. Lands granted by King Edgar to Bishop Aethelwold were usually employed to found monasteries or to amplify the endowments of monasteries. The intended destination of this land is unknown. Domesda
y only records 1 hide here, though there was land for 4 ploughs.
\par \tab \tab Robert of Stafford held two places called Madeley}{\cf11\insrsid5780933  }{\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\insrsid5780933 Madelie}{\insrsid5780933 
): the present one in Pirehill Hundred (11,20) and one in Totmonslow Hundred (11,37). The order of Domesday Book allows them to be distinguished. Both holdings descended }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
within the barony of Stafford. For the present Madeley, held by the barony of Stafford in Pirehill Hundred, see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 967, 974;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 3. The other Madeley was held by the Bassets under the de Staffords in Totmonslow Hundred.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFGEAT HOLDS. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab SWEIN HELD IT. On this name, see 1,48 Swein note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,21\tab THE THIRD PART OF 1 HIDE. The other two-thirds are probably at Bucknall (1,34) and Burslem (11,22), both of which are adjacent to the present holding.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [ABBEY] HULTON. This was a settlement in Burslem chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 3.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 974; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 3; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, viii. p. 249. It was among the gifts of a subtenant of the barony, Henry de Audley, to the abbey that he founded here; see \{Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\}
. A further gift by Henry de Audley was of Bucknall, probably not of the royal estate there (1,34), which had a different holder, but perhaps of a portion that was an unnamed part of (Abbey) Hulton in Domesday.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 'RUSHTON'. This was a settlement in Burslem which was itself a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 3. 'Rushton' is represented by Rushton Grange.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 974; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 3; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, viii. p. 116. Like Hulton, it was among the gifts of a subtenant of the barony, Henry de Audley, to the abbey that he founded there; see \{Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\}.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFGEAT HOLDS. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,22\tab THE THIRD PART OF 1 HIDE. There is a further third of a hide at Abbey Hulton and 'Rushton' (11,21) and a further third at Bucknall (1,34), making a full hide. All these places are adjacent.
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BURSLEM. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 3.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 967, 974; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 3; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , viii. p. 116.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALWARD HELD IT. On this name-form, see 1,36 Alward note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALDER-GROVE, 2 ACRES. There are only six occurrences of Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 alnetum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 and one of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 silua alnorum }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 in Domesday; where dimensions are given they are always in terms of acres
. The pliancy of alder wood make it ideal for basket-making among other things.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFGEAT HELD IT. The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 holder has already been given as Alward, so it is possible that Wulfgeat was the 1086 subtenant and that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 tenuit}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('he held') should read }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 tenet }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
('he holds'). Wulfgeat is a 1086 holder in 11,20. This is particularly likely, as in this section of Robert of Stafford's fief, the scribe was dealing with subinfeudations.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,23\tab ASTON[-BY-STONE]. This was a settleme
nt in Stone Ancient Parish and was sometimes known as plain Aston. Stone is not mentioned in Domesday, but several members of the Ancient Parish are; see 1,40 Fulford note. Aston-by-Stone probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 3, 12; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278. For other parts, see 1,47. 11,9. On modern maps Aston-by-Stone is represented by Aston Farm (SJ912314), Aston Hall (SJ915317) and Aston House (SJ913319).
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab For the possibility that land granted in 957 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 aet Eastun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was at this Aston, see 12,25 Barr note.

\par \tab \tab On the descent of the manor within the barony of Stafford, see 11,9 Aston note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab AND [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. These are unidentified, but presumably included parts of the Ancient Parish of Stone.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab ALGOT FROM HIM. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Algod}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alcot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Algolt}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aelgotus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Algot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Algot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 146, though he stated that derivation from Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Adalgot }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 etc. was theoretically possible. The last three forms are of 1086 tenants. The Alecto edition has Algot for both }{\i\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\insrsid5780933  and 1086 holders.
\par \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire. }{\insrsid5780933 JRM's note reads '}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Possibly identical with Helgot', though that is a diff
erent name (8,24 Helgot note). There is nothing in the descent of the manor of Aston-by-Stone to show that Algot was the same as the Helgot of 11,24;43.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODIVA <OF MADELEY>. On the name Godiva, see 4,2 Godiva note. On the possible identification by JP, see 8,21 Godiva note. See also 11,37 Godiva note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EDRIC. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Edric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aedricus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Edericus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eadricus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Headricus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  etc. - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eadric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 233-36. JRM preferred the first element}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Ed- for Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ead-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , as the vast majority of Domesday forms have }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ed-}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . In the Phillimore printed translations of LIN and YKS, however, the form Eadric was used; it has now been standardized as Edric. The Alecto edition has Ea
dric, except for SUF 6,203 (where it has Edric, perhaps an error).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,24\tab BARLASTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 3, 12; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\insrsid5780933 Land at }{\i\insrsid5780933 Beorelfestune}{\insrsid5780933  was given by Wulfric Spot to his nephew Wulfheah (son of his brother Aelfhelm) in his will (1002 x 1004): }{
\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1536 = Whitelock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 
, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxiv no. 6). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 906 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , 
pp. 48-53 no. 28). The identity of the place is not certain as it could be Barlestone in Leicestershire (LEC 13,46. 17,10); see LEC 13,46 Barlestone note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 544, 967, 974; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 3. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 967, 974, Barlaston and Bobbington (11,43), both held by Helgot from Robert of Stafford in 1086, are held by the heir of John son of Philip [son of Helgot]; see 11,24 Helgot note.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HELGOT <OF BOBBINGTON> FROM HIM. He is a d
ifferent man from Earl Roger's tenant (Helgot <of Holdgate>, 8,24) and is 'identified' from his larger holding in Bobbington (11,43). This Helgot was succeeded by his son Guy, by another Helgot, then by Philip Fitz Helgot who }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 c}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . 1166 became the hereditary forester of Kinver Forest; see Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary II', pp. 247-52; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Stafford}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 shire, iv. p. 32; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 247; and 1,27 Kinver note and 11,43 Bobbington note. On the name Helgot, see 8,24 Helgot note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab AUGUSTINE HELD IT. The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Augustin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], is Latin. Although the Old French name }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Austin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 (Domesday }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Austin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Austin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]) derives from it (von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 169), it is likely that both the Latin and Old French forms co-existed in 1086, rather than that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Austin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Austin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
] were the result of scribal abbreviation. The Alecto edition has Augustine and Austin, as has the printed Phillimore edition, and this has been retained.
\par \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,25\tab RANTON. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Ronton. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 4, 11; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279.
\par \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 544, 967, 974; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 4.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODRIC. On this name, see 5,2 Godric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WHO ALSO HELD IT AS A FREE MAN. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 qui 7 tenuit ut liber homo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . The }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 et}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
) in this position means 'also'; that is, he was similarly (like Augustine in 11,24) holding it as a free man .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,26\tab COOKSLAND. This was a settlement in Seighford Ancient Parish. Like Seighford itself (2,21), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday place is represented by Cooksland itself (SJ8825), by Lower Cooksland Farm (SJ 877256) and by Cooksland Hall Farm (SJ877255).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended in the barony of Stafford as can be seen from its appearance in a memorandum of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 c}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . 1150-60 and a deed of c. 1181-1184: Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary II', pp. 219-20, 256-57.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HELIO <OF OAKLEY>. The Domesday form of this 1086 subtenant of Robert of Stafford here and in Oakley (11,47) is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Helio}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . It is not clear what name is represented by it; it is not in Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . It might be related to the French name Elion, which is a diminutive of the accusative form of the predecessor of the modern French names Elie, H\'e9lie (hence the -n), from biblical Elias; see Dauzat, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dictionnaire des Noms et Pr\'e9noms de France}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . The Alecto edition has Helio.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab TOKI. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tochi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Toka}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Toche}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Toke}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tocha}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tochil}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Thoka}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Toca}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Toco}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tocho}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tohe}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Toc}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  etc. - represent Old Norse/Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Toki}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 385-86.
\par \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab AELFRIC. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aluric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\insrsid5780933 Alebric, Aeluric}{\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\insrsid5780933 us}{\insrsid5780933 )}{\i\insrsid5780933 , Alfric}{\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\insrsid5780933 us}{\insrsid5780933 )}{
\i\insrsid5780933 , Alfriz, Aluuricus, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aelfric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\insrsid5780933  Aluriz, Eluric}{\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\insrsid5780933 us}{\insrsid5780933 )}{
\i\insrsid5780933 , Alberic, Alebrix}{\insrsid5780933  etc. - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid5780933 \'c6lfric}{\insrsid5780933 : }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 176-80. The Alecto edition has \'c6lfric.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,27\tab THE PARCHMENT in this entry and the first line of the next one (11,28) was rep
aired expertly by John Abbott of the Public Record Office during conservation work on the manuscript in connection with the last rebinding in 1984-86. He applied a patch from the recto of folio 249. The main scribe of Great Domesday had already written ar
ound the tear in the skin and its three associated holes, breaking the place-name after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 HELDVLVES}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and drawing a link-line to join it to the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 TONE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; most of this link-line is now under the new repair. Farley showed this break, but not those in the next lines, which occur after }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 lib'i}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 bord'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 dimid'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and, in 11,28, after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 hid'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE FIFTH PART OF 1 HIDE. There appears to be no answering 'fifths' in the vicinity, although there is a further \'bd virgate in another part of Hilderstone (1,44).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HILDERSTONE. This was a settlement in Stone Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 4, 12; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278. For another part, see 1,44.
\par \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 544, 967, 974; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 4.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab DUNNING. On this name, see 1,61 Dunning note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFRIC. On the name Wulfric, see 1,44 Wulfric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab MEADOW, 1 ACRE. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 una ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ra}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] may be either ablative singular after }{\i\f710\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 c\'fb}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (implying
 that the meadow belonged to the villagers etc.) or nominative singular, making it part of the general manorial resources as was the woodland, which was, however, put in a new sentence (as often). The Phillimore printed edition opts for the latter, but it
 seems better to preserve the ambiguity of the Latin and put a semi-colon after the villagers' plough and have the woodland in a new sentence, as in the Alecto edition. A similar ambiguity occurs in 16,2. 17,2;14.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab VITALIS <OF HILDERSTONE> HOLDS. It appears that his son, Arnold of Hilderstone, was a benefactor of the priory of Stone in 1136; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 33; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 443.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vitalis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vitel}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Fitel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Phitelet}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Fitheus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent the Latin name }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vitalis}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , from which derives the Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vit}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 t}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 )}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 el}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 405-406. The printed Phillimore edition has Vitalis, except for HAM 23,3 (Vitalet); this has now been standardized as Vitalis. The 
Alecto edition has Vitalis.
\par \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,28\tab BRADELEY. This was identified by Wrottesley, }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 'History of the Bagot Family', pp. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
11-12, with Bagots Bromley, with the suggestion that Domesday }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bradelie}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was a mistranscription of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Bramelie}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . This seems improbable. Bradley Green in Burslem was proposed by Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 169. }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, iv. p. 51 note 30, leaves the place unidentified (and this was not altered for the Alecto edition) as do }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bate and Palliser, 'Suspected Lost Village Sites in Staffordshire', p. 34}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
. However, JRM suggested Bradeley (an area of }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 the Ancient Parish of }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Stoke-upon-Trent) with the note: 'the only known place with this name in Pirehill Hundred'. The o
nly difficulty with this identification is that there is no known descent within the Stafford barony. However, it is possible that the place originated in and was reabsorbed by the adjacent Norton-in-the-Moors (11,19).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab TANIO. The Domesday form of this name, which only occurs here in Domesday Book, is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tanio}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. It is not clear what name is represented by it; it does not appear in Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , nor in Dauzat, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dictionnaire des Noms et Pr\'e9noms de France}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . The Alecto edition has Tanio.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab For the patched tear in the parchment just before this statement, see 11,27 parchment note.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFGEAT. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALWARD. On this name-form, see 1,36 Alward note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,29\tab COLTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 3, 4, 12; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 277. For another part, held by Earl Roger, see 8,15.}{
\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 966, 974;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 3.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GEOFFREY <OF DENTON> HOLDS. On the name Geoffrey, see 8,25 Geoffrey note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On his identification, see }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 232 (JP).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ODA. On this name, see 1,47 Oda note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFRIC. On the name Wulfric, see 1,44 Wulfric note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,30\tab 
3 PARTS OF 1 HIDE. If '3 parts' means three-quarters (that is, '3 virgates'), as regularly elsewhere in Great Domesday (compare 11,9 parts note), then there is a complementary virgate in another part of Milwich (1,41) to make up a full hide.}{
\cgrid0\insrsid8996282 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab MILWICH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 4, 12 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Meluyz}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278. For another part, held by the king, see 1,41.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 544, 966, 974; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. p. 4. No church is mentioned in Domesday, but the church of Milwich was given to Stone Priory by Nicholas de Milwich between 1138 and 1147. A later Robert of Stafford was among the witnesses; see Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary II', pp. 217-18.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab OSBERN. On this name, see 7,2 Osbern note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab SWEIN. On this name, see 1,48 Swein note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab "RAFWIN". It is possible that Rafwin's holding, if it was 1 virgate, also appears under the land of the king at 1,41; see 1,41 Milwich note. On the name-form "Rafwin", see 1,41 "Rafwin" note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,31\tab 3 PARTS OF 1 HIDE. There appears to be no answering 'part' of a hide in the vicinity, although there is a half-virgate in another part of Tixall (8,23).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab TIXALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 3, 12; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 277. For another part, held by Earl Roger, see 8,23.}{
\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 966, 974;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 3.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HUGH [* SON OF CONSTANT *] FROM HIM. On the name Hugh, see B5 Hugh note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de eo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  above }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hugo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and put a thin 'gallows' sign to separate that name from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alric'}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . Before that it read that Hugh, Alric and Ordmer held the 3 parts of 1 hide.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On the identification, see }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 268 (JP).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALRIC. On the name-form Alric, see 2,22 Alric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ORDMER. On this name, see 11,12 Ordmer note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,32\tab INGESTRE. The Domesday form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gestreon}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  has lost an initial }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 In}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 - probably through misunderstanding a clause such as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Robertus tenet Ingestreon}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Robertus tenet in Gestreon}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. Ingestre was not divided between holders, so Robert held the whole rather than an 
estate 'in it'. This mistake could have occurred at any stage in the Domesday Survey. Ingestre was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 3, 12; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 277.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 544, 966, 974; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 3.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab HUGH }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [* SON OF CONSTANT *]. See B5 Hugh note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab GODWIN. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 On this name, see 8,19 Godwin note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab VITHGRIP [* VILGRIP *] <OF WYTHEFORD>. The Domesday form, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Widegrip}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, which only occurs here, represents Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vithgripr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , according to von Feilitzen, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 407. JRM did not keep the final -r in Old Norse names. His note implied that von Feilitzen thought that this Domesday form was a misspelling for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wilegrip}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , which is one of the Domesday forms for Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vilgrip}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (von Feilitzen, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 407; see 11,65 Vilgrip note), but this is not so. However, it may well be a scribal e
rror, as Vilgrip (Domesday }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wilegrip}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, rendered Wilgrip in the Phillimore printed edition, as in the present entry) was Robert of Stafford's predecessor in Church Eaton (11,65). The Alecto edition has Vithgripr here, but Vilgrip for 11,65.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 The name occurs 
five times in Domesday Book, twice in Shropshire and Staffordshire and once in Suffolk. The two Staffordshire properties were held from the same tenant-in-chief who is unlikely to have had two tenants with this rare name. The four Shropshire and Staffords
hire holdings form a crescent, each holding being within easy reach of its nearest neighbour, so all four may have belonged to the same individual. It is unlikely that the distant and modest Suffolk holding did so too (JP).}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab [Great] Wytheford is in Shropshire, one of the two estates held by Vilgrip in 1066 (SHR 4,3,4).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ONE PART OF A MILL. The rest does not appear in Domesday.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,33\tab TITTENSOR. This was a settlement in Stone Ancient Parish. Stone itself is not named in Domesday, thoug
h various parts of the later Ancient Parish are there; see 1,40 Fulford note. Tittensor probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 3, 11; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 967, 974;}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 3. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 544, it is }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Titneshovere}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  coupled with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bleche}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Beech, SJ8538?].}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab STENULF <OF TITTENSOR>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Steinulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Stainulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Stenulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) and }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Stemulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (an error for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Steinulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) - represent Old Norse }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Steinolfr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old Swedish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Stenulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 373-74. JRM preferred the Old Swedish form as it is closer to the Domesday forms. In some Phillimore printed translations, however, the forms Steinulf and Steinulfr appear; they have here been standardized as Stenulf. The Alecto edition has Stenulf.

\par \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
\par \tab \tab Note on his identification to be supplied (JP).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFGEAT. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODRIC. On this name, see 5,2 Godric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,34\tab [IN TOTMONSLOW HUNDRED]. The main scribe of Great Domesday may have intended this hundred head, written at the end of this entry, rather than at the end of the first
 line of it, to refer to Weston; see 11,34 Weston note. In the Phillimore printed edition it is assumed that it governs Gratwich (11,35). Elsewhere in this county he wrote such heads either in the first line of an entry (or, if it was the first entry in t
h
e chapter, in the line above, next to where he then wrote the chapter head in vermilion) or at the end of an entry, governing the next entry; on a couple of occasions he wrote it on a blank line above the entry. It is possible that here he had already wri
t
ten the first line of the entry before he realized that he had omitted the hundred head. As this was the first entry in the column he could have written the head in the top margin of folio 249b, but may not have wanted to do so because of the presence of 
the interlineation }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de hesding}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 and the fact that this first line was written on the horizontal score delimiting the top of the writing area of this page (folio 249ab). Compare 2,4 Pirehill note and 17,6 Pirehill note. See }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 51 note 36.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WESTON [COYNEY]. This was a township in Caverswall Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Historic Parishes}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . Caverswall itself (11,36) probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 and it seems likely that Weston Coyney did as well though it was adjacent to 
the putative border between the hundreds of Pirehill and Totmonslow. If that is the case, the Totmonslow Hundred head in the last line of this entry refers to Weston Coyney.
