The story

The Domesday Survey (Commentary)

The Domesday Survey (Commentary)

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

This commentary is based on the classroom activity: The Domesday Survey

Q1: We only know the names of a few people who carried out the Domesday survey. One of these was the Bishop of Durham who was in charge of the survey in the south-east of England. Why do you think William chose a northern, rather than a southern bishop to carry out a survey of the south-west? Source 3 should help you answer this question.

A1: Robert of Hereford explains how William sent people to the villages to check on the commissioners who recorded the original details in the Domesday survey. This suggests that William did not trust his commissioners. Robert of Hereford also points out that they were strangers to the area. William was probably frightened that if the commissioners knew the people they might do them a favour by under estimating the property they owned. That is why William chose commissioners who were strangers to the area. This helps to explain why William sent the Bishop of Durham to south-west England.

Q2: Compare the value of sources 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 to a historian writing a book on the Domesday survey.

A2: Source 2 explains how William sent out men to survey all of England. This is supported by sources 3, 4 and 6. Robert of Hereford also supplies the date for the Domesday survey ("in the twentieth year of William"). This date is confirmed by source 6. Florence of Worcester points out that some people rebelled against this survey being carried out ("the land was vexed with much violence"). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle provides details of the kind of information . that the survey was trying to find out. More detailed information on the questions asked by the commissioners can be found in source 7. The answers supplied in this extract of the Domesday survey gives the historian a good idea of the questions that William must have supplied to his commissioners. Source 5 is an illustration produced in 1868 and would be of little value to a historian writing a book on the Domesday survey.

Q3: Give three reasons why William arranged for the Domesday survey to be carried out in 1086. Which reason do you think is most important?

A3: The Domesday survey helped William discover how much money the people in England could afford to pay in tax. This was probably the most important reason for the survey. The survey also provided knowledge about the distribution the population in England. This enabled William to plan the defence of England more effectively. Another reason for the survey was that it helped William to settle disputes over the ownership of land.


Christleton Local History Group has served the Parish of Christleton for the last 40 years, and has published three main books about Village History as well as, trails, pamphlets and a very successful DVD. We have also contributed monthly to the Parish Magazine, but following the demise of the magazine, I thought it would be appropriate to revisit some of the topics we&rsquove covered in the past, so that new readers may learn about the story of the village through the centuries.


In the Domesday Book

In 1066 William the Conqueror commissioned the Domesday Survey, which included a record of the state of the country on the eve of the Norman Invasion in 1066. Chester was the only town of any size in the county, with 508houses, and it was the only borough with burgesses. After the arrival of William and his army in Chester in 1070, the city in 1086 was described as being greatly wasted and a half of the houses were unoccupied.

In 1066 &ldquoCristetone&rdquo (Christleton) was held by Edwin, Earl of Mercia, and was worth £6. After the death of Harold at the Battle of Hastings, William the Conqueror offered his daughter to Edwin, the Earl of Mercia, to be his wife, if he would support him. Flattered by such an offer Edwin rendered very important services to William, but was rejected when he applied for his reward. Stung by this he joined his brother Morcar, Earl of Northumbria, in a northern rebellion. This was crushed by the Normans who then deprived the rebels of all their possessions.

So Christleton passed out of the hands of Edwin, to William the Conqueror who was busy rewarding his followers with tracts of land. Hugh Lupus the first Norman Earl of Chester and an ancestor of the Grosvenor Family of Eaton, was rewarded with this land, and gave Christleton to his son* Robert Fitzhugh, Baron of Malpas.
*Some authorities say &ldquoillegitimate son&rdquo

The actual quotation from the Domesday Book is

The same Robert Fitzhugh holds Christleton. Earl Edwin held it. There are seven hides rateable to the gelt. The land is fourteen carucates. In the demesne is one carucate and there are two ancillae and twelve villeines and five bordars and two reeves with eight carucates. There is a mill of twelve shillings, and there are two radmans, of this manor Randle holds of Robert two hides and renders him twelve pence. In King Edwards time, the worth six pounds, now three pounds. He (the Earl) found it waste. It had a wood two leagues long and one broad

Even today the meanings of the words used are open to debate, but it is generally accepted that a &ldquohide&rdquo represented the amount of land that could be ploughed in a year to support a family. An alternative name was a &ldquocarucate&rdquo. The &ldquodesmene&rdquo was the land kept by the lord for his own use. &ldquoAncillae&rdquo were maid servants, &ldquoVillein&rdquo were unfree tenants who were above the status of slaves. &ldquoBordars&rdquo were of villein status but were elected by their fellows to organise the business of the manor, while &ldquoradmen&rdquo seem to have worked the roads, possibly with horses.

In William II&rsquos reign Hugh Lupus persuaded Anselm an Abbot from Normandy to come to Chester to assist him to found a monastery. He did so by converting St Werburgh&rsquos church into an Abbey, and the canons into monks. Following this development we learn that Robert (son of Hugh Lupus), besides other gifts, granted to the monastery of St Werburgh &ldquoThe chapel of Christentuna, and the glebe of the chapel, the land of a rustic and the rustic himself, a certain mill at Stamford and the site of the mill itself and the cottage of Ordricus, and Ordricus himself and a certain field adjoining to that cottage. Years later Letitia de Malpas, Robert&rsquos daughter, handed over the village of Christleton and Parva Christentuna (Littleton) to the new monastery in Chester. Christleton Church therefore did not fall into the category of appropriated churches and became a rectory.

When the list of the recorded clergy of Christleton begins in 1215, Robert is recorded as being the first Parson, with John as a clerk. It seems that at that time Christleton was paying a pension of £1 to the Abbey, and in 1280 it is recorded that the Abbot of St Werburgh needed to defend himself against Isabel, grand-daughter of Robert Hugh, and her husband Sir Philip Burnell. Isabel was of the opinion that the monks had &ldquoby practices somewhat removed from heavenly&rdquo got possession of property in Christleton and Littleton. She and her husband were determined to get it back again. They took preliminary steps for sueing the monks, but they made a&rdquo payment out of court&rdquo of £200, and had their possession confirmed. It is an indication of how important Christleton was, that in the payment of life pensions paid to the Abbot of Chester, it was required to pay £1.3s 0d which was the third highest levied after Chester St Mary&rsquos £2-13s-4d and West Kirby £2-13s-4d.

Christleton &ldquoThe History of a Cheshire Parish&rdquo Pub. 1979 Christleton Local History Group
Christleton &ldquo2000Years of History&rdquo Pub. 2000 Christleton Local History Group

The holy grail of data: it's Domesday, online

'Not even one ox, nor one cow, nor one pig was left out.' But what William the Conqueror didn't have in the Domesday Book was an easy way of searching its reams of data. It has taken more than 900 years, but at last the internet has provided a solution.

An academic at Hull University has produced the world's first complete, freely available online version.

Professor John Palmer, whose work on the Domesday Book stretches back 25 years, has transformed its handwritten parchment pages into a database with searchable indexes, a detailed commentary and the ability to organise all its statistics in a tabulated format.

The Domesday Book, the oldest and most famous public record, was based on the 1086 great survey of England which investigated 'how the country was occupied, and with what sort of people. how much each had. and how much it was worth'. It covered 13,418 settlements south of the rivers Ribble and Tees.

As with the Last Judgment, all were called to account - hence the name, Domesday, Day of Judgment. There would be nothing like it in England again until the censuses of the 19th century.

But for nearly 1,000 years it has been inaccessible to most people and difficult to understand. There are costly CD-Rom translations, and the National Archives provides online searches, but Palmer set out to create a new format to bring the book into the digital age. Whereas the original has information listed under headings, Palmer has coded and tagged terms so they can be automatically retrieved and analysed. His software makes it possible to isolate certain variables and conduct several searches at once. The results can be displayed as a map, table or translated text, or as a combination of formats.

The three-year project was funded by a £250,000 grant from the Arts and Humanities Research Council.

Palmer, who worked on the project with his son, Matt, said: 'My interest in Domesday began in about 1980 as a teaching project. My son was getting interested in computing at the same time. It developed into a research <interest for the 900th anniversary in 1986, but computers weren't powerful enough then. In the mid-Nineties, the improvements in computers revived my interest and I managed to get some funding.'

Written in Latin, the Domesday Book is the starting point of history for the majority of towns and villages in England. It lists places, landowners and tenants, tax assessments, cultivated land, numbers of oxen and plough teams, property values, legal claims, illegal activity and social classes such as freemen, villeins, smallholders, cottagers, slaves, priests and burgesses.

The total value of all property in England in 1086 was calculated at £75,000 - which in today's money would be £1 trillion. The dozen wealthiest individuals were each richer than any later billionaires in English history, with fortunes ranging from the equivalent of £56bn to £104bn today.

Palmer said: 'No English medieval historian can ignore the book because it's such an important source for social and economic medieval history. It's like a giant skyscraper surrounded by mud huts in terms of significance. If you want to know how many pigs there were in each county, the Domesday Book is the best record there is of who owned what, right down to people who owned a few shillings.

'Anyone who looks at it is stunned by the speed and coverage: it was completed within a year and Englishmen were generally in awe of it. All through the Middle Ages it was used as the permanent record: there were all sorts of appeals to it to resolve property disputes.'

The Domesday Survey (Commentary) - History

To use Domesday Book and, to a greater or lesser extent, most other medieval records, it's useful to know something of the prevailing system of land tenure. In post-conquest medieval England, land was not owned, in the modern sense, by anyone but the monarch. Instead it was held by tenants, from lords (or occasionally ladies) in return for the obligation to perform some service. This was the feudal system, with the king at the top of the ladder, his direct tenants ( tenants in chief ) beneath him, and lower still under-tenants of various sizes, down to the peasant farmers who held a few acres in return for labouring on the land of the local lord.

The main building block of the feudal system was the manor, an estate on average somewhat smaller than the parish (typically a parish might contain several smaller manors or one larger one, though sizes could vary considerably, and some manors were much bigger). Most frequently the service performed for the king by his tenants was military - in this case feudal holdings were measured as so many knights' fees, according to how many knights the holder of the land was obliged to provide. Land might also be held by serjeanty, that is by some non-military service, often in the royal household, or in the case of religious houses by free alms, that is by spiritual service.

Land held by a lord himself, rather than by his tenants, was known as demesne. The same term describes the royal estates (held by the king rather than his tenants in chief), manors held by tenants in chief rather than under-tenants, and even the part of a manor held by its lord, rather than manorial tenants.

Whatever their ancestors may have thought of its merits, genealogists have reason to be grateful for the documentation produced by the feudal system. It was obviously in the king's interests to be very clear who his tenants were, what obligations they had to him, and who had the right to succeed them when they died. Consequently, most of the documentation concerns the tenants in chief, and the under-tenants immediately beneath them, at least as far as public records are concerned. Fortunately, as well as the great magnates, this class included many comparatively small men, who might hold as little as a single manor, and have no under-tenants of their own.

