Domesday Survey: Introduction V

A History of the County of Middlesex: Volume 1, Physique, Archaeology, Domesday, Ecclesiastical Organization, the Jews, Religious Houses, Education of Working Classes To 1870, Private Education From Sixteenth Century. Originally published by Victoria County History, London, 1969.

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

'Domesday Survey: Introduction V', in A History of the County of Middlesex: Volume 1, Physique, Archaeology, Domesday, Ecclesiastical Organization, the Jews, Religious Houses, Education of Working Classes To 1870, Private Education From Sixteenth Century, (London, 1969) pp. 98-118. British History Online [accessed 19 April 2024]


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 22/3 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 91/8 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 91/8 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.


  • 1. A 13th-cent. source suggests that Uxbridge, which is not mentioned in the Survey, had at some time formed part of the royal demesne: Cal. Close R. 1253–4, 14.
  • 2. V.C.H. Herts. i. 278.
  • 3. V.C.H. Essex, i. 336.
  • 4. R. L. Poole, Exchequer in the Twelfth Cent. 28–29; Round, Feudal Eng. 109 sqq.
  • 5. P.N. Mdx. (E.P.N.S.), 61.
  • 6. See below, pp. 107-9.
  • 7. The heading appears only under the list of holders of land.
  • 8. See above.
  • 9. It was no doubt so entered because it had no other owner: Vinogradoff, Eng. Society, 238.
  • 10. See translation, entry no. 80.
  • 11. Stenton, A.S. Eng. 567.
  • 12. He is named in 1066 as the holder of land in Oxon., Cambs., Northants., Warws., Staffs., Derb., Notts., Lincs., Mdx., Bucks., Hunts., Essex, Norf., and Suff.
  • 13. She died in 1083. See also V.C.H. Essex, i. 337–8.
  • 14. See below, pp. 112–13.
  • 15. Cart. Sax., ed. Birch, i, p. 530.
  • 16. Cf. the history of this estate with that of Halton (Bucks.): Dom. Bk. i. 143b; V.C.H. Bucks. i. 210; A. S. Charters, ed. Robertson, pp. 154, 174, 403.
  • 17. The tradition that Harrow formed part of the Canterbury estates was obviously strong at the time of the Conquest, and it is curious that there should be no record of its passing into other hands, or of a formal claim for its restoration. It is not among the properties named in the account of the Penenden Heath plea preserved in the two authentic 12th-cent. manuscripts (Rylands MS. 109 and the Textus Roffensis), or in the 13th-cent. copy of a 'formal Canterbury record'. Harrow is listed in the text printed by Bigelow from a Rochester source and in the so-called Canterbury Obituary printed in Dugdale, Mon. i. 109, and is included by Gervase of Canterbury (ii. 64) among the estates recovered by Lanfranc. In all three, however, Hayes, which had not been lost by the church of Canterbury, is also included among the places recovered. On the documents connected with the Penenden Heath plea see J. Le Patourel, 'The Reports on the Trial on Penenden Heath', Essays presented to F. M. Powicke, ed. R. W. Hunt, W. A. Pantin, R. W. Southern, 15–26.
  • 18. Dom. Bk. i. 140.
  • 19. The holder in Herts. in 1086 was Geoffrey de Bech; for Alveve, the Mdx. holder in 1086, see below.
  • 20. Dom. Bk. i. 50b.
  • 21. Inq. El, f. 6, entry for Meldeburne, 5hv. In Dom. Bk. i. 200 this entry is placed under Melrede [Meldreth]. Alwin blondus is one of 8 sokemen, named in Inq. El. but not in Dom. Bk., who held part of the land under the Abbot of Ely.
  • 22. See above, p. 98.
  • 23. See below, p. 109.
  • 24. O. von Feilitzen, The Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Bk. (Uppsala, 1937), 258.
  • 25. Dom. Bk. i. 137b.
  • 26. Ralph, Earl of Hereford, was King Edward's nephew by his sister Goda.
  • 27. Dom. Bk. i. 177, entry for Wich [Droitwich]. Since the earlier holder here is not stated, it is possible that this also was held by Harold before the Conquest.
  • 28. Freeman, Norman Conquest, ii. 683.
  • 29. The word Staller comes from the Norse loan-word meaning 'placeman'. Used freely in the late Old Eng. period, it seems to mean 'anyone with a permanent and recognized position in the King's company': Stenton, A.S. Eng. 632.