\par \tab \tab Although Weston Coyney might be expected to descend in the barony of Stafford, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Weston'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Caverswall}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ' [Caverswall, 11,36] and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Focbroc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [perhaps the adjacent Forsbrook, 1,60] are held by John }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Coyne}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  from John Fitz Alan in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 975. This suggests that the land descended not from Robert of Stafford but from his tenant, Arnulf of Hesdin; see 11,34 Arnulf note and STS 8 Roger note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ARNULF OF HESDIN. }{\insrsid5780933 
He came from Hesdin in the Pas-de-Calais (arrondissement Montreuil). He was related (brother or brother-in-law) to Walchelin, provost of Beaurain. He was granted the lands of the import
ant Saxon thane Wulfward 'White' in several counties. Arnulf was accused of involvement in a conspiracy led by Robert of Mowbray in 1093, but proved his innocence by judicial combat. He died at Antioch on the first crusade. His heirs were his daughters Ma
tilda, whose second husband was Patrick de Caorces (Chaworth), and Avelina, wife of Alan Fitz Flaad (ancestor of the Fitz Alans) and then of Robert Fitz Walter. See Loyd, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 5; }{
\i\insrsid5780933 VCH Middlesex}{\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 114; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 192.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of Arnulf - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ernulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Arnulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hernulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) - represent the very common Old German name }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Arnulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Arnolf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  etc: Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 35-36. The forms }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Arnoulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Arnulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) are recorded in Dauzat, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dictionnaire des Noms et Pr\'e9noms de France}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , under }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Arnou}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. In the printed Phillimore edition for NTT 9,89 the form Ernulf appears, whileYKS 9W54 has Earnwulf; these have now been standardized as Arnulf. The Alecto edition has Ernulf.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFRIC HELD IT. On the name Wulfric, see 1,44 Wulfric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LAND FOR 3 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday erased the number of ploughs that he had originally written, perhaps }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 v}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  as part of the original is still visible. He had to interline the replacement as the original was shorter and there was no room for the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .iii.}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  on the line itself.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,35\tab IN TOTMONSLOW HUNDRED. It is not certain that this hundred head, written at the end of the last line of the entry for Weston Coyney (11,34), governs Gratw
ich; the main scribe of Great Domesday may have intended it to relate to that entry (see 11,34 Totmonslow note).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GRATWICH. This was an Ancient Parish. It almost certainly lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086; for the ambiguous position of the hundred head, s
ee 11,34 Totmonslow note. Gratwich was certainly in Totmonslow Hundred later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 966, 974.}{\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFHEAH. On this name, see 1,43 Wulfheah note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODING HELD IT. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Goding}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Goding}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Godinc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Godincus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Godin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Goding}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 265. The Alecto edition has Goding.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,36\tab CAVERSWALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 14; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Although Caverswall might be expected to descend in the barony of Stafford, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Weston'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 [Weston Coyney, 11,34], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Caverswall}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ' [Caverswall] and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Focbroc}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [perhaps the adjacent Forsbrook, 1,60] are held by John }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Coyne}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  from John Fitz Alan in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 975. This
 suggests that the land descended not from Robert of Stafford but from his tenant Arnulf [of Hesdin]; see 11,34 Arnulf note and STS 8 Roger note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ARNULF [* OF HESDIN *]. The identification is proved by the rarity of the name and the descent of the estate of Caverswall. See also 11,34 Arnulf note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFGEAT. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab A HALF OF STOKE[-UPON-TRENT] CHURCH. The other half does not appear in Domesday, but was probably omitted from the survey of the interrelated royal manors of Trent
ham (1,8) and Penkhull (1,16), most probably from the latter; see Eyton, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 12-13. Penkhull itself had probably originated as a grant to an earl of Mercia out of Trentham. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 To the half-church in the present entry was attach
ed half a carucate of land. In 1341 the endowment of the whole church was a full carucate (see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, viii. p. 186). The same was probably the case in 1086, the other half of the church being attached to Trentham-Penkhull. This church was probably a minster. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
The present half was confirmed on Stone Priory by Robert (II) of Stafford }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 c}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 . 1155; see }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary II',}{
\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  pp. 236-38;}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 51 note 40. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
The other half of the church remained part of the manor of Penkhull and went with it into the manor of Newcastle-under-Lyme which was held by the Earl of Chester. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
In view of the relationship of Stoke-upon-Trent both to Trentham and to Caverswall, it is possible that Caverswall itself also originated as a grant out of Tre
ntham, though it was in a different hundred. Stoke-upon-Trent probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
For the interrelation of Trentham, Wolstanton, Penkhull, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-upon Trent, see 1,8 Trentham note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In the Phillimore printed e
dition, JRM noted: 'The entry for Stoke-on-Trent, mentioned only here, is missing'. However, there is no reason to think that there was anything at Stoke-upon-Trent in 1086 other than its church. No manor is evidenced and there}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was originally no township o
f Stoke-upon-Trent. Nonetheless, the church was mother of a large parish, which included Newcastle-under-Lyme (which was established after 1086 on the land of Trentham, 1,8), Clayton (13,6), Seabridge (SJ8343), Whitmore (13,2), Burslem (11,22), Hanley (pa
r
t of Trentham, 1,8), Longton (SJ9143), Norton-in-the-Moors (11,19), Bucknall (1,34), Bagnall (SJ9250), 'Lane End' (SJ9144, in Longton), Fenton (17,21), Bradeley (11,28), Abbey Hulton in Burslem chapelry (11,21), Rushton in the same chapelry (1,64), Penkhu
ll (1,16) and Shelton (1,38); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, viii. p. 188. The later borough of Stoke-upon-Trent arose here, on land that probably belonged to Penkhull. Stoke-upon-Trent itself grew in importance over the centuries, especially from the time of the I
ndustrial Revolution. It became a county borough in 1910 when it consisted of six 'towns': Tunstall (which originated as part of Wolstanton), Burslem, Hanley, Stoke, Fenton and Longton. Parts of some of these had been absorbed by Stoke-upon-Trent earlier 
and there were further extensions of the borough boundary to the south and east in 1922; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , viii. p. 260 and map.}{\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH \'bd CARUCATE OF LAND. Rather than being waste land whose hidage has been lost, this may have been land free of geld; see 1,5 carucate note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,37\tab 
MADELEY. This was a settlement in Checkley Ancient Parish, sometimes identified as Madeley Holme. It was long known as Madeley Ulfac or Madeley Alfac. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 280. The Domesday estate appears to be represented both by Madeley Farm (SK054369) and by Madeleypark (formerly Madeley Holme) at SK063382.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\insrsid5780933 Robert of Stafford held two places called Madeley}{\cf11\insrsid5780933  }{\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\insrsid5780933 Madelie}{\insrsid5780933 ): the present one i
n Totmonslow Hundred and one in Pirehill Hundred (11,20). The order of Domesday Book allows them to be differentiated. Both holdings descended }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
within the barony of Stafford. For the present Madeley, held by the Basset family under the barons of Stafford in Totmonslow Hundred, see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 966, 974;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13. In this last it appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Madeleye Alphon}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . It is }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Maddeleye Alfegh'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 280. It is not (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 pace}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  JRM in the Phillimore printed edition) sometimes known as Little Madeley; see 11,20 Madeley note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFHEAH. On this name, see 1,43 Wulfheah note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODIVA <OF MADELEY> HELD THIS ALSO AFTER KING WILLIAM'S ARRIVAL. The Phillimore printed translation has 'Godiva held it even after King William's arrival', as does }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 51 (which was retained in the Alecto edition). Certainly the position of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 etiam}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (apparently connected with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 post aduentum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  rather than with }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 tenuit}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) suggests such a translation,
 but it is not evident why there should be such an emphasis. There are many English holders who not only retained their lands after the Conquest but held them in 1086 or had passed them on to relatives. So the significant fact may be, in this case, her in
ability after 1066 'to withdraw with [her] land' (and seek another lord) which is a limitation common in Domesday for the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 period and probably applied to her then too. A Godiva, presumably not the countess of that name, is a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  holder elsewhere in
 this fief (11,4;13;23;42). In 11,13 a Godiva had held Cheswardine and Chipnall, but it would appear that she had held Chipnall from St Chad's of Lichfield, presumably a case where she could not 'withdraw with her land'. At 11,42, of Cheadle it is said 'G
odiva held it; she was free', and at 11,23 Godiva and Edric were free and held Aston-by-Stone. It is likely that the mentions of Godiva in this fief refer to more than one person; Clarke, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 English Nobility
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 218, identifies the Godiva of 11,4 as the countess. However, see JP's note (8,21 Godiva note).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\insrsid5780933 Fleming, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 240 no. 1472, translates }{\i\insrsid5780933 etiam}{\insrsid5780933  as 'even'.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On the name Godiva, see 4,2 Godiva note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab IN THE SAME VILLAGE OF THE SAME LAND TWO ENGLISHMEN HOLD. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote this on a new line and rubricated the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
I}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 In}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, as he did for other 'entries'. The fact that the value is then given 'of the whole manor' was probably the reason why it was not given a separate number in the Phillimore printed edition. However, that edition fails to translate }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de ead}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 em}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('of the same land') and has 'of this land' for plain }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 t}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 r\'ea}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  after '1 \'bd carucates'.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de eadem terra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 implies that the two Englishmen had a subholding in the manor of Madeley, rather than that they held land in their own right which happened to be in Madeley too. This is lent support by the value being of the whole manor.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab 1 \'bd CARUCATES. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .ii. caruc' t'r\'ea 7 dimid'}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , but the second minim was later erased, possibly by him.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 1\'bd
 CARUCATES OF THE SAME LAND. This is marked by the main scribe of Great Domesday as a separate entry; see 11,37 village note. These carucates are presumably former waste land that has recovered; see 1,5 carucate note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE WHOLE MANOR. That is, the half-hide and the 1 \'bd carucates.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,38\tab BRAMSHALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 280.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see}{\i\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 966.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab A HALF OF THIS VIRGATE IS THE KING'S. This \'bd virgate was subsequently added to the royal manor of Uttoxeter (1,19) and became known as 'Little Bramshall' according to }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Wrottesley, 'History of the Bagot Family'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 3. If this is largely true, it is more likely that the whole of Bramshall had originated as a member of Uttoxeter and that the 1086 holder or a predecessor had encroached on land that had not been part of the grant.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab AS THE ROAD DIVIDES IT. 
This sort of information, giving the disposition of land in relation to a topographical feature, is extraordinarily rare in Domesday. The intention here must be to identify the exact location of the king's half-virgate and to show that it is not intermixe
d
 with other land. The whole virgate lies either side of a road, divided into exact halves. It is possible that there was more information in the putative circuit volume. The road is difficult to identify on a modern map, but the king held Uttoxeter (1,19)
 to the east of Bramshall and Robert held Gratwich (11,35) to the west so it is probable that those with local knowledge would be able to pinpoint the royal half-virgate.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ROBERT HAS SEIZED THIS KING'S PART AND MAKES HIMSELF ANSWERABLE [FOR IT]. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 inuasit}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('step into', 'invade') is rather more than 'annexed' (as in the Phillimore printed edition for Staffordshire, though elsewhere this verb is translated as 'encroach' and 'seize'). Although evidently Robert has combined the two half-virgates, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 inuasit}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  cannot mean 'joined'. Compare DEV \{Exon Appendix\} 34,5 seized note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 se defensorem facit}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 should not imply that Robert is waiting on the half-virgate armed and ready to fight off claimants, but is probably to be read as connected with the formula }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 se defendit pro }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 n}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  hidis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  used of a manor ('it answers for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 n}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  hides'). In other words, Robert is actually paying tax on the land he has taken. Rather than mitigating his crime, this may compound his felony.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In }{\insrsid5780933 Fleming, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 240 no
. 1473, the whole passage is translated: 'Half of the virgate is the King's because the road divides it. But Robert annexed the King's part and makes himself answerable for it'. The translation of }{\i\insrsid5780933 sicut}{\insrsid5780933 
 by 'because' is an error; see 11,38 road note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab ?A? Marginal abbreviation placed against disputed tenure, standing for some verbal form of }{\i\insrsid5780933 adiudicatio}{\insrsid5780933  ('judgement'), }{\i\insrsid5780933 arbitratio}{\insrsid5780933 
 ('decision') or other relevant word (JRM). This }{\i\insrsid5780933 .A.}{\insrsid5780933  was written by the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 main scribe of Great Domesday in the right margin of folio 24
9b level with the details of Robert's seizure of the king's half-virgate. It is allied to the marginal letters }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 k}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 d}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , written by him next to claims and disputes. See Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 124-26 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Story of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 188-90). He also wrote }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .A.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  beside two entries in Hertfordshire (HRT 20,2. 36,13; Farley did not print an A next to the latter).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 

\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Perhaps influenced by JRM's note, }{\insrsid5780933 Fleming, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 240 no. 1473, points out that the }{\i\insrsid5780933 A}{\insrsid5780933 
 written in this margin may be an abbreviation for }{\i\insrsid5780933 adiudicate}{\insrsid5780933 
. This is a plural command and would mean 'judge' or 'settle'. However, if the verb is correctly identified, the full form is more probably a singular rather than a plural command (}{\i\insrsid5780933 adiudica}{\insrsid5780933  as in }{\i\insrsid5780933 
require}{\insrsid5780933 ) or the present passive infinitive (}{\i\insrsid5780933 adiudicari}{\insrsid5780933 : 'to be brought to judgment').}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BAGOT HOLDS. The Domesday form of this name, which only occurs in this entry, is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bagot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. According to Reaney, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , under Baggett etc., it is a diminutive of Old German }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bago}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , although there is no mention of this in Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . The Alecto edition has Bagot.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This Bagot was ancestor of a family who took his name as a surname; see Wrottesley, 'History of the Bagot Family'; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 160.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFGEAT HELD IT. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,39\tab ELLASTONE. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Totmonslow Hundred, another portion (2,15), held
 by the Bishop of Chester, being directly beneath a Totmonslow hundred head. It was in the same hundred later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 966, 974. In }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 543, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Blore}{\insrsid5780933  [Blore, 11,40] and }{\i\insrsid5780933 Grenedun'}{\insrsid5780933  [Grindon, 11,3] and }{\i\insrsid5780933 Adlacston'}{\insrsid5780933 
 [Ellastone] are all held by William de Audley from the barony of Stafford.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab It is represented by Ellastone itself (SK1143), Upper Ellastone (SK1143) and Lower Ellastone (SK1142).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WOODMAN. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vdeman}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Odeman}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wodeman}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wudumann}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , meaning 'woodman': von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 418. JRM preferred the translation of this name. The Alecto edition has Wudumann.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALSI. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alsi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alsius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Elsi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aelsi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alsicus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alsidus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  etc. - could represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \'c6lfsige}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \'c6thelsige}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  or perhaps Old English }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ealdsige}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ealhsige}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
: von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 151-52, under }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Al-sige}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , see also p. 142, under }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Al-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -si for the Old English }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 -sige}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , as that is what is found in the vast majority of instances in Domesday. }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Alecto edition has Alsige. }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 However, in some of the Phillimore printed translations the forms Alfsi and Alfsige appear for people who in the present edition 
are now rendered Alsi because the forms of their names lack an }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 -f-}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  or }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 -v- }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
which JRM thought was necessary for it to be included under Alfsi (a few of them appear in }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 180, under Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \'c6lfsige}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, and on pp. 187-88, under Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \'c6thelsige}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ). The Alecto edition has Alsige for those that appear there under Old English }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \'c6lfsige}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab MEADOW, 12 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .xii. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
over the erasure of a number occupying more space; it is not clear why he wrote the number so close to the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ibi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 when there was such a large space (it extends almost to the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ac'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ).}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab VALUE 30s. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 solid'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ov
er an erasure; he may have originally written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 libras}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('pounds') or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 denarios}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('pence') here. In the outer margin level with his correction is an erasure, perhaps connected with the correction. On such marginal notes, see 1,56 carucate note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,40\tab BLORE. Thi
s was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known ecclesiastically as Blore Ray. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086. There is now another Blore in Staffordshire, at SJ7234, which in 1086 was no doubt part of Tyrley (SHR 4,14,5) in Shropshire; see \{
Introduction: County Boundary\}.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 966, 974. In }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 543, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Blore}{\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\insrsid5780933 Grenedun'}{\insrsid5780933  [Grindon, 11,3] and }{\i\insrsid5780933 Adlacston'}{\insrsid5780933 
 [Ellastone, 11,39] are all held by William de Audley from the barony of Stafford.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EDRIC. On this name, see 11,23 Edric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab SPINNEY, 2 FURLONGS. Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 spinetum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 is 'a wood of thorns'. The thorn with its pliant branches and its spikes was used for wattles and fencing.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 
Unless another dimension has been omitted, the furlong is here apparently being used as a square measure ('1 furlong by 1 furlong') as at 11,51 ('woodland, 1 furlong'). It is normally a linear measurement as in 1,6 ('woodland 3 furlongs long and 1 wide') 
o
r 1,17 ('woodland 1 furlong long and wide'). Elsewhere in Domesday spinney is generally measured in terms of acres, though in OXF 7,53 'spinney, 1 furlong' occurs and seven of the twenty-two occurrences of spinney in Domesday have two dimensions involving
 furlongs.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,41\tab DILHORNE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see}{\i\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 966.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WALBERT. The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Walb}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], represents the very common Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Walbert}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 238-39. The Alecto edition has Walbert.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab William son of Ansculf has a subtenant called
 Walbert on three of his estates (12,7;17;23), who might be the same as Robert of Stafford's subtenant here. The only other occurrences of this name in Domesday, as the Bishop of Durham's man (LIN 3,6-7;40), are unlikely to be the same individual as the S
taffordshire Walbert(s): the descent of the holdings is different as is the 1086 tenant-in-chief. However, }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, p. 444, suggests that William son of Ansculf's tenant in Staffordshire might possibly be the same as the Bishop of Durham's man; she does not mention Robert of Stafford's tenant, but includes a reference to him.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The present holding lies between the two groups of estates attributed by Keats-Rohan to the tenant of William of Picquigny (JP).}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODWIN. On this name, see 8,19 Godwin note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 
TOGETHER WITH 2 OTHERS. This looks like an afterthought, probably in the putative circuit volume, as it is not an addition to Great Domesday. The main scribe of Great Domesday would normally have given the three names and then said }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 qui}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  liberi homines fuerunt}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('who [or 'and'] they were free men').}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,42\tab CHEADLE. The Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Celle}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; for the identification, see }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , table viii facing p. 96; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bridgeman, 'Unidentified Domesday Vills', pp. 35-41. The form }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Celle}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is accepted by Ekwall, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dictionary of English Place-Names}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , as a precursor of Cheadle, but it also seems likely that Cheadle is represented by }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cedla}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 (1,57. 17,19). This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab That Robert of Stafford held Cheadle is es
tablished by a deed of 1253 cited by Bridgeman, 'Unidentified Domesday Vills', p. 37; in it Ralph Basset holds a knight's fee under a later Robert of Stafford. The deed is calendared in Wrottesley, 'Final Concords temp. Henry III', p. 245; see also }{
\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 543 (}{\i\insrsid5780933 Chedlhe Basset}{\insrsid5780933 ) and p. 966 (}{\i\insrsid5780933 Chedle}{\insrsid5780933 ); }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Chartulary III', pp. 225-26.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ROBERT HOLDS. On this name, see B6 Robert note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODIVA <OF MADELEY>. On the name Godiva, see 4,2 Godiva note. On the possible identification by JP, see 8,21 Godiva note. See also 11,37 Godiva note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,43\tab BOBBINGTON. This was a chapelry, partly in Staffordshire and partly in Shropshire, of Claverley Ancient Parish (Shropshire). Bobbington was placed entirely in Shropshire in 1895; see Youngs, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 404. In 1086, it lay in Seisdon Hundred as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 15; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 967, 974; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 110. In the 1166 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pipe Roll}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 it was held by Philip, son of Helgot and grandson of the 1086 holder, together with the manor of Kinver (1,27); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xx. p. 67. In }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 967, 974, it is held with Barlaston by the heir of John son of Philip [son of Helgot]; see 11,24 Barlaston note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HELGOT <OF BOBBINGTON> HOLDS. See 11,24 Helgot note, and on the name Helgot, see 8,24 Helgot note. Keats-Rohan, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 246, apparently identifies him as Helgot De Castello (Helgot <of Holdgate>) by her inclusion of folio 249b in her references.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab VITHFARI HELD IT. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wifare}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wiuara}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wiuar}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 - represent Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vithfari}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 406. The printed Phillimore edition has the form Wivar, but this has been altered to the Old Norse form for the present edition, as JRM did not pronounce on it. The Alecto edition has Vithfari.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 
It is possible that the Vithfari who was William son of Ansculf's predecessor in Rushall (12,26) was the same as this individual as both had held 'with full jurisdiction'. There is no known link, tenurial or geographical, between the Staffordshire }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  holders called Vithfari and the only other occurrence of this name in Domesday, one of the predecessors of Earl Roger in Ryton (SHR 4,17,3).
\par \tab \tab However, the three holdings are within a day's journey of each other so it is possible that they were held by one individual }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, despite devolving upon three different tenants-in-chief (JP).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH FULL JURISDICTION. See B11 jurisdiction note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND. See 7,7 woodland note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,44\tab PATSHULL. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 PECLECHELLA }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
and then corrected the second }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 C}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  to an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 S}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; the result is poor with the lower bowl of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 S}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 below the rest of the line. He made the same mistake and corrected it in the same way in 8,18 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Locheslei}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ).
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Patshull was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 10, 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283.
\par \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 967, 974; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 112; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 10; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xx. p. 163.

\par \tab \tab The grid reference is to Patshull Hall (SJ802009).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HUGH <OF MORTON>. On the name Hugh, see B5 Hugh note.
\par \tab \tab See }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 32 (JP).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BROTHIR <OF OAKEN>. See 11,18 Brothir note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,45\tab OAKEN. This was a township in Codsall chapelry of Tettenhall Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Historic Parishes}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . Codsall was later an Ancient Parish in its own right: Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 408. Oaken probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford. The barons were overlords of part of the estate in 1242-43 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 974), but the Crown was holding part of the estate from the late twelfth century. An undertenant, Bertrand }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Verdun}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , lord of Alton in Farley, gave 4 hides here to Croxden Abbey in the late 1170s, the barons of Stafford remaining as overlords. See Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 115; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xx. p. 83.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HUGH <OF MORTON>. On the name Hugh, see B5 Hugh note. On his identification, see 11,44 Hugh note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BROTHIR <OF OAKEN>. See 11,18 Brothir note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,46\tab WROTTESLEY. This was a settlement in Tettenhall Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 10, 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283. The grid reference is to Wrottesley Hall (SJ849016).}{
\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In the tenth century this estate was held by one Aelfhild and it was arranged that it should pass to her kinsman Wulfgeat of Donington (in Shropshire) if he should outlive her; see }{
\insrsid5780933 Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1534 (= Early Charters of the West Midlands, no. 122, pp. 60, 118, 143, 149 = Whitelock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 19, pp 55-56
, 163-67). }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The process by which the estate reached Hunta, the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  holder, is unclear.}{\insrsid5780933 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Robert of Stafford gave the estate to Evesham Abbey in 1072 (Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary I', pp. 178-82; Wrottesley, 'Family of Wrottesley', pp. 4-6), but he ma
y have failed to complete the grant, or cancelled it following the death (in 1077) of the Abbot (Aethelwin) to whom he gave it. In 1088, Robert of Stafford, by then a monk and dying, granted this estate again, together with Loynton (11,53), to Evesham Abb
ey; see Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary I', pp. 182-85; Wrottesley, 'Family of Wrottesley', pp. 6-7; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, iv. p. 158. Although it was claimed by Robert II of Stafford in 1166 and said to be held of the barony of Stafford in 1284-85 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. p. 10) it was held by Evesham Abbey at the Dissolution (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Valor Ecclesiasticus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iii. p. 253); see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 112; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 10; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xx. p. 26.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab CLODOAN HOLDS. The Domesday forms, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Glodoen}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  here and }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Clodoan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  at 11,60, apparently represent the Breton name }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Clodoan}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 174, who cites a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Clodouan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  described as }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 episcopi telonarius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('the bishop's toll-gatherer') from the Cartulary of the Abbey of Sainte-Croix in Quimperl\'e9 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 c}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . 1074-76), but it is improbable that he is the same individual. This Breton name does not, however, appear in Dauzat, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dictionnaire des Noms et Pr\'e9noms de France}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , though other Breton names are included in it. The printed Phillimore edition has Clodoen,
 altered to Clodoan for the present edition. The Alecto edition has Gl\'e6dwine}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 for STS 11,46 and Clodoan for STS 11,60.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HUNTA HELD IT. The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hunta}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , represents Old English }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hunta}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , meaning 'a huntsman': von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Per
sonal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 296. The Alecto edition has Hunta.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire, and its only other occurrences in Domesday Book are in HAM NF9,22;26.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,47\tab [IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. This heading is supplied from later evidence of the location of the four places listed in 11,47-50.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab OAKLEY. This was a settlement in Croxall Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 7; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 280. C
roxall itself lay in Derbyshire in 1086 and was surveyed there (DBY 6,14). It was transferred to Staffordshire in 1895. The grid reference is to Oakley Farm (SK192132).}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 967, 974;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary II', pp. 267-70; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 7.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HELIO <OF OAKLEY>. See 11,26 Helio note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFWIN. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wluuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vluuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vluin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 )}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Oluuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlfuuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wluuine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wluin}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] etc. - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wulfwine}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 427-28. JRM preferred the second element -win for the Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -wine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Wulfwin and, in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, Wulfwine; these have now been standardized as Wulfwin. The Alecto edition has Wulfwine.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,48\tab 2 HIDES. The main scribe of Great Domesday omitted the hidage of Syerscote and Scribe B later interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .ii. hidas.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  above }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 FRICESCOTE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. He used the same pen and ink (a pale one, similar to the one used by the main scribe here) when he made a very similar insertion in 11,64 (11,64 hides note) and also corrected the hidage in 2,
16 (2,16 hides note). The main scribe corrected part of the word }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 seruo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 later in this entry (11,48 slave note), but presumably could not add the hidage. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Staffordshire, see 2,11 land note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab SYERSCOTE. The Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Fricescote}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. The philological connection of the two names is uncertain, though if the initial letter }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 F }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 was a miscopying of an }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 S}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  at some stage in the Domesday process the connection is clearer. The identification of this place, however, seems esta
blished by the fact that Syerscote was later held by the Stafford barony; see }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 62. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Syerscote was a township of Tamworth Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 7; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 280.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Syerscote and Wychnor (11,49) are held from the barony of Stafford in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 967. However, the same two places (or parts of them) are also among fees of the honour of Tutbury, held by the Ferrers, Earls of Derby (descent from Henry of Ferrers, STS 10); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 542;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108;}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 7. In all cases where the subtenant is named, it is a member of de Somerville family. It is possible that there was
 some confusion about the overlord.
