Domesday Book was, inter alia, a description of the lands of William's men and a record of their value. Title was probably not absolutely central to its purpose. But nevertheless the survey thereby also established the right of the tenants-in-chief to the lands and interests acquired in the previous twenty years from their Anglo-Saxon predecessors. Throughout the Middle Ages, the great survey was the ultimate authority on the tenure of land.[1] The changes since the Conquest and its aftermath were, of course, dramatic. By 1075 the native ruling class had been almost entirely dispossessed and replaced by a Norman aristocracy. In 1086 there was only a handful of English who held large fiefs in chief of the king. The transfer of land and power was apparently complete.[2] Despite the numerous references to disputes in the folios of Domesday Book, the process was apparently effected with remarkable ease. Title to the vast majority of estates appears to have been established and accepted with the minimum of complication. The principle was indeed straightforward and a natural function of a protracted process. The king granted all the lands of an English lord to a single tenant-in-chief who was to enjoy all of the rights, interests, lands and duties that his predecessor had enjoyed on the day on which King Edward the Confessor had been alive and dead, that is in 1066. Title was therefore established by reference to the antecessor.[3] It was only in politically andmilitarilysensitiveareasthatamore radical approach was adopted. In Sussex, for example, great tracts of land were given to individual tenants-in-chief to support strategically important castles.[4] But such a simple picture is not always apparent in Domesday Book. In Nottinghamshire there were lords who only had a few predecessors: Geoffrey Alselin, for example, succeeded to Toki, Wulfric and Swein.[5] But this was not the general rule. Thus, Roger de Bully succeeded to at least 55 different Englishmen. Since many are unnamed, the total cannot be precisely determined, but it may be as high as 100.[6] Likewise William Peverel succeeded to the lands of at least 32 individuals.[7] Some apparently appear as the predecessors of a number of tenants-in-chief. Many, if not most, must have been of very inferior status. Roger, for example, held ten manors in Eaton assessed at six and half bovates in total which had belonged to ten unnamed thanes in 1066.[8] Even in an area so grossly under-assessed as Nottinghamshire, the amount of land each held must have been insignificant. It seems extremely unlikely that the king could have had detailed knowledge of each holding, much less granted each one separately to Roger de Bully. On what basis, then, was title to this land and his other estates conferred on Roger? An important clue to the process is provided by the 'multiple-manor entry'.

††††††††††† Eaton is one of some 59 entries in the Nottinghamshire Domesday in which a number of individual manors are described in a single entry. The form is identical with the ordinary entryexceptforanumber- in Nottinghamshire between 2 and 10 - which is written above the marginal Lombardic M. This figure is, as a rule, matched by a record of the same number of holders in 1066 who are usually, although not always, named. Where six, seven or ten thanes held the land, the scribe clearly felt there was little need to identify them all. In a further sixteen entries a number of lords in 1066 are recorded as holding a single manor. This may indicate that the relevant figure has been omitted from the margin.[9] Alternatively, it may point to a difference in status or tenure.[10] Despite enrolment in a single entry, it is clear that each element of the multiple-manor type was considered to be a separate manor. Occasionally the assessment of each is given - although this is usually interlined or is only apparent from other sources[11] - and on a number of occasions it is said that each thane had his own hall.[12] Elsewhere in circuit 6 they are explicitly called manors.[13] The device is used with purpose and the form seems to have had a distinct identity for it is evidently no scribal device to facilitate the enrolment of a number of small holdings in the same vill. Thus, there are many instances when the manors are not combined in this way. The bishop of Lincoln, for example, held three manors in Clifton in succession to Fran, Wulfgeat and Agemund, and they are described in three consecutive entries.[14] Moreover, single and multiple-manor entries sometimes appear side by side. Roger de Bully held four manors in (East) Markham in succession to Edwy, Fran, and Godwin and Ulfkell which are described in three consecutive entries.[15] The usual explanation for the phenomenon is an economic one. It is argued that the tenurial revolution which accompanied the Conquest gave rise to the amalgamation of small estates by Norman tenants-in-chief and their men. The device therefore conveyed the essence of estate management while preserving the details of title.[16] Attractive as this may seem, it is implausible for it is clear that these manors were constituted as groups before the Conquest. Thus, one value is given for each of the entries for both 1066 and 1086. In all cases the figures are conventional sums - round totals of sixteen-pence Danish oras - and clearly cannot have been derived from the addition of several discrete renders.[17] One assessment is given for each group, again for 1066, and they were treated as single manors when appurtenances were attached. Soke of Alfwy and Wulfmer's two manors of Tuxford in Kirton, Walesby and Egmanton, for example, is described as soca hujus manerii, 'soke of this manor'.[18] In Linby three brothers held three manors and there were five bovates in Papplewick which 'belong to this manor'.[19]

††††††††††† It is clear, then, that multiple-manor entries relate to groups of pre-Conquest manors which survived into the reign of King William. Indeed, many of them may have retained something of their Anglo-Saxon identity for two or three lords in 1066 often seem to be representedby two or three men of the tenant-in-chief in 1086.[20] More remarkable still are the instances of continuity of tenure. Roger de Bully held two manors in Clumber in succession to ∆thelwold and Ulfkell. The part which an unidentified Fulk held in 1086 was waste, but Ulfkell had one plough in the other part under Roger. This Ulfkell must almost certainly be identical with the tenant in 1066.[21] Likewise, Fredegis, and possibly Wulfgeat, appear to have retained tenure of their two manors, described in one entry, in Ratcliffe (-on-Trent) under William Peverel.[22] Such phenomena might be suggestive of depression of tenure were it not for the survival of the form of what is clearly a group of manors. It must, on the contrary, raise the possibility of a similar relationship in 1066, that is, of two tenants holding of an overlord. Unfortunately, there are no explicit statements of the relationship between the individuals within multiple-manor entries, and beyond, in the Nottinghamshire text. The description of the manor of Headon may suggest that one was pre-eminent among a group of them. It is said that Godwin and six other thanes each had a hall, between them eight bovates and the third part of one bovate. The entry is a single manor, but the scribe probably forgot to write the vii above the marginal M.[23] In Winkburn five thanes held two bovates, one of whom was the superior of the the others.[24] But this reference is postscriptal and there is no evidence to elucidate the status of the holding. However, the same type of entry appears in the Lincolnshire Domesday where there is more evidenceabout the relationship between the members of each group. In many instances, as at Linby,[25] the manors were held by brothers and partible inheritance or tenure in parage seems to have played a part in the formation of the group.[26] In Covenham, for example, Alsi, Chetel and Turuer held three and half bovates as three manors. The latter two were brothers, and after their father's death, 'they divided their father's land in such wise, however, that when Chetel was doing the king's service, he should have his brother Turuer's aid'.[27] But partible inheritance, or tenure in parage, is unlikely to be the basic characteristic of the multiple-manor entry. Thus, although the relationship is not explicit, Alsi was apparently not the brother of Chetel and Turuer. Moreover, onemember is frequently the superior of the other in the group. Ingemund and his three un-named brothers held four manors in Newton (Lincs.), but it was the former who acted for all three in the Clamores: it is recorded that Colsuain did not deliver the land of Ingemund and his brothers to Count Alan, but Ingemund himself placed it under the said earl on account of the other lands which he held from him.[28] At Biscathorpe (Lincs.) Godric and his two brothers held three manors, but 'two served the third'.[29] Such relationships are the most consistently recorded in Robert of Stafford's Lincolnshire breve. In the four multiple-manor entries, one TREholderofland is said to have frigsoca over the others. In Braceborough and Banthorpe, for example, Dane, Carle and Ledflet held three manors, but the land of two was frigsoca under Dane, and in Carlby presumably the same Dane shared a double manor with Carle who held in frigsoca under him.[30] Frigsoca is a rare term in Domesday Book - in Lincolnshire it is only recorded eight times, and then only within a very limited area of Kesteven - and its meaning is not absolutely clear.[31] However, some form of superiority is evidently implied.

††††††††††† Nor was the overlord always a member of the same group. Alsi and ∆thelstan held a manor in Swaton (Lincs.) over which Alfric, their brother, had soke in Haceby, although 'only in the king's service'. He was the lord of a manor there which was in the possession of Guy de Craon in 1086.[32] But the form of Domesday Book usually conceals such relationships. Like the ordinary entry, the multiple-manor type is closely related to hundredal structure. Dependent manors are only grouped together when they are situated in the same twelve-carucate hundred. Numerous instances could be cited where hundredal structure can be reconstructed, but the process is most clearly illustrated by an entry in Count Alan's Lincolnshire breve. Six manors were held in 1066 by six thanes, one of whom was a certain Holmchetel. The place was originally identified as 'Hagworthingham' in the wapentake of Hill, but the name was subsequently deleted and 'Mumby', in the wapentake of Calcewath, interlined. The entry ends with the comment that 'these seven manors were worth ten pounds TRE; now they are worth sixteen pounds'.[33] Assessed at four bovates and held by Holmchetel, the seventh manor was in fact in Hagworthingham and had already been described. The entry notes that 'its value belongs to other manors'.[34] It seems that all seven had formed an extended tenurial group, but Holmchetel's estate had been enrolled in a separate entry because it was situated in a different hundred and wapentake. However, when the scribe came to the remaining manors, he inadvertently enrolled the whole group. He subsequently realised his mistake, however, and changed the place-name. But he omitted to delete the record of Holmchetel and subtract the four bovates of his manor from the total.[35]

††††††††††† Multiple-manor entries are relatively more common in Nottingham-shire than elsewhere in the folios of circuit 6. Nevertheless, the same limiting process may have been at work. It probably accounts for an anomalous group of entries in William Peverel's breve (figure 12). Only one value is given for the four Watnall entries and this is appended to the second sokeland entry. Although the land was attached to Bulwell, valued at a mere twelve shillings in 1066, the figure almost certainly includes the value of the two manors in Watnall. Elsewhere we read that Hempshill was soke of Bulwell and Watnall. It is clear that all three manors formed an extended group and we might have expected the whole to be enrolled in a multiple-manor entry of the form '3M.InWatnalland Bulwell Grimkell, Siward and Godric had 3 carucates and 2 bovates to the geld'. But all three manors were situated in different hundreds and are therefore enrolled in separate entries (figure 8).

Figure 12: a group of manors in William Peverel's breve.




















soke in Watnall





soke in Bulwell





soke of Bulwell and Watnall






††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††††††††

††††††††††† The superiority of one lord over another, then, is not confined to the estates described in multiple-manor entries. The form which betrays such relationships is only a function of compilation and, as such, is probably incidental. The scribe evidently had access to the information, but generally deemed it irrelevant to his purpose. Textual references to dependence in other contexts are therefore rare. They only occur when the fact brought one tenant-in-chief into relationship with another through their predecessors and was therefore germane to title. Only one unambiguous example occurs in the Nottinghamshire Domesday. In Oxton the archbishop of York held a manor in succession to Alnoth. It is stated that the king had one bovate and the rest belonged to Blidworth where the archbishop held a manor in both 1066 and 1086.[36] Alnoth was evidently a tenant of both lords before the Conquest. But one other entry probably falls into the same category. Gilbert de Gant held four and half bovates in Kirklington in the soke of Southwell in succession to Ulf his predecessor. The entry is not described as a manor - there is no marginal M or rubrication of the place-name - but otherwise the entry is manorial in form.[37] Dependence, however, is occasionally indicated in other ways. As with the two estates in Watnall, a single value for a number of manors suggests a single tenurial nexus. The Count of Mortain held a manor in Stanton in succession to his predecessor Stori. Two entries later a second manor, formerly held by Fran in the same Stanton, is described. Transposition marks associate it with the former entry and the absence of a value for both 1066 and 1086 suggests that it may have been a dependent of Stori's estate.[38] In Ralf de Limesy's breve five manors and one parcel of sokeland in Hawton are described in three entries and one value is given for the whole estate which was held of Ralf