  • 30. Ansgar was the son of Athelstan and grandson of Tofig or Tofi 'the Proud' at whose marriage feast King Harthacnut died suddenly in 1042. See V.C.H. Essex, i. 343, n. 1; A.S. Writs, ed. Harmer, p. 560; but Miss Robertson's comments (A.S. Charters, p. 400) should also be noted. A Godwin, son of Esgar, is referred to in a document concerning the London lands of St. Paul's: Essays to T. F. Tout, 48, 57.
  • 31. A.S. Charters, ed. Robertson, pp. 212, 214, 464.
  • 32. He is considered to have been sheriff by Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, 353, and Stenton, A.S. Eng. index, p. 717. Miss Harmer, however, does not consider the evidence conclusive: A.S. Writs, pp. 51–52.
  • 33. The main exception seems to be Risborough, Bucks. (f. 143b), which Ansgar held as under-tenant of the Abp. of Canterbury, and land in various counties held by homines who were free or not free to take their land elsewhere.
  • 34. Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii. 427, 500, 545–7, 742, App. HH.
  • 35. Ibid. 501, n. 1. For the text of the Carmen de Bello Hastingensi see Monumenta Historica Brittanica, ed. H. Petrie (1848), 866 sqq. In Complete Peerage, xii (1), App. L, G. H. White argues that the Carmen cannot be the work of Guy, Bp. of Amiens, and suggests that it was written between 1128 and 1129. He mentions that a careful collation of the Carmen and the Gesta of William of Poitiers leaves no doubt that the author of the former copied from the latter. This theory has not yet been supported by a detailed comparison of the two works nor has the exclusion of the possibility that William of Poitiers drew upon the Carmen been explained. It is difficult to believe that the additional matter in the Carmen, such as that relating to Ansgar, is the invention of a 12th-cent. writer.
  • 36. R. W. Eyton, Domesday Survey of Som. i. 86.
  • 37. He can be identified as a landowner in Dors., Hants, Kent, Mdx., Som., Glos., Oxon., Bucks., Lincs., and Berks. Round notes that in Beds. he is disguised as Wulfweard 'lewet': V.C.H. Berks. i. 363, n. 8.
  • 38. Eyton, op. cit. 87; V.C.H. Som. i. 399–400.
  • 39. Oxon., Glos., Berks., Beds., and Mdx.
  • 40. Boarstall Cartulary, ed. H. E. Salter (Oxford Hist. Soc. lxxxviii), 323–4.
  • 41. Mdx., Suss., Surr., Hants, Berks., Herts., Bucks., Oxon., Wilts., Glos., and Warws.
  • 42. Anglo-Saxon Chron. (D), 1079.
  • 43. See p. 110.
  • 44. Dom. Bk. i. 36 b.
  • 45. See p. 117.
  • 46. V.C.H. Wilts. ii. 105.
  • 47. Dom. Bk. i. 146.
  • 48. Ibid., f. 136b.
  • 49. Ibid.
  • 50. V.C.H. Som. i. 418; V.C.H. Herts. i. 281; Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names, 232, n. 3.
  • 51. Dom. Bk. i. 145.
  • 52. Wombourn [Wamburne]: Dom. Bk. i. 249b; Ettingshall [Etinghal]: ibid., f. 250.
  • 53. A.S. Writs, ed. Harmer, pp. 344–5.
  • 54. Ibid., p. 574.
  • 55. Dom. Bk. ii. 98b.
  • 56. V.C.H. Essex, i. 355.
  • 57. Dom. Bk. i. 150b.
  • 58. Ibid., entry for Creslow.
  • 59. See also V.C.H. Wilts. ii. 99.
  • 60. A.S. Charters, ed. Robertson, pp. 216–17. The charter records a grant by Brihtmar of Gracechurch to Christchurch, Canterbury.
  • 61. V.C.H. Essex, i. 563.
  • 62. A.S. Charters, ed. Robertson, p. 469.
  • 63. Dom. Bk. i. 1b.
  • 64. Dom. Bk. i. 142.
  • 65. Except for part of Watton, held by Alward.
  • 66. V.C.H. Herts. i. 283.
  • 67. Dom. Bk. i. 215b.
  • 68. Cart. Sax., ed. Birch, i, pp. 369–70. On this charter see E.H.R. xxxiii. 449. On the place-names see P.N.Mdx. (E.P.N.S.).