Domesday Book

Domesday Book is the earliest, and by far the most famous, English public record. It is the record of a survey which, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, William the Conqueror ordered to be taken at Christmas 1085 a survey so thorough that not 'one ox nor one cow nor one pig' was omitted. This is something of an overstatement: there are no Domesday entries at all for Durham or Northumberland, and few for Cumberland, Westmorland or northern Lancashire (although some parts of Wales near the English border are included). A number of towns were also omitted, notably London, Winchester and Bristol.

For the remainder of the country, there is a very detailed survey, describing the value, the population and the resources of each manor. The authority of the record was immense, and within a century it had acquired its popular nickname of 'Domesday' because, like the Last Judgment, there could be no appeal against its statements. Its interest to genealogists, of course, arises because it names the tenants in chief, and many of those who held manors as their immediate tenants, both at the time of the survey, and before the Norman conquest in the reign of Edward the Confessor. The humbler classes, as a rule, were counted but not named.

For some parts of the country, the Domesday survey has left behind more detailed records still. The eastern counties of Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex are not included in the main volume, known as 'Great Domesday', but are covered in a separate volume - 'Little Domesday' - which is thought to reflect an earlier stage in the editing of the original returns. The same is true of several other documents:

  • The 'Exeter Domesday', for Cornwall, Somerset and most of Devon.
  • The Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis, for Cambridgeshire (excluding the royal manors).
  • The Inquisitio Eliensis, covering the lands of Ely Abbey in 6 counties.

Other material, also thought to be connected with the survey, is preserved in a number of monastic cartularies (see Hallam, pp.38, 39).

Detailed though the Domesday records are, it must be said that it is very difficult, in most cases, to trace a descent from a Domesday tenant. Hereditary surnames were rare (see note on surnames), and there is a lapse of about three generations before the next comprehensive series of public records begins. If the family concerned was sufficiently prominent, its genealogy might be recorded by the chroniclers otherwise, evidence for the generations immediately after Domesday must be sought in other sources, such as monastic cartularies.

Fortunately, specialist studies are available to help the genealogist. In particular, much of the contemporary evidence about land tenure and succession from the century after the Norman conquest has been drawn together, in the Continental Origins of English Landholders, 1066-1166 (COEL) project, by Katharine Keats-Rohan and her collaborators. The principal sources are Domesday Book itself and the associated documents, the pipe rolls, local surveys and the Cartae Baronum of 1166 (see feudal surveys), and nearly 60 collections of charters. The outcome was a searchable database, containing biographical and genealogical information with supporting texts. The full database is available on CD-ROM (see the web site of the Unit for Prosopographical Research), though unfortunately the software is no longer compatible with most current computer operating systems. Many of the data are also available in print, in two published volumes. The first, Domesday People (1999), contains entries for Domesday tenants (arranged alphabetically by forename), giving a discussion of continental origins and references to sources. The second volume, Domesday Descendants (2002), covers others who held land in the century following the Conquest (and is arranged alphabetically by surname).

As its title suggests, the main emphasis of the COEL project is on people of continental origin who held land in 1086 it does not attempt complete coverage of the tenants who were native English, though many are included. Anglo-Saxon landholders, at the time of Domesday and before, are covered by the Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England (PASE) database, which is available online. But genealogically speaking, apart from a few well documented examples, it is extremely difficult to trace a pre-conquest English descent (although there was quite a vogue for 'Saxon ancestors' in Victorian times, and many were invented then).

Links and bibliography for Domesday Book

For source material on the internet, click here

Works useful to the genealogist

  • A.J. Camp, My ancestors came with the Conqueror (London, 1990)
    This booklet - not primarily concerned with Domesday Book - examines evidence about the few men known to have fought on the Norman side at Hastings, and gives an index to several versions of the spurious 'Battle Abbey Roll', including references to Domesday Book
    (This volume is included in the RootsWeb list of Books We Own, which can be searched by volunteers.)
  • H.C. Darby and G.R. Versey, Domesday Gazetteer (Cambridge, 1975)
  • The Continental Origins of English Landholders, 1066-1166 (COEL), available on CD-ROM see the Prosopography Centre web site.
    Published works produced in the course of the project are:
    • K.S.B. Keats-Rohan and D.E. Thornton, Domesday Names: An Index of Personal and Place Names in Domesday Book (Woodbridge, 1997)
    • K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, Domesday People: A Prosopography of Persons Occurring in English Documents 1066-1166: I. Domesday Book
      (Woodbridge, 1999)
      A list of corrections to this and the companion volume, compiled by Rosie Bevan, is available on the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy website a list of corrections maintained by the author is also available (in PDF format)
    • K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, Domesday Descendants: A Prosopography of Persons Occurring in English Documents 1066-1166: II. Pipe Rolls to Cartae Baronum
      (Woodbridge, 2002)
      A list of corrections to this and the companion volume, compiled by Rosie Bevan, is available on the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy website a list of corrections maintained by the author is also available (in PDF format)

    Discussion and reference

    • Henry Ellis A General Introduction to Domesday Book . Volume 1. (1833) (Google Books [Hints and tips])
      [Other copies at: Internet Archive - Text Archive.]
    • Henry Ellis, A General Introduction to Domesday Book . Volume 2. (1833) (Internet Archive - Text Archive)
    • David Roffe's website contains a wealth of background material on Domesday Book and related subjects, including the texts of lectures and published papers and unpublished local studies. There is a detailed examination of The Domesday texts, and Domesday Online - a large collection of links to relevant information on the Internet
    • The website of the Hull Domesday Project contains a lot of useful background material on Domesday, with bibliographical notes on many aspects of the records, and an extensive section explaining the language of Domesday and the weights and measures referred to.
    • Domesday Book (National Archives information leaflet) [Internet Archive copy from August 2004]
    • Exchequer: Treasury of the Receipt: Domesday Book etc (description of class E 31 in The National Archives online catalogue)
    • The Domesday Book (Alan Stanier) [see the Internet Archive's copy of this page, from November 2004]
      Detailed information about Great and Little Domesday and the three main 'satellites', including a glossary and a guide to weights and measures
    • D. Bates, A Bibliography of Domesday Book (Woodbridge, 1986)
    • V.H. Galbraith, The making of Domesday Book (Oxford, 1961)
    • E.M. Hallam, Domesday Book through nine centuries ([London,] 1986)
      A survey of how the Domesday Book has been used since its composition, and how antiquarians and historians have viewed the record.
    • William E. Kapelle, The Purpose of Domesday Book: a Quandary, from Essays in Medieval Studies, vol.9 (1992)
      Online text of a paper discussing the purpose of the survey and summarising older theories
    • F. W. Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond: Three Essays in the Early History of England (Cambridge, 1897) (Archive for the History of Economic Thought, McMaster University)
      This is one of the great works on Domesday, but its view of the survey as a purely fiscal exercise has since been modified in favour of political, feudal and legal aspects - though the debate still continues.
    • D. Roffe, Domesday: the Inquest and the Book (Oxford, 2000)
      A reassessment of the survey's purpose, and of the composition of the Domesday Book. Some of the arguments are summarised in a lecture by the author, whose text is available online
    • J.H. Round, Feudal England. Historical studies on the XIth and XIIth centuries (London, 1895)
      Round also contributed many introductory Domesday articles to the Victoria County History. Like Maitland, he saw the survey as primarily fiscal

    Editions of Domesday

    The Latin text of the Domesday Book (P.R.O. E31) was originally published in 1783, using a specially designed record type, under the editorship of Abraham Farley. The most accessible printed editions today are:

    • David Roffe summarises several databases composed from the Domesday Book in a lecture, Domesday Databases, whose text is available on his website
    • Electronic Edition of Domesday Book: Translation, Databases and Scholarly Commentary, 1086 second edition (John Palmer, University of Hull/Economic and Social Data Service)
      A collection of documents, including the text of the translations originally published by Phillimore (excluding Yorkshire, for which a new translation is in preparation), together with county introductions and notes, appendices and a bibliography. There are also databases containing personal and place names and Domesday statistics. The whole collection is downloaded as a zipped file, with the text files in RTF format and for the databases a choice of Microsoft Access or tabbed format (free registration required). The documents are also available on the University of Hull website as individual files the text files are in RTF and the databases in Microsoft Access format. Individual files may be downloaded by clicking repeatedly on the 'Collection Members' link.
    • Domesday Book, or the Great Survey of England of William the Conqueror, A.D. 1086 (2 vols (also in county volumes) Ordnance Survey Office Southampton, 1863)
      Monochrome photographic facsimile superseded by the Alecto editions.
    • The volumes of the Victoria County History contain English translations of Domesday Book for individual counties, with introductory articles (many by J.H. Round)
    • J. Morris, general ed., Domesday Book (35 county volumes (including the Boldon Book ) and 3 volumes of indexes Chichester, 1974-1992)
      The English translations for the Great Domesday counties, together with images of the Latin text, are available in searchable form on CD, known as Domesday Explorer, published by Phillimore and Co. A detailed review by David Roffe, originally published in The Medieval Review , is available online.
      Facsimile of Farley's Latin text, with English translation.
      (The Middlesex and Surrey volumes are included in the RootsWeb list of Books We Own, which can be searched by volunteers.)
    • R.W.H. Erskine, ed., Great Domesday (6 vols (also in county volumes) Alecto Historical Editions London, 1986-1992)
      A full-colour facsimile of the manuscript, with English translations based on those in the Victoria County History also contains indexes, maps and introductory articles. Little Domesday is not included (see next)
    • Little Domesday (Alecto Historical Editions London, 2000)
      A full-colour facsimile of the manuscript, with a new English translation. (Addison Publications)
      CD-ROM versions, incorporating images of the manuscript and of Farley's transcript of the Latin text, together with English translations (revised versions of the Victoria County History translations for Great Domesday, and a new translation of Little Domesday). Available either as medium-resolution images on a single CD-ROM, or as high-resolution images on a 4-CD-ROM set.
      A review by David Roffe is available online. (National Archives, DocumentsOnline)
      Images of the manuscript with English translations, from the Alecto editions of Great and Little Domesday, available as pay-per-view, with a freely searchable index.
    • Translated extracts are available at The Domesday Book Online (, together with some background information - this project is still at an early stage

    Editions of associated documents

    A total of 18 'satellite' documents associated with Domesday are discussed and listed by H.B.Clarke, The Domesday Satellites (pp.50-70 in Domesday Book: A Reassessment, ed. P.Sawyer London, 1985). The most substantial are the 'Exeter Domesday', the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis and the Inquisitio Eliensis.

    Some information is available in the Satellites section of the Hull Domesday Project website.

    The 'Exeter Domesday'

    In Exeter, Dean and Chapter MS 3500 ( Liber Exoniensis ).

    • The Devonshire Domesday and Geld Inquest (2 vols Plymouth, 1884-1897)
      Extended Latin texts from the Liber Exoniensis, with English translations, for Devon only also the Inquisitio Geldi from the same manuscript

    Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis and Inquisitio Eliensis

    Copies of both are in British Library, Cotton Tiberius A vi (two other copies of the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis are at Trinity College, Cambridge).

    4. Sharing and Re-use

    An additional benefit of digitising the entirety of a text and releasing it as a dataset is that it facilitates re-use in much more flexible ways, even though it is more difficult to use.