\par \tab \tab The grid reference is to Syerscote Manor (SK223075). Syerscote Barn is at SJ2206.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THORKIL [* OF WARWICK *]. The Domesday forms of Thorkil - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Turchil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Torchil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Turchill}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Turchetel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Torchetel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Turketel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Torchill}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Torchel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Thurchill}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Thorkil}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Thorkell}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 394-95. The Phillimore printed edition has the forms Thorkell, Thorketel and Thorketill (the last following Fellows Jensen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 309-11); these have now been standardized as Thorkil, although the presence in Domesday of a few -}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 chetel}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -ketel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 endings suggests that there might have been two forms of this name current then. The Alecto edition has Thorkil for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 holders, but both Thorkil and Turchil (as here) for 1086 holders.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On his identification, see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 34 (JP).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab THE KING'S TOLL. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de theloneo regis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Theloneum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 was a levy on trade, usually on the transport and sale of goods, payable to the king. This particular toll may be connected with Syerscote's proximity to the borough of Tamworth.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THEY HAD THE REST OF THE JURISDICTION. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 alia}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 m}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  soca}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 m}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 habeb}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ant}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 aliam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  being used here, as not uncommonly, for }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ceteram }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ('the rest of'). Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 alius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 often has this meaning when two situations or figures are compared. Thus in the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Liber Exoniensis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, the circuit volume for circuit II, the lordship hidage of an estate is separated from the hidage held by the 'men' (villagers, smallholders etc.) and, especially in the Cornwall section, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 aliam terram}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was regularly used for the men's holding, meaning that they held all the other/remaining land (of the total given) that was not in lordship. The Alecto edition has 'they had the rest of the soke'.}{
\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Phillimore}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
printed edition has 'they had a different jurisdiction' which is nowhere explained in a note. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, iv. p. 52, translates as 'jurisdiction of another kind', which may have influenced the Phillimore translation.}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
The sentence looks as if it should be read with that preceding, the two together giving the 
sense that the four thanes had full jurisdiction except that involving the toll. They could also commend themselves and their land to whomsoever they wished. In such a context, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 soca}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  alone (the power to compel their men to do suit and service at the manor's court) makes little sense without }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 saca}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (the right to adjudicate, judge, fine and punish in that same court) and it is likely that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 soca}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 stands for both }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 sac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 soc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 in its widest sense (see B11 jurisdiction note), as sometimes elsewhere. The king presumably reserved the toll to himself because he was lord of the adjacent Wigginton (1,9); see }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 62-63}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab PLOUGH[S?] POSSIBLE. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ibi poss' e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ss}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 e .car'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . JRM's note reads: '}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 The 
}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 c }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 of }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 car}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ' is written over a figure }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 i}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 .}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
It may be that the regional return}{\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 read}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  possunt esse i car' }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ('1 plough are possible'), and that the compiler noticed the error,}{\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
but had no further information'. The scribe only started a }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 i}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  and turned it into a }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 c}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  at once; the }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 punctus}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 before it is the usual one after the abbreviation for }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 esse}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  (compare HEF 10,6).}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This formula appears to replace the normal plough estimate ('Land for }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 n}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  ploughs'), but is one that was used in Domesday Yorkshire and Shropshire (together also with the
 'Land for ... ' formula; see SHR 1,5 land note). In the present case it may have been in the putative circuit volume and the scribe failed to convert it to the normal formula (such oversights can be seen sporadically throughout Great Domesday). The }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 poss'}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  could abbreviate }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 posset}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , third person singular present subjunctive ('there could/might be': a 'potential' subjunctive), rather than }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
possunt}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  (third person plural, present indicative): 'there can be'). This would fit with '1 plough', if that had been the reading in the scribe's source.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 At the end of his note JRM added: 'It had' is a possible alternative to 'they had'. This appears to be a comment on the previous sentence, Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 ali
\'e2}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 soc\'e2 habeb' }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 (see 11,48 jurisdiction note), which has nothing to do with the ploughs possible and appears to be a fragment of a note not printed.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab SLAVE. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 o }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 of }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 seruo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in the same dark ink he used for two other minor corrections in this county; see 1,53 Alward note and 2,5 holds note. There is a }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  visible almost under the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 o}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  as well, perhaps the expected one at the end of a sentence, but because it was written too close to it he added another one. The lack of an abbreviation sign after the original }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 seru}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is odd.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,49\tab WYCHNOR. This was a
 chapelry of Tatenhill Ancient Parish; it is sometimes written as Wichnor. Tatenhill itself is not named in Domesday, though another member of the Ancient Parish (Barton-under-Needwood) was; see 1,20 Barton note. Wychnor probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 
1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 7; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 280.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Wychnor and Syerscote (11,48) are held from the barony of Stafford in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 967, 974. However, the same two places (or parts of them) are also among fees of the honour of Tutbury, held by the Ferrers, Earls of Derby (descent from Henry of Ferrers, STS 10); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 542, 969, 975;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 7. In all cas
es where the subtenant is named, it is a member of de Somerville family. It is possible that there was some confusion about the overlord.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ROBERT. On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,50\tab [HAMSTALL] RIDWARE. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Offlow Hundred; another portion (5,2) is directly below an Offlow hundred heading. It was in the same hundred later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 14; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 280. For other parts, see 5,2. 8,26.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 543 (}{\i\insrsid5780933 Hamstede Ridewale}{\insrsid5780933 ) and p. 967 (}{
\i\insrsid5780933 Media Rideware}{\insrsid5780933 ). }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 According to Shaw, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 History of Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, i. p. 152 (see }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 52 note 50), t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 his particular estate may have been at Cowley (SK1018) near Nethertown. Howe
ver, in a deed of 1157 x 1160, Robert of Stafford describes this estate as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rydeware}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
; see Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary II', pp. 240-41; see also Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary II', pp. 247-52.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HERMAN. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Herman}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Heremann}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 )}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Herman}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hermen}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Her}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 )}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 man}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 290; Forssner, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 149-50. The Alecto edition also has Herman.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WOODLAND ... IN WIDTH 1 LEAGUE. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .i.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 , either over an erasure or an imperfection in the parchment. His use of 'in width' rather than 'wide' here is odd in view of his use of 'long' earlier in the woodland details.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,51\tab IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote this hundred head, which governs the remaining entries in this fief (11,51-68), at the end o
f the first line of this entry, as usual. In the Phillimore printed edition it is not treated as a heading but incorporated in the first sentence of the entry: 'Robert himself holds in CUTTLESTONE Hundred 2 hides'. This might have been because of the omis
sion of the location of the 2 hides.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 2 HIDES. They were probably at Weston Jones (SJ7624) in Norbury; see Eyton, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Antiquities of Shropshir}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 e, iii. pp. 25-26; }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 72 and table iv facing p. 70; }{
\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 5
2 note 51. The identification depends on the fact that this unnamed estate and Haughton (11,52) were both held by "Urfer" in 1086 and Weston Jones and Haughton were later held by the Haughton family, the probable descendants of "Urfer". Both estates were 
held from the barons of Stafford; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 see }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 974;}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  Rotuli Hundredorum}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
, ii. p. 114; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 1; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 159. The }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 543, identifies the place as }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Weston' Johannis}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
, and it is assessed at 2 hides both in Domesday and in }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 114.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab With Norbury (8,10) and Loynton (11,53) this estate combines to make a unit of five hides; see \{Introduction: Hidation\}.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab "URFER" <OF HAUGHTON>. See 11,14 "Urfer" note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFRIC HELD IT. On the name Wulfric, see 1,44 Wulfric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WOODLAND, 1 FURLONG. The furlong is here apparently being used as a square measure; see 11,40 furlongs note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,52\tab HAUGHTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 1; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 974;}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Rotuli Hundredorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 114 (where it is misprinted as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hasenton'}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 138.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab "URFER" <OF HAUGHTON>. See 11,14 "Urfer" note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFRIC, A FREE MAN. On the name Wulfric, see 1,44 Wulfric note. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 lib}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ho}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 mo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], perhaps later, though the pen and ink are very similar to those of the rest of
 the entry; see 8,24 free note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,53\tab LOYNTON. This was a settlement in the township of Weston Jones which lay in Norbury Ancient Parish; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Place-Names of Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 176. Norbury itself (8,10) p
robably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086, and the sequence of estates here suggests that Loynton was probably in that hundred as well although it is listed in Pirehill Hundred in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279. It is adjacent to the putative boundary of the two hundreds.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This estate, together with Wrottesley (11,46), was granted in 1088 by Robert of Stafford to Evesham Abbey; see Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary I', pp. 182-85; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 158.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GILBERT <OF ASTON>. See 11,11 Gilbert note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab AELRIC. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ailric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ailricus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aeilric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aelric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eilric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alricus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aeilric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eilricus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 etc. - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \'c6thelric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 186-87. As these forms did not include the medial }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -d- }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -g-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, JRM did not accept them as representing this name. In several counties in the Phillimore printed edition they appear as Alric and in others as Aelfric. The Alecto edition has \'c6thelric, although not for 11,62, where it has Alric,
 though the Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aelric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ].}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ORDMER. On this name, see 11,12 Ordmer note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,54\tab WILBRIGHTON. This was a settlement in Gnosall Ancient Parish; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 157. Like Gnosall itself (7,18) it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 2; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282. The grid reference is to}{
\cf11\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wilbrighton Hall (SJ794186).}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 967;}{\i\insrsid5780933  Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 114; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 2; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 123.}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LAURENCE. The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Laurenti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
], is Latin and the name of a third-century saint. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Laurence and Lawrence; these have now been standardized as Laurence. The Alecto edition has Laurence.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Sta
ffordshire, but a Laurence was Robert of Stafford's subtenant in Berkshire (BRK 42,1). As this name only occurs once elsewhere in Domesday (LEC 16,7) as a subtenant of Robert of Vessey, the Staffordshire and Berkshire tenants called Laurence may have been
 the same person (though the estates are far apart), though it is unlikely that the Leicestershire man was too. However, }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, p. 289, includes a reference to the Laurence in Leicestershire, but does not mention that he did not hold from Robert of Stafford.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab See }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 33 note 10 (JP).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,55\tab BRINETON. This was a settlement in Blymhill Ancient Parish; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 129. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 967;}{\i\insrsid5780933  Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 114; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 2; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 68.}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WARIN [* "MALICORNE" *]. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Warin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Garin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Warin}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Werin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Guarin}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Garin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  etc: Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 246-47. The Alecto edition has Warin here.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab He is identified as Warin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Malicorne}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  who witnessed a charter of
 Robert of Stafford in 1088: Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary I', pp. 182-85. See Keats-Rohan, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 460, who suggests he was also Robert's tenant Warin in Warwickshire (WAR 22,17), though she does not include a folio reference for this holding.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,56\tab BLYMHILL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 2, 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 967;}{\i\insrsid5780933  Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 114; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 2; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 65.}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WARIN [* "MALICORNE" *]. See 11,55 Warin note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab "RUSCOTE". It clearly lay near Blymhill. It is identified as Brockhurst in the Phillimore printed edition, following }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
, iv. p. 53 note 54, which was based on }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History' p. 170, and Bridgeman, 'Unidentified Domesday Vills',}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  pp. 31-32. Eyton, }{
\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , pp. 35-36, left this place unidentified. The evidence 
presented by Bridgeman is suggestive but does not seem to clinch the identification, since, although Brockhurst descended within the barony of Stafford (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 69), it }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 could have arisen by the later division of Blymhill or of Brineton, rather than be the successor of "Ruscote". }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
Bridgeman and Mander, 'Staffordshire Hidation', p. 160, identify "Ruscote" with Brockhurst and place it in a ten-hide unit otherwise consisting of Blymhill (11,56), Brineton (11,55), Sheriffhales (8,5), Weston[-und
er-Lizard] (14,1), Beighterton and Brockton Grange (14,1). The proximity to Blymhill is established by Domesday itself, but that does not prove the identity with Brockhurst. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Place-Names of Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 129, notes the identification but does not include "Ruscote" among early forms of Brockhurst. The derivations are quite different, from Old English }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 rysc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 cot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) ('rush cottage' or 'cottage near rushes') and Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 brocc}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 hyrst}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('badger copse') respectively.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab It is left unidentified in the Alecto edition.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,57\tab STRETTON. The Domesday form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Estretone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  shows the Norman prosthetic }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 E}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 - prefixed to the difficult Old English consonantal group }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Str}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 - to aid pronounciation.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Stretton was a chapelry of Penkridge Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 1, 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 967, 974;}{\i\insrsid5780933  Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid5780933 
, ii. p. 114 (mistranscribed as }{\i\insrsid5780933 Preston'}{\insrsid5780933 ); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 1; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 164. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. p. 16, the Bishop of Chester is recorded as holding Stretton in Cuttlestone Hundred. If this is not an error, he was presumably holding from the Stafford barony.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HERVEY <OF STRETTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Herveus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hervicus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Herveius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hervicius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Herewig}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Herewicus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Romance }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Her}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 )}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 veus,}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hervieu}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hervi}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 150-51. JRM preferred the modern English name Hervey, but in the Phillimore printed edition of Kent it appears as Harvey and in Yorkshire as Herewig; these have now been standardized as Hervey. The Alecto edition also has Hervey.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 
It is likely that all Robert of Stafford's subtenants called Hervey in this county (11,57-59;61;64, the only occurrences of this name in Domesday Staffordshire) are the same person, as is probably his tenant Hervey in Warwickshire (WAR 22,23).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 1 CARUCATE OF LAND. This is presumably land that was formerly waste (but has now recovered) and whose assessment in hides was unknown; see 1,5 carucate note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WOODLAND HAS [IS]. See 1,7 woodland note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,58\tab [WATER] EATON. This was a settlement in Penkridge township of Penkridge Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 2, 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282. This place is distinguished from Church Eaton (11,65) in the same hundred by its etymology: it is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ea}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 tun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('farmstead by the river') rather than }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 eg}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 tun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('island farmstead'); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, i. pp. 92, 140. The two Eatons are also differentiated by the descent of the manors and Church Eaton is named from the church of the priest who is mentioned in Domesday.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 967, 974; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 2; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 122. It is coupled with }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Duneston'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Dunston, 1,7] and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Drayton'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Drayton, 
1,7], both parts of Penkridge Ancient Parish, in }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 543. It is held from Richard }{\i\insrsid5780933 de Stretton}{\insrsid5780933  in }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 967, and }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 2,}{\insrsid5780933  and from the same man with }{\i\insrsid5780933 Streton'}{\insrsid5780933  [Stretton, 11,57] and }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Mulewyz}{\insrsid5780933  [Milwich, 11,30] in }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 974.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HERVEY <OF STRETTON>. See 11,57 Hervey note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ORDMER HELD IT. On this name, see 11,12 Ordmer note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab VALUE 8s. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of shillings by joining together the first two minims to form a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 v}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,59\tab GAILEY. This was a settlement in Penkridge township of Penkridge Ancient Parish; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 87. Like Penkridge itself (1,7. 7,17) and other members of its later parish, it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gageleage}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\insrsid5780933 
was given by Wulfric Spot to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002 x 1004): }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 
, no. 1536 = Whitelock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxix no. 34). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 
, no. 906 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 48-53 no. 28). If it ever reached its destination, it had been alienated by 1066.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab After 1086 Gailey descended in the barony of Stafford and was given 1158 x 1165 with the consent of Robert II of Stafford to the nuns of Blithbury (in Mavesyn Ridware); see }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary II', pp. 244-45}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
. From them it passed to the nuns (Black Ladies) of Brewood. It was in the hands of the king (Richard I) in 1189 and in 1200 King John gave Broom (in Worcestershire) to the nuns in compensation. By 1247, Gailey was the name of a hay in Cannock Forest:}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 113-14.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HERVEY <OF STRETTON>. See 11,57 Hervey note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BODIN HELD. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bodin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bodin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Boding}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - may derive from the Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Baudin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, the hypothetical Romance }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bodin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 204, and see Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 50-51. The Alecto edition has Bodin. The form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Boding}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , used for the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 constabularius}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in BUK 27,1-2, is an error for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bondi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; the Alecto edition has Bondi the staller for these two occurrences.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,60\tab OTHERTON. This was a settlement in Penkridge township of Penkridge Ancient Parish; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 91. The Domesday name }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Orretone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  stands for Old English }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 other tun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('another' or 'second farmstead') and distinguishes this }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 tun}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  from one adjacent; to the south-west lies Rodbaston (13,9), to the north-east 'Bedintone' (4,10). Otherton probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 1; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.

\par \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 967, 974;}{\i\insrsid5780933  Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 114; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 1; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 117.}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab CLODOAN. See 11,46 Clodoan note}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab AELRIC. On this name-form, see 11,53 Aelric note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,61\tab 
[GREAT] SAREDON. Saredon, represented by Great Saredon and Little Saredon, was originally a township in Shareshill chapelry of Penkridge Ancient Parish; it was a separate Ancient Parish by 1551; see Youngs, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 421. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 1, 3, 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281. Robert's }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Sardone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 was Great Saredon. For another part (Little Saredon), see 17,2.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 967, 974; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 175. It is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Magna Sardon'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in }{\i\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid5780933 
, ii. p. 114, and }{\i\insrsid5780933 Heresardon'}{\insrsid5780933  in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 3.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HERVEY <OF STRETTON>. See 11,57 Hervey note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,62\tab COVEN. This was originally a settlement in Brewood Ancient Parish; later it was an extra-parochial area, then, from 1858, a Civil Parish; see Youngs, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 409. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 1, 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 967, 974;}{\i\insrsid5780933  Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid5780933 
, ii. p. 114; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 1; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, iv. p. 30.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BURGRED <OF COVEN>. In 1166 his land was held by Geoffrey of Coppenhall (named from Coppenhall, 11,63). It is not certain if Burgred was an ancestor of that family; see Keats-Rohan, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 171.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Burred}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Borred}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Borret}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Burgered}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Borgeret}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Burret}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Burgret}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Borgred}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Borgret}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Borgretus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Burgeret}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Borgered}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Borgaret}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bugered}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bughered}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Burredus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bored}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Boret}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Buered}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bueret}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  etc. - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Burgr\'e6d}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 212. JRM preferred the second element -ed for the Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -\'e6d}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . The Alecto edition has Burgr\'e6d.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Robert of Stafford's tenant in Coppenhall (11,63) was almost certainly the same man. These are the only occurrences of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab AELRIC. On this name-form, see 11,53 Aelric note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THIS WOODLAND IS IN THE KING'S LORDSHIP. Woodland was usually a resource enjoyed by the whole village, rather than being the preserve of the lord of the manor or the king; compare 1,31 mi
ll note. It probably formed part of what became the Forest of Brewood; see \{Introduction: Forest\}; compare 7,6 forest note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab VALUE OF THE LAND, 16s. That is, the arable land and the meadow to support the oxen, but not including the woodland that was in the king's lordship.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,63\tab COPPENHALL. This was a chapelry of Penkridge Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 967, 974;}{\i\insrsid5780933  Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid5780933 
, ii. p. 114; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 139.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BURGRED <OF COVEN>. See 11,62 Burgred note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,64\tab 3 HIDES. The main scribe of Great Domesday omitted the hidage of Shareshill, but scribe B later interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .iii. hidas.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  above }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 SERVESED}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , extending the long }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 hidas}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 down after the place-name. He used the same pen and ink (a pale one, similar to the one used by the main scribe here) when he made a virtually i
dentical insertion in 11,48 (11,48 hides note) and corrected the hidage in 2,16 (2,16 hides note), though the surface of the parchment in the present entry has absorbed more of the ink so the words look fatter. For his other contributions to Domesday Staf
fordshire, see 2,11 land note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab SHARESHILL. The Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Servesed }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
which shares the same first element with Shareshill and is probably to be identified with it. However, the second element is not found among any of the later forms although these fluctuate between derivation from Old English }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 hyll}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('hill') and Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 scylf}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('shelf', 'site on shelving terrain'); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, i. pp. 115-16.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Shareshill was a chapelry of Penkridge Ancient Parish, then, from 1551, a separate Ancient Parish; see Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. pp. 420-21. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. pp. 1, 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.
\par \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 967, 974; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, ii. p. 114 (where the name is printed as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Farnsulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 1;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 174.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HERVEY <OF STRETTON>. See 11,57 Hervey note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,65\tab [CHURCH] EATON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab A charter of King Athelstan dated 850 [for 940] grants 5 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 cassati }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 at }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eatun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  to the thane Brihthelm: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p, 90 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Char
ters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 392 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 7-9 no. 4}{\insrsid5780933 
). The charter is in the Burton archives, but no 'Eaton' was held by the abbey, and there is no reason to think that a place in Staffordshire was meant. The same is true of the fabricated grant purporting to date from 949 of 10 }{\i\insrsid5780933 
manentes}{\insrsid5780933  at }{\i\insrsid5780933 Eatun}{\insrsid5780933  by King Edred to his faithful thane Athelstan: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p, 92 no. 84 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 545 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 15-16 no. 10. However, }{\insrsid5780933 Hart in }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 
, p. 92, maintains that the 10 }{\i\insrsid5780933 manentes}{\insrsid5780933  are equivalent to the assessment in hides of Church Eaton (11,65), Lapley (NTH 16,1) and High Onn (8,8). However, the Domesday assessments of these places amount to 8 hides (
3 hides in Church Eaton, 3 hides in Lapley and 2 hides in High Onn).
\par \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Domesday estate descended within the barony of Stafford (see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, iv. p. 92) and included the settlement of Orslow (SJ8015); see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 967, 974;}{\i\insrsid5780933  Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 114; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 96. It is distinguished from the other Eaton (Water Eaton, 11,58) by being held by the de Brinton family. It is coupled with }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Orselawe }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [Orslow] in }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 967, and with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Levedenhal'}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Levedale, 11,66] and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pateshull'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Patshull,11,44] in }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 
, p. 974.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This place is also distinguished from Water Eaton (11,58) in the same hundred by its etymology: it is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 eg}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 tun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('island farmstead') rather than }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ea}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 tun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('farmstead by the river'); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names 
of Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, i. pp. 92, 140. The distinction of Church Eaton from Water Eaton is also due to the descent of the respective manors and to the presence of a priest here, whose church gave this Eaton its distinctive affix. This church was given to the Be
nedictine Abbey of Polesworth (Warwickshire) between 1166 and 1185; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 98.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODRIC. On this name, see 5,2 Godric note.