  • 69. Cart. Sax., ed. Birch, i, p. 559; ii, pp. 496–7; iii, p. 1. An earlier charter (Cart. Sax., ed. Birch, i, p. 163) relates to the gift of this land by Swaefred, King of the East Saxons, to Wealdheri, Bp. of London, in 704.
  • 70. See p. 98.
  • 71. Cart. Sax., ed. Birch, i, p. 556.
  • 72. Feud. Aids, iii. 373.
  • 73. Cart. Sax., ed. Birch, i, p. 530.
  • 74. P.N. Mdx. (E.P.N.S.), 40.
  • 75. The abp. appears to have entrusted much property to his kinsman, the priest Werhard, with instructions that it should be restored to the familia. The reference to monachi in the document (Cart. Sax., ed. Birch, i, p. 558)is suspicious, and it is difficult to understand how 32h at Hayes could be Werhard's own patrimony. Yet the reason for the forgery, if such it is, is not obvious. Werhard seems to be the presbyterabbas who exchanged a small piece of property at Roxeth near Harrow in 845 (Cart. Sax., ed. Birch, ii, p. 29), at which date he was clearly the head of the Canterbury familia.
  • 76. See p. 99.
  • 77. In Essex three fiefs are named: 'the [land of the] Bishop of London', 'the fief of the Bishop of London', and 'the Canons of St. Paul's'. In Herts. there are two: 'the Bishop of London' and 'the Canons of London'. In this county eight fiefs intervene between the former and the latter.
  • 78. Ralph son of Brien held two small holdings (Dom. Bk. ii. 9, 12b). William son of Brien had one small holding (f. 11).
  • 79. He held in Surr. (f. 30b), Oxon. (f. 157), and Hants (f. 51) de rege and of other tenants-in-chief in Mdx., Wilts. (f. 67), Som. (f. 89b), and Berks. (f. 58).
  • 80. Simeon of Durham, ed. T. Arnold (Rolls Ser. lxxv).
  • 81. If the Durham writer's story is accepted, it seems necessary to conclude that Ranulf held the deanery c. 1086–7, before Wulman, the first recorded dean, and not as late as c. 1100–7.
  • 82. Ordericus Vitalis, cited in V.C.H. Oxon. i. 382.
  • 83. The counties were Wilts., Dors., Herts., Oxon., Bucks., and Glos.
  • 84. Kent, Mdx., Bucks., Surr., Essex.
  • 85. See p. 98.
  • 86. V.C.H. Beds. i. 197. In addition to the holdings in the counties noted by Round he held 2h as under-tenant of William fitz Ansculf in Surr. (f. 35b).
  • 87. V.C.H. Essex, i. 386, 412.
  • 88. Dom. Bk. i. 199.
  • 89. Early Charters of St. Paul's, ed. Marion Gibbs (Camd. Soc. 3rd Ser. lviii), p. 3, dates the charter to c. 704–5.
  • 90. See p. 83.
  • 91. According to a charter attributed to King Athelstan (Cart. Sax., ed. Birch, ii, pp. 451–2, described as a forgery by W. H. Stevenson in E.H.R. xxix. 703), Neasden and Willesden were reckoned as 10h. The occurrence of those places in a document of c. 1000 concerning the manning of a ship (A.S. Charters, ed. Robertson, p. 389, no. lxxii) is evidence that Neasden belonged to the bp. or canons at that date. West Drayton, which also occurs in this document, is among the estates confirmed to St. Paul's by Athelstan. It is reckoned as 10h which agrees with Domesday and the reckoning of 1222.
  • 92. Charts. of St. Paul's', ed. Gibbs, p. 14, no. 11; see also p. xxiv.
  • 93. Ibid. p. xxiii; Domesday of St. Paul's, ed. W. H. Hale (Camd. Soc. lxix), p. iv.
  • 94. Ibid.
  • 95. C. N. L. Brooke, 'The Chapter of St. Paul's, Cambs. Hist. Jnl. x. 118–19.
  • 96. Ibid. 114.
  • 97. Charts. of St. Paul's, ed. Gibbs, p. xxiii.
  • 98. Brooke, op. cit. 114, n. 24.
  • 99. Ibid. 123, n. 66.
  • 100. Ibid.