    The data created by Professor Palmer's team was published previously in a commercially-available CD-ROM edition, Domesday Explorer (Phillimore, 2000). This was developed to make sophisticated use of the text coding and to provide mapping features. The CD-ROM itself is still available from the Phillimore website but requires an old version of the Windows operating system that is no longer available.

    This is not an untypical example of digital editions of the 1990s. In the early days of digital history projects, when the Web was in its infancy as a publishing platform, a common approach to publishing large and complex datasets or sources was to create bespoke software, or use functionality dependent on proprietary systems, and publish as electronic editions on standalone disks for desktop computers.

    This approach had the advantage of being specifically developed to exploit the potential of the data, but the downside that changes in the platforms they were designed for could rapidly render them obsolete. The current dataset, in contrast, can be seen to illustrate a shift towards creating and publishing open, re-usable data rather than 'black box' editions, which has been facilitated by advances in both online publication options and digital literacy. (The main dataset is stored in a proprietary database format (MS Access), but the software is widely used and the data can be exported from it into alternative formats.)

    The benefits of sharing the data openly are already becoming apparent, as the data is being re-used in digital resources and heritage projects. For example, place data from the dataset was incorporated into theProsopography of Anglo Saxon England (PASE)project.

    Open Domesday is a website built using the Hull Domesday data in conjunction with Google Maps. It can be searched by place name and browsed by an index of names place name searches show snippets of page images in context. Moreover, the site also has an open API, facilitating further re-uses it is being used, for example, by the Portable Antiquities Scheme to link locations of registered finds to nearby places in Domesday.

    New insights from original Domesday survey revealed

    Domesday Book Cover. Credit: University of Oxford

    A new interpretation of the survey behind Domesday Book—the record of conquered England compiled on the orders of William the Conqueror in 1086—has emerged from a major new study of the survey's earliest surviving manuscript.

    Research published in the English Historical Review shows historians now believe Domesday was more efficient, complex, and sophisticated than previously thought. The survey's first draft, which covered England south of the River Tees, was made with astonishing speed—within 100 days.

    It was then checked and reorganised in three further stages, resulting in the production of new documents, each carefully designed for specific fiscal and political purposes. The iconic Domesday Book was simply one of several outputs from the process.

    Lead researcher, Dr. Stephen Baxter, Associate Professor of Medieval History at the University of Oxford, said: "Domesday Book is at once one of medieval England's best known and most enigmatic documents. The reasons for—and processes behind—its creation have been the subject of debate among historians for centuries. This new research, based on the earliest surviving Domesday manuscript, shows the survey was compiled remarkably quickly and then used like a modern database, where data is entered in one format and can be extracted in other formats for specific purposes."

    This interpretation emerged from a major collaborative study of Exeter Cathedral Library MS 3500, aka Exon Domesday. Although incomplete, covering only Wiltshire, Dorset, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, it remains priceless because it is the earliest surviving manuscript and contains distinct texts written by several scribes, working under intense pressure in the summer of 1086. The text has been in print since 1816, but a team of specialists led by scholars based at the University of Oxford and King's College London have now established what each scribe wrote, what sources they drew on, and how they collaborated. It affords a deeper understanding of how and why Domesday was made.

    Oxford Prof. Stephen Baxter said: "This research shows the compilation of Domesday to be one of the most remarkable feats of government in the recorded history of Britain. The survey was brilliantly conceived to generate and structure information that would enable the Conqueror's regime to maximise his revenue from different income streams."

    "The Conqueror's regime effectively compiled and manipulated a database of England's landed wealth in less than nine months—using technologies no more complex than parchment, pen and ink, and human interaction." says Professor Baxter.

    Historians have known for some time the Normans inherited an unusually powerful state in 1066. Even so, this new evidence demonstrates how effectively they mastered its machinery and adapted it to the particular challenges of governing conquered England.

    It also confirms they did so drawing on ideas, technologies, and personnel originating from the Continent, for the closest parallels are the great surveys compiled by the Emperor Charlemagne and his successors in the eighth and ninth centuries, and confirmation charters issued across northern France in the late eleventh.

    In addition, the study of Exon's scribes has established they were trained in either Normandy or elsewhere in north-west Europe. As Baxter puts it, "The Domesday survey was, therefore, a distinctively English yet fundamentally European phenomenon."

    These findings may resonate widely at a time when the pandemic and Brexit has placed intense demands on the machinery of the state and public participation in its strategies.

    Domesday Survey: Introduction V

    This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.

    The Survey contains no evidence of royal demesne in Middlesex either in 1066 or in 1086. (fn. 1) Round suggested that in the neighbouring counties of Hertfordshire (fn. 2) and Essex (fn. 3) the former royal lands may have been entered in Domesday among those of Earl Harold. In Middlesex Earl Harold held only the one manor of Harmondsworth (48), assessed at 30 hides, and a tenement of one hide in Spelthorne Hundred (49), and there is no reason to assume that either of these was formerly a royal possession. It may be suggested that the two manors which Earl Ælfgar had held were at an earlier date royal estates, for Isleworth (80) was valued at £80 in King Edward's time, and there is reason to believe that this was the figure at which the firma unius noctis or diei rendered by a considerable number of ancient royal manors was valued before the Norman Conquest. (fn. 4) Hampton (81) was valued at £40 T.R.E. which looks like half a night's farm, and the two manors together constituted a hundred. The name of one Middlesex manor, Kingsbury (46), indicates that it was at some date a royal possession. (fn. 5) Although most of the documents emanating from Westminster Abbey are untrustworthy and the reliability of the traditions embodied in them is doubtful, it seems clear that the Confessor may have made generous benefactions from the royal demesne to the monastery which he rebuilt. (fn. 6)

    William the Conqueror seems to have made no attempt to create a demesne for himself out of lands forfeited by their English occupiers. Middlesex, Staffordshire, and Cheshire are the only counties where there is no mention of royal demesne in 1086. Under the heading of 'King William' (fn. 7) in Domesday are entered 12½ acres of Nanesmaneslande, thirty cottars who pay annually 14s. 10½d., two cottars at Holborn who pay annually 20d. to the sheriff, and an annual rent of 6s. paid by William the Chamberlain pro terra ubi sedet vinea sua. (fn. 8) This is the only occasion in Domesday in which the word Nanesmaneslande occurs. (fn. 9)

    The largest lay estate in 1066 was that entered as held by Earl Ælfgar. This consisted of the two large manors of Isleworth (80) and Hampton (81) which together made up the hundred of Hounslow, later known as Isleworth, (fn. 10) with a total assessment of 105 hides. Ælfgar died in or about the year 1062 (fn. 11) and it is uncertain who in 1066 possessed the estates entered as his in this and other counties. (fn. 12) They may have been in the hands of his son Edwin who succeeded to his earldom (although Domesday seems to imply the contrary) or they may have passed into the king's hands, which is on the whole more likely. In 1086 many of Ælfgar's former estates were held by William the Conqueror, and in Buckinghamshire and Essex at least they were bestowed in the first instance on Queen Maud. (fn. 13) His vast Middlesex estate, however, was at this time possessed by Walter of St. Valery, (fn. 14) a tenant-in-chief.

    Earl Leofwine, of whose earldom Middlesex formed a part, was in 1066 in possession of the large manor of Harrow (4), assessed at 100 hides, together with a small tenement of 2 hides which belonged to it in Elthorne Hundred (5). There is proof that early in the 9th century Harrow formed part of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Middlesex estate, (fn. 15) and its transference to the Archbishop after the Conquest seems to be merely a restoration. (fn. 16) Owing to the lack of documentary evidence (fn. 17) it is impossible to determine how or when this manor came to be held by the house of Godwine, although Leofwine's possession of it may have dated only from 1057 when he received his earldom. The two hides in Elthorne were held by one of Earl Leofwine's homines named Turbert who, it is stated, could not take his land away from Harrow (non potuit mittere vel vendere extra Herges). Turbert held a further two hides (84) in Elthorne Hundred, but in this instance he was free to commend the land to the lord of his own choice. 'Men' who were able to commend themselves and their lands to anyone and sell their lands to whom they chose are more frequently met with in Middlesex than those who, presumably because they had received their land at the hands of their lord, were not free to do so. That the lands of the former were their own inheritances seems to be borne out by the fact that after 1066 their holdings were bestowed upon a variety of different 'successors' without reference to the disposition of their lords' estates. Other homines of Earl Leofwine are named and they were free to betake themselves to whom they wished with their lands. Alwin White (albus) held an unnamed tenement of 2 2 /3 virgates in Spelthorne Hundred (98) and Levric held two virgates at Greenford (99). Levric is probably indentifiable with Levric the housecarl of Earl Leofwine who held five hides one virgate at Willian (Herts.), (fn. 18) although the holdings passed to different landowners after the Conquest. (fn. 19) A king's thegn named Alwin Wit occurs in Hampshire (fn. 20) and a sokeman named Alwin blondus held a tenement in Cambridgeshire (fn. 21) but neither can be identified with Alwin White (albus) of Middlesex. Of the remaining homines of Earl Leofwine, one, a sokeman, held two hides two virgates in 'Ticheham' (70), another held two virgates at Bedfont (77), and a third, one of two brothers, shared the 5-hide manor of Charlton (89). This last entry seems to refer to a joint inheritance, but whereas one of the brothers had commended himself to Earl Leofwine, the other was commended to Archbishop Stigand. The whole of the manor of Charlton became part of the fief of Roger de Rames. Walter fitz Other was given the two virgates at Bedfont and Robert Gernon received Turbert's two hides in Elthorne Hundred. Geoffrey de Mandeville appears in Domesday as the under-tenant of the Archbishop of Canterbury holding Turbert's two hides which belonged to Harrow, and he also secured the holding in 'Ticheham' and the tenement belonging to Alwin White (albus).

    Earl Harold's estate of 31 hides (fn. 22) ranks only fifth in size of the pre-conquest lay estates, and in 1086 was in the possession of the Church of the Holy Trinity, Rouen. (fn. 23) Land held by his homines brought within his sphere of influence another 22 hides 2 virgates, making a total of 53 hides 2 virgates. On his own estate Harold had two homines who were unable to remove themselves from his lordship these were Goldin who held the one hide in Spelthorne Hundred, and an unnamed sokeman who held two hides in the 30-hide manor of Harmondsworth. Those who were free to take their land elsewhere are named as Gouti, Brihtmar, and Algar. Gouti, huscarle Heraldi comitis, held two hides at Bedfont (61) and hec terra iacuit et iacet in Felteham. This last statement thus identifies Gouti with the unnamed homo of Earl Harold who held 7 hides at Feltham (62) pro uno manerio. The name Gouti is of Scandinavian origin (fn. 24) and, although less common than some, is met with in a number of counties in Domesday, particulary in East Anglia. There is, however, only one man bearing this name with whom Gouti of Middlesex can reasonably be identified he is the thegn of Earl Harold holding two hides at Cockhampstead (Herts.). (fn. 25) Even this identification cannot be regarded as certain since the Hertfordshire Gouti was succeeded by the Count of Mortain. Algar, described only as homo, held the 9½-hide manor of (Little) Stanmore (90) and Brihtmar held 4 hides at West Bedfont (78).