\par \tab \tab This undertenancy had passed via one Edelina to her son Hamon, lord of Longford (Shropshire), by 1166; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 93.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab VILGRIP <OF WYTHEFORD> HELD. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wilegrip}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Willegrip}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wilgripus }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 - represent Old Danish }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vilgrip}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 405. The printed Phillimore edition has Wilgrip; this has now been changed to Vilgrip. The Alecto edition has Vilgrip. See 11,32 Vithgrip note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WOODLAND. This became the area known as Wood Eaton; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 94.}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,66\tab LEVEDALE. The Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Levehale}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , meaning Leofa's }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 halh}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , that is Leofa's 'nook of land' or 'water-meadow'. The later spellings are influenced by Middle English }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 levedi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, i. p. 90. This was a settlement in Penkridge township of Penkridge Ancient Parish; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, i. p. 89. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 1, 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 967, 974;}{\i\insrsid5780933  Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid5780933 
, ii. p. 114 (mistranscribed as }{\i\insrsid5780933 Lonedil}{\insrsid5780933 ); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 1; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 114.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In the manuscript this place-name is clearly }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 LEVEHALE, as it is in the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Ordnance Survey facsimile. However, in the Alecto facsimile the second }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 L}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  appears as a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 b}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; on other misleading reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BRIAN <OF RAUCEBY>. See 11,15 Brian note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab DROGO <OF WHITLEY>. A possible successor was a Matthew of Whitley who was named from Drogo's holding under Rober
t of Stafford in Warwickshire (WAR 22,25) and who attested a charter of Nicholas of Stafford to Kenilworth Priory (Warwickshire); see Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary I', p. 194; Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary II', pp. 195-98; Keats-Rohan, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 181.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Drogo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , represents Old German }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Drogo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Norman French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dru}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Driu}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dreu}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : Forssner, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 60-61. The Alecto edition has Drogo.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab FROM HIM. In the manuscript this is clearly }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de eo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. However, in the Alecto facsimile it appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de co}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
; on other poor reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 11,67\tab RICKERSCOTE. This was a settlement in the chapelry of Castle Church of the Ancient Parish of Stafford St Mary; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Place-Names of Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 75. Castle Church became a separate Ancient Parish in the sixteenth century; see}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 82; }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 407}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 . }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rickerscote probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 967; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 89.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ROBERT. On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL EDWIN. See 8,5 Edwin note, and on the name Edwin, see 7,13 Edwin note. That Earl Edwin was the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 T.R.E. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
holder of Rickerscote (and of "Monetvile", 11,68) suggests that both were part of Bradley (11,6) also held by him in 1066. They are only not listed with Bradley in Domesday because they were subinfeudated; see STS 11 Robert note and 11,6 Bradley note.}{
\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 11,68\tab "MONETVILE".}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 It was probably in Castle Church near Stafford. The ending }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 vil(l)e }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 marks a}{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 recently established French place-name; the prefix suggests that it may have been}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 connected with Stafford mint, Latin }{
\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 moneta}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  (JRM). }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Castle Church was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Stafford St Mary and became a separate Ancient Parish in the sixteenth century; see}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 82; }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 407}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
. "Monetvile" may be represented by the later manor of 'Castel' or 'Castle' where the castle of the barons of Stafford was sited; see}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 Mazzinghi, 'Manor and Parish of Castre', pp. 14-20; Carter, 'Monetville'; Eyton, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 36; Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 170; }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 53 note 60, v. pp. 82-89; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Place-Names of Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 75. If "Monetvile" is a post-1066 place-name, it is possible that this hide had another na
me, or that it was a part of the manor of Bradley, and was granted out of it to a particular individual}{\cf11\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 who perhaps was a moneyer}{
\cf11\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 On this and on the castle, see 11,6 Bradley note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WALTER. On this name, see 8,9 Walter note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ANSGER. The Domesday forms of this name of 1086 tenants - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ansger}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ansgerus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ansgerius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ansger}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 167, at the end of his account of Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Asgeirr}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Esger}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  for }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
 holders. See also }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 31-32. The Alecto edition has Ansgar and Ansger.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab FROM HIM . The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de eo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 over an erasure. In the central margin level with this there is an erased note, probably connected with this correction and also with one later in the line; see 11,68 are note. On these marginal notes, see 1,56 carucate note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL EDWIN. On this }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 holder, see 8,5 Edwin note, and on the name Edwin, see 7,13 Edwin note. On the relationship of "Monetvile" to Bradley, see 11,67 Edwin note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THEY ARE THERE. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 sunt}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 over the erasure of something occupying the same amount of space, possibly a figure. In the central margin level with this there is an erased 
note, probably connected with this correction or with one earlier in the line; see 11,68 from note. On these marginal notes, see 1,56 carucate note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a small space before beginning the next chapter (STS 12).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12\tab LAND OF WILLIAM SON OF ANSCULF. On the name William, see B8 William note. On the name of his father, see B8 Ansculf note. }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
He was also known as William of Picquigny from the French place (d\'e9partement Somme, arrondissement Amiens). Ansculf, his fa
ther, was sheriff of Surrey under King William, but had died before 1086. William's Domesday fief became the barony of Dudley (Worcestershire) where he had already established a castle (WOR 23,10). His heir was Beatrice, his daughter, who married Fulk Pay
nel. The barony had devolved to the de Somery family by the late twelfth century. See Sanders, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 English Baronies}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 113; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
, p. 484}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab In this fief, lands held in lordship are entered first (12,1-3), followed by those that are subin
feudated (12,4-29). The transition from one to the other takes place in a group of estates in Seisdon Hundred (12,1-21). For the two entries added after rubrication on folio 250b, which were numbered as part of this fief in error, see 12,30 entry note and
 12,31 entry note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 12,1-21 Seisdon Hundred. Lordship land (12,1-3); subinfeudations (12,4-21)
\par \tab \tab 12,22 Cuttlestone Hundred. Subinfeudation}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 12,23-29 Offlow Hundred. Subinfeudations.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab _____________________________
\par \tab \tab 12,30-31 Added entries for land actually in Oxfordshire; not part of the fief of William son of Ansculf.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab In addition to the lands listed in William son of Ansculf's fief in Staffordshire Domesday, he also held West Bromwich in that county. This is entered erroneously in the Northamptonshire fo
lios (NTH 36,3); see \{Introduction: Places Entered in the Wrong Domesday County\}.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,1\tab SEDGLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Seisdon Hundred as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 9, 15; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283. For another part, als
o held by William son of Ansculf, see 12,4.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Sedgley descended within the barony of Dudley; in}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. p. 9 it is coupled with Dudley itself, Roger de Somery holding the castle of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Duddel' }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 and the manor of }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Seggesley}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; see also }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 9; 
Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 116.}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE PRIESTS OF WOLVERHAMPTON CLAIM. There is no estate belonging to the church of Wolverhampton that is adjacent to Sedgley. However, it is possible that the woodland of 
one of the Wolverhampton manors was detached and lay near Sedgley.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On this claim, see }{\insrsid5780933 Fleming, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 240 no. 1474.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,2\tab MORFE. This was a settlement in Enville Ancient Parish. Like Enville itself (12,10), it probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 10, 15; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 283. Today Morfe itself is at SO8288, Morfe House Farm is at SO824884, Little Morfe at SO829881 and Morfe Hall Farm at SO828877.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This settlement probably named or was named from the Forest of Morfe. Morfe itself had extensive woodland, but the bulk of the future forest seems to have lain further to the west 
and south, in Shropshire and in the manors of Claverley, Kingsnordley, Alveley (8,1-3) and Worfield (9,1) held by Earl Roger and his son Hugh; see }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, p. 51; and \{Introduction: Forest\}. These four manors were moved to Shropshire soon after 1086.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Morfe itself appears to have descended within the barony of Dudley, being subinfeudated for a long period to the de Sutton family; }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 968;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 110;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 10; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xx. p. 105.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE WOODLAND HAS 2 LEAGUES LENGTH AND AS MUCH WIDTH. The main scribe of Great Domesday omitted what measured 2 leagues by 2 leagues, but scribe B later interlined }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Silua}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  above }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 longit}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 udinem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]. His pen and ink are similar to those used by the main scribe here, but the form of the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 S }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 is definitely that of scribe B. For his other contributions to Domesday Staffordshire, see 2,11 land note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The sentence }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Silua longitudinem habet. ii. leuuarum 7 tantundem latitudinem }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 is 
unusual, standing for the more normal }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Silua habet .ii. leuuas in longitudine 7 latitudine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (as in 12,18, though with a change in dimension) or}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Silua .ii. leuuas in longitudine 7 latitudine }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (as in 12,11, but with a change of figure) or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Silua ii leuuas longa 7 tantundem lata}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (as in 11,54 with a change of figure). It is possible that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7 t'ntd' lat'}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  should be expanded to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7 tantundem lata}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('and as wide'), the scribe having forgotten that he had begun with 
}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 habet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('has') rather than with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 est}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('is').}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,3\tab CHASEPOOL. 
This was a settlement in Swindon Liberty in the Ancient Parish of Wombourne. Swindon itself (SO8690) is not named in Domesday. The village of Chasepool seems to have been lost in the royal forest. A hay was named after it, but it is represented only by Ch
asepool Farm, formerly Chasepool Lodge; see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 54 note 65, xx. p. 208}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{
\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , table facing p. 67, suggested an identification with Gospel End, following Erdeswick, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Survey of Staffordshire}{
\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , but it was identified by Wrottesley, 'Final Concords temp. Henry III', p. 253, with Chasepool; see }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 171.}{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The grid reference is to Chasepool Farm (SO8589).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab IN THE KING'S FOREST. That is, in what became known as Kinver Forest.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,4\tab SEDGLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Seisdon Hundred as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 9, 15; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 283. For another part, which is directly beneath a Seisdon hundred head, see 12,1.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab For the descent of Sedgley, see 12,1 Sedgley note.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In the manuscript this place-name appears clearly as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 SEGLESLEI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, as it does in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. However, in the Alecto facsimile the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 G}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  appears as a }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 C}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; on other misleading reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GEOFFREY <OF SEDGLEY>. On the name Geoffrey, see 8,25 Geoffrey note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab MEADOW, 2 ACRES. Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 is in the accusative case, the object of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Goisfridus ... habet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in the previous line. This means that }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 uill'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  should be extended to the accusative }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 uillanos}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . The Phillimore printed edition fails to indicate this, though the Alecto edition does.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,5\tab PENN. Lower Penn (SO8795) and Upper Penn (SO8696) were separate townships in Penn Ancient Parish. Penn probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 10, 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Both }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Penne}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Buffard}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 alia Penne }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 were fees of Roger de Somery (barony of Dudley) in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 543. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Penne Buffard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  appears again in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 968, and as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Penna Inferior}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 held by Robert }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Buffa}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 r[}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 i}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] from Roger de Somery in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 10, 16. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alia Penne}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is coupled with }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bissopesbr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ' [Bushbury, 12,19] in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 543, and these reappear as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bissebur}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 i}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] and }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Penne Superior}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. pp. 10, 16; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', pp. 112-13. Bushbury (12,19) and the Penn of 12,6 are held by a Robert under William son of Ansculf in 1086, and it is possible therefore that the Penn of 12,6 is Upper Penn, leaving the pres
ent holding, with Gilbert as subtenant, as Lower Penn.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GILBERT <OF PENN> HOLDS. His successor was Ralph }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Euenefeld}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, according to Keats-Rohan, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 215. A Gilbert is also a tenant of William son of Ansculf at Enville (12,10), whose Domesday
 form (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Efnefeld}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) is the same as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Euenefeld}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , suggesting that he is the same as this Gilbert, as is William's other tenant Gilbert (12,13). On the name Gilbert, see 11,11 Gilbert note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab COUNTESS GODIVA HELD. See 4,2 Godiva note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,6\tab PENN. Lower Penn (SO8795) and Upper Penn (SO8696) were separate townships in Penn Ancient Parish. Penn probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v.}{\cf11\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
pp. 10, 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Both estates called Penn descended in the barony of Dudley. On the possible identity of the present one, see 12,5 Penn note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ROBERT <OF PENN>. On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note. It would seem that Robert here was the same person as William's subtenant of Bushbury (12,19) which was later linked with Penn; se
e 12,5 Penn note. By the folio references she provides, Keats-Rohan, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 395, suggests that all the tenants of William son of Ansculf in Staffordshire (12,6;9;18-19;24-25) as well as in Buckinghamshire (BUK 17,21) were the same person. Howe
ver, the Robert in 12,24-25 is almost certainly Robert d'Oilly (see 12,25 Barr note) and the only evidence linking William's other tenants with this name is mentioned above. Robert was a very common name.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EARL ALGAR HELD. See 1,11 Algar note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,7\tab 3 HIDES. The main scribe of Great Domesday probably corrected the hidage from an original }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .i.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  by adding a minim at the beginning and end and a new }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 before the new first minim very close to the place-name, but not one after the new third minim.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ORTON. This was a settlement in Wombourne Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 10, 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab After 1086, Orton descended within the barony of Dudley; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 96
8; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 111; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xx. p. 202.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WALBERT <OF FULSTOW>. See 11,41 Walbert note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFSTAN <OF ORTON> HELD. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlstan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlestan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vltan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlfstan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wlstan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vltainus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vstanus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 etc. - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wulfstan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 425. The Alecto edition also has Wulfstan.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab William son of Ansculf was preceded by a Wulfstan on three estates (12,7;12;20), but Wulfstan was a very common name and there are no other links to suggest that they were the same individual.

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The name Wulfstan occurs on three holdings in Staffordshire, all acquired by the same tenant-in-chief and all lying within a few miles of each other; i
t is probable that they were all held by the same individual. No other Wulfstan had tenurial associations with William son of Ansculf or held land within 40 miles of these holdings (JP).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,8\tab THE MAIN SCRIBE of Great Domesday wrote around the diagonal tear in the parchment in this entry, breaking the place-name after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
WAMBVR}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , but drawing a line linking it to the last two letters (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 NE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), and leaving a space after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 saca}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 serui}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ii}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 lib'}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in the following lines. Farley did not indicate these spaces, though he di
d for the place-name in 11,27, where the other side of the tear occurs. For the neat patch applied to this tear on the recto of folio 249, see 11,27 parchment note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WOMBOURNE. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Wombourn. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab After 1086, Wombourne descended within the barony of Dudley; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 968;}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 111; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 10;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, xx. p. 202. Swindon (at SO8690 in Wombourne Ancient Parish), not mentioned in Domesday, appears to have been part of this estate; it is coupled with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Womburne}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Wombourne] and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Oxeleg'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Oxley, 12,9] in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 968;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  see Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 10. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xx. p. 207, couples it with Himley (12,12).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab RALPH <OF WOMBOURNE>. Keats-Rohan, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 346, points out that this Ralph's successor in the twelfth century was Guy }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Offeni}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 and that Ralph was possibly his ancestor. The place of origin might be Offignies, in the French d\'e9partement of Somme (arrondissement Amiens, canton Poix-en-Picardie).
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On the name Ralph, see 2,22 Ralph note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THORSTEN HELD. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Turstan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Turstan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Turstin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tursten}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Turstane}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Turtin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Thorsten}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Thorsteinn}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 396. In the printed Phillimore edition this }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  holder appears as Thurstan and (for YKS) as Thorsteinn; these have now been standardized as Thorsten. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Alecto edition has Thorsten.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab A PRIEST. The church appears to have been pre-Conquest as it is dedicated to St Benedict Biscop; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xx. p. 217}{\cf11\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \'a33. In the Alecto facsimile there is a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 v}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -shaped mark between }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 lib'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 after it, perhaps the bottom edge of the third of a series of three holes and a tear in the parchment, ro
und which the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote; see 11,27 parchment note. On other unusual reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,9\tab OXLEY. This was a settlement in Bushbury Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283. The estate descended within the barony of Dudley; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 968.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ROBERT <OF PENN>. On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On the identification by }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 395, see 12,6 (JP).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODWIN. On this name, see 8,19 Godwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALRIC. On this name-form, see 2,22 Alric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,10\tab ENVILLE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 10, 15; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Efnefeld}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , and later forms include }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Evenefeld}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 10; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283) and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Evenefeud}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 15; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 968), meaning 'smo
oth/ level piece of open land'. The change in the second element to 'vill' was comparatively late.
\par \tab \tab This estate descended within the barony of Dudley and included Lutley (SO8188); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 543, 968; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 110;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 10; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xx. pp. 96, 103.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GILBERT <OF PENN>. See 12,5 Gilbert note, and on the name Gilbert, see 11,11 Gilbert note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALRIC. On this name-form, see 2,22 Alric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH JURISDICTION. If this were a Danelaw county, the Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 cum soca}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 could mean 'with a Jurisdiction', 'with jurisdiction-land', 'with sokeland'. Here it most probably stands for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 cum saca et soca}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('with full jurisdiction'). On the meaning of this phrase, see B11 jurisdiction note. The Phillimore printed edition has 'with the jurisdiction'; the Alecto edition has 'with the soke'.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab IN THE FOREST. That is, presumably, the royal forest of Kinver; see \{Introduction: Forest\}. The wood of Enville was probably the nucleus of the later Enville Chase.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,11\tab "CIPPEMORE". Like }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 the surrounding entries}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  it probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086. JRM's note reads: '}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 Probably between Enville and Kinver, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 54'. In fact, apart from deducing the hundred in which it lay, t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
here is no certainty as to its location. }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, p. 35, left it unidentified but suggested that it lay in the forest of Kinver and that 'the king or his successors appropriated and afforested the whole manor after Domesday'.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 170, says that 'the map shows a Combere close by Kinver'; he is referring to Comber, SO842835.}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Bridgeman and Mander pp. 164-65, 170, were inclined to locate it near Great Moor in Pattingham. The fact that both names share the same common element, Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 mor }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
('moor'), is not a convincing argument, but their main reason is their reconstruction of five-hide units in the shire: the three hides at "Cippemore" together with 2 hides at Pattingham (1,28) make a five-hide unit. However, an identi
fication that rests solely on this is not secure. }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 54 note 70 argues for a site 'in Kinver or in the south part of Enville' on the grounds that }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Cippemore}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933  is grouped with Enville, Himley, and Amblecote (12,10-14), moreover that, like Enville and Chasepool, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Cippemore}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 was partly in the king's forest, and that 'the wooded upland area to the south of Enville contains 2 pools named 'The Moors' and a tract of land named 'The Sheepwalks', possibly the }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Scipricg}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 of Wulfrun's gift to Wolverhampton' (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bridgeman, 'Staffordshire Pre-Conquest Charters',}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  p. 107). }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xx. p. 107, locates it 'possibly in the Sheepwalks area' (SO8185).}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  None of these arguments is strong. It is true that in Staffordshire, estates that shared the same later 
Ancient Parish are often grouped together in a fief, but Enville, Himley and Amblecote were Ancient Parishes themselves and there is no reason to think that Domesday is geographically arranged at this level. However, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Cippemore}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933  might have been in the Ancient Parishes of Enville or Himley to which the entries surrounding it refer. The woodland of }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Cippemore}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 lay in the king's forest, but that does not necessarily locate it very close to other places that were partly or wholly in the forest, whose 1086 extent is unknown. Identification of }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Cippemore}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 with 'The Moors' encounters the same difficulty that undermines Bridgeman and Mander's identification with Great Moor: 'Moor' is too common an element in place-names for it to clinch a particular identification. The relation to 'The Sheepwalks' and }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Scipricg}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  assumes that the first element of }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Cippemore}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  is Old English }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 sceap}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 scep}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  scip }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ('sheep') which requires emendation of the Domesday form.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bate and Palliser, 'Suspected Lost Village Sites in Staffordshire', p. 34, sensibly record it as a 'lost Domesday vill' probably in Kinver Forest'.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ROGER. On the name Roger, see B4 Roger note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EDWIN HELD IT. On the name Edwin, see 7,13 Edwin note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab TH KING HAS IT IN THE FOREST. That is, presumably, the royal forest of Kinver; see \{Introduction: Forest\}.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,12\tab HIMLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 10, 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab There were two estates in Himley (12,12-13), the present one held }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 by two men (Wulfstan and Ravenkel) and the other by one (Lovet). The two estates }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 appear to be related by a ratio of roughly two to one: 2 hides (less \'bd
 virgate) and 1 hide, two holders and one, land for 3 ploughs and land for two, 8 villagers and 3 
smallholders with 2 ploughs and 3 villagers and 2 smallholders with 1 plough, 2 acres of meadow and 1 acre. The estate of Himley had presumably been divided on a two-thirds/one third basis, perhaps between heirs; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 54 note 71. It }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 descended within the barony of Dudley; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 968;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 111;}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 10. In this last it was still divided into two-thirds/one third as in Domesday.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab ARNI. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Erne}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Erni}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Arni}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Earne}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old Danish/Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Arni}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 163. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Arni and Earne; these have now been standardized as Arni. The Alecto edition has Arni.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFSTAN <OF ORTON>. See 12,7 Wulfstan note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab RAVENKEL <OF HIMLEY> HELD IT. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rauenchil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rauenchel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rauechil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ramechil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ranchil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rauechetel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rauechet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rauecate}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rauechel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old Norse }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hrafnkell}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old Swedish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ramkel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 293. JRM preferred Raven- for the first element as it reflected most of the Domesday forms, and -k- for }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -ch-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . The form Rafnketill, however, appears in the Phillimore printed translation for Yorkshire, following the form given in Fellows Jensen, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 212-13; it has now been standardized as Ravenkel. The Alecto edition has Ramkel.}{
\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par \tab \tab The closest other holdings are some 40 and 60 miles distant respectively, small properties with no tenurial associations with this Ravenkel (JP).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab WOODLAND. }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Silva}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 not }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 silvae}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 .}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Dimensions not stated (JRM).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,13\tab IN THE SAME VILLAGE ^[HIMLEY]^. See 12,12 Himley note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab GILBERT }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 <OF PENN> }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 HOLDS.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  See 12,5 G
ilbert note, and on the name Gilbert, see 11,11 Gilbert note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab LOVET HELD IT. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Louet}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Luuet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Loueth}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ,}{
\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  Luueth}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  - appear to represent the Anglo-Norman byname }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Luuet}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Louet}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , a diminutive of Old French }{
\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 lou}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 leu }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ('wolf'): }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 322; Tengvik, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Old English Bynames}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 363, who added Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 louet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 leuet}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('wolf cub'). The printed Phillimore edition has the form Lovett; this has now been altered to Lovet as there are no occurre
nces of -tt in the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Lovet, except for William Lovett in NTH 37.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire. It raises a difficulty noted by JRM in the Phillimore printed edition, that a name of Anglo-Norman origin is unexpected for a }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  holder. JRM suggested 'Since }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Luuet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 was an English free man before 1066, the spelling may represent a regional pronunciation of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Leuiet}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (Leofgeat), as with }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Luuare}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (12,27) for Leofwara [Leofwaru]. It is likely that two similar sounding names of different origins combined to give a common later form'.}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,14\tab AMBLECOTE. This was a settlement in Old Swinford Ancient Parish. Amblecote lay in Staffordshire in 1086, but Ol
d Swinford lay in Worcestershire (WOR 23,11). Amblecote probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 9, 16; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Worcestershire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, iii. pp. 217-18.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Dudley; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 968;}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 111; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 9.
\par \tab \tab In 1966 Amblecote was divided between the boroughs of Stourbridge and Dudley and was wholly in Dudley from 1974; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xx. pp.
 49, 53-54.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab PAYNE <OF HOGGESTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pagan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pagen}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent the medieval Latin word }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 paganus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old French }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 paien}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, 'a heathen; rustic; child whose baptism has been put off': von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 343. The name occurs quite frequently in Domesday Book, mostly as that of a 1086 tenant, and it is unlikely that it had retained its original meaning. JRM decided to render it as the modern name Payne. The Alecto edition has Payne, Pain and
, once, Paganus, irrespective of whether the person held in 1066 or 1086.