  • 101. The charter by which King Offa grants Aldenham (Herts.) sancto Petro et plebi Dei degenti in Torneia in loco terribili quod dicitur aet Westminster (Cart. Sax., ed. Birch, i, p. 339) can hardly be genuine. The regnal style and the appearance of the phrase in loco terribili which occurs in the forged charter of Edgar dated 969 (Crawford Charters, ed. Napier and Stevenson, p. 12, no. vi; Cart. Sax., ed. Birch, iii, p. 549) are against it. For a discussion of the traditions relating to the early history of the abbey see J. A. Robinson, Flete's History of Westminster Abbey, 2–18; A.S. Writs, ed. Harmer, pp. 286 sqq.
  • 102. Ibid. p. 287.
  • 103. P.N. Mdx. (E.P.N.S.), 222–3. The shorter version of Edgar's charter of 951 (for c. 971: Cart. Sax., ed. Birch, iii, p. 261) 'reads like a genuine charter' (Crawford Charters, p. 90, n. 1), although the reference to Abp. Wulfred raises doubts. The longer version (Cart. Sax., ed. Birch, iii, p. 693) is spurious but may be regarded as evidence for the late 11th cent. On these charters see also Robinson, Flete's Hist. 12.
  • 104. J. A. Robinson, Gilbert Crispin, 38.
  • 105. Paddington is among the possessions confirmed in Ethelred's spurious 'Telligraphus': B. Thorpe, Diplomatarium, 296–8.
  • 106. A.S. Writs, ed. Harmer, p. 344, no. 77 (probably an enlarged version of an authentic writ). William I's writ confirming the grant is spurious: Regesta Regum AngloNormannorum, ed. H. W. C. Davis, p. 23, no. 89; A.S. Writs, ed. Harmer, p. 497.
  • 107. These three estates are mentioned in the spurious charter of Dunstan as Bp. of London (Cart. Sax., ed. Birch, iii, p. 264) and Logeresden and Codanhlaw occur along with Hanwell, Hampstead, and other estates in the spurious 'Telligraphus' of King Ethelred (Thorpe, Diplomatarium, 296–8). The boundaries attached to a spurious charter attributed to Edgar (Cart. Sax., ed. Birch, iii, p. 693) shows that Blecceanham 'included much of the south part of the present parish of Hendon': P.N. Mdx. (E.P.N.S.), 220–1.
  • 108. Cart. Sax., ed. Birch, iii, pp. 188–9.
  • 109. Ibid. iii, pp. 604–5, the boundaries of which are discussed in P.N. Mdx. (E.P.N.S.), 220.
  • 110. P.N. Mdx. (E.P.N.S.), 63.
  • 111. Robinson, Crispin, 130.
  • 112. Cart. Sax., ed. Birch, iii, p. 693, the boundaries of which are discussed in P.N. Mdx. (E.P.N.S.), 221.
  • 113. Cart. Sax., ed. Birch, iii, p. 634.
  • 114. A.S. Charters, ed. Robertson, p. 336, no. xliv. Sunbury is mentioned in Ethelred's spurious 'Telligraphus'.
  • 115. A.S. Writs, ed. Harmer, pp. 353–4, no. 87.
  • 116. Ibid., p. 354, no. 86. Shepperton is another of the estates mentioned in Ethelred's spurious 'Telligraphus'.
  • 117. Ibid. p. 320.
  • 118. Cart. Sax., ed. Birch, iii, pp. 264–5; Thorpe, Diplomatarium, 296–8.
  • 119. A. S. Writs, ed. Harmer, p. 291, draws attention to this charter, known only from the work of the 18th-cent. historian Widmore.
  • 120. Ibid., p. 361, no. 97.
  • 121. Ibid. p. 362, no. 98. These two documents seem to represent genuine writs of the Confessor.
  • 122. Miss Harmer's view (ibid., pp. 327, 518) that Staines 'had come to the Abbey only after King Edward's death' is erroneous for the phrase quando recepit (not receperunt here as in other entries refers to the abbot (Gilbert Crispin). The words 'Hoc manerium iacuit [1066] et iacet [1086] in dominio aecclesiae Sancti Petri' are decisive. The error arises from Davis's note attached to his summary of William I's confirmation of the Confessor's grant of Staines (Regesta, i, p. 62, no. 233) the authenticity of which is doubtful.
  • 123. But cf. the argument in App. III.
  • 124. The 'Telligraphus' cited above. See A.S. Writs, ed. Harmer, pp. 290, 519.
  • 125. Robinson, Crispin, 138, no. 12.
  • 126. A.S. Writs, ed. Harmer, p. 518; E. Ekwall, Street Names of the City of Lond. 123–4.