    Other, smaller, estates were held by Harold, son of Earl Ralph, Earl Waltheof, and Countess Goda. Harold son of Earl Ralph, (fn. 26) held the 10-hide manor of Ebury (65). By 1086 he had lost this manor although he was at that date a tenant-in-chief in Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, and Warwickshire. Either he or his father is recorded as the holder of these lands (except the one hide which Harold held in Worcestershire) (fn. 27) in 1066. Harold's father died in 1057, and the fact that according to the Middlesex entry he was under the wardship of Queen Edith in 1066 suggests that he must have been very young at this time. (fn. 28) The charge that Queen Edith was not a faithful guardian seems to be unfounded for she did no injury to Harold by granting the manor to William the Chamberlain to be held at farm, but when she died Harold's rights appear to have been ignored and William held of the king as also did the holder in 1086, Geoffrey de Mandeville. Earl Waltheof held the 5-hide manor of Tottenham (96) which was in the hands of his wife Countess Judith in 1086. Countess Goda held the manor of Harefield (82), assessed at 5 hides, which in 1086 was in the possession of Richard fitz Gilbert.

    Of the landowners who were not nobles the largest and most important in Middlesex was Ansgar the Staller. (fn. 29) His estate of 76½ hides ranks third in order of size of all the lay estates in the county. His lands comprised Northolt (71), 15 hides, Edmonton, including the berewick of Mimms (72), 35 hides, and Enfield (73), 30 hides less 6 which were held by men in free commendation. In addition a further 2½ hides were held by men who could not remove themselves from his lordship. Azor held ½ hide at Greenford (69) and two unnamed homines held one hide each at Greenford (68) and 'Ticheham' (70) respectively. Among the men of this period Ansgar the Staller is a well-known figure. Three or possibly four generations of his family are known. (fn. 30) In the Domesday Survey he stands out as a man of substance for in addition to his Middlesex estate he held land in Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire, Warwickshire, Essex, and Suffolk. His influence, however, extended beyond these counties for there were in Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, and Norfolk, counties in which he does not appear to have held personal estates, many homines who were under his lordship but were free to take their lands elsewhere if they wished. Ansgar's Middlesex estate was one of his largest. His importance is shown by the numerous documents in which his name appears either in the address or among the witnesses. (fn. 31) He is generally held to have been Sheriff of Middlesex, although this has been doubted. (fn. 32) Ansgar the Staller is one of the outstanding examples of an Englishman whose lands were taken over almost in their entirety by a single Norman lord. (fn. 33) In Middlesex Geoffrey de Mandeville succeeded both to Ansgar's own estate and those of his homines, whether they were free or not free to betake themselves to another lord. Ansgar's fate after the Norman Conquest is not known but it can hardly be doubted that he is the ansgardus referred to by Guy d'Amiens, (fn. 34) and that he led the contingent of Londoners at the Battle of Hastings where he was severely wounded. After the battle he may have headed a party which was opposed to the submission of the city to William. It is probable that he did not long survive the Conquest. (fn. 35) Wlward 'White', 'a Saxon thane of large and ubiquitous estate', (fn. 36) was able through his influence at Court to survive the Conquest and continue to hold land after 1066. In Middlesex he held in 1066 an estate totalling 42½ hides made up of Kempton (63), 5 hides, Ruislip (74), 30 hides, and Kingsbury (75), 7½ hides. Ælmer, his 'man', held a further 2 hides of him in 'Ticheham' (86) which he was free to take elsewhere. Wlward had lands in at least eleven counties. (fn. 37) In Somerset and Buckinghamshire his estates were extensive and his Middlesex estate was by no means negligible. Although he survived the Conquest, Wlward's losses must have been considerable. He seems to have lived almost up to the time of the Domesday Survey. (fn. 38) The extent, however, to which he retained his lands after 1066 is very uncertain, for Domesday, with few exceptions, records only the holders of lands in 1066 and 1086. Wlward 'White's' lands had passed to several different landowners by 1086, but in five counties he was succeeded by Ernulf of Hesdin. (fn. 39) In Middlesex he was succeeded by Ernulf at Ruislip and Kingsbury, but Kempton had been secured by the Count of Mortain and Ælmer's two hides in 'Ticheham' passed to Robert Fafiton.

    Two other thegns who may be classed among the larger landowners in Middlesex are Wigot and Azor the housecarl. Wigot held the manors of Colham (55) and Harlington (54), assessed respectively at 8 and 10 hides. At Harlington a sokeman held two of the ten hides which 'he could not sell' without Wigot's permission. Two homines, Alwin who held one hide at Harmondsworth (53) and Godwin Alfit who held three hides at Dawley (57), were both able to alienate their land. Wigot is not distinguished by a surname in Middlesex where his estates are entered as part of the the fief of Earl Roger. At no great time afterwards, however, these lands formed part of the honor of Wallingford, (fn. 40) and this strongly suggests that Wigot of the Middlesex Survey was Wigot of Wallingford. The estates of Wigot of Wallingford can be traced in eleven counties in 1066. (fn. 41) He was greeted by King Edward as 'my dear kinsman', and his son Tochi is recorded as having died at William's side in the battle of Gerberoi. (fn. 42) At the time of Domesday most of Wigot's lands were held by either Miles Crispin or Robert D'Oilli, and there is reason to believe that they had acquired them by marriage rather than as a result of confiscation.

    Five or six of the pre-Conquest landowners in Middlesex were housecarls, the military retainers of the king and certain great magnates who had been provided with estates on which they resided in time of peace. Gouti, the housecarl of Earl Harold, has already been mentioned and it has been noted that Levric was probably a housecarl of Earl Leofwine. Azor, one of the Confessor's housecarls, held the 15-hide manor of Stanwell (76) and 8 hides 2 virgates at Bedfont (77), described as 'a berewick in Stanwell'. Five sokemen held of Azor. One, who was able to alienate his land, held two virgates at Bedfont (77). Two others held four hides at West Bedfont (78), but they could not take their land away from Azor's lordship, nor could the two sokemen who held '1 hide 3 virgates and a third part of 1 virgate' at Hatton (79). The whole of Azor's lands and those of his men passed into the hands of Walter fitz Other. A man who was a housecarl might also be described as a thegn. Ulf who held 9 hides in this county is described in one entry relating to 5 hides at Hanworth (52), as huscarl Regis Eduuardi and in another, relating to 4 hides at Hillingdon (56), as teignus Regis Eduuardi. His lands together with Wigot's formed the main part of Earl Roger's Middlesex fief. (fn. 43) He is probably to be identified with Ulf—not described as a housecarl—who was the predecessor of Miles Crispin at Beddington (fn. 44) (Surr.), from which estate it is recorded 21 houses which were held in 1066 by Earl Roger, '13 in London, 8 in Sudwerche' had been taken. Achi the housecarl was the predecessor of Robert Blund or Blount (fn. 45) not only at Laleham (88) but also in East Anglia where he had extensive estates and in Wiltshire. (fn. 46) Lastly, Tochi, another of King Edward's housecarls, held two hides in 'Ticheham' (58) which later formed part of Earl Roger's fief. All of these housecarls with the exception of Levric (Leofric), if he is rightly included, bore Scandinavian names.

    The remaining holders of land are men who were mostly thegns of King Edward, and a few were homines of lords who are not identified as holding estates in Middlesex. Edmer Atule (or Attile) who held the 9½-hide manor of Stanmore (64) held more extensive lands in other counties. In Buckinghamshire he held the important manor of Bledlow, (fn. 47) and in Hertfordshire he was the holder of Berkhampstead (fn. 48) together with the berewick of Gaddesden. (fn. 49) In each of these three counties he was the predecessor of the Count of Mortain. He is generally considered to be identical with the thegn Edmer Atre (fn. 50) who, under a number of names, can be identified as holding land in Devon and Somerset, and whose lands at the time of the Survey were held by the Count of Mortain. If the identifications are correct, Edmer Atule must certainly be classed as one of the greater thegns. Edwin the thegn of King Edward held 12 hides in Middlesex. He held the 10-hide manor of Kensington (93) in which he was succeeded by the Bishop of Coutances and 2 hides at Tollington (94) which by 1086 had passed to Ranulf brother of Ilger. He is probably to be identified with Edwin whose lands in Buckinghamshire (fn. 51) also passed to the bishop and Edwin the son of Borret (or Borred) who held in Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire. The thegn Thurstan (Turstinus tegnus Regis Eduuardi) held the 5-hide manor of Cranford (91) which in 1086 was held by Hugh, under-tenant of William fitz Ansculf. He can be identified with Thurstan whose estates in Staffordshire, amounting to nine hides, (fn. 52) were also held by undertenants of William fitz Ansculf. Dr. Harmer notes that the Middlesex thegn may be the same person as Thurstan the housecarl referred to in a writ of c. 1044–51, (fn. 53) although no definite connexion between the two has been established. (fn. 54) Edward the son of Suain who held the manor of Lisson (97), 5 hides, held a small tenement of ½ hide in the hundred of Chafford (Ceffeurda) (fn. 55) in Essex. From this entry it is learnt that the woman Eideva (Edeva) by whom he was succeeded was his widow (uxor eius). (fn. 56) Wlwen (Uuluuene) is one of the few examples of a wealthy Englishwoman recorded in Domesday as holding lands before 1066. She is described in Middlesex and in an entry relating to Aston (Bucks.) (fn. 57) as homo Regis Eduuardi, but in another Buckinghamshire entry (fn. 58) she is referred to as quaedam femina. As a Middlesex landowner Wlwen is not important for she held only a 2-hide estate in Chelsea (92). In Hertfordshire she held 6 hides as under-tenant of the abbey of St. Albans and in Buckinghamshire her two estates totalled 25 hides. In each of these counties she was succeeded by Edward of Salisbury. There seems to be no doubt that she was the lady who in Somerset, Wiltshire, and Dorset held estates totalling 65 hides, in all of which she was succeeded by Edward of Salisbury. (fn. 59)

    Alwin Stichehare held a 3½-hide estate at Stepney which in 1086 was held by Robert fitz Roscelin, but was claimed by the Bishop of London. Alwin occurs as a witness to a charter dated 1054 (fn. 60) which also places him within the setting of the city of London. It is suggested that he is the same 'Alwin a free man' who held 5 hides 15 acres at Heydon (Essex) (fn. 61) and who was succeeded by Robert fitz Roscelin. It has also been suggested (fn. 62) that he may be connected with Alwin Hor' who is referred to in Kent. (fn. 63) No connexion can be established between this Kentish tenant and either Alwin Stichehare or Alwin Horne who held 2½ hides at Kingsbury (46). Alwin Horne held his Middlesex land in vadimonio de quodam homine Sancti Petri. This land was held in 1086 by William the Chamberlain as tenant of the Abbot of Westminster. Alwin Horne is almost certainly identifiable with the Hertfordshire man of the same name who held estates totalling 15 hides 3 virgates 18 acres, (fn. 64) and who was succeeded by Derman. (fn. 65) Round (fn. 66) also identifies him with Alwin 'Horim' who held the 5-hide manor of Flitton (Beds.) (fn. 67) which was later held by Robert Fafiton.