\par \tab \tab See }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 321 (JP).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab TWO [***] OF}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  EARL ALGAR'S MEN. There is a very neat erasure between}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Duo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\f710\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 h\'f4es}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
; the main scribe of Great Domesday may have originally written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 lib}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 er}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 i}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('free') here.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On Earl Algar, see 1,11 Algar note.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab WITHOUT JURISDICTION. In other words, without full jurisdiction, meaning that they did not have }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 saca et soca}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , as in 8,7; see 8,7 jurisdiction note and, on the meaning of 'full juris
diction', see B11 jurisdiction note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab WOODLAND. [***]. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 main scribe of Great Domesday did not give any dimensions for the woodland and put a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 punctus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Silua}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , suggesting he did not intend to add them later. However, he left blank the rest of the line
, before entering the value on the next line; on such spaces, see 1,8 after note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,15\tab TRYSULL. This was part of the chapelry of Trysull and Seisdon in Wombourne Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 10, 15; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Dudley; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 543, 968; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 112; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 10.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BALDWIN [* SON OF HERLEWIN *]. According to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, xx. p. 188, Baldwin is the same as the man who holds Frankley in Worcestershire (WOR 23,3) from William son of Ansculf, both Trysull and Frankley being held in the mid-twelfth century by Giles of Trysull.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Balduin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Baldeuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Baldeuuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] - represent Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Baldwin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 191. The Alecto edition has Baldwin.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par \tab \tab Baldwin's father, Herlewin, came to England even before the reign of Edward the
 Confessor. Baldwin himself had a substantial holding before the Conquest and survived to hold under the Conqueror. The bulk of his holdings can be established from his distinctive pre-Conquest name and the links which this establishes. His holdings in 10
8
6 were significantly different from those in 1066, only two being in his hands at both dates (BUK 17,15;24). Broadly speaking, his pre-Conquest lands were re-distributed to Hugh of Grandmesnil and William son of Ansculf, with Miles Crispin obtaining three
 holdings and several other tenants-in-chief a manor apiece. William son of Ansculf then re-endowed him with the bulk of his post-Conquest fee. See Lewis, 'The French in England before the Norman Conquest'; Clarke, }{\i\insrsid5780933 English Nobility}{
\insrsid5780933 , pp. 257-58; both lists include only Baldwin's pre-Conquest holdings (JP).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THORGOT HELD. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Turgot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Turgod}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Turgotus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old Danish }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Thorgot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Thorgautr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 393. The Old No
rse forms appear in the printed Phillimore edition of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, and the form Thurgot appears in Norfolk; these have now been standardized as Thorgot, as in the other Phillimore counties. The Alecto edition has Thorgot.}{\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH FULL JURISDICTION. See B11 jurisdiction note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab FOR THE SPACE left after the mill and meadow details and before the value statement, see 1,8 after note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 12,16\tab 'CROCKINGTON'. See 1,1 'Crockington' note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BALDWIN [* SON OF HERLEWIN *]. See 12,15 Baldwin note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BUT THE JUR
ISDICTION WAS THE KING'S. That is, probably over the three free men, rather than over 'Crockington'; for the phrase see 12,17 jurisdiction note. 'Crockington' was a detached part of the royal manor of Kingswinford (1,1). It is possible that this land has 
been alienated.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,17\tab SEISDON. This was part of the chapelry of Trysull and Seisdon in Wombourne Ancient Parish. In 1086, it no doubt lay in Seisdon Hundred, which it named. It remained in that hundred; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 10; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283.}{
\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Dudley; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 968;}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 10.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WALBERT <OF FULSTOW>. See 11,41 Walbert note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THEIR JURISDICTION WAS THE KING'S. That is, the king had jurisdiction over them. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 soca eorum regis erat}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . Since }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 eorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 is plural, it must refer to the men and not to the place. For a similar (though singular) phrase, see 17,2. The sentence seems to be parallel to and explained by that in 11,12: 'the king had the full jurisdiction of this Ordmer'.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Like 'Crockington' (12,16), Seisdon may be alienated, royal land and was perhaps, like it, originally part of Kingswinford (1,1), of which it would have been a detached part.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab SERVANTS. }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Servientes regis}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 the King's Servants (or 'Serjeants'), occur at the end of}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }
{\cf1\insrsid5780933 several counties, in a separate chapter, individually named, with or instead of the King's Thanes or Almsmen. Unnamed }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Servientes }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
are also sometimes listed in villages, as, for example, in LEC 13,63: }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 T'ra est vi car'. In d'nio sunt ii car' cum i servo et xi vil'li et iiii soch'i cum iiii bord' et ix francig' servientibus habent x car' int' omnes. }{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 Though the Latin}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab is ambiguous, the }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Servientes }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 of Seisdon were probably, as in Leicestershire, not in lordship. They may or may not be comparable with the west-country }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
radchenistre }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 or }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 radmans}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
'riding men', and may or may not have anything but the name in common with later 'serjeantries' (JRM). See LEC 13,63 Frenchmen note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The 'servants' recorded among the other population in CHS 3,8. SHR 4,4,25 and WIL 12,4 were definitely not in lordship.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,18\tab 
ETTINGSHALL. This was a settlement that was counted predominantly as part of Sedgley Ancient Parish. An Ecclesiastical Parish of Ettingshall was created in 1837 from parts of Sedgley Ancient Parish, Wolver
hampton Ancient Parish and from Bilston which was originally a township and chapelry of Wolverhampton Ancient Parish; see Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 411. Ettingshall probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ROBERT <OF PENN>. On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On the identification by }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 395, see 12,6 (JP).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THORSTEN HELD. On this name, see 12,8 Thorsten note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH FULL JURISDICTION. See B11 jurisdiction note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE WOODLAND HAS 3 FURLONGS IN LENGTH AND WIDTH. Here the main scribe of Great Domesday finally managed to get the formula of this detail correct; see 1,7 woodland note and compare 12,2 woodland note.}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,19\tab BUSHBURY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 10, 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282. For another part, see 7,3.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The name means bishop's }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 byrig}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, ('bishop's fortified place') and had presumably been, at some time, a possession or part of a possession of the bishops if Lichfield although it is not evidenced as such. The grid reference is to Bushbury Hall (SJ925024).
\par \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Dudley}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 968;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 112; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 10, 16.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ROBERT <OF PENN>. On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note. It would seem that he is the same person as the subtenant of Penn (12,6); see 12,5 Penn note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFRIC HELD. On the name Wulfric, see 1,44 Wulfric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH FULL JURISDICTION. See B11 jurisdiction note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab FOR THE SPACE left after the meadow detail and before the value statement, see 1,8 after note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,20\tab PENDEFORD. This was a settlement in Tettenhall Ancient Parish. Like Tettenhall itself (1,2. 7,5) it probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 10, 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Pendeford descended in the barony of Dudley. In the thirteenth century it was treated as a member of Sedgley (12,1); see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 112; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 10; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, xx. p. 23. In 1316 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 16) it was held by the prior of St Thomas' near Stafford, presumably from the barony of Dudley.}{\insrsid5780933 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Pendeford is represented by Pendeford Hall and Upper Pendeford Farm, both at SJ8903.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALMER. On the name-form Almer, see 1,40 Almer note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFSTAN <OF ORTON>}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 . See 12,7 Wulfstan note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODWIN. On this name, see 8,19 Godwin note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,21\tab MOSELEY. This was a settlement in Bushbury Ancient Parish. Like Bushbury itself (7,3. 12,19) it probably la
y in Seisdon Hundred in 1086. It is represented by Moseley itself at SJ9303, apparently an area name, Moseley Hall at SJ930040 and Moseley Old Hall at SJ934044.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Dudley; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 968; Wrottesley, 'Staf
fordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 110.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This place-name appears clearly in the manuscript as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 MOLESLEI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, as it does in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile, however, it appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 MOLESLBI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
; on other misleading reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ROGER. On the name Roger, see B4 Roger note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab COUNTESS GODIVA HELD IT. See 4,2 Godiva note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,22\tab }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 THE ENTRY is duplicated in WAR 27,6, where Godiva is omitted (JRM); see }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
, iv. p. 55 note 76.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The corresponding 
entry in the Warwickshire folios is the last in the fief of William son of Ansculf and is headed 'In Cuttlestone Hundred', although that was not a Warwickshire hundred and the head itself was a later addition to the entry. Essington was almost certainly i
ncluded there because in the putative circuit volume William's holdings in four of the counties in circuit IV were probably not perfectly divided between these counties; see \{Introduction: Circuit and Ruling Pattern\}
. It would seem that by the time he wrote up Staffordshire (assuming this was done after Warwickshire) the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
main scribe of Great Domesday had discovered that the holding was in Staffordshire, though he did not then return to delete it from the Warwickshire folios. (He also failed to transfer
 another holding wrongly entered there - for Chillington, WAR 28,19 - which also had a Cuttlestone hundred head written above it.) }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Apart from the omission of the }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 holder in the Warwickshire version, there are a few other differences between it and the present entry, such as 'land' instead of the more exact 'manor', 'with' for 'have' and the omission of }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 omnino}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 ('completely'). However, the source of both entries would have been the same.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In the central margin next to this entry several words have been
 erased. It is not clear what they were, as only isolated parts of letters are now visible, but other such erasures in Great Domesday were often connected with corrections to the adjacent text; see 1,56 carucate note. As nothing was corrected within this 
entry, it is possible that they were connected with this duplicate entry.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ROGER. On the name Roger, see B4 Roger note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ESSINGTON. This was a township of Bushbury Ancient Parish. Although Bushbury itself (7,3. 12,19) probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086
, Essington is indicated by Domesday as lying in Cuttlestone Hundred as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 1, 16; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Dudley; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 543;}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Rotuli Hundredorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 114 (where it is printed as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Elington'}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 1.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BUSHBURY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 10, 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282. For other parts, see 7,3. 12,19.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WHICH BELONGS TO THIS MANOR. That is, to Essington. On the use of the word manor, see 1,1 manor note. In the duplicate entry in WAR 27,6 (see 12,22 entry note) }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 terra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('land') is used, which is a loose term, sometimes used when 'manor' is meant, sometimes when the status of the land is uncertain.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab COUNTESS GODIVA HELD IT. See 4,2 Godiva note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,23\tab OFFLOW. In the manuscript this hundred head is clearly }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 OFFELAV}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. However, in the Alecto facsimile it appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 OFFCLAV}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; on o
ther misleading reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WALBERT <OF FULSTOW> HOLDS. See 11,41 Walbert note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BRADLEY. This was a settlement that lay in Bilston, a chapelry and township of the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter. 
Both Bilston (1,4) and Wolverhampton (7,1) appear to have lain in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 and Bradley is certainly in that hundred later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283. However, Bradley is clearly placed by Domesday in Offlow Hundred. The place lay on th
e border between Seisdon and Offlow Hundreds and it could have been drawn into Bilston or Wolverhampton after 1086. On this, see }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
Bridgeman and Mander, 'Staffordshire Hidation, pp. 164, 171. They show that Ettingshall (12,18), Bilston (1,4) and Bradley make
 a five-hide unit in Seisdon Hundred. Against Bradley's being in Seisdon Hundred it can be said that land in that hundred had already been entered (12,1-21) and there is no reason to think that the present entry is out of sequence.
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The Domesday name is represented by the settlements of Bradley and Lower Bradley, both at SO9595.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Dudley; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 543.}{\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab "UNTAN" <OF COUGHTON> HELD. The Domesday form, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vntan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , which only occurs here, might represent Old Nor
se }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Otamr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old Swedish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Otam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, or it might derive from Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wulfstan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  like the forms }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vltan}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlstan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in 12,7;12;20, or it might represent Old English }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hunstan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 402. The printed Phillimore edition has Untan, but in view of the uncertainty, it has been decided to keep to the Domesday form. The Alecto edition has Untan. }{\insrsid5780933 The Domesday name-forms }{
\i\insrsid5780933 Vntain}{\insrsid5780933  of WAR 17,13 and }{\i\insrsid5780933 Vntoni}{\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\insrsid5780933 us}{\insrsid5780933 ] of WAR 17,69, both rendered Untan
 in the Phillimore printed edition, might represent any of the same names, but they also have been retained in their Domesday form. The Alecto edition has Untan for WAR 17,13 and Unton for WAR 17,69.
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid399784 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab As there are no other holdings of people with Domesday
 name-forms resembling }{\i\insrsid5780933 Untain}{\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\insrsid5780933 Untan}{\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\insrsid5780933 Unton}{\insrsid5780933 
 and as the land of "Unton" in Coughton (WAR 17,69) passed to Robert d'Oilly like the present land, it is likely that the names "Untain" and "Unton" represent the same individual, despite Coughton and Dosthill 
(WAR 17,13) being 25 miles apart. It is also likely that the present holder "Untan" was the same person, though his land passed to William son of Ansculf and Bradley is 22 miles from Coughton and 17 miles from Dosthill.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid399784 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 
WITH FULL JURISDICTION. See B11 jurisdiction note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab MEADOW, 2 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday briefly omitted this detail when entering the woodland on the previous line; it may have been misplaced in his source.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,24\tab ROBERT [* D'OILLY *] HOLDS. On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note, and on his identification, see 12,25 Barr note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALDRIDGE. The Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alrewic}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 279. For the descent, see 12,25 Barr note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND. See 7,7 woodland note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE KING HAD THE JURISDICTION. That is, over the two thanes, rather than over the 3 hides; see 12,17 jurisdiction note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,25\tab HE ALSO ^[ROBERT [* D'OILLY *]]^ HOLDS. On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note, and on his identification, see 12,25 Barr note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BARR. Great Barr was a chapelry and township of Aldridge Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 6, 14; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 279. There was a 'Little Barr' which is said to be lost; see Bate and Palliser, 'Suspected Lost Village Sites in Staffordshire', p. 34. They suggest that 'Little Barr' was depopulated in the fourteenth century.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On the O
rdnance Survey first series one-inch map (sheet 62 of 1834 reprinted as sheet 42 in 1970), Great Barr is situated at SP049958, opposite the church at the northern entrance to Great Barr park. The Old Hall is at SP056962; Barr Hall is at SP056953 and Barr 
M
ill is at SP057945. On modern maps, the settlement of Great Barr has shifted and is centred on SP043955; the Old Hall is still marked, Barr Hall (which subsequently became St Margaret's hospital) is no longer recorded and Barr Mill has disappeared. There 
i
s no trace of 'Little Barr'. There are streets called Great Barr Street and Little Barr Street leading into Lawley Street in Bordesley, just to the east of Birmingham city centre, but they have no antiquity or significance. In fact 'Little' Barr is not a 
lost place but is what is now known as Perry Barr, because of its long association with the Domesday estate of Perry (12,27); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Warwickshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, vii. p. 71; and 12,27 Perry note .}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In 957 King Edred gave 5 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 mansiunculae}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
aet Eastun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 aet Bearre}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  to his thane Wulfhelm: }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{
\insrsid5780933 , pp. 94-95 no. 87 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 574). The term }{\i\insrsid5780933 mansiunculae}{\insrsid5780933  is a diminutive of }{\i\insrsid5780933 mansa}{\insrsid5780933  or }{
\i\insrsid5780933 mansus}{\insrsid5780933  or }{\i\insrsid5780933 mansio}{\insrsid5780933 , and in the context is self-deprecating and mock-modest ('five minor holdings'), when there is no reason to think that the size was smaller than that of a }{
\i\insrsid5780933 mansa}{\insrsid5780933  or }{\i\insrsid5780933 mansus}{\insrsid5780933 , that is a hide. }{\i\insrsid5780933 Bearre}{\insrsid5780933  could well be Barr and three of the five }{\i\insrsid5780933 mansiunculae}{\insrsid5780933 
 could be represented by one or other of the three-hide holdings here in Domesday (12,25;28). }{\i\insrsid5780933 Eastun}{\insrsid5780933 
 is impossible to identify with certainty. Ekwall, 'Some Old English Charters', suggested Little Aston (in Shenstone, SK0900) not mentioned in Domesday Book, though Shenstone itself is (8,32). This identification was adopted by Hart in }{
\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , pp. 94-95. There are estates totalling 2 hides less 1 virgate at Aston-by-Stone and Stoke (both 11,9) and at Aston-by-Stone itself (11,23); 
with three hides at one of the places called Barr, this would amount to 4 \'be of the 5 }{\i\insrsid5780933 mansiunculae}{\insrsid5780933 . However, a better identification might be with }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
Aston in Birmingham (SP0889) not far from Barr, though in Warwickshire (WAR 27,1), which was held in 1086 by William son of Ansculf. However, if this is so, the 5 }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 mansiunculae}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 of the charter can only refer to part of the later estates which amount to 14 hides.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab There are two holdings at }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Barra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Barre}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in the present fief (here and in 12,28). They are both the sam
e size (3 hides), so if, between them, they account for Great Barr and 'Little Barr' it might seem either that one or both of the 'Barr' estates had expanded or contracted, so that the relative sizes changed or that 'Little Barr' was a subdivision of one 
of the three-hide 'Barr' estates or of their combined total. The two entries are not duplicates of one another, since they have different }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 holders and discrepant detail. Alternatively, 'Little Barr' may have arisen as a post-Domesday division of Perry (12,27).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, iv. p. 55 note 79, identifies the holding at 12,28 with 'Little Barr', apparently ignoring the question of the relative size of the holdings. Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, p. 63 and table facing p. 59, identified both these entries as being parts of Great Barr. The Phillimore printed edition identifies the first holding (12,25) as (Great) Barr and the second (12,28) as (Great?) Barr.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\insrsid5780933 Two places called 'Barr' descended in the barony of Dudley. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 543, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Barre}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is coupled with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alrewyz}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 [Alrewas, 1,11], as a fee of John de Somery, and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Parva Barre}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  appears in the same list. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 968, Richard }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Parva Barra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  holds 1 fee in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Barra}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , evidently 'Little Barr'. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Barr }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Parva Barr}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  are separate holdings in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 6, 9: Felicia, mistress of Barr, holds the first from William 
}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Plesi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , and Richard }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Barr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  holds }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Parva Barr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  from William }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Wurmincham}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [for }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Burmincham}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , that is Birmingham]. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, v. p. 14 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Barre Magna}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is held by John }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Someri}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Parva Barre}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is held by John }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Parva Barre}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. This division might reflect the Domesday situation with different subtenants (William and Drogo) for 12,25 and 12,28, but there would have had to have been some change in the size of the holdings to produce a Great Barr and a 'Little Barr'.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab There is some evidence that 'Little Barr' was later a two-hide estate (}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Wrottesley, 'Plea Rolls temp. Henry III', pp 156-57)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, suggesting that Great Barr was a four-hide estate if Great and Little Barr arose from the co
mbined total of the two places called 'Barr' in Domesday. Perry (12,27) was a three-hide estate, and 'Little Barr', if it arose from Perry, seems to be an overlarge subdivision. However, Perry and 'Little Barr' were tenurially associated: i}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 n }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 9, 'Little Barr' is held by William of Birmingham, and he also holds }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Piri }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 [Perry]}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 in }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 6. This does not necessarily suggest that 'Little Barr' arose from Perry, for both
 Perry (12,27) and the 'Barr' of 12,28 were held by Drogo in 1086, which might suggest that his 'Barr' became, with adjustments, 'Little Barr'. But no descent from Drogo to William of Birmingham has been traced and the latter also later held Rushall (12,2
6) which was held by Thorkil in 1086.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 
In 1254-55 'Great Barr' was held with Aldridge (12,24) from the heirs of d'Oilly, suggesting not only that Robert, the subtenant here and in 12,24 was Robert d'Oilly, but that the present holding at least became 'Grea
t' Barr; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BUT ONLY 1 VILLAGER THERE. On an estate of 3 hides, with no lordship land or ploughs, a population larger than two (1 villager and 1 smallholder) would be expected. Compare Perry Barr (12,27)
, also 3 hides, where there was a population of at least seven (4 villagers, 3 smallholders); see 12,25 [***] note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the line after the villager and smallholder, before entering the woodland o
n the next line. It is not clear whether this was for the later insertion of any more population or their ploughs, though he wrote a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 bord'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND. See 7,7 woodland note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab VAGN <OF WOLFORD> HELD. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Waga }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vaganus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 (1086) - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vagn}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 402-403. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Waga and Wagen, but these have now been altered to Vagn, as von Feiltitzen e
xplained the Domesday form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Waga}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , and the form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vaganus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  obviously represents }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vagn}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . The Alecto edition has Vagn.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
\par }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The name Vagn occurs nine times in Domesday Book, eight times in the Midla
nds and once in East Anglia, a distribution which may indicate two individuals. The seven Warwickshire holdings form a group and devolved upon the same tenant-in-chief making it probable that this Vagn (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Waga}{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ) was a single individual. The Staffordshire hold
ing, though acquired by a different tenant-in-chief, lay just across the county boundary, its proximity to the Warwickshire holdings of the man with this uncommon name suggesting that this, too, had belonged to the same person in 1066 (JP).
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Wolford is one of the estates that Vagn had held in Warwickshire (WAR 22,1).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,26\tab THORKIL <OF SYERSCOTE> HOLDS. On the name Thorkil, see 11,48 Thorkil note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab RUSHALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 7, 14; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Dudley:}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 968;}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 7.
\par \tab \tab This place-name is clearly }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 RISCHALE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in the manuscript, as it 
is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile, however, the second letter appears as a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 U}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
; on other misleading reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND. See 7,7 woodland note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab VITHFARI HELD IT. On this name, see 11,43 Vithfari note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH FULL JURISDICTION. See B11 jurisdiction note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,27\tab DROGO <OF EDGBASTON> HOLDS. On the name Drogo, see 11,66 Drogo note. All the subtenants of William son of Ansculf called Drogo were probably the same person (12,27-29), as no doubt}{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  was his tenant Drogo in Warwickshire (WAR 27,4: Edgbaston). See Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 181.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab PERRY . The Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pirio}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, but the administrative area is now known as Perry Barr. This area is a fusion of two separate estates, Perry and Perry Barr, formerly 'Little Barr', which have different histories. In the Phillimore printed edition }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pirio}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is identified as Perry Barr; it is correctly printed as Perry (Barr) in the translation but wrongly i
ndexed as (Perry) Barr. On modern Ordnance Survey maps Perry is marked at SP068920 and Perry Barr at SP071913. On the first edition one-inch Ordnance Survey map (sheet 62 of 1834, reprinted as sheet 62 of 1970) the main settlement is known as Perry, but t
h
ere is a Perry Hall at SP061919. Perry Barr itself does not appear. What is now known as Great Barr Station was then called Perry Barr Station. On modern maps, the flight of locks on the Tame Valley canal are marked as Perry Barr Locks, even though they a
re closer to Perry than to Perry Barr. Perry Barr possibly arose by an early division of Perry, or its origin is to be sought in the estates called }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Barre}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , 
}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Barra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in Domesday (12,25;28); see 12,25 Barr note.
\par \tab \tab As an administrative area, Perry Barr, which incorporated both Perry and Perry Barr, lay in Handsworth Ancient Parish. Perry probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 6; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279. In the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Lay Subsidy Roll}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  it is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pirye }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 coupled with}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Parva Barre}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (Perry a
nd 'Little Barr'). For 'Little Barr', see 12,25 Barr note. Perry Barr was created a separate Civil Parish in 1894 and in 1928 that was divided between the borough of West Bromwich (Staffordshire), the Municipal Borough and Ancient Parish of Sutton Coldfie
ld (Warwickshire) and the borough of Birmingham (Warwickshire); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Warwickshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , vii. pp. 23-25, 69-71; Youngs, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 419.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pirihe}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  descended within the barony of Dudley; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 968. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 6, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Piri }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Humstud}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 [Hamstead, SP0492] are held from John of Somery; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab MEADOW, 4 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of acres from }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .iii.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 by adding a fourth minim over the original }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 punctus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and adding a new one after it (written higher than usual to avoid the bowl of the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 a}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ac'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LEOFWARU HELD IT. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Leuuare}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Leuiara}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Liuuara, Luuare }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
- represent the feminine Old English name }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Leofwaru}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 316. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Leofwaru and Leofwara; these have now been standardized as Leofwaru. The Alecto edition has Leofwaru.