  • 127. A.S. Writs, ed. Harmer, pp. 354–5, nos. 88, 89, discussed pp. 320–1. The shorter (no. 88) is probably a late copy of an authentic document.
  • 128. Cod. Dip., ed. Kemble, iv, p. 173, no. 29.
  • 129. The record in the cartulary of Holy Trinity, ed. A. Deville, 455, is translated in Eng. Hist. Docs. ii. 918. The Latin text is most easily accessible in L. W. V. Harcourt, His Grace the Steward and the Trial of Peers, 13.
  • 130. Feud. Aids. iii. 373.
  • 131. Cal. Pat. 1388–92, 378, 434.
  • 132. Later known as Marylebone; see translation n. 35.
  • 133. Dom. Bk. i. 34: 9h modo 4h 1v; f. 146: 6h; and f. 211: 10h, respectively.
  • 134. He is sometimes considered to have been Earl of Arundel as well. For a discussion on this point see Complete Peerage, xi. 685, n.
  • 135. It is fairly certain, however, that he was not present at the Battle of Hastings but, as stated by Ordericus Vitalis, Historica Ecclesiastica, ed. le Prévost (Paris, 1838– 55), ii. 178, he was left behind as co-regent of the Duchy of Normandy in William's absence. See D. C. Douglas, 'Companions of the Conqueror', History, xxviii. 135.
  • 136. V.C.H. Salop. i. 288.
  • 137. In 1086 he held ten manors assessed at c. 55h which represented an original assessment of c. 100h.
  • 138. See p. 102.
  • 139. See p. 102.
  • 140. Bk. of Fees, 473–4. For Ickenham see p. 82 n. 20.
  • 141. J.I. 1/544, m. 51v.
  • 142. Chron. Abbatiae de Evesham (Rolls Ser.), 75. Brian's charter, of which there is a copy in each of the Evesham cartularies (B.M. Cott. MS. Vesp. B xxiv, f. 17; Harl. MS. 3763, f. 87), is dated 1143 by Kennett and by Salter 'about 1141'. The bp. may be Robert de Sigillo who became Bp. of Lond. in 1141, but if, as seems likely, Hugh de Bocheland was Sheriff of Mdx. when he was addressed along with R., Bp. of Lond., it would seem to follow that the charter was issued between 1107 when Miles Crispin died and c. 1115, the date of Hugh's death. The bp. would be Richard de Belmeis who held the see from 1108 to 1127. The witnesses R[alf] and G[ilbert] Basset are presumably the two tenants of Robert de Oilli whose fees are said to have been given in marriage with Maud when she married Miles Crispin (according to statements in a case in Bracton's Note-Book). Gilbert occurs early in the reign of Henry I and died before 1158. Ralf Basset may be Henry I's minister. Roger son of Alvred was the son of the Domesday under-tenant. On the honor of Wallingford see Boarstall Cart., ed. Salter, app. ii, pp. 295 sqq. It is further stated in the Evesham Chronicle (p. 97) that Miles Crispin also gave ½h in Hillingdon to the abbey temp. Abbot Walter (d. 1086), but this is hardly possible since Earl Roger himself lived until 1094 and there is no reason to suppose that any part of his fief came into the hands of the Crown until Robert de Bellême's forfeiture in 1102.
  • 143. Boarstall Cart., ed. Salter, 296 sqq.
  • 144. See p. 82, n. 20.
  • 145. Chron. Mon. de Abingdon (Rolls Ser.), ii. 144.
  • 146. Liber Niger Scaccarii, ed. Hearne, 185; Red Bk. Exch. (Rolls Ser.), 309.
  • 147. Boarstall Cart., ed. Salter, 323.
  • 148. Ibid. 299, no. 35; see p. 314 for Salter's comments.
  • 149. Carta of 1166: Red. Bk. Exch. (Rolls Ser.), 309.
  • 150. i.e. 'Great' Stanmore. See notes to translation below for entries nos. 64, 90.
  • 151. See p. 103.
  • 152. Manneville (Seine Inf.): L. C. Loyd, Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families, 57.
  • 153. These were Berks., Bucks., Cambs., Surr., Essex, Mdx., Herts., Oxon., Northants., Warws., and Suff. He is also recorded as holding 6 mansiones in terra regis in Glos.