    The apparent absence of royal demesne in Middlesex is more than counterbalanced by a preponderance of ecclesiastical estates which survived almost unchanged throughout the upheavals of the Norman Conquest. The post-Conquest fiefs were the three great estates of Canterbury, London, and Westminster Abbey, together with the smaller ones of Holy Trinity, Rouen, and Barking Abbey. Their combined assessment of 458 hides 3 virgates was more than half the total for the whole county.

    The two vast manors of Hayes (3) and Harrow (4, 5) made up the Archbishop of Canterbury's Domesday estate, which, with the exception of the combined fief of the Bishop of London and the Canons of St. Paul's, was the largest of the Middlesex fiefs. With a total assessment of 161 hides it was valued at £86 12s., a reduction of slightly more than £14 on its value in King Edward's time.

    Both of the manors were ancient possessions of the see and it is obvious that within their boundaries must have been included many settlements not named in Domesday Book. Hayes, with an assessment of 59 hides, appears to have remained part of the Canterbury estate from the time of its original donation. A charter, which on palaeographic evidence appears to be genuine, by which King Offa granted an estate of 90 hides to Archbishop Æthelheard, (fn. 68) probably in 795, refers to 'xc tributaria terrae bipertita in duobus locis, lx in loco qui dicitur on Linga Haese et Geddingas circa ribulum qui dicitur Fisces burna, et xxx in aquilonali ripa fluminis Tamis appellatur Tuican ham.' Twickenham is referred to in a number of early charters as part of the Canterbury estate, (fn. 69) but it must have been lost at some date before 1066 for in 1086 it formed part of the manor of Isleworth (80) which had belonged to Earl Ælfgar. (fn. 70) Since Botwell (in Hayes) is not mentioned in Domesday it was presumably included in the manor of Hayes. It was reckoned as a 5-hide-estate when King Wiglaf of Mercia granted it to Archbishop Wulfred in 831. (fn. 71) In the early 14th century the manor of Hayes is referred to as Hese cum Suthall. (fn. 72)

    The history of Harrow as part of the Canterbury lands can be traced back to the early 9th century. It was granted to Archbishop Wulfred by the terms of the settlement in 825 of his suit against the Abbess Cwenthryth, heir of King Cenwulf of Mercia, with whom he had been engaged in a long and violent quarrel. (fn. 73) The 100-hide estate is there described as lying at four places: 'Id est aet Haerge, Herefrething lond, aet Wemba lea [Wembley] et aet Geddincggum'. Geddincggum must be Yeading (fn. 74) which is associated with Hayes as early as c. 795 and was part of the manor of Hayes in later times. The Abbess Cwenthryth seems to have added 4 hides to Harrow and this probably explains why Harrow is reckoned as 104 hides in the document which purports to be a record of the disposal of certain estates by the priest Werhard, kinsman of Archbiship Wulfred. (fn. 75)

    For a period prior to 1066 the estate appears to have been taken away from the archbishop and in Domesday it is entered as Earl Leofwine's in 1066, but by 1086 it had been restored to the church. (fn. 76)

    The largest of all the Middlesex fiefs is that comprised under the heading Terra Episcopi Lundon' et Canonicorum with a total assessment of 162 hides 1 virgate. The extent of these lands shows little variation from the period before the Conquest. It is clear from Domesday that the endowments of the see were divided between the bishop and the cathedral chapter by 1086. In Essex and Hertfordshire the lands of the bishop and those of the canons are entered as separate fiefs. (fn. 77) In the Middlesex Survey the lands of the bishop and those of the canons are entered under one heading but the bishop's two large manors of Stepney and Fulham are placed first and canons' manors follow. In 1086 the bishop held 32 hides at Stepney and 40 hides at Fulham as demesne manors. Twenty hides and one virgate at Stepney were distributed among eight episcopal tenants and two men held one mill apiece. One of these under-tenants, the wife of Brien, held 5 hides, and presumably it was members of her family who held small tenancies of the bishop in Essex. (fn. 78) Ranulf Flambard who held 3½ hides had a number of small tenancies in other counties of the King and other magnates. (fn. 79) Later Bishop of Durham and chief minister of William II, he was a comparatively obscure person at this date. According to a Durham writer Ranulf 'fuerat . . . primo cum Mauricio Lundoniensi episcopo' but after a quarrel with him sought greater rewards in the royal service. (fn. 80) If this passage means that he was in the service of Maurice, who was the king's chancellor until his promotion to the see of London, the lands at Stepney would appear to have been the gift of that bishop and therefore very recently acquired. It is possible that the deanery which Bishop Maurice took from Ranulf, the cause of the quarrel, was the deanery of St. Paul's but the evidence is not satisfactory. (fn. 81) The Bishop of Lisieux (Gilbert Maminot) who held 1½ hide was chaplain and physician to King William and has been described as 'very learned but not very spiritual'. (fn. 82) He held small fiefs of the king in six counties (fn. 83) and under-tenancies in others. (fn. 84) William the Chamberlain held 1 hide 3 virgates and is referred to in a number of entries in Middlesex. He possessed a vineyard mentioned above (fn. 85) at Kingsbury (46) he held 2½ hides of the Abbot of Westminster and for a period until 1082 he appears to have held the manor of Ebury (65). It is fairly certain that he is the man of the same name who occurs in a number of counties in Domesday either as tenant-in-chief or as under-tenant. (fn. 86) Of the estate of 5 hides 1 virgate held by Hugh de Berneres which also included a mill, the latter and 1 virgate only belonged to the bishop in the time of King Edward and, as recorded in the entry, were held by Doding de proprio manerio episcopi the remaining 5 hides were formerly shared equally by the canons and a canon named Sired. Hugh de Berneres is referred to again in the entry relating to 4 hides at Stepney held by Robert Fafiton and claimed by the bishop (85). He is said to have taken 53 acres of land from the canons and to have added them to his 4 hides. This is not the only occasion on which Hugh de Berneres held land to which his title was questionable for he was involved in two disputes in Essex (fn. 87) where he held as an under-tenant of Geoffrey de Mandeville. He also held one hide as tenant-in-chief in Cambridgeshire. (fn. 88)

    Little is known concerning the early history of most of the estates of the see of London but the circumstances of the acquisition of the manor of Fulham are known through the abstract of a charter by which Tyrhtel, Bishop of Hereford 688–c. 710, gave it to Wealdheri, Bishop of London 693–c. 705. (fn. 89) In 1086 five hides were held of the bishop by Fulchered who held in succession to two sokemen and 5 more were held by the canons de victu eorum. This 5-hide manor at Fulham was held by the canons not of the bishop but de rege. In the following entry (20) 2 hides at Twyford held by Durand, a canon of St. Paul's, are likewise described as held de rege. In the succeeding entries three small estates are entered as belonging to individual canons and the rest are entered as belonging to the canons or the church of St. Paul and all were presumably held of the king although this is not specifically stated. Seventeen estates were held by the cathedral chapter with a total assessment of 65 hides 9 acres. Sixteen of these were in Ossulstone Hundred and one, West Drayton (35), was in Elthorne Hundred. (fn. 90) The largest, Willesden (22), assessed at 15 hides, was farmed out to villani and contained no demesne land. (fn. 91) A group of eleven estates (24–34), assessed at 26 hides 9 acres, lay between Fulham and Stepney and of these 24 hides appear to be the subject of a writ of William I which freed from various dues and services 'xxiiii hidas quas rex Athelbertus dedit sancto Paulo iuxta murum Lond'. (fn. 92) Four estates of the cathedral chapter are not described as belonging to the canons or the church of St. Paul. One 2-hide estate at Twyford was held by Durand and another 2-hide estate in the same place by Gueri and both of these men are described as canons of St. Paul. Ralf, another canon, held a 2-hide estate at Rugmoor and Walter the canon had one hide at St. Pancras. In neither Essex nor Hertfordshire are individual canons named as holders of any of the estates of the chapter. References to tenure of small estates in Middlesex by individual canons show that the prebendal system, well established in the 12th century, had begun to develop before 1086. (fn. 93) The estates of Durand, Ralf, and Walter seem to be the origin of three of the prebends of later times, but Gueri's estate at Twyford did not become prebendal. (fn. 94) There is reason to think that some sort of communal life in accordance with the Rule of Chrodegang of Metz, which was common among the secular canons of the late Old English period, survived under Bishop William and delayed the division of the canons' estates among prebendaries. (fn. 95) Charters and an ancient list of the holders of prebends suggest that the 12th-century organization of the chapter was in the main the work of Maurice (fn. 96) who became bishop in the year of the Domesday Survey. There is reference in Domesday to two canons of London besides the four mentioned above. Engelbric held a little estate of Bishop William in 1066 and 1086 on the episcopal manor of Stepney (11). The statement that he was not free to sell it may indicate that it was held as a prebend, as has been suggested. (fn. 97) The other canon mentioned by name, Sired, was dead by 1086. He had 2½ hides on the episcopal manor of Stepney (7) and was free to dispose of them without the bishop's permission. The entry might suggest that the canons had possessed a manor at Stepney (comparable with that at Fulham) and that it had come into the bishop's hands. Sired had also held 4 hides at Stepney which Robert Fafiton held of the King in 1086 (85). Since Bishop Maurice claimed them, these 4 hides, which the canon was free to sell, appear to have belonged to the bishop and not to the canons. It has been suggested that Sired was the father of Ailward son of Sired, first prebendary of Stoke Newington. (fn. 98) Edmund son of Algot who held a new mill of the bishop at Stepney in 1086 is not described as a canon but later evidence suggests that he was a prebendary and that he was brother of the Canon Ralf who held Rugmoor. (fn. 99) Ralf has been identified with Ralf son of Algod, an alderman and one of the leading members of the Cnihtengild of London as late as 1137, (fn. 100) although it may seem unlikely that a canon holding a prebend in 1086 would be alive over 50 years later.