\par \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH FULL JURISDICTION. See B11 jurisdiction note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,28\tab HE ALSO ^[DROGO <OF EDGBASTON>]^ HOLDS. See 12,27 Drogo note, and on the name Drogo, see 11,66 Drogo note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BARR. See 12,25 Barr note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALFRED HELD IT. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alured}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aluredus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aluret}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Alueradus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aluerd}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aluert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aluer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Eluret}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aelfraed}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }
{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 175-76. However, he stated that sometimes the Old Breton }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alfred}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alfret}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alfrit}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  might sometimes be considered, as well as Old German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alverat}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  etc., especially for Normans and 1086 landholders. JRM preferred the modern form Alfred for both }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  and 1086 holders}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . The Alecto edition has Alfred and Alvred, the latter most often for 1086 holders.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH FULL JURISDICTION. See B11 jurisdiction note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,29\tab DROGO<OF EDGBASTON> ALSO HOLDS. See 12,27 Drogo note, and on the name Drogo, see 11,66 Drogo note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab HANDSWORTH. This place-name appears clearly in the manuscript as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 HONESWORDE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, as it does in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. However, in the Alecto facsimile the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 R }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 appears as an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 E}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; on other misleading reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.
\par \tab \tab Handsworth St Mary was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 9, 14; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279. Handsworth was transferred to the borough of Birmingham (Warwickshire) in 1911.
\par \tab \tab The estate descended within the barony of Dudley; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 543, 968;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108;}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Rotuli Hundredorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 116; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 9; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Warwickshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , vii. pp. 23, 68.

\par \tab \tab William son of Ansculf also held 5 hides at a place called }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hunesworde}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 in the Oxfordshire folios (OXF 21,1). It has not been certainly identified and has been taken to be a further part of Handsworth; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Warwickshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, vii. p. 68. However, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hunesworde}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  appears in Domesday Oxfordshire under the name of an Oxfords
hire hundred, Dorchester Hundred, and probably lay in that county.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab AELFRITH. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ailuert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ailuerd}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aeluert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aieluert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \'c6thelfrith}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
: von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 183, which also includes the form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Aluerd}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aluert}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  because of the corresponding form in the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Liber Exoniensis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and because the occurrences refer to Aethelfrith }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 minister}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ibidem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , note 2). The Domesday forms lack the medial }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
-d- }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 or }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -g-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 which JRM thought was the requisite for including them under Aethelfrith, but elsewhere he dealt with names beginning }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ail-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ael}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aiel- }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
etc. under the form 'Ael-' (see Aelred, Aeleva, Aelmer etc.). In the printed Phillimore edition of STS 12,29 the form Alfward appears, while Aethelfrith occurs in that for SOM and DOR; these have now been standardized as Aelfrith. The Alecto edition has 
\'c6thelfrith for all these.
\par \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALWIN. On the name-form Alwin, see 1,45 Alwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WITH FULL JURISDICTION. See B11 jurisdiction note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY, which was the only one then on folio 250b, the main scribe of Great Domesday left the rest of the column blank before beginning the fief of Richard the fores
ter on the verso (folio 250c). The reason for this exceptionally large space is unclear, but proved useful for the later insertion, after rubrication had taken place, of the holdings of William son of Corbucion and "Turstin"; see 12,30 entry note and 12,3
1 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,30\tab 
THIS ENTRY was written by the main scribe of Great Domesday in very dark ink in part of a large space left by him after the end of the fief of William son of Ansculf (12,29 after note). It was added after rubrication had taken place and 
at the same time as the entry for a holding in Drayton written below it (12,31 entry note). They were numbered by Phillimore as part of the chapter on William son of Ansculf, though they are quite separate from it and from each other: the scribe left blan
k two lines after chapter 12 and a further line between the two entries. Moreover, the size of the initial letters of the names of both holders (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 W}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) are commensurate with those of the name in the first entry in a fief rather than with those in subseque
nt entries. Both entries are probably single-entry fiefs and the chapter heads for them would have been added when the scribe returned to rubricate them and the two other added entries in this county (16,2 entry note and 16,3 entry note). For the same rea
s
on there are no fief numbers. William son of Corbucion does not appear in the Landholders' List on folio 246a and no holding of his is recorded elsewhere in Staffordshire. Sibford Gower is in Oxfordshire and it is very probable that this entry was added b
y
 mistake to the Staffordshire folios. Another estate in 'Sibford', Sibford Ferris, held by Henry of Ferrers, was correctly recorded in the Oxfordshire folios during the initial writing up of that county (OXF 24,3), while a further holding in Sibford was e
ntered in the Northamptonshire folios in the fief of Hugh of Grandmesnil, as the last of four entries for places that lay in Oxfordshire in 1086 (NTH 23,19). The main scribe jotted down the word }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Siboford}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in the top margin of folio 160ab, which contained a n
umber of other short fiefs and where that of William son of Corbucion would naturally belong. This memorandum was probably to alert himself to the misplaced addition in the Staffordshire folios, as there was no room there for the fief to be added, rather 
than that the present addition was in response to that note (albeit in the wrong county folios); this corrects Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', p. 128, note 1 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
The Story of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 19, note 68). However, a holding of Will
iam son of Corbucion in Chillington should have been entered in the Staffordshire folios, but was in fact entered in those for Warwickshire (WAR 28,19), though under a Cuttlestone hundred head (as was a holding in Essington; see 12,22 entry note). These e
rrors were almost certainly caused by confusion in the feudally-arranged circuit volume; see \{Introduction: Circuit and Ruling Pattern\}.
\par \tab \tab For a reproduction of this entry for Sibford, see Gullick, 'Great and Little Domesday', Fig. 13.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab For the addition by
 the main scribe of two other entries after the rubrication of this county, see 16,2 entry note. He did not, however, add any entries before rubrication; the only other counties where his only added entries were unrubricated ones are Kent in circuit I and
 Leicestershire in the same circuit (IV) as Staffordshire. For his addition of the fief of Reginald [of] Bailleul before rubrication, see STS 14 chapter note. For the addition of a brief entry by scribe B, see 7,11 entry note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ^[OXFORDSHIRE]^. [* IN BLOXHAM HUNDRED *]. These headings are supplied from the location of Sibford Gower; see 12,30 Sibford note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab There are very few hundred heads in Domesday Oxfordshire, but in any case the main scribe of Great Domesday almost always o
mitted such heads when he added entries after rubrication of a county had taken place; see LEC 1,12 entry note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WILLIAM SON OF CORBUCION HOLDS.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  On the name William, see B8 William note. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
The Domesday forms of his father's name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Corbucion}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Corbuzon}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Corbucio}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Corbutio}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Corbucun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Corbucinus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (the last four being for Robert son of Corbucion) - may represent the Old French hypothetical name }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Corbucion}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , derived from the hypothetical Vulgar Latin}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Corbutio}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Corvutio}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , from Classical Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 corvus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('raven'). The Alecto edition has Corbucion.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\insrsid5780933 
William son of Corbucion had a small fief in Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire. His father was perhaps Corbutio of Falaise, named from the place in the French d\'e9partement of Calvados (arrondissement Caen). H
is successor in 1166 was Peter Corbucion, also known as Peter of Studley, named from Studley in Warwickshire (WAR 28,16), held by William in 1086.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab SIBFORD [GOWER].This was a township in Swalcliffe Ancient Parish in Oxfordshire.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estate passed to William son of Corbucion's successors and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 c}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. 1190 was held by Peter Corbucion. By 1222 the overlord was Henry of Beaumont, Earl of Warwick, and the estate then passed down the line of the Earls of Warwick; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 449, 454, 614, 823, 837; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. pp. 166, 178, 179; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Oxfordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , x. p. 235.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab RALPH. On the name Ralph, see 2,22 Ralph note. In about 1190 the undertenancy was held by a Norman family called Goher, who gave their name (as Gower) to the manor; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Oxfordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , x. p. 235.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 
PASTURE 7 FURLONGS LONG AND WIDE. This is the only mention of pasture in the Staffordshire folios, though pasturable woodland occurs in nine entries (see 7,7 woodland note). In Domesday Oxfordshire, however, in which this entry belonged, pasture was recor
ded far more often.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 12,31\tab 
THIS ENTRY was written by the main scribe of Great Domesday in very dark ink in part of a large space left by him after the end of the fief of William son of Ansculf (12,29 after note). It was added after rubrication had taken plac
e and at the same time as the entry for a holding in Sibford Gower written above it (12,30 entry note). They were numbered by Phillimore as part of the chapter on William son of Ansculf, though they are quite separate from it and from each other: the scri
be left a gap equivalent to two lines of writing after chapter 12 and a slightly smaller gap between the two entries. Moreover, the size of the initial letters of the names of both holders (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 W}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) are commensurate with those of the name in the first entry
 in a fief rather than with those in subsequent entries. Both entries are probably single-entry fiefs and the chapter heads for them would have been added when the scribe returned to rubricate them and the two other added entries in this county (16,2 entr
y
 note and 16,3 entry note). There is no mention of "Turstin" in the Landholders' List on folio 246a and he holds no other land in Staffordshire. Drayton is in Oxfordshire and this entry would seem to be a duplicate of a chapter already recorded in that co
u
nty (OXF 57). However, the fief-holder there is named as Thorkil [of Warwick/Arden], an Englishman who, unusually, still held land in chief in 1086, and the descent of Drayton was to the Earls of Warwick; see 12,31 "Turstin" note. The similarity between t
he forms of the two names - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Turchil}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Turstin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 - may have caused this discrepancy (the only other one is the inclusion of 'from the king' after Drayton in OXF 57,1), which led to the duplication, albeit in the wrong county. There are a great many instances
 of entries for places included in the wrong county in Circuit IV, of which Staffordshire was part; see 12,30 entry note and \{Introduction: Circuit and Ruling Pattern\}. On the omission of the hundred head for this entry, see 12,30 Bloxham note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab For the a
ddition by the main scribe of two other entries after the rubrication of this county, see 16,2 entry note. He did not, however, add any entries before rubrication; the only other counties where his only added entries were unrubricated ones are Kent in cir
cuit I and Leicestershire in the same circuit (IV) as Staffordshire. For his addition of the fief of Reginald [of] Bailleul before rubrication, see STS 14 chapter note. For the addition of a brief entry by scribe B, see 7,11 entry note.}{\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab "TURSTIN" [* THORKIL OF WARWICK *] HOLDS. It is not clear what name is represented by the Domesday forms of the 1086 holder given in this entry, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Turstin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
]. The name is not mentioned in Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . Dauzat, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dictionnaire des Noms et Pr\'e9noms de France}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , states that }{\lang1036\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp1036\insrsid5780933 
Tostain, Toustain are the archaic forms of the Norman names }{\i\lang1036\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp1036\insrsid5780933 Totain}{\lang1036\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp1036\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\lang1036\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp1036\insrsid5780933  Toutain}{
\lang1036\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp1036\insrsid5780933 , deriving from the Nordic baptismal name }{\i\lang1036\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp1036\insrsid5780933 Thor-steinn}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 . Thorsteinn is the Old Norse form of the Old Danish }{
\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Thorsten}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , used here for the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  holders (called Thurstan in}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 the printed Phillimore edition), }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 but has come into England by a different route, not directly from Scandinavia, but via Normandy, though retaining the medial }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 -r-}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 . }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The printed Phillimore edition has Thurstan, but this has been altered 
here to "Turstin". However, as there is doubt as to whether the Domesday form represents a "Turstin" or a Thorsten (it is probably a mistaken extension of an original }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tur'}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), it has been decided for the present edition to leave it in the Domesday form. The Alecto edition generally has Turstin for the 1086 holders, though Thorsten for the present entry.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
\par \tab \tab On the likelihood that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 TVRSTIN' }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 here is an error for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 TVRCHIL}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , the tenant-in-chief of t
he duplicate fief in OXF 57, see 12,31 entry note. He was Thorkil of Warwick, also known as Thorkil of Arden, and the son of Alwin the sheriff of Warwickshire who died in the 1080s. Thorkil himself may have succeeded him as sheriff. His estates, mostly in
herited, made him unusually wealthy for an Englishmen; among his subtenants were a number of his relatives. His fief was added under William Rufus to the newly-formed earldom of Warwick given }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 c}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . 1089 to Henry of Beaumont, the brother of the Domesday tenant-in-chief, Count Robert of Meulan.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab DRAYTON. This was an Oxfordshire Ancient Parish. The estate passed to the Earls of Warwick (}{\insrsid5780933 see 12,31 "Turstin" note}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ) and was held under them by the de Arden family; see }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 317; }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , iv. pp. 166, 179; }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Oxfordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , ix. pp. 104-106.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 13\tab LAND OF RICHARD THE FORESTER. On the name Richard, see 7,2 Richard note.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Richard the forester held land in Staffordshire and in Warwickshire in Domesday Book. In Staffordshire he has a chapter of h
is own, while in Warwickshire he shares a chapter with the king's thanes and servants and holds six manors (WAR 44,1-6). He may be the same man as Richard the hunter who also holds the next two manors in that chapter (WAR 44,7-8). Of these, Chesterton (44
,
8) was later held by service of guarding the forest of Cannock and this may have been the case in 1086 and that Richard the forester/ Richard the hunter held his Staffordshire fief and his Warwickshire lands by forest-serjeantry. The office was probably h
ereditary. A number of his Staffordshire estates (Knutton, Dimsdale, Hanford, Clayton, Hanchurch, Whitmore) were held later by Randulf of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cnoton' }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
(Knutton) and the tenure was said (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 143) to be }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de antiquo iure}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  scilicet de conquestu Angliae}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (
'by ancient right, that is from the conquest of England'). Randulf of Knutton clearly inherited some of Richard the forester's lands and was perhaps his descendant; see }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 53}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . Other lands went to Hugh }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Loges}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . On th
e descent of these lands and on the possible identity of Richard the forester, Richard the hunter and Richard }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Chenvin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , see WAR 44,1 Richard note and }{
\insrsid5780933 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 365.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab The arrangement of this fief is by hundred:
\par \tab \tab 13,1-8 Pirehill Hundred
\par \tab \tab 13,9-10 Cuttlestone Hundred
\par \tab Within these hundreds, land apparently held in lordship (13,5;7-10), is intermingled with land that is subinfeudated (13,1-4;6).}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 13,1\tab PIREHILL. In the manuscript this is clearly }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 PEREHOLLE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , but the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 H}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (a large }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 h}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) is miswritte
n so that the bowl of it is rather close to the tick at the foot of the ascender. In the Ordnance Survey facsimile and the Alecto facsimile, however, the small gap between the bowl and the ascender is not visible so the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 H}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  appears as a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 b}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. On other misleading reproductions in the latter facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THURSFIELD. This was a township of Wolstanton Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Historic Parishes}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . It was also a chapelry, later known as Newchapel; see }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , pp. 87-88; }{
\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 56 note 83. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 In 1086 it lay in Pirehill Hundred, as probably did Wolstanton itself (1,15).}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In later times the manor of Thursfield accounted for Tunstall, Chatterley, Chell and Bradwall which were all members of the same Ancient Parish according to }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , p. 88}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . However, the Domesday estate is a single virgate and the later manor may have grown at others' expense. According to the }
{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 143, 594, Henry de Audley held as part of the manor of Newcastle[-under-Lyme] }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Tunstal'}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Tunstall, SJ8651], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Chadderleg'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Chatterley, SJ8451], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Bradewell'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Bradwall], }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Turvedesfeld}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Thursfield] and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Normannecot}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [probably Normacot, 13,3] by serjeanty. Of these Tunstall, Chatterley and Normacott had probably been part of the royal manor of Wolstanton (1,15); see 1,15 Wolstanton note.}{\insrsid5780933 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 The grid reference is to Thursfield Lodge (SJ861550).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. The identity of this Nigel is shown by }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 53, 87-88. He is a tenant-in-chief in Staffordshire (STS 16).}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 On the name Nigel, see 2,6 Nigel note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BERNWULF. On this name, see 8,6 Bernwulf note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 13,2\tab WHITMORE. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab By 1212 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 143) six estates in this fief (13,2;4-8), including }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Witmor'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 were in the hands of Randulf }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Cnoton'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  holding }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de antiquo jure}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('by ancient right') from the king 'from the conquest of England'; see STS 13 Richard note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. See 13,1 Nigel note, and on his first name, see 2,6 Nigel note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFHEAH HELD IT. On this name, see 1,43 Wulfheah note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 13,3\tab 
NORMACOT. This was a township of Stone Ancient Parish. Stone itself does not appear in Domesday, but a number of the constituent parts of the later Ancient Parish do so; see 1,40 Fulford note. Normacot pr
obably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086, as it did later.
\par \tab \tab This estate appears to have descended differently from others in this fief. According to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 1285, for the years 1251-52, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Normauncote }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 in Pirehill Hundred had been held by Henry }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Bidulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 in chief from the king by service of castle ward at Newcastle[-under-Lyme]. This Henry sold it to Henry de Audeley who gave it in alms to the Abbot of Hulton; see \{Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\}.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALMER. On the name-form Almer, see 1,40 Almer note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFRIC. On this name, see 1,44 Wulfric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFMER HELD IT. On this name, see 1,62 Wulfmer note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 13,4\tab HANFORD. This was a settlement in Trentham Ancient Parish. Like Trentham itself (1,8) and the surrounding entries here, it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.
\par \tab \tab By 1212 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 143) six estates in this fief (13,2;4-8), including }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Honeford'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , were in the hands of Randulf }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Cnoton'}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  holding }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de antiquo jure}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('by ancient right') from the king 'from the conquest of England'}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Hanford is represented by Hanford itself (SJ8642) and South Hanford Farm (SJ8742).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. See 13,1 Nigel note, and on his first name, see 2,6 Nigel note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THOLF HELD IT. On this name, see 11,1 Tholf note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab A WOOD OF MEDIUM-SIZE [TREES]. See 11,11 wood note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab PERCHES. }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 The perch is a linear measure, usually reckoned as 16 \'bd
 feet, 40 of them making a furlong, though a 20-foot perch was in use for measuring woodland until last century; see Zupko, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Dictionary of English Weights and Measures}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , un
der perch; see also Grierson, 'Weights and Measures', pp. 80-81 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 The Story of Domesday Book}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
, p. 120). Perches also occur in 17,17 in connection with the woodland and as here both length and width are the same.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 13,5\tab HANCHURCH. This was a township of Trentham Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Historic Parishes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. Like Trentham itself (1,8) and the surrounding entries here, it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab By 1212 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 143) six estates in this fief (13,2;4-8), including }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Hanchurche}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , were in the hands of Randulf }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Cnoton'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 holding }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de antiquo jure}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('by ancient right') from the king 'from the conquest of England'; see STS 13 Richard note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab "PATA" HELD IT. The name represented by the Domesday form, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pata}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , which only
 occurs here, is unclear, perhaps a weak equivalent of the obscure }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pat}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 343. In view of the uncertainty it has been decided to retain the Domesday form. The Alecto edition has Pata.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 3 PARTS OF \'bd HIDE. That is 1 \'bd virgates, assuming that a 'part' is a quarter.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 13,6\tab CLAYTON. This was a township}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 of the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent; see Kain and Oliver, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Historic Parishes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . The Civil Parish of this name was created in 1896 from Stoke Rural Civ
il Parish and Trentham Ancient Parish. Clayton probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 like the surrounding entries. It formerly consisted of 'Great' Clayton and 'Little' Clayton. For the identification, see Parker, }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
' Chetwynd's History of Pirehill Hundred (part 1)',}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  p. 69 note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 
By the middle of the thirteenth century, this estate had been divided into 'Great' Clayton and 'Clayton Griffith' or 'Little' Clayton. Great Clayton, the southern part, was absorbed by the royal manor of Newcastle-under-Lyme, whi
ch accounts for the fact that in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 277, Clayton is listed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown. 'Little' Clayton continued as an independent estate and was held by the Griffin family of the lord of Knutton in Wolstanton; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffo
rdshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , viii. p. 77. Thus, by 1212 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 143) six estates in this fief (13,2;4-8), including 
}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Claiton'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , were in the hands of Randulf }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Cnoton'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 holding }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de antiquo jure}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('by ancient right') from the king 'from the conquest of England'; see STS 13 Richard note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. See 13,1 Nigel note, and on his first name, see 2,6 Nigel note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab SEGRIM HELD IT. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Sagrim}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Segrim}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Sacrimus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 - represent Old Danish }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Segrim}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and the hypothetical Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 S\'e6grimr}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 353. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Saegrim, Segrim and Saegrimr; these have now been standardized as Segrim. The Alecto edition has Segrim.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 13,7\tab DIMSDALE. This was a settlement in Wolstanton Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.
\par \tab \tab By 1212 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 143) six estates in this fief (13,2;4-8), including }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Dimesdal'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , were in the hands of Randulf }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Cnoton'}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  holding }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de antiquo jure}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('by ancient right') from the king 'from the conquest of England'; see STS 13 Richard note.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The grid reference (SK8448) is to Dimsdale Hall Farm.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab In the manuscript this place-name is clearly }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 DVLMESDENE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile, however, it appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 DVLMELDENE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
; on other misleading reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GLADWIN <OF DIMSDALE>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gladuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gladuine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gleduin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
] - represent the hypothetical Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gl\'e6dwine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 261-62
. JRM preferred the form Gladwin as it reflected the Domesday forms more closely. The form Gladwine, however, appears in the Phillimore printed translation for Lincolnshire; it has now been standardized as Gladwin. The Alecto edition has Gl\'e6dwine.

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par \tab \tab The small, shared holding at Dimsdale was over 50 miles from any other property held by a Gladwin and without tenurial associations with any of them. It was probably the sole property of this man (JP).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODWIN. On this name, see 8,19 Godwin note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 13,8\tab KNUTTON. This was a settlement in Wolstanton Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 12 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Nonton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ); }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab By 1212 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 143) six estates in this fief (13,2;4-8), including }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cnoton'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , were in the hands of Randulf }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Cnoton'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  holding 
}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de antiquo jure}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('by ancient right') from the king 'from the conquest of England'; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 593, 1285; see STS 13 Richard note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODWIN HELD IT. On this name, see 8,19 Godwin note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab 4 VILLAGERS WITH 1 SMALLHOLDER HAVE 1 PLOUGH. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Ibi sunt .iiii. uillani cum .i. bordario}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 habent unam carucam}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ;}{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  habent }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 perhaps for }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 habentes}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  (JRM). Alternatively, the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 main scribe of Great Domesday may have omitted }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  before }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 habent}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 ('There are 4 villagers with 1 smallholder; they have 1 plough'), which is assumed in the Alecto edition. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 56, translates }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 habent}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 habentes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 13,9\tab CUTTLESTONE. In the manuscript this is clearly }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 CVLVESTAN}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile, however, it appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 CVbVESTAN}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 A}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is not the same shape as it is in the manuscript; on other misleading reproductions in this facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab RODBASTON. This was a township of Penkridge Ancient Parish; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, i. p. 102. In 1086 it lay in Cuttlestone Hundred as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281. The grid reference is to Rodbaston College (SJ9211).

\par \tab \tab After 1086, this estate followed the descent of Great Wyrley (see 1,25 dependencies note), ending up in the hands of Hugh }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Loges}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 who in 1195 held it (along with Chesterton in Warwickshire, WAR 44,8) by }{\cf1\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 serjeantry}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , of guardi
ng the forest of Cannock, presumably as chief forester; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 6, 594; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 120. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 594, the serjeantry includes part of }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wyrle}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Great Wyrley]. In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, ii. p. 115, Hugh de Loygis holds }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 pro ball'ia de Kanock' custodienda }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ('in return for guarding the bailiwick of Cannock').}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALLI <OF RODBASTON>. The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alli}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , represents Old Danish }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Alli}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 146-47. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Alli and Aellic; these have now been standardized as Alli. The Alecto edition has Alli.