  • 154. In Surr. it was made a source of complaint that Geoffrey held the land unjustly because it had not belonged to. Ansgar the Staller: Dom. Bk. i. 36; V.C.H. Surr. i. 284. In Essex it was complained that Geoffrey held land which had only belonged to the 'men' of Ansgar: Dom. Bk. ii. 57b (entries for Shelley and Abbess Roding).
  • 155. See V.C.H. Essex, i. 343, n. 2 for Round's comments
  • 156. His chief estates were High Easter (with Pleshy) and Great Waltham. Pleshy seems to have been the caput honoris in the 13th cent.: V.C.H. Essex, i. 343; Stenton,. Eng. Feudalism, 61, n. 1.
  • 157. Gosfregth the portreeve is addressed along with William, Bp. of Lond., in William I's writ of c. 1067 for the Londoners: Laws of Kings of Eng., ed. Robertson, 230, calendared by Davis, Regesta, p. 4, no. 15. On this and also the whole question of Geoffrey de Mandeville holding the sheriffdom of Mdx. see Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, 439; W. A. Morris, Medieval English Sheriff, ch. iii.
  • 158. Geoffrey de Mandeville is recorded as giving him 6h from the manor of Carshalton (Surr.) on his daughter's betrothal: Dom. Bk. i. 36.
  • 159. His donations included land at Tilbury (Essex) and the foundation of the priory at Hurley (Berks.): Robinson, Crispin, 32.
  • 160. The document which purports to be the foundation charter of Hurley is printed in Robinson, Crispin, 139, no. 15.
  • 161. Complete Peerage, v. 122.
  • 162. Bk. of Fees, 474.
  • 163. Ibid. 898.
  • 164. Complete Peerage, xi. 466.
  • 165. Rot. Cur. Reg. (Rec. Com.), vii. 110–11.
  • 166. On the family of St. Valery or St. Walery see G. H. Fowler, 'De St. Walery', The Genealogist, xxx. 1–17.
  • 167. Dom. Bk. ii. 432b.
  • 168. For example, Lipscombe, Hist. of Bucks. i. 367, apparently misled by Dugdale, Baronage, i. 454, who opens his account of the barony of St. Valery with Ranulf and speaks next of Reynold.
  • 169. Loyd, Anglo-Norman Families, 92.
  • 170. Ed. le Prevost, iii. 41, 42, 283. See also Robert of Torigni s.a. 1026.
  • 171. Ibid. iii. 483, 507.
  • 172. Ed. Hunter, 152 (he pays £10 10s. and geld was levied at 2s. on the hide).
  • 173. Cal. Doc. France, ed. Round, 374 (nos. 1057, 1058).
  • 174. Red Bk. Exch. (Rolls Ser.), 204, 305, 376.
  • 175. According to the calendar of Oseney cited by Salter, Oxford Charters, 80, notes.
  • 176. Pipe R. 1167 (P.R.S. xi), 14, 15.
  • 177. Ibid. 1183 (P.R.S. xxxii), 164.
  • 178. Bernard was living 1189–90: Ibid. 1190 (P.R.S. N.S. i), 143. His fief was in the hands of the Crown and Thomas paid the first instalment of his relief of 250 marks in 1192: ibid. 1191 and 1192 (P.R.S. N.S. ii), 274, 278, 279.
  • 179. Rot. Litt. Claus. (Rec. Com.), i. 387.
  • 180. N. Denholm-Young, Richard of Cornwall, 14.
  • 181. E 315/52/190; Oxford Charters, ed. Salter, 28 n.
  • 182. Salter seems to have identified the grantor of the charter with Guy of St. Valery who occurs in the later 12th cent. and was thought by Fowler to be the son of Bernard (d. 1191) and half-brother of Thomas, 'or he may have been a cousin'. He and his son Reynold appear to have held part of the family estate as tenants of the head of the house and neither can have been the holder of the honor. The grantor of the charter, however, clearly held the honor. In 1170–80 Bernard was holding the honor and the confirmation can hardly have been issued in that decade. Fowler (Genealogist, xxx. 6), regarded the grantor as 'probably brother of Reynold (II) and son of either Bernard (III) or Reynold I'. There is no satisfactory evidence for the existence of Reynold I of this passage and for Fowler's genealogical table. Fowler was inclined to identify him with Ranulf of Domesday who did not belong to this family (see above). The view that Guy was probably the son of Bernard III, son of Walter the Domesday baron, seems to be sound. Bernard is said to have died in 1117 (Fowler, op. cit. 3, but no evidence is adduced) and if Guy was Reynold's elder brother he probably had the honor during part of the period 1117–30. If he was Reynold's younger brother he may perhaps have held the honor during part of the period between Reynold's forfeiture and recovery of the family estates in England, but this is less probable. The original grant of Guy would therefore seem to belong to c. 1117–30. The writing of the charter printed by Salter belongs to the later 12th cent.; it has been split for a tag, but both tag and seal are missing. It must be regarded as either a forgery or a later copy of a genuine document issued about half a century earlier. It must be admitted that there is no proof that Reynold's father was Bernard. Dugdale, Baronage, i. 454, describes Reynold as son of Guy, citing a charter in Monasticon (old edn.) wrongly attributed to Henry I. This charter, attributed to Henry II in Monasticon (1819), ii. 17, no. xiv, was issued by Henry III in 1228 and the complete text is printed in Cartulary of St. Frideswide, ed. Wigram, ii. 76, no. 765. As Fowler observed, the charters of Guy and his son Reynold in this cartulary are wrongly dated by the editor and belong to the late 12th and early 13th cents. This Reynold cannot be the man who held the honor c. 1130–66. The successive holders of the honor would appear to be Walter (of Domesday), Bernard (son of Walter), Guy (probably son of Bernard), Reynold (probably son of Bernard), Bernard (son of Reynold), and Thomas (son of Bernard).
  • 183. From Hesdin (Pas de Calais): Loyd, Anglo-Norman Families, 51.
  • 184. As tenant-in-chief he held land in Mdx., Hants, Wilts., Dors., Som., Oxon., Glos., Hunts., Beds., and Berks. In Bucks. he had one burgess who paid 2s. annually (f. 143) and held also in this county and Kent as undertenant of the Bp. of Bayeux. In Staffs. he held as undertenant of Robert of Stafford.
  • 185. See p. 101.
  • 186. An entry in Domesday for Hants records a gift to the church of Glouc. (f. 43). Other gifts are recorded in Cal. Doc. France, ed. Round, 481, 507 (nos. 1326, 1386). See also V.C.H. Bucks. i. 313; V.C.H. Wilts. ii. 101.
  • 187. E. A. Freeman, William Rufus, ii. 66–67.
  • 188. J. H. Round, 'The Origin of the Fitz Geralds', Ancestor, i. 119–26; ii. 91–97.
  • 189. Dom. Bk. i. 43b.
  • 190. Ibid. 56b.
  • 191. Ibid. 30.
  • 192. Red Bk. Exch. (Rolls Ser.), 315.
  • 193. Pipe R. 1176 (P.R.S. xxv), 18.
  • 194. Rot. de Dominabus (P.R.S. xxxv), 35, 88.
  • 195. Fines, 9 Ric. I (P.R.S. xxiii), 110, no. 151.
  • 196. The division of the barony between two sons would be contrary to English feudal custom of this age (Pollock and Maitland, Hist. of Eng. Law, ii. 268) and the natural interpretation of the fine seems to be that the two men who claimed through their grandfather in 1198 were grandsons of William of Windsor who died 1175–6, sons of two of his daughters (of whom there were six or seven). What is known of Walter, however, supports Round's view that Walter and William were half-brothers. The entry on the Pipe Roll of 1191 (see n. 7) suggests that he was claiming the whole barony, and he would seem to be identical with that Walter of Windsor who occurs on the Pipe Rolls of 1184–90 when some of his lands were in the hands of the Crown. These included Swilland (Suff.) which was part of the barony of Windsor in 1242–3 (Bk. of Fees, 916), although it did not belong to the Domesday barony of Walter fitz Other, and if he is identical with Walter of Windsor who gave the church of Swilland to Wix priory (Dugdale, Mon. iv. 515) before 1174 (the date of the death of W(illiam), Bp. of Norwich, to whom the charter is addressed), he must have been the son and not the grandson of William of Windsor who died in 1175–6. His lands also included Wormingford and Maplestead which were held of the barony of Montfichet and it is probable that, as Round argued, he acquired them through an heiress Christine, although it is not clear whether she was his wife or his mother.
  • 197. Pipe R. 1190 (P.R.S. N.S. i), 143; 1191 (P.R.S. N.S. ii), 108, show that Walter and William were in possession of the barony since they owed scutage for it, while Pipe R. 1192 (P.R.S. N.S. ii), 201, shows that the division was into two equal portions.
  • 198. Pipe R. 1191 (P.R.S. N.S. ii), 109.