    At the time of the Survey the property of Westminster Abbey lay in 15 counties. The great Pershore estate in Worcestershire was its most valuable possession and its 5 manors in Surrey were assessed at about 120 hides until reduced by 'beneficial hidation'. The estates in Gloucestershire, Essex, and Hertfordshire were extensive but the Abbey's fief in each of these counties was smaller than that in Middlesex. The 12 manors in Middlesex were assessed in all at 99½ hides. All (with one possible exception) had been acquired before the Confessor's death. The 'vill in which the church of St. Peter is situated' (i.e. Westminster) was originally called Thorney Island where according to the tradition of the abbey a religious house existed in the 8th century. (fn. 101) The monastery which Edward the Confessor rebuilt and generously endowed was probably founded in the later 10th century and bequests to it suggest that 'the abbey's fame was not merely local' in the late 10th and early 11th centuries. (fn. 102) The extent of the Westminster estate is probably indicated by the boundaries attached to a charter attributed to King Edgar. (fn. 103) The 3 hides belonging to it which were held in 1086 by Bainiard have been identified with the 'berwicum de villa Westm' nomine Totenhala' which Abbot Gilbert granted to William Baynard for his lifetime for the service of one knight shortly before the making of the Domesday Survey. This early charter of enfeoffment has survived and has been printed by J. A. Robinson (fn. 104) who identified Totenhala with the 3-hide berewick quod Tottenheale appellatur mentioned in the 'Telligraphus' of Edward the Confessor, one of the forged charters which, although spurious, 'represent current opinion in the abbey at the time of their composition'. By the same charter King Edward confirms, among other donations, 1 hide at Tatewelle (unidentified), 4 hides at Cnihtebricge (Knightsbridge) and 2 hides in Padington' (fn. 105) (Paddington). These places are not mentioned in Domesday. Another estate not mentioned in the Survey is Chalkhill, given to the monks by Thurstan the housecarl, a gift which was confirmed with privileges by Edward the Confessor's writ of 1044–6. (fn. 106)

    The same spurious charter of Edward the Confessor includes among the estates confirmed by that king 20 hides in Hendon with its appendages called Bleccenham, Codenhlaewe, and Lothereslege (names which have now vanished) which are not mentioned in Domesday but probably formed part of the manor in 1086. (fn. 107) An estate of 9 hides at Loceresleage and Tuneweorthe was granted by King Edwy to one of his thegns in 957 (fn. 108) and seems to be identical with the 9 hides at Lohtheresleage which Archbishop Dunstan acquired for the abbey. (fn. 109) Part only of this estate can have been included in Hendon if Tuneweorthe is the old name of the 2½-hide manor of Kingsbury. (fn. 110) According to the spurious 'Telligraphus' of William I three hides at Kingsbury were given to the monks by William his chamberlain at some date unknown between 1066 and 1086. (fn. 111) The monks claimed that King Ethelred (Unraed) had given them Hampstead (fn. 112) and this is not unlikely since they possessed a charter of King Edgar granting it to one of his thegns. (fn. 113) Likewise it is probable that Archbishop Dunstan gave Sunbury to them since they possessed a document recording the circumstances in which the archbishop acquired 10 hides at Sunbury together with 20 hides at Send (Surr.). (fn. 114) On the other hand the existence of a writ of Edward the Confessor making known his grant of Shepperton to his 'churchwright' Teinfrith (fn. 115) possibly raises the presumption that the writ by which the king gives the estate to the monks 'as fully and as completely as St. Dunstan bought it and granted it by charter' to the monks (fn. 116) is not genuine. It was perhaps intended that he should hold the land as a tenant for life but the grant may never have become effective, or he may have held the land for only a short period and the reference to Dunstan may be an interpolation. (fn. 117) A charter attributed to Dunstan as Bishop of London and the 'Telligraphus' of King Ethelred profess to tell how Dunstan acquired 8 hides at Hanwell and gave them to the monks. (fn. 118) Both documents mention Cowley which Dunstan is also reputed to have secured for them. It is impossible to determine how much genuine history is incorporated in these fabrications.

    According to the tradition incorporated in the spurious First Charter of Edward the Confessor, dated 28 December 1065, and another equally spurious charter of that King, (fn. 119) he himself added to the endowments of the abbey at the time of or after its dedication certain estates of which Staines was one. Neither the Confessor's writ announcing his gift of Windsor and Staines, (fn. 120) which does not give the hidage, nor the writ in which he states 'I inform you that I will and I grant that St. Peter, and the brethren at Westminster shall have for their sustenance the estate of Staines with the land Staeningahaga within London and with it soke over 35 hides, with all the berewicks that I have given to the holy foundation' (fn. 121) indicates when the grant was made. The compilers of Domesday clearly regarded Staines as a manor which belonged to the demesne of the abbey in 1066. (fn. 122) Domesday records that 4 berewicks belonged to this manor but does not name them. Probably they were Laleham (59) which the Abbot of Fécamp held of the Count of Mortain, for the reeve of Staines had held these 2 hides under the abbot in 1066 the hide at Ashford (60) which also formed part of the Count of Mortain's fief but the soke of which had belonged to Staines Robert Blund's 8 hides at Laleham (88) of which the soke belonged to Staines and Roger de Rames's 5-hide estate at Charlton (89) of which the soke had likewise belonged to Staines. These 16 hides together with the 19 hides at which Staines itself was assessed appear to be the 35 hides mentioned in the Confessor's writ quoted above. The figure 35 hides agrees with that in the Hidagium. (fn. 123) One of the spurious charters attributed to Edward the Confessor (fn. 124) mentions, among the berewicks and appendages of Staines, Yeoveney, Halliford, and Teddington in addition to Laleham and Ashford. Yeoveney is described as pastura de manerio de Stanes in a writ of William II which shows that Abbot Vitalis had in the Conqueror's time proved his right to it against Walter fitz Other. (fn. 125) Staeningahaga of the Confessor's writ seems to be Staining Lane in the city of London and it is probable that, as suggested by Maitland, the 46 burgesses listed in the Domesday entry relating to Staines lived there. (fn. 126)

    Neither of the writs of Edward the Confessor (fn. 127) notifying that with his assent a certain Ailric, of whom nothing more is known, had given Greenford to the monks of Westminster (probably 1057–66) states the hidage. In the spurious First Charter of the Confessor (fn. 128) the hidage is given as 12 hides and I virgate whereas in Domesday Westminster's manor is assessed at 11½ hides, and there is nothing in the entry relating to the 3-hide estate which Ernulf held of Geoffrey de Mandeville (68) to suggest that any part of it had ever belonged to the abbey.

    The 31-hide fief in Middlesex belonging to the Benedictine abbey of the Holy Trinity, Rouen, represents all the territorial possessions of this abbey in England. It is one of the few instances in this county in which the circumstances of a post-Conquest grant are known. (fn. 129) It was granted in 1069 at the suggestion of William fitz Osbern, by William, Duke of the Normans and King of the English, who 'gave to the Holy Trinity of the mount in perpetual heredity the land which in England is called Hermodesodes with the church and all its appurtenances'. (fn. 130) The author of the record adds a brief account of the ceremony which accompanied the gift: 'This gift was made by the presentation of a dagger, and when the king gave it to the abbot he pretended to stab the abbot's hand, "Thus," he jestingly exclaimed, "ought land to be bestowed".' The abbey, later known as St. Catharine from the hill on which it stood, held Harmondsworth until 1391. (fn. 131)

    The 5-hide manor of Tyburn (fn. 132) (50) is the smallest holding of Barking Abbey in any county. This abbey had a little land in Surrey, Buckinghamshire, and Bedfordshire, (fn. 133) but its endowment lay mainly in Essex where it held an estate of approximately 80 hides.

    Roger de Montgomery, Earl of Shrewsbury, (fn. 134) who is entered first of the lay tenantsin-chief in Middlesex, was a cousin of William the Conqueror and one of his closest supporters. (fn. 135) He received the rapes of Arundel and Chichester and was later invested with the earldom and nearly the whole of the Crown rights in Shropshire. (fn. 136) He held a large estate in Hampshire (fn. 137) and smaller ones in eight other counties. His Middlesex fief of 42 hides was valued at £24 15s. At the time of the Survey the Middlesex estates of Wigot of Wallingford, (fn. 138) together with those of Ulf the housecarl formed the nucleus of his fief. The remainder was made up of two hides formerly held by Tochi (fn. 139) and a number of small tenements held by various unimportant men. All of his manors were within the two hundreds of Elthorne and Spelthorne and formed an almost continuous line running north to south along the western borders of Middlesex, broken only by the manors of Cranford (91), held by William fitz Ansculf, and Feltham (62), held by the Count of Mortain.

    On the forfeiture of Earl Roger's fief by his son Robert of Belleme, the whole of his Middlesex estate appears to have been given to Miles Crispin and from an early date it formed part of the honor of Wallingford which consisted in the main of lands which had belonged to the Domesday barons, Miles Crispin and Robert de Oilli. In the list of fees contributing to the aid of 1235 Colham, Harlington, Hanworth, Dawley, Ickenham, and Hatton constitute that part of the honor of Wallingford which lay in Middlesex. (fn. 140) Of Earl Roger's Domesday fief only Hillingdon and the one-hide estate at Harmondsworth (53) escape mention here. The latter may be included in Colham with which it was associated (iacet in) in 1086. Hillingdon is not certainly known to have formed part of the honor of Wallingford until some time after 1293 when it apparently still owed suit to the hundred court. (fn. 141) In the early 12th century the honor was held by Brian fitz Count by right of his wife Maud who is said to have been the daughter of Robert de Oilli and widow of Miles Crispin. (fn. 142) The Middlesex manors mentioned in the list of fees pertaining to the honor of Wallingford c. 1300 (fn. 143) are Harlington, Ickenham, (fn. 144) Colham, and Uxbridge. At this date Harlington and Ickenham were held with Harpsden in Oxfordshire and Eaton in Appleton (Berks.) as three knight's fees by William de Harpeden whose ancestor Ralph de Harpenden held 3 fees, presumably identical, in the late 12th century. The association of these manors virtually proves that Alvred who (with Olaf) held Harlington of Earl Roger in 1086 is identical with Miles Crispin's tenant Alvred at Harpsden and Eaton. Alvred's son Roger is known to have held Eaton c. 1108 (fn. 145) and the three fees held of the honor of Wallingford in 1166 by Roger son of Alvred, (fn. 146) who it has been suggested may have been the grandson of the above Roger, since he was living in 1184, (fn. 147) were probably identical with the fees of the list of c. 1300. In this list is entered a knight's fee at Dawley 'quod Robertus Corbett et Iohanna de Barantyn tenent'. (fn. 148) This must be the fee which William Corbet held in 1166. (fn. 149) Dawley must have been granted to 'the Shropshire family of Corbet' between 1086 when it was held of Earl Roger by an Englishman Alnod (probably representing Ælfnoth) and 1102.

    After Earl Roger is entered Robert, Count of Mortain, half-brother of the Conqueror and one of the wealthiest of the Domesday magnates. His greatest estates lay in distant counties but his Middlesex manors were near to his possessions in Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire which, with some other lands, came to be called the honor of Berkhampstead, of which Berkhampstead castle was the head. His Middlesex estate was insignificant, consisting of six holdings, all except Stanmore (64) in Spelthorne Hundred, with a total assessment of 32 hides 2 virgates and valued at £15 19s. The first two holdings entered under his name suggest that in Middlesex no less than elsewhere Robert had made some attempt to appropriate church lands. His two hides at Laleham (59) had, in 1066, belonged to Westminster Abbey's manor of Staines, and the soke of Ashford, assessed at a single hide, is also stated to have belonged to that manor. (These holdings were possibly two of the four berewicks, referred to but not named, in the entry for Staines.) In 1066 Robert had made Ashford part of the manor of Kempton ubi non fuit T.R.E. In the manor of Stanmore (64) (fn. 150) on the Hertfordshire border the Count of Mortain was the successor to Edmer Atule, whom he also succeeded in the neighbouring manor of Berkhampstead (Herts.) and elsewhere. (fn. 151) This is the obvious explanation of his tenure of a manor which was isolated from the rest of his estates in Middlesex. His Middlesex holdings had belonged to several Englishmen including Gouti the housecarl and Wlward 'White'. With one exception he had kept all his Middlesex estates in his own hands. The exception was the small holding of Laleham which was held by the abbey of Fecamp as his under-tenant. No indication is given why or how this abbey came to hold land in Laleham.