\par \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
\par }{\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The Alli of this tiny holding at Rodbaston was remote from all his namesakes with whom he had no tenurial or other associations. This is likely to have been his sole property (JP).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 13,10\tab "ESTENDONE". }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, p. 36, left this place unidentified, but tentatively suggested that it might be
 a part of Essington before pointing out that it would more likely be a 'Stendon' or a 'Standon' though there was 'no such vill in Cuttlestone hundred'. Certainly the Domesday name-form appears to contain the Norman French prosthetic }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 E}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 - prefixed to the initial group }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 ST}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 - to make it pronounceable. }{\insrsid5780933 Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History'}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, p. 170, suggested Standon House in Haughton (marked on the Ordnance Survey six-inch map at SJ872198), which, if the name has an early history, would have
 the double virtue of an easy descent from the Domesday form and being in the right hundred. This suggestion has not, however, been pursued, perhaps because no early history is known, it is not certain that there was ever a vill or manor of Standon, as a 
h
ouse name it could have been transferred from elsewhere and its one hide does not fit into the hidation of the area near Haughton which appears to be accounted for by 3 hides at Haughton (11,52) and 2 hides at Billington (11,6), making a five-hide unit; s
ee }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Bridgeman and Mander, 'Staffordshire Hidation', pp. 159, 161. They tentatively include the 1 hide at "Estendone" with the three at Hatherton (7,13) and the 1 hide at Cannock (1,25), ignoring the 1 carucate at Cannock (17,5), to make a five-hide unit: Bri
dgeman and Mander, 'Staffordshire Hidation', p. 162. }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 However, }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Bridgeman, 'Unidentified Domesday Vills', pp. 24-31, suggested Huntington (SJ9713), which was a township of Cannock Ancient Parish and which, like Cannock itself (1,25. 17,5) probably lay in Cut
tlestone Hundred in 1086. This identification is essentially circumstantial, tied in with the disappearance of "Estendone" and the appearance of Huntington among forest tenures. It is most unlikely that Huntington derives from "Estendone" despite Bridgema
n's suggestion that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Estendone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is a scribal error for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Entendone}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab By 1198 Huntington was held as 1 carucate by Henry }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de brok}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 (lord of Pillaton in Penkridge) by service in the forest of Cannock; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 75. In }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 594, for the year 1236, it is said that Robert }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 del brok}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  held }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Huntendon'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 in Cannock [Forest] from the Bishop of Chester as he had previously from the king for guarding the king's 'hay' of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Teddesle'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 [Teddesley, SJ9516] and he made an annual payment to Hugh}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  de Loges}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; see also }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 6, 1185, 1245; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, ii. p. 115. There is nothing here to connect Huntington with "Estendone" and the fact that Huntington was 1 carucate, when the Domesday assessment of "Estendone" was 1 hide casts further doubt on
 the proposed identification . It seems more probable that Huntington was a member of the royal manor of Cannock (1,25) and that "Estendone", while probably in the same area, was depopulated by afforestation: Domesday says that 'it is waste' and gives no 
manorial appurtenances. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 68, probably influenced by the above authorities accepts }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Estendone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  as an earlier name for Huntington, but points out that it is 'an older form based on }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 eastan}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 dun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('hill to the east'). However, although they share the same final element }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Estendone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and Huntington may have no other connection.
\par \tab \tab In the manuscript this place-name is clearly }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ESTENDONE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile, however, the second letter resembles an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 O}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  rather than an }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 S}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; on other misleading reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left blank a small space equivalent to about three lines of writing before the next fief (STS 14).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 14\tab 
THIS CHAPTER, including the rubricated head, was largely written over erasure by the main scribe of Great Domesday. After the fief of Richard the forester (STS 13) he had written details of a fief occupying less space than this one, but then erased
 them rather roughly: the erasure extends up unevenly towards chapter 13 and also into the outer margin of folio 250c. He maintained the space he had originally left after chapter 13 when he began Reginald's fief, but this was ill-judged, as he needed to 
c
ompress his writing, especially for the second entry in it. Part of the second line and the last two lines of the second entry were not written over the erasure, as they occupied the space he had originally left before the fief of Ralph son of Hubert (STS
 
15), as well as where he would have written the heading for that fief during rubrication: this heading then had to be squeezed in so it was not level with the Totmonslow hundred head he had already written above the first line of 15,1. This proves that th
e
 erasure and the addition of the present chapter were done after he had written STS 15 and probably the rest of the county. There seems to have been a further stage of correction in Reginald's fief; see 14,1 nine note. For the probability that other entri
es added by the main scribe were of fiefs, see 12,30 entry note and 12,31 entry note. For his addition of other entries, see 16,2 entry note, and for one by scribe B, see 7,11 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LAND OF REGINALD [OF] BAILLEUL.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  In Domesday h}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 e is called Reginald }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Balgiole}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
 (in the Landholders' List on folio 246a), }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Bailgiole}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  in STS 14 chapter head}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 and }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 de}{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Balgiole}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  in 14,1. He came from Bailleul (sometimes known as Bailleul-en-Gouffern) in the French d\'e9partement of Orne (arrondissement Argentan, ca
nton Trun), near Exmes which was }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 caput }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 of Earl Roger's vicomt\'e9 in Normandy ((}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 VCH Shropshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 296, but see Tengvik, }{
\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Old English Bynames}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 70). Although his name has sometimes been anglicized as Balliol, like the thirteenth-century founder of Balliol
 College, Oxford, the latter came from a different Bailleul (in Picardy) and there is no connection between them. Reginald's wife Amieria was the niece (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 nepta}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
) of Roger of Montgomery, so he was very much the earl's official. She had previously been married to Warin the bald, Reginald's predecessor as sheriff of Shropshire. The transfer of power took place }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 c}{
\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 .}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 1085 and involved a large amount of land, which may have been held in trust for Warin's son Hugh who held both the land and perhaps the sheriffdom brie
fly after 1102. Reginald returned to Normandy in 1102 when Earl Roger's son, Robert of Bell\'eame, forfeited the fief. See Mason, 'Officers and Clerks', pp. 245-47; Sanders, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 English Baronies}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
, p. 70; Eyton, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Antiquities of Shropshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , vii. pp. 203-11; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 348.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab As Reginald's lands appear to have come to him with the shrievalty, they subsequently came into the hands of the sheriff Alan Fitz Flaad, then descended to the Fitz Alans and to their barony of Oswestry. See SHR \{
Introduction: Administration of the Shire\}; STS 8 Roger note.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Elsewhere in Staffordshire, as in Shropshire, Reginald is a tenant of Earl Roger (8,4-6). In Cheshire, the only other county in which he held, he was a subtenant of Earl Hugh.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab Both the entries in this fief were held in lordship and lay in two hundreds:
\par \tab \tab 14,1 Cuttlestone Hundred
\par \tab \tab 14,2 Pirehill Hundred.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 14,1\tab REGINALD OF BAILLEUL HOLDS. As late as 1081, this estate had been held by Warin the bald, Reginald's predecessor as sheriff of Shropshire; see Orderic Vitalis, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ecclesiastical History}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (Chibnall, vi. pp. 234-35); and SHR \{Introduction: Administration of the Shire\}.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WESTON[-UNDER-LIZARD]. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Cuttlestone Hundred as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 1, 17; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282.
\par \tab \tab The estate, including Beigherton and Brockton Grange, descended with the majori
ty of Reginald's other estates (most of which he held under Earl Roger of Shrewsbury) to his successor as sheriff of Shropshire, Alan Fitz Flaad, ancestor of the Fitz Alans; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 544 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Weston juxta Brewde}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 969 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Weston' sub Keveremont}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 );}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 2 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Weston Houwe}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 171. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Weston subtus Brewod}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is held of the Fitz Alan barony of Oswestry in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 114, and it is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Weston'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 held with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Neuton'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  [Newton, 14,2] as a Fitz Alan fee in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 975.
\par \tab \tab The tithes of the estate had been given to the Abbey of Saint-Evroult (to which Earl Roger had given two estates, 8,8-9) before 1081: Orderic Vitalis, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ecclesiastical History}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (Chibnall, vi. pp. 234-35);}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bates, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 770-73, no. 1081.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BEIGHTERTON. The Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Bertone}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and the development to Beighterton is unexpected; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, i. p. 181. The Domesday form appears at least to be abbreviated. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Weston-under-Lizard; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 18. Like Weston-under-Lizard itself, it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086. For the identification, see Bridgeman, Bridgeman and Bridgeman, 'History of Weston under Lizard', p. 3.}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BROCKTON [GRANGE]. This lay in the Ancient Parish of Sheriffhales, itself named from an estate (8,5) held in 1086 by Reginald of Bailleul, sheriff 
of Shropshire, under Earl Roger. That estate was transferred to Shropshire at an early date, probably before 1102. However, part of the parish, including Brockton Grange, }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
remained in Staffordshire until 1895, when it was moved to Shropshire. A 1965 boundary change has returned Brockton Grange itself to Staffordshire, and placed it in Blymhill Civil (formerly Ancient) Parish there; }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 see \{Introduction: County Boundary\}.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab NINE THANES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\f710\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Nou\'e7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('nine') over erasure and in dar
ker ink than the one he had used for the rest of this entry; he also overwrote the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 teini}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 in this darker ink. Two levels of correction and addition in entries or other material that were themselves added or corrected occur on a number of occasions in Great Domesday, suggesting that both the main scribe and scribe B continued their checking.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THERE WERE 11 PLOUGHS. See 7,1 ploughs note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THE WOODLAND HAS [IS] 1 LEAGUE LONG AND \'bd LEAGUE WIDE. See 1,7 woodland note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab "AMERLAND" HOLDS. He is identified with an individual who occurs in a charter relating to Saint-Martin of S\'e9es and possibly with one found in a charter of Saint-Vincent of Le Mans: Keats-Rohan, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 150.
\par \tab \tab The name represented by the Domesday form, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Amerland}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , which only occurs here in Domesday, is unclear, though Forssner, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 281, refers to a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Johannes Amellant}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Normanniae}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 133 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 recte}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 333) (AD 1417). The Alecto edition has Amerland.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 14,2\tab NEWTON. This was a settlement in Blithfield Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Pirehill Hundred as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 4, 12 (where it appears as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Nonton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 277.
\par \tab \tab }{\insrsid5780933 Warin, sheriff of Shropshire, Reginald's predecessor, gave the church of Newton to the Abbey of Saint-Evroult with the consent of Earl Roger, a gift confirmed by the king in 1081:}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Orderic Vitalis, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ecclesiastical History}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 (Chibnall, vi. pp. 234-35); see Bates, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 770-73, no. 1081. However, subsequently }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Neuton'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was held with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Weston'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 [Weston-under-Lizard, 14,1] as a Fitz Alan fee in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 969; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 4.}{\insrsid8996282 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODWIN HELD IT. On this name, see 8,19 Godwin note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 1 SLAVE. The Phillimore printed edition includes the slave with the villagers and smallholders, but the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ibi}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 before them implies they were separate. As the main scribe of Great Domesday did not put any punctuation before the mill and meadow, it would seem that he (or his source) regarded the slave as part of the manorial resources.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 15\tab LAND OF RALPH SON OF HUBERT. }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 He was the son of Hubert de Ryes (in the French d\'e9
partement of Calvados, arrondissement Bayeux) and his brothers were Adam son of Hubert and Eudo Dapifer. The four had saved the life of Duke William in 1047 and were rewarde
d when William acquired the throne of England. Ralph was lord of Crich (Derbyshire) which became a barony under his successors, the first being his son Odo. Ralph was also probably the father of Matilda who was the second wife of Edward of Salisbury. The 
barony was divided }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 c}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 . 1187 between Henry de Stutteville and Hubert Fitz Ralph; see }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{
\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 54; }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Sanders, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 English Baronies}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 37; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 340. }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 On the name Ralph, see 2,22 Ralph note, and on the name Hubert, see 10,6 Hubert note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab Both estates were subinfeudated to Robert of Bucy. They lay in a single hundred:
\par \tab \tab 15,1-2 Totmonslow Hundred.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab In his note to chapter 16 in the Phillimore printed editio
n JRM stated that chapters 14 and 15 were 'inserted in smaller cramped writing, with less space between words and between lines than on the rest of the page'. This is certainly true of chapter 14, but not of chapter 15 which is written in the same size le
tters and with the same spacing as chapters 13, 16-17 on this page (folio 250cd). The present chapter was written during the initial writing of this county and before the insertion of chapter 14 over erasure; see STS 14 chapter note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 15,1\tab RALPH SON OF HUBERT. The main scribe of Great Domesday had originally written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 RO...}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  here, but then erased the letters after them and wrote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 DVLF'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 f. hub'ti }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 over them at the same time as turning the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 O}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  into an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 A}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  by adding strokes (the resulting }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 A}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  is unlike the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 A}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 RAINALD' }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 in 14,1 and elsewhere). It seems likely that he had originally written }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
ROBERTUS de Buci }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ('Robert of Bucy') here: the next entry begins }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Isd[em] Rob}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 t}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] ('The same Robert of Bucy'), implying the same person as in the previous entry. Robert of Bucy was a t
enant-in-chief in Leicestershire and Northamptonshire in this circuit. This correction is probably connected with his interlineation of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Radulfo}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in 15,2, which turned Robert of Bucy there from a tenant-in-chief into a subtenant of Ralph son of Hubert, as
 he is in the present entry. The colour of ink of that interlineation looks less dark than that of this correction because of that being over erasure. In the outer margin level with it is an erasure, perhaps of a note connected with this correction. On th
ese marginal notes, see 1,56 carucate note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BRADLEY[-IN-THE-MOORS]. This was a chapelry of Rocester Ancient Parish; it was sometimes known as Bradley-le-Moors. In 1086 it lay in Totmonslow Hundred, as probably did Rocester itself (1,17).}
{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ROBERT OF BUCY. }{\insrsid5780933 He probably came from Boucey in the commune of Pontorson (arrondissement Avranches) in the French d\'e9
partement of Manche. He was lord of Great Weldon in Northamptonshire and a subtenant of Countess Judith in that county (56,25;59 as plain Robert) and in Leicestershire (40,15-21 and, as plain Robert, 40,23;25). See }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 
VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 293; }{\i\insrsid5780933 VCH Rutland}{\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 175; the }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 92); }{\insrsid5780933 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Domesday People,}{
\insrsid5780933  p. 375}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\insrsid5780933 
His lands came into the hands of Henry I by forfeiture or escheat and then went to Geva, daughter of Hugh of Avranches (Earl of Chester) then to her husband Geoffrey Ridel, and to her son-in-law, Richard Basset. Robert's holdings as a subtenant went to Ro
bert son of Vitalis (Viel), the father of Simon de Foxton, probably by gift of Simon I de Senlis who married Matilda (Maud), daughter of Countess Judith and Earl Waltheof.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LEOFRIC [* BROTHER OF LEOFNOTH *] HELD IT. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Leuric}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Leuuric}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Leofricus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lefric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Leofuriz}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lefriz}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  etc. - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Leofric}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 313-15. The Alecto edition has Leofric.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Leofric als
o preceded Ralph son of Hubert in Kingsley (15,2) and on several of his Nottinghamshire estates as well as in Derbyshire. He was probably the brother of Leofnoth who was likewise a predecessor of Ralph son of Hubert; see NTT 13,6 Leofnoth note and DBY 10,
16 brother note. The Leofric who had held 3 hides in Kingsley (16,2) is likely to have been the same man, because Leofric had held 1 hide in the same place, possibly duplicated in the 3 hides (see 16,2 entry note).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 15,2\tab ROBERT OF BUCY. See 15,1 Robert note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab FROM RALPH. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Radulfo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 later, probably at the same time as his correction of the name of the tenant-in-chief in 15,1; see 15,1 Ralph note. Without this interlineation the entry would read that Kingsley was hel
d in chief by 'the same' Robert of Bucy as 15,1. In the outer margin level with it is an erasure, possibly of a note connected with the addition. On these marginal notes, see 1,56 carucate note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab KINGSLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281. For another part, held in chief by Nigel of Stafford, the undertenant here, see 16,2. On this entry being a partial duplicate of 16,2, see 16,2 entry note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. 
Nigel holds from Robert of Bucy who holds from Ralph son of Hubert. Two layers of named subtenants are rare in Domesday, but in 2,6 Nigel (of Stafford) also held from a tenant of the Bishop of Chester; see also 2,20 men note. On Nigel, see STS 16 Nigel no
te, and on his first name, see 2,6 Nigel note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LEOFRIC [* BROTHER OF LEOFNOTH *] HELD IT. See 15,1 Leofric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 16\tab LAND OF NIGEL ^[OF STAFFORD]^. His fuller title is given in }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 DBY 14. }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
His origin and the source of that title are unknown. He is not attested as a son of Robert of Stafford nor was he sheriff of Staffordshire. He was ancestor of the de Gresley family (named from Gresley, Derbyshire). See Keats-Rohan, }{
\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , p. 302.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab On the name Nigel, see 2,6 Nigel note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab The three estates in this fief were all held in lordship (though part of 16,2 was subinfeudated) and lay in three different hundreds, though no heads are supplied in Domesday:
\par \tab \tab 16,1 [Offlow Hundred]
\par \tab \tab 16,2 [Totmonslow Hundred]
\par \tab \tab 16,3 [Pirehill Hundred].}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab This fief was not added at the foot of 'page 250c, d' (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 pace}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, JRM in his note to it). The first entry was written by the main scribe of Great Domesday during the initial writing campaign within the frame-ruling (see \{Introduction: Circuit and Ruling Pattern\}). He later added the second
 and third entries; see 16,2 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 16,1\tab [IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. This head is supplied from the later location of Thorpe Constantine (16,1).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab THORPE [CONSTANTINE]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 9; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 280.
\par \tab \tab In 1254-55 Thorpe Constantine was held by Geoffrey Costentin from the Earl of Lancaster (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108); see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 545; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 9.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFWIN HELD IT. On this name, see 11,47 Wulfwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab NICHOLAS CLAIMS. Nicholas is probably the sheriff of Staffordshire at the date of Domesday; see \{Introduction: Administration of the Shire\}
. However, his identity is uncertain. Robert of Stafford had a son cal
led Nicholas and it would be natural to assume that he followed his father in the office of sheriff. However, there are grounds for thinking that Nicholas the sheriff was in fact Nicholas de Bello Campo (Beauchamp) who in 1094 married Eda, the sister of G
eoffrey Maleterre, Abbot of Burton. It is also unlikely that this Nicholas is to be identified with the Nicholas who in Warwickshire held Coventry in 1086 and five estates formerly held by Countess Godiva (as Eyton, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 55 and note); that man is more likely to be Nicholas Arbalistarius; see Lennard, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rural England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 144; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 300-301.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Nicolaus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Nicol}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 aus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Nicholaus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Nicol}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent the Greek name }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Nicolaus}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  ('victory-people'), which became a popular medieval name after the fourth-century St Nicholas, Bishop of Myra (Lycia, in modern Turkey). See Dauzat, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Dictionnaire des Noms et Pr\'e9noms de France}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , who records the abbreviated form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Nicol}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. JRM chose Nicholas, the modern English form of this name, though in the printed Phillimore translation of BRK 7,22 the form Nicolas (the modern French form) occurs; this has now been altered to Nicholas. The Alecto edition has Nicholas.
\par \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab For the claim, see}{\insrsid5780933  Fleming, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 240 no. 1475.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab CLIFTON [CAMPVILLE]. See also DBY 1,25: 'Chilcote ... belongs to}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 Clifton [Campville] in Stafford[shire]'. Chilcote (}{\insrsid5780933 SK2811}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 , two miles east of Clifton [Campville] was}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 transferred to Leicestershire in 1888; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, iii. p. 629 (JRM). See also DBY \{Introduction: County Boundary\}. The spelling in DBY 1,25 is }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Cliftune}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 , but in the present entry it is }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Clistone}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ; the long }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 s}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  and the }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 f}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  were frequently confused.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 16,2\tab 
THIS ENTRY and the next one (16,3) were written together by the main scribe of Great Domesday on folio 250d in a space left after the last chapter in the county (STS 17) at the end of folio 250d. He began both entries in the central mar
gin, exactly adjacent to 16,1, so that it was clear that they belonged with chapter 16, Nigel's land, of which he had already written the first entry at the end of the adjacent column (folio 250c). In Farley's edition these two entries are not level with 
1
6,1. Neither entry is rubricated, so these were late additions made after the scribe had written and rubricated Staffordshire. They were written in almost black ink at the same time as other unrubricated additions in circuit IV: for Bittesby in Leicesters
h
ire (LEC 1,12) and for three large details on Alveston and Clifton-upon-Dunsmore in Warwickshire (WAR 3,4. 6,9. 14,2). This suggests that the scribe amassed several entries for more than one county before adding them in one campaign, something that he did
 
not do often, preferring to check and work on one county at a time. Neither of the Staffordshire entries was supplied with a hundred head (respectively for Totmonslow and Pirehill) as almost invariably was the case with entries added after rubrication; se
e LEC 1,12 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 
This entry may initially have been omitted as part of it seems to have already been entered in 15,2 where Nigel [of Stafford] is said to hold 1 hide in Kingsley from Robert of Bucy, the tenant of Robert son of Hubert. The }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  hol
der there is given as Leofric and a Leofric had held the 3 hides of the present entry, only 1 hide of which Nigel himself held. Entries were often duplicated because of confusion over whether someone, like Nigel here, held in chief or as a subtenant of an
other. The fact that the scribe briefly omitted the place-name in this entry and then interlined it (using the same pen and ink as for the rest of the entry) may also explain its late addition.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab For other entries (though they were probably in fact fiefs) a
dded by the main scribe, see 12,30 entry note and 12,31 entry note, and for his added chapter, see STS 14 chapter note. For an entry added by scribe B, see 7,11 entry note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [* IN TOTMONSLOW HUNDRED *]. This head is supplied from the later location of Kingsley (15,2. 16,2). See 16,2 entry note on its omission.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab KINGSLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281. For another part, held by Nigel of Stafford from Robert of Bucy, see 15,2.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LEOFRIC [* BROTHER OF LEOFNOTH *] HELD IT. See 15,1 Leofric note. He had also held the hide in Kingsley in 15,2, which is probably a duplicate of part of this entry.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab MEADOW, 1 ACRE. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 una ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] could be either nominative singular or ablative singular after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 cum}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; see 11,27 meadow note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab "LIGULF" HOLDS. Various suggestions were made by von Feilitzen (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 319-20) on what names were represented by the Domesday form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ligulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), and also the forms }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ligul}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Liolf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
). It has been thought best in the present edition to retain the Domesday form, accepting that the form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Liolf'}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 here is linked with the more frequently-occurring form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ligulf}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . Fellows Jensen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 188, is also unsure. The Alecto edition has Ligulf.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab VALUE OF THE WHOLE. That is, of the 2 hi
des held by "Ligulf" from Nigel and the 1 hide not subinfeudated. If, as suggested (16,2 entry note), the entry for 1 hide in Kingsley in 15,2 is a duplicate of Nigel's hide here, its value was there given as 6s in 1086, making the value of "Ligulf"'s 2 h
ides 11s.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 16,3\tab 
THIS ENTRY and the previous one (16,2) were added by the main scribe of Great Domesday after Staffordshire had been rubricated and at the same time as an entry in Leicestershire and three large details in Warwickshire; see 16,2 entry note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab [* IN PIREHILL HUNDRED *].}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  This head is supplied from the later location of Moreton (2,18. 16,1). See 16,2 entry note on its omission.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab MORETON. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Like Coley (2,17) and Haywood (2,5), this was a settlement in Colwich Ancient Parish and probably, like them, la
y in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 6; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 277. For another part, where Nigel [of Stafford] is a subtenant of the Bishop of Chester, see 2,18. The Domesday name is represented by Moreton (SK0223) and Up
per Moreton (SK0222).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFRIC HELD IT. On the name Wulfric, see 1,44 Wulfric note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 17\tab LAND OF THE KING'S THANES. This chapter, like other similar ones elsewhere in Domesday, gathers together estates held by Englishmen. Some of these had held the same esta
tes in 1066 and been allowed to retain them. Others may have been allowed to inherit estates held by relatives before 1066, though Domesday rarely records kinship. A further group may have been granted land after 1066 or been allowed to expand their holdi
ngs. In some cases an individual may have lost some or all of his 1066 estates, but been granted a smaller number of others; for example, Gamal seems to have lost one (17,2) and gained three (17,12-14)}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab Lands in this chapter are entered both by holder and b
y hundred. It appears that the main scribe of Great Domesday began with three holdings (17,1-3) distinguished by a particular render, but then intended to enter the lands of each individual holder together, before passing on to another holder. When he had
 
finished with one tenant, he appears to have sought the lands of a fresh tenant in the same hundred. However, he also checked his material for names not so far entered and this led him to revisit hundreds more than once. No tenant holds in more than one h
undred.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab 17,1 Seisdon Hundred
\par \tab \tab 17,2-3 [Cuttlestone Hundred]
\par \tab \tab (From these three estates payment is made to the sheriff (17,4)).