  • 199. Ibid. 1199 (P.R.S. N.S. x), 118.
  • 200. Rot. Cur. Reg. (Rec. Com.), iv. 226.
  • 201. Bk. of Fees, 473, 475.
  • 202. Pipe R. 1230 (P.R.S. N.S. iv), 131.
  • 203. Bk. of Fees, 897–9.
  • 204. Feud. Aids, iii. 374, 380.
  • 205. Hants (f. 43b), Herts. (f. 139), Oxon. (f. 154). He had obtained the office of Sheriff of Wilts. by 1081: V.C.H. Wilts. ii. 100.
  • 206. Ibid. 99–100.
  • 207. He held estates in Surr., Som., Hants, Dors., Wilts., Mdx., Bucks., Oxon., and Herts.
  • 208. He succeeded this lady in Som., Dors., Wilts., Mdx., Bucks., and Herts.
  • 209. Dom. Bk. ii. 448; V.C.H. Suff. i. 397–9.
  • 210. Bk. of Fees, 474.
  • 211. i.e. Cambs., Bucks., Herts., Herefs., Norf., and Suff.
  • 212. Dom. Bk. ii. 66, 66b, 67b.
  • 213. Hist. et Cart. Mon. Glouc., ed. Hart, ii. 173–4; see also Regesta, ii, ed. Johnson and Cronne, 187–8 (no. 1402 n.). William de Montfichet witnesses Henry I's charters from c. 1121. Bp. Nicholas's statements disprove the view of Ellis (Introd. to Dom. Bk. i. 423), based on Morant (Hist. of Essex), that Robert Gernon 'had two sons, William and Robert. William was of Stansted and dropping the surname of Gernon took that of Montfichet from the raised mount on which his castle was built. Robert the second son retained the name Gernon.' The account in Dugdale (Baronage, i. 438) is based on the late (fictitious) narrative printed in Dugdale, Mon. vi. 77.
  • 214. Hist. et Cart. Mon. Glouc. ii. 168.
  • 215. Bk. of Fees, 897, 899.
  • 216. Derived from Rames (Seine-Inf.): Loyd, AngloNorman Families, 84. Round discusses his origin in Geoffrey de Mandeville, 399–404, App. X.
  • 217. V.C.H. Essex, i. 349.
  • 218. Bk. of Fees, 474.
  • 219. Ibid. 897–900.
  • 220. Dom. Bk. ii. 97.
  • 221. V.C.H. Essex, i. 563, n. 9.
  • 222. Dom. Bk. i. 137.
  • 223. Ibid. 211.
  • 224. Derived from dep. Manche: Loyd, Anglo-Norman Families, 110.
  • 225. Dugdale, Baronage, i. 191 sqq.
  • 226. Bk. of Fees, 474.
  • 227. V.C.H. Hunts. i. 326–7.
  • 228. In Norf., Suff., and Essex, and others in Cambs., Beds., and Herts. In Hunts. he also held 2½h (f. 207) as under-tenant of William fitz Ansculf and in Beds. 5h (f. 217b) as under-tenant of Countess Judith.
  • 229. He is also so described in an entry for Babraham in Inq. Com. Cantab., f. 96. See V.C.H. Cambs. i. 409–10.
  • 230. See p. 102.
  • 231. Bk. of Fees, 899.
  • 232. V.C.H. Herts. i. 285; 'An early reference to Domesday', Domesday Studies, ii. 558, cited in Charts. of St. Paul's, ed. Gibbs, p. xxii, no. 2.
  • 233. Dom. Bk. i. 154.
  • 234. On his descendents who took the name 'de Barwe' from the manor of Barrow (Suff.) which they acquired, and were lords of 'the manor of Newington Barrow better known to the Londoners of today as Highbury', see J. H. Round, 'An Early Citizen Squire', Ancestor. ii. 58–62. See also The Domesday Monachorum of Christ Church Canterbury, ed. D. C. Douglas, 62, 63.
  • 235. Charts. of St. Paul's, ed. Gibbs, p. xxii, n. 2.
  • 236. Clerkenwell Cartulary, ed. A. Hassall (Camd. Soc. 3rd Ser. lxxi), nos. 2, 6, 9, 160–2; Robinson, Crispin, p. 147, no. 29.
  • 237. Bk. of Fees, 11.
  • 238. Ibid. 1152.
  • 239. Ibid. 1362.
  • 240. Charts. of St. Paul's, ed. Gibbs, p. 136.