    The succession of Geoffrey de Mandeville (fn. 152) to the estates of Ansgar the Staller explains his position as one of the largest landowners in Middlesex. Out of a total of 99 hides valued at £112 5s. he held in succession to Ansgar and his men 82 hides 2 virgates. His 10-hide manor of Ebury (65) he seems to have acquired from William the Chamberlain, and the balance was made up of a number of small estates held in some instances by unknown predecessors. He also held as under-tenant of the Archbishop of Canterbury 2 hides in Elthorne Hundred (5). His estates were spread over eleven counties (fn. 153) but Surrey is the only county where none of his lands had belonged to Ansgar or his men. (fn. 154) In Northamptonshire his entire estate and in Warwickshire 30 out of 31 hides had been held by Ansgar in Cambridgeshire the whole had belonged to Ansgar's homines while in Essex about half of Geoffrey's estate had been taken over from Ansgar. (fn. 155) Although Geoffrey de Mandeville is particularly associated with Essex, (fn. 156) in which county his fief was larger than that of any layman except Count Eustace, his connexion with Middlesex was hardly less close. He seems quite early (c. 1067) to have been given the office of Sheriff of London and Middlesex, (fn. 157) to which was later added the sheriffdoms of Hertfordshire and Essex. He is a good example of the post-Conquest baronial sheriff who was usually a magnate and obtained, by virtue of his office, the dominant influence within the shire. That Geoffrey de Mandeville could claim to rank among the greater magnates is demonstrated by the fact that his daughter was considered a fit match for Geoffrey the son of Count Eustace. (fn. 158) His wealth and office made him one of the most influential barons of the south-east and explain why his grandson and more famous namesake was created Earl of Essex by King Stephen. The first Geoffrey de Mandeville was generous in his gifts to religious houses. (fn. 159) According to Westminster traditions he gave the manor of Eye [Ebury] to that abbey in memory of his first wife Athelais whose death occurred before 1086. (fn. 160) Apart from these alienations, his Domesday fief seems to have passed intact to his son William and his grandson Geoffrey the first earl. On the death of William the third earl in 1189 there was no male heir and since his next of kin, his aunt Beatrice, sister of the first earl and widow of William de Say, was about 90 years of age she appears to have made over her claim to her younger son Geoffrey de Say. He, however, failed to pay the fine or relief which he had promised and was deprived of the fief which was secured by Geoffrey fitz Peter, husband of another Beatrice de Say, daughter of Geoffrey de Say's elder brother. Geoffrey fitz Peter who was made Earl of Essex is said to have secured the whole of Earl William's fief. (fn. 161) In a return of 1235–6 (fn. 162) Enfield, Northolt, Greenford, and Mimms (included in Edmonton in Domesday) constitute that part of the honor of Mandeville which lay in Middlesex, but the largest of the Domesday manors, Edmonton (with Mimms detached), formed part of the 'barony of William de Say'. In the return of 1242–3 (fn. 163) Northolt, Enfield, and Mimms are in the hands of the Earl of Hereford, for the honor of Mandeville had, on the death of Geoffrey fitz Peter's grandson William passed to his sister Maud, wife of Humphrey de Bohun. Edmonton is again entered as belonging to the barony of Say. In the accounts of the earldom of Essex and the barony of Say in the Complete Peerage (fn. 164) no reference is made to a partition of the Mandeville estates after Earl William's death in 1189 but it is clear that some unrecorded arrangement must have been made. When in 1214 Geoffrey de Say, son of the man who had secured the Mandeville honor for a time in 1190, claimed the lands of Earl William from Geoffrey fitz Peter's son, the latter stated among other things that he did not hold the whole of Earl William's honor. He said that Aubrey de Vere, Earl of Oxford, was holding Digswell (Herts.) and Geoffrey de Say the claimant was in possession of the manors of Sawbridgeworth (Herts.), and Edmonton, all of which rightly belonged to the honor. (fn. 165) It would appear, therefore, that the elder Geoffrey de Say was able to retain at least two valuable manors when he was deprived of most of Earl William's lands and that Geoffrey fitz Peter did not secure the whole honor.

    The largest fief of a lay tenant-in-chief in Middlesex is that of Walter of St. Valery (fn. 166) who had acquired the manors of Isleworth and Hampton, formerly held by Earl Aelfgar.

    This great estate, assessed at 105 hides, was valued at £111, which is £9 less than its value in 1066. Although his successors later acquired important interests in other parts of the country, Walter had in 1086 no land outside Middlesex except a small estate in Suffolk. (fn. 167) The descendants of Walter have sometimes been wrongly connected with another Domesday tenant-in-chief, Ranulf of St. Valery, who held land in Lincolnshire (fn. 168) and almost certainly came from St. Valery near Fécamp. (fn. 169) Walter derived his name from St. Valery-sur-Somme. According to Orderic (fn. 170) Gulbertus cognomento Advocatus de Sancto Gualerico married Papia daughter of Richard II, Duke of the Normans, and their son Bernard was the father of Walter of St. Valery. In 1095 both Walter and his son Bernard accompanied their kinsmen Duke Robert on the First Crusade. (fn. 171) An entry in the Pipe Roll of 1130 shows that at that date Walter's 105 hides in Middlesex were held by Reynold of St. Valery. (fn. 172) It is known that Reynold forfeited his English lands, (fn. 173) which lay in several counties, in Stephen's reign, but recovered most if not all of them after Henry II's accession. There appears to be no proof that he held in this period the 105 hides in Middlesex, but it may be assumed that he did. Unfortunately no return of his is preserved among the Cartae Baronum of 1166, although he occurs as an undertenant in the Cartae of the bishops of Lincoln and Winchester and the Abbot of Abingdon. (fn. 174) Reynold died in September (fn. 175) and the year must be 1166 since his son Bernard of St. Valery was in possession of land in Berkshire and Oxfordshire in 1167. (fn. 176) Bernard was certainly holding the Middlesex lands belonging to the honor in 1183. (fn. 177) These valuable manors formed part of the honor of St. Valery when it was held by his son Thomas who seems to have succeeded in 1191 (fn. 178) and by the Count of Dreux who married the daughter and heir of Thomas, (fn. 179) and likewise when in 1227 the forfeited honor was given by Henry III to his brother Richard of Cornwall. (fn. 180) The two manors of Isleworth and Hampton comprised the villages of Heston, Twickenham, Isleworth, and Hampton, all of which are mentioned in an ill-preserved charter of Guy of St. Valery confirming to the monks of St. Valery the rights in the hundred of Isleworth which they had enjoyed since the time of his grandfather Walter, the Domesday baron. This charter has been assigned to the period 1170–80 (fn. 181) but there is reason to think that it may have been issued much earlier in that century. (fn. 182)

    Ernulf or Arnulf of Hesdin, who was of Flemish extraction, (fn. 183) appears in Domesday as a wealthy man whose chief holdings are to be found in Wiltshire and Gloucestershire. He held lands, however, in at least nine other counties including Middlesex. (fn. 184) In Middlesex he had secured the two manors of Ruislip and Kingsbury (74, 75) formerly held by Wlward 'White' whom he had succeeded in several counties. (fn. 185) Assessed at a total of 37½ hides, they were valued in 1086 at £24, that is two-thirds of their preConquest value. Ernulf is known to have been a benefactor of churches (fn. 186) and he seems to have given his manor of Ruislip to the abbey of Bec. This gift must have been made between 1086 and 1095, for he was accused of complicity in the revolt of 1095 and is said to have voluntarily surrendered his English lands and to have died participating in the First Crusade. (fn. 187)

    Walter fitz Other, ancestor of the well-known family surnamed 'of Windsor', was custodian of Windsor Forest and the first recorded Keeper of Windsor Castle. His descendants played an important part in the Norman conquest of South Wales and of Ireland. The most famous of them were the Fitz Geralds or Geraldines. (fn. 188) Walter's barony, later known as the 'barony of Windsor', comprised land in Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Surrey, Hampshire, and Middlesex. As an under-tenant he held land of the Abbot of Chertsey (fn. 189) in Hampshire and he held two smaller tenements in Berkshire (fn. 190) and Surrey de terra regis. (fn. 191) His Middlesex estate comprised four holdings in East Bedfont West Bedfont, Stanwell, and Hatton, assessed in all at 34 hides 39 virgates and valued at £12. All but 5 hides had previously been held by Azor the housecarl. In later centuries one branch of Walter fitz Other's descendants holding half of his barony had its chief residence at Stanwell and in Henry VIII's reign its head was created Baron Windsor of Stanwell. Round showed that at some date between 1100 and 1116 Walter was succeeded by his son William who was living in 1142 and may have survived into the reign of Henry II. Between 1154 and 1164 King Henry confirmed his lands to his son also named William. The whole barony, from which the service of 20 knights was due, was in the hands of this second William of Windsor in 1166, and Bedfont, 'the other Bedfont', and Stanwell are mentioned in his Carta of that year. (fn. 192) That his death occurred in 1175 or 1176 may be inferred from the Pipe Roll of 22 Henry II. (fn. 193) Hawise his widow was in the king's gift in 1185 as also was his only son and heir William, then aged 18. (fn. 194) By the terms of a final concord of 1198 the whole barony of William of Windsor was divided between Walter of Windsor and William of Windsor who are described as grandsons of William of Windsor. (fn. 195) In Round's opinion Walter and William were the sons of William of Windsor who died 1175–6, William being the son of Hawise and Walter an elder son by a previous wife. (fn. 196) To Walter were assigned Burnham (Bucks.) and other lands while Stanwell in Middlesex is among the manors assigned to William. The knights of the barony were equally divided between the two men but it was agreed that of Walter's part 4 knight's fees should remain to William to hold of Walter, among them a knight's fee at Bedfont. Entries relating to scutage in the Pipe Rolls for the regnal years 2 to 10 Richard I (fn. 197) (1190–8) show that the barony was in fact equally divided between Walter and William from 1190. In 1191 Walter offered 100 marks to have right concerning his inheritance of which William deforced him (fn. 198) and paid part of this large sum in the following years. An entry relating to scutage in the Pipe Roll of 1199 shows that the barony was then reckoned as equally divided between Walter and William, (fn. 199) each of whom pays scutage on 9 1 /8 fees, and the service which Christine, heir of Walter, claimed from William (fn. 200) was probably that due from the 4 fees which he held of Walter. In the return of 1235–6 William of Windsor, presumably the successor of the above William, held in Middlesex 'Estbedefont', 'alterius Bedesfont', Stanwell, and Puella (Poyle in Stanwell). (fn. 201) At this date all the Middlesex lands were reckoned as part of this William's 'honor of Windsor', including the knight's fee at Bedfont which belonged to Walter's half of the barony. William did not, however, owe more service to the Crown than before, for in 1230 he paid scutage on 9 1 /8 fees. (fn. 202) West Bedfont, Stanwell, and 'the other Bedfont' are again entered as fees of William of Windsor in the feudal return of 1242–3. (fn. 203) There is, however, evidence that in the 14th and 15th centuries William of Windsor's descendants residing at Stanwell held part of their Middlesex lands as the tenants of Walter's descendants whose residence was Huntercombe manor in Burnham. (fn. 204)

    Edward of Salisbury, also referred to as Edward the Sheriff, (fn. 205) who held the largest lay estate in Wiltshire (fn. 206) and estates in a number of other counties, (fn. 207) held in Middlesex only the small 2-hide manor of Chelsea, valued at £9. The sole interest attaching to this estate is that Edward held it as successor to Wlwen, homo regis Eduuardi, whom he succeeded elsewhere. (fn. 208) He is not regarded as one of the greatest of the Norman tenantsin-chief, but his grandson Patrick became later the first Earl of Salisbury. Countess Judith, the widow of Earl Waltheof and niece of William the Conqueror, appears as a Middlesex tenant-in-chief with only a small estate, the 5-hide manor of Tottenham valued at £25, which her late husband had held.

    Richard fitz Gilbert, son of Count Gilbert of Brionne, referred to in Domesday as Richard of Tonbridge and, in one instance, (fn. 209) Richard of Clare, was the ancestor of the Clare earls of Hertford and Gloucester. He was the largest landowner in Surrey, one of the most noteworthy magnates of Suffolk, and the possessor of a considerable fief in Essex and smaller ones in three other counties. In Middlesex he had but one small estate, the 5-hide manor of Harefield (82), valued at £12. 'Herefeud' (Harefield) is entered as part of the 'barony of Clare' in a return of 1235–6. (fn. 210)

    Robert Gernon or Grenon, who had only a few hides in Middlesex, held a considerable estate in Essex. His holdings in six other counties (fn. 211) were comparatively small. Nigel, his under-tenant in Elthorne, is probably identical with the man who held three small estates of him in Essex. (fn. 212) It was stated by Nicholas, Bishop of Llandaff (1148–83), that Robert Gernon died leaving no heir and that his inheritance was given by Henry I to William de Montfichet (c. 1118–21), (fn. 213) while Gilbert Foliot, Bishop of London, asserted (fn. 214) that Gilbert de Montfichet, William's son, was the nephew of Earl Gilbert (Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Hertford) who was his guardian during part of Stephen's reign. The Middlesex fee cannot be identified in William de Montfichet's carta of 1166, but Haggerston is entered as part of the barony of Richard de Montfichet in the feudal return of 1242–3 when it was held by an under-tenant, Nicholas de Bassingeburn. (fn. 215)

    Not a few Middlesex tenants-in-chief had predominant interests in the eastern counties and Essex in particular. To Geoffrey de Mandeville, Robert Gernon, and Richard fitz Gilbert may be added others, most of whom were of lesser standing. Roger de Rames (fn. 216) held a fief which lay in the three eastern counties and Middlesex. (fn. 217) In Essex and Suffolk he had many small and scattered estates. In Middlesex his two widely separated manors of Charlton (89) in Spelthorne Hundred and (Little) Stanmore (90) in Gore Hundred were assessed in all at 14½ hides and valued at the small sum of 90 shillings, in contrast to its 1066 value of £15. Little Stanmore is mentioned as part of the Barony of William de Rames (Reymes) in 1235–6. (fn. 218) Robert fitz Roscelin held as successor to Alwin Stichehare a 3½-hide manor at Stepney (87) valued at 53 shillings. (fn. 219) He also held a manor of 5 hides 15 acres at Heydon (Essex) (fn. 220) as successor to a freeman named Alwin who is probably to be identified with Alwin Stichehare. (fn. 221) Robert also held as the under-tenant of Count Eustace in Hertfordshire (fn. 222) and Bedfordshire. (fn. 223)

    Aubrey de Ver (fn. 224) is another man who is closely associated with Essex. Although he is named among the Middlesex tenants-in-chief, in fact, as the entry states, he held his 10-hide manor of Kensington (93), valued at its 1066 figure of £10, as the under-tenant of the Bishop of Coutances. Aubrey was the ancestor of the earls of Oxford and held as tenant-in-chief in Cambridge, Essex, Huntingdonshire, and Suffolk. As under-tenant of the Bishop of Coutances he also held in Northamptonshire, and held other undertenancies in Essex, Huntingdonshire, and Suffolk. Since Geoffrey, Bishop of Coutances, was a wealthy tenant-in-chief with lands in many counties it is not clear why Kensington is entered under Ver instead of the bishop. Ver presumably held the manor as tenant-in-chief after the forfeiture of the bishop's nephew Robert de Mowbray in 1095. It is not mentioned among the fees of the Earl of Oxford in the feudal return of 1235–6 nor in that of 1242–3 but there is evidence that Earl Hugh possessed it at the time of his death in 1263 and it was held by the earls in the 14th and 15th or later centuries. (fn. 225)

    William fitz Ansculf, de Picquiny, a Picard, no doubt obtained the small manor of Cranford (91), valued at 60 shillings, because it had been held by Thurstan the thegn whose Staffordshire estate was given to him. William was one of the greater magnates of the Midlands with lands in many shires and his castle at Dudley. Cranford is entered as a knight's fee belonging to the barony of Dudley in 1235–6. (fn. 226) There is no immediate explanation why Ranulf brother of Ilger should have succeeded to Edwin the man of King Edward in an estate at Tollington (94), assessed at 2 hides and valued at 40 shillings. Ranulf, described as an early example of the class of ministeriales, (fn. 227) occupied a position of some importance in Huntingdonshire at the time of the Survey as custodian of the greater part of the king's land, although he held only a small estate as tenant-inchief in that shire. He held land in several other counties. (fn. 228)

    Robert Fafiton, also referred to as Robert son of Fafiton, (fn. 229) one of the lesser postConquest landholders, held small estates in four counties. In Middlesex he held an estate of 6 hides 53 acres. This was composed of 4 hides in Stepney valued at 70 shillings, which were formerly held by Sired, a canon of St. Paul's, and now claimed by the Bishop of London, and 2 hides in 'Ticheham' valued at 5 shillings the 53 acres at Stepney were alleged to have been usurped from the Canons of St. Pauls by Hugh de Berneres. Robert Blund (blundus), another of the lesser tenants-in-chief, held land in a number of counties. He had secured the lands of Achi the housecarl, (fn. 230) and it is for this reason that he possessed the 8-hide manor of Laleham in Middlesex. The manor was still part of the barony in the 13th century for in 1242–3 there were two fractions of a knight's fee belonging to 'the barony of William Blund of Norfolk' at Littleton which must represent Laleham. (fn. 231)

    Derman of London is given a section to himself and thereby occupies a position in the Middlesex part of the Survey which his ½-hide holding in Islington scarcely warrants. Round suggested that this Middlesex tenant may be the same Derman who succeeded Alwin Horne in Hertfordshire (fn. 232) and there is also a Derman recorded as holding a house in Oxford. (fn. 233) Derman was a prominent citizen of London in the time of William and his family is known through a number of 12th-century charters. (fn. 234) In his own lifetime he appears to have made a gift of part of his Domesday holding in Middlesex to St. Paul's when his son became a prebendary (fn. 235) and references to his descendants occurs in the cartulary of St. Mary, Clerkenwell, in connexion with an estate of 80 acres at Stoke Newington. (fn. 236)

    The Middlesex Survey terminates with a group of three little estates held in alms of the king by two women. It has been noted that many of the estates of the king's thegns which are listed at the end of a considerable number of shires can be traced later as serjeanties. The first of the Middlesex estates held in alms, Lisson (97), likewise occurs as a serjeanty in the 13th century. It was held by William 'filius Ote' in 1198 'per servicium servandi signa regis monete' (fn. 237) and by Otto son of William in 1244 as a serjeanty (fn. 238) defined in an entry relating to 1235 (fn. 239) as inveniendi le Coing Londonie. Eideva's predecessor Edward son of Suain was her husband. She is described as Eideva widow of Edward son of Suain in the survey of Essex where she held ½ hide in the hundred of Chafford as her husband's successor. She is known to have taken as her second husband Otto the goldsmith who held a small manor in Essex and farmed certain royal manors in that county and Suffolk. The later holders of the serjeanty were the descendants of Otto the goldsmith who held both the ministerium cuneorum and the manor of Lisson Green. (fn. 240) Lisson may have become a serjeanty when Otto acquired it by marriage, but since so many of the small landowners listed under various headings in Domesday were royal servants or their kinsmen, it is not unlikely that Edward son of Suain had held an office connected with the London Mint.

    The Domesday Book – County Edition

    For anyone interested in where they live now or where they come from, Domesday reveals fascinating facts about customs, value and ownership of their village, town and county more than 900 years ago. It is the beginning of all local history.

    Only 1,000 numbered copies of each Domesday county were created from the unique manuscript in the National Archive at Kew. The publication, originally created by Alecto, for Alector Historical Editions, has been completed with the issue of the records for Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex. At present, the Yorkshire edition is sold out.

    The County Edition is presented in a sturdy red case, quarter bound in leather. The case opens out into a lectern, revealing three volumes inside and two maps:

    Volume 1: Domesday facsimile of your chosen County, a map of England and a large scale map of your County with Domesday sites plotted over the modern topography.

    Volume 2: A modern English translation from the original Latin, structured so that each phrase and sentence is perfectly juxtaposed in precisely the same position on each page as the scribe’s words. This volume includes indexes of people and places, as well as a complete introduction to your county.

    Volume 3: Domesday Studies, the commentary, tells the story of how and why Domesday was created and includes 16 articles on related aspects of medieval life. There is also a glossary and general bibliography and the volume is copiously illustrated with maps, drawings and photographs.

    Domesday Book

    The Domesday Book - History of Domesday Book - Information about Domesday Book - Domesday Book Facts - Domesday Book Info - Middle Ages era - Middle Ages Life - Middle Ages Times - Life - English - England - Famous - Medieval - Mideval - Midevil - Meadieval - History and interesting Information - Europe - Facts - Info - Era - Life - Times - Period - Important Accomplishments - Accomplishment - England - Age - Medieval - Key Dates and events - Achievements - Achievement - Life - Medieval - Mideval - Midevil - Meadieval - Story - History and interesting Information - Facts - Info - Era - Life - Medieval - Mideval - Midevil - Meadieval - Europe - Medieval - Important Historical events - Doomsday - Facts and Info - Story - Doomsday - Key Dates and events of Domesday Book - Domesday Book History - Information about Domesday Book - Facts - Domesday Book Info - Doomsday - Middle Ages era - Middle Ages Life - Middle Ages Times - Life - History - Doomsday - Events - Key Dates - Important Historical event - Written By Linda Alchin

    Verdict: Did you know that Cheshire cheese is the oldest known cheese in the UK? Perhaps not, but what you do need to know is that it contains almost 32 grams of fat per 100g – which is almost the same as full fat Cheddar. Unfortunately all our dairy drawer favourites seem to be very high in both fat and saturated fat.

    The county is famous for the production of Cheshire cheese, salt and silk. The county has seen a number of inventions and firsts in its history. A mainly rural county, Cheshire has a high concentration of villages. Agriculture is generally based on the dairy trade, and cattle are the predominant livestock.

    Watch the video: In Our Time: S1630 The Domesday Book April 17 2014 (June 2022).