\par \tab \tab ________________________________
\par \tab \tab 17,5 [Cuttlestone Hundred]. Aelfric
\par \tab \tab 17,6-15 [Pirehill Hundred]. Almer (17,6); Dunning (17,7); Leofing (17,8-9); Wulfwin
\par \tab \tab \tab \tab (17,10-11); Gamal (17,12-14); Sperri (17,15). The correct hundred heading is
\par \tab \tab \tab \tab given at 17,7.
\par \tab \tab ________________________________
\par \tab \tab 17,16 [Cuttlestone Hundred]. Richard
\par \tab \tab 17,17-19 [Totmonslow Hundred]. Alric (17,17); Alwold (17,18); Otto (17,19)
\par \tab \tab ________________________________
\par \tab \tab 17,20 Cuttlestone Hundred. Leofhild
\par \tab \tab 17,21 [Pirehill Hundred]. Alward.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 17,1\tab CYNEWIN HOLDS. The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Chenuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, which only occurs in WIL 24,23 and STS 17,1 as that of both a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 T.R.E. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 and 1086 holder, represents Old English }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cynewine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 221. JRM preferred the second element -win for the Old English \-}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -wine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, though in the printed Phillimore edition the form Kenwin appears; this has now been altered to Cynewin because of the occurrence of other names there with the first element Cyn(e)-. The Alecto edition has Cynewine.
\par \tab \tab In the manuscript his name is clearly }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 CHENVIN}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. However, in the Alecto facsimile the third letter appears as a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 C}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
; on other misleading reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.
\par \tab \tab On the possibility that this is also the patronymic surname of a man called Richard the forester/ Richard the hunter, see WAR 44,1 Richard note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab CODSALL. This was originally a chapelry of Tettenhall Ancient Parish and was later an Ancient Parish in its own right; see Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 408. In 1086 it lay in Seisdon Hundred as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 283.
\par \tab \tab There is no}{\cf11\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
known descent for this manor from the 1086 holder Cynewin. An early thirteenth-century holder was probably William of Codsall, but by 1248, most or all of the manor was held by the collegiate church of Wolverhampton; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , xx. p. 81.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 17,2\tab [IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED]. This head is supplied from the later location of Great Saredon and Little Saredon (11,61. 17,2).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab "UDI" HOLDS. The name represented by the Domesday form }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Udi}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, which only occurs here in Domesday, is unknown; it does not appear in Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. It has therefore been decided to retain the Domesday spelling. The Alecto edition has Udi.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 
[LITTLE] SAREDON. Saredon, represented by Great Saredon and Little Saredon, was originally a township in Shareshill chapelry of Penkridge Ancient Parish; it was a separate Ancient Parish by 1151; see Youngs, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 421. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. pp. 1, 3, 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), p. 281. For another part, Great Saredon held by Robert of Stafford, see 11,61.
\par \tab \tab The estate was later held by the priory of Wenlock (Shropshire): }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 114; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 1.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GAMAL [* SON OF GRUFFYDD *] HELD IT. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gamel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Game}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent Old Norse }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gamall}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , Old Danish }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Gamal}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 257-58. In some of the Phillimore printed translations this name appears as Gamal, and in others as Gamall; these have now been standardized as the Old Danish form. The Alecto edition has Gamal.
\par \tab \tab Keats-Rohan, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Domesday People}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 203, under plain Gamel, ha
s three references to folio 250d, which presumably correspond to only three of the four entries for Gamal in 17,2;12-14. She cites }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pipe Roll 31 Henry I}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
 , p. 75 (1129-30), to show that Liulf of Audley, who was apparently named from Gamal's estate there (17,13), 'accounted a large sum for Gamel's death'.
\par \tab \tab On the identification of Gamal as the son of Gruffydd, see CHS 24,3 Gamal note (JP).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BUT HIS JURISDICTION WAS THE KING'S. The Latin is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 soca eius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 . As }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 eius}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  could be masculine, feminine or neuter, it is not i
mmediately obvious whether the jurisdiction was over a person or a place. However, in a parallel instance the jurisdiction is over people; see 12,17 jurisdiction note.}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 That is to say, the king had jurisdiction over him. Gamal did not therefore have Little Saredon as a manor, but paid suit of court to a royal manor which Eyton, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 73, thought was Penkridge (1,7), but which may have been Kinver (1,27) by which it was subsequently reabsorbed; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 176. T
he Phillimore printed translation has 'its jurisdiction' referring to Little Saredon or the 1 hide. The Alecto edition has 'his soke'.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab MEADOW, 1 ACRE. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 una ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ra}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] could be either nominative singular or ablative singular after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 cum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; see 11,27 meadow note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 17,3\tab ALRIC HOLDS. On the name-form Alric, see 2,22 Alric note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BICKFORD. This was a settlement in Whiston township of Penkridge Ancient Parish}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Place-Names of Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 103. Like Whiston (4,9) and Penkridge (1,7. 7,17) themselves, it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab By 1274, this estate was joined with Whiston (4,9), held by Burton Abbey; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, ii. p. 114 (where the name is misprinted as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lukeford}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 111.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 17,4\tab 
THESE 3 MEN. They are Cynewin, "Udi" and Alric, the holders of 17,1-3. This statement was written at the end of the account of Bickford, albeit on a new line, and does not really justify being made a separate entry in the Phillimore printed edition.}{
\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab SHERIFF. Payment to the sheriff here replaces the normal term }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 valet }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ('value'). The}{\insrsid5780933  }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
amount, 12s on land for 6 ploughs, matches the later entries. Throughout the south\-western counties, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 valet }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 is replaced by }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 reddit}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933  }{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 pays, with the addition of }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 per annum }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 in the }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Liber Exoniensis}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 (Exon). In Staffordshire, at Kingswinford (1,1 Kingswinford note), the Sheriff 'receives and pays the revenue of the manor' (}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 recipit et reddit firmam huius manerii}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 ): WOR 1,5. In 1136 Arnold, 
son of Vitalis of Hilderstone (11,27), granted part of his land, free of dues that concerned him (}{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 exceptis communibus geldis regis et communibus auxiliis vicecomitis et praepositorum hundredi et dominorum de quorum feudo ego teneo}
{\cf1\insrsid5780933 : 'except for the King's common tax[es], and the common aids to the Sheriff and the hundred-reeves and to the lords from whose Holding I hold'): Stone Cartulary, cited in }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
, iv. p. 33 (JRM).}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab JRM's note implies that }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 valet}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  in Domesday is replaced by }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 reddit}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  in the }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Liber Exoniensis}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 , but this should not be taken to mean that the latter text is later than Domesday; in fact it is the immediate predecessor of Great Domesday. Moreover, although }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 reddit per annum}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 regularly occurs in the }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Liber Exoniensis}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  and was usually altered to }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 valet}{\cf1\insrsid5780933 
 by the main scribe of Great Domesday during his editing of the south-western counties from that circuit volume, there are many cases where he did not alter it and where he put }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 reddit}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  for the }{
\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 valet}{\cf1\insrsid5780933  of his source; see DEV 2,2 value note.}{\cf1\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 12s EACH YEAR. It is not clear whether each tenant in 17,1-3 pays 12s or whether this is the total of their payments, which may not have been in equal portions. JRM's note suggests the latter.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 17,5\tab AELFRIC <OF FLECKNOE> HOLDS. On the name Aelfric, see 11,26 Aelfric note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The estates and identity of this Aelfric, an uncle of Thorkil of Warwick, have been plausibly identified by Ann Williams, 'Vice-Comital Family in Pre-Conquest Warwickshire', }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
Anglo-Norman Studies}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , xi. (1989), pp. 279-95. 
Three of these holdings (WAR 17,32. 22,20,27) are attributed to an 'Aelric', almost certainly a scribal error for 'Aelfric'. The clearest case is that of the holding at Flecknoe itself, a vill in which three other relatives of Aelfric held land and 'Aelri
c' held in 1086, a distinctive characteristic of the majority of Aelfric of Fleckoe's holdings and of those of several of his relatives and a characteristic shared with the other two holdings attributed to 'Aelric' (JP).}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 1 CARUCATE OF LAND. It is possible that this land had been waste and its hidation forgotten; see 1,5 carucate note and 1,25 Cannock note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab CANNOCK. This was an Ancient Parish, perhaps only from the time of the Dissolution; earlier it was probably in Penkridge Ancient Parish as a dependency of Penkridge collegiate church; see Youngs, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 407; and 7,17 Penkridge note. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This estate presumably originated as a grant from the royal manor of Cannock (1,25), and probably returned to it, for there is no known separate descent for this piece of land; see }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 55.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 17,6\tab [IN PIREHILL HUNDRED]. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 The heading is entered after instead of before the first place nam
ed in the Hundred (JRM). On the other hand, there was space to enter the hundred head above this entry, at the end of the previous entry (17,5), which is the norm in Staffordshire (11,34 Totmonslow note). As the main scribe of Great Domesday was entering 
m
aterial by holders rather than by hundreds, it is possible that the Pirehill hundred head came attached to Dunning's holding of Knighton (17,7). The present heading is supplied from the location of Bishton (17,6). Compare 2,4 Pirehill note, 11,34 Totmonsl
ow note and \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Hundreds\}.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALMER HOLDS. On the name-form Almer, see 1,40 Almer note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 1 CARUCATE OF LAND. See 17,5 carucate note and 1,5 carucate note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BISHTON. This was a settlement in Colwich Ancient Parish.
 Colwich itself is not named in Domesday, but several members of the later Ancient Parish appear there. Bishton probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 277.
\par \tab \tab The name means bishop's }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 tun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and it probably originated as a part of Haywood (2,5), but had been alienated before 1086.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ERNWY HELD IT. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ernui}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ernuin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Arnui}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Erneuui}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Arnuinus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ernu}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ernuit}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  etc. - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Earnwig}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
: von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. 243-44. JRM preferred Ern- for Old English }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Earn-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , as it reflected the majority of the Domesday spellings. Von Feilitzen pointed out the frequent confusion between the elements }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -wig}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 -wine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (in this case }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Earnwig }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Earnwine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
), making it impossible to classify the Domesday forms }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ernui}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Ernuin}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  correctly: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ibidem}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  and \'a7148. The Alecto edition has Earnwig.
\par \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 17,7\tab IN PIREHILL HUNDRED. On this heading, see 17,6 Pirehill note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab DUNNING HOLDS. On this name, see 1,61 Dunning note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab KNIGHTON. This was a township of Mucklestone Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Pirehill Hundred as probably did Mucklestone itself (17,8).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the line, almost certainly for the later insertion of the hidage of Knighton; see 2,3 hides note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 17,8\tab LEOFING HOLDS. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Leuing}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Leuinc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Liuing}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Louincus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  etc.}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Leofing, Lyfing}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, 
}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 312. The Alecto edition has Lyfing.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab MUCKLESTONE. This was an Ancient Parish; it extended into Shropshire where it included the township of Woore (SHR 4,15,2). Mucklestone probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278.

\par \tab \tab It was probably resumed by the Crown after 1086 and in 1284-85 (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 5) it was held by Theobald }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 de Verdun}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , a frequent tenant of royal lands.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALRIC. On the name-form Alric, see 2,22 Alric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab EDRIC. On this name, see 11,23 Edric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 17,9\tab LEOFING ALSO HOLDS. On this name, see 17,8 Leofing note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WINNINGTON. This was a settlement in Mucklestone Ancient Parish. Like Mucklestone itself (17,8), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 17,10\tab WULFWIN HOLDS. On this name, see 11,47 Wulfwin note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8996282 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BETLEY. This was a township and later a borough in Audley Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 11; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The settlement of Betley is at SJ7548. Betley Old Hall and Betley Hall House are at SJ7549.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODRIC. On this name, see 5,2 Godric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFGEAT. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 17,11\tab WULFWIN ALSO HOLDS. On this name, see 11,47 Wulfwin note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BALTERLEY. This was a township divided between Eccleshall Ancient Parish in Staffordshire and Barthomley Ancient Parish in Cheshire. On the creation of the Civil Parish of Balterley i
n 1866, it was placed entirely in Staffordshire; see Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 402.}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab }{\insrsid5780933 Land at }{\i\insrsid5780933 Baltrytheleage}{\insrsid5780933 
 was given by Wulfric Spot to his servant Wulfgar in his will (1002 x 1004) 'just as his father had acquired it for him': }{\i\insrsid5780933 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid5780933 , p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid5780933 
Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 1536 }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 = }{\insrsid5780933 Whitelock, }{\i\insrsid5780933 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid5780933 , no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid5780933 Charters of Burton Abbey}{
\cf1\insrsid5780933 , pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxvi no. 14).}{\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Balterley is represented by Balterley and Balterley Green at SJ7650. Balterley Hall is at SJ764499.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODWIN HELD IT. On this name, see 8,19 Godwin note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 17,12\tab GAMAL [* SON OF GRUFFYDD *] HOLDS. See 17,2 Gamal note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab BALTERLEY. See 17,11 Balterley note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFRIC HELD IT. On this name, see 1,44 Wulfric note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the line after the }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 T.R.E.}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
 holder. It is not clear what he thought might later be added there, as the assessment and plough estimate are on the next line and it could not be for a hundred head as he would have left space for that in the previous entry for this place (17,11).}{
\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 17,13\tab GAMAL [* SON OF GRUFFYDD *] ALSO HOLDS. See 17,2 Gamal note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab AUDLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 11; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 279.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab After 1086, this manor appears to have been resumed by the Crown. In 1274-75 (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 117) }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Aldithelee}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  was held with }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Endone }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
[Endon, 1,61] by Henry de Audley from the king. It was then said to be a member of the manor of Alton (1,54).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFRIC. On this name, see 1,44 Wulfric note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODRIC. On this name, see 5,2 Godric note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 17,14\tab GAMAL [* SON OF GRUFFYDD *] ALSO HOLDS. See 17,2 Gamal note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab TALKE. This was a settlement in Audley Ancient Parish. Like Audley itself (17,13), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab GODRIC HELD IT. On this name, see 5,2 Godric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab MEADOW, 1 ACRE. The Latin }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 una ac}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] could be either nominative singular or ablative singular after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 cum}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; see 11,27 meadow note. However, the details of the woodland form a new sentence.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 17,15\tab SPERRI HOLDS. The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Sperri}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , represents Old Norse 
}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Sperrir}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 369. As there is not a final -r in the Domesday form, JRM preferred the form Sperri. The Alecto edition has Sperrir.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WESTON [-UPON-TRENT]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 277.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFHELM HELD IT. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlfel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Vlfelm}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Vlfelm}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 [}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 us}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ] - represent Old English }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Wulfhelm}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, p. 421. The Alecto edition has Wulfhelm.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab OF LAND. In the manuscript this is clearly }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 t'r\'ea}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile, however, the reproduction is poor, as it also is two lines below, on the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 car' }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 of the plough estimate in the next entry (17,16). There is a partially-blotted ink blot on the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 solid'}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  in the value statement of the present ent
ry, but no other imperfections in the parchment here, though the skin is discoloured now on the inner edge of this folio. On other poor reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 17,16\tab [IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED]. This heading is deduced from the probable location of Little Onn.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab RICHARD [* THE FORESTER *] HOLDS. On the name Richard, see 7,2 Richard note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab [LITTLE] ONN. The Domesday form (}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Anne}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ) is an aberration and contrasts with }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Otne}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  for High Onn (8,8), which is also erratic. Later forms regularly show }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Onne}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 141.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab Little Onn and High Onn (8,8) were settlements in the Ancient Parish of Church Eaton; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Place-Names of Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 141. Like Church Eaton itself (11,65) they probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as they did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 17; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 282.
\par \tab \tab The immediate descent of this estate after Domesday is uncertain, but by 1233 it was a member of Penkridge (1,7), held by the Archbishop of Dublin; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Calendar of Close Rolls}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  (Record Commission), p. 218; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, iv. p. 95. It seems probable that Little Onn had originated as a grant out of Penkridge by some king to a servant or thane, and that, in effect, it was reabsorbed by it.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab AELRIC. On this name-form, see 11,53 Aelric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab LAND FOR 2 PLOUGHS. Following this detail, population, resources and value are missing.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 17,17\tab [IN TOTMONSLOW HUNDRED]. This head is supplied from the later location of Stramshall (17,17).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALRIC HOLDS. On the name-form Alric, see 2,22 Alric note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab STRAMSHALL. This was a settlement in Uttoxeter Ancient Parish. Like Uttoxeter itself (1,19), it probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab 2 CARUCATES AND 1 VIRGATE OF LAND. On this unusual combination of carucates and virgates, see 1,47 carucate note. On carucates, see 1,5 carucate note.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab PERCHES. See 13,4 perches note.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 17,18\tab ALWOLD HOLDS. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Aluuold}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 us}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ),}{
\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  Alwaldus}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  Aeluuold}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 us}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ),}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  Aluuol}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ,}{
\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  Alnold }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 (a scribal error for }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Aluold}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ), }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Aluoldus}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  Aluolt}{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  Aluol}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  Aluort}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Eluuold}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  Eluolt }{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 - could represent Old English }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \'c6lfweald }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 or Old English }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 \'c6thelweald}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 : }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , pp. }{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 154-55, under }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Al-weald}{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , and see also p. 142, under }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Al-}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 . JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -wold for Old English }{\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 -weald}{
\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  as it reflected the spelling in Domesday. Some of the people called Alwold in the present edition appear under Alfwold in the Phillimore printed translations. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
The Alecto edition has Alweald.}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab CROXDEN. This was an Ancient Parish, though perhaps only after the Dissolution; see Youngs, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Local Administrative Units}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , ii. p. 409. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 17,19\tab OTTO HOLDS. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Otto}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Otho}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Otha}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Odo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  - represent the Old High German }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Otto}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : Forssner, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 198-99, who discussed it together with the forms }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Odo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Oda }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Oddo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, though he admitted that in many cases they were of different origins. The Alecto edition has Otto.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab CHEADLE?. The Domesday form is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Cedla}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Feudal Aids}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , v. p. 13; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 281. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{
\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , table viii facing p. 96, identified this }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Cedla}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  and that at 1,57 with Checkley. The royal manor (1,57) was identified with Cheadle by Bridgeman, }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 'Unidentified Domesday Vills', pp. 35-41. }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 He retained Checkley as the identity of the present estate and was followed in this by }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 58 (see note 99), and by the Phillimore printed edition. On philological and other grounds the present entry should also represent a part of Cheadle. The later forms cited for Checkley in Ekwall, }{
\i\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Dictionary of English Place-Names }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 (}{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Checkeleg}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  and }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Checkelee }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
both 1196), do not appear to derive even from a mangled form of }{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Cedla}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 . Moreover, Bridgeman was unable to find anything that would connect the later estate of Checkley with the Domesday manor of }
{\i\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 Cedla}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 . If this cha
nge of identification is accepted, it means that the Ancient Parish of Checkley does not appear by name in Domesday. In this, it would be similar to other Ancient Parishes such as Stone, but like them is represented by its later constituents: Tean (11,2) 
and Madeley (11,37). This present estate, if it is part of Cheadle, probably originated as a grant to a thane from the royal}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933  manor }{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
of Cheadle (1,57) at a time when it was not waste, or both holdings originated in some larger royal estate of Cheadle (1,57).}{\cf1\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab WULFGEAT HELD IT. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid5780933 \tab VILLAGERS [***]. The }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the line after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 uill'i}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , which does not have a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 punctus }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 after it; this was almost certainly for the later inclusion of their pl
oughs, as in 4,6;10.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 17,20\tab LEOFHILD HOLDS. The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Levild}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, represents the hypothetical Old English feminine name }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Leofhild}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , p. 312. The Alecto edition has Leofhild.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab SHUSHIONS. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Church Eaton; see}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  Place-Names of Staffordshire}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , i. p. 141. In 1086 it lay in Cuttlestone Hundred. The grid reference is to Shushions Manor (SJ842143).}{\cgrid0\insrsid5780933 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab \tab The immediate descent of this land after 1086 is unclear, but by 1255 it was held by Wenlock Priory; see }{\i\insrsid5780933 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid5780933 
, ii. p. 115 (where 'barony' is an error for 'priory' and }{\i\insrsid5780933 Stuston'}{\insrsid5780933  a mistranscription of }{\i\insrsid5780933 Shuston'}{\insrsid5780933 );}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , iv. p. 97.}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 17,21\tab [IN PIREHILL HUNDRED]. This head is supplied from the later location of Fenton (17,21).}{\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab ALWARD HOLDS. On this name-form, see 1,36 Alward note.}{\cgrid0\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 \tab FENTON. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 ), p. 278. The land appears to have reverted to the Crown after 1086 and the 1 virgate here was pres
umably among the 3 virgates held of the Crown in 1212 as part of the manor of Newcastle-under-Lyme; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 Book of Fees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
, pp. 143, 594. In the Middle Ages there were two estates here, know as 'Fenton Vivian' and 'Fenton Culvert'; see }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 VCH Staffordshire}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 , viii. p. 211.}{
\insrsid399784 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5780933 
\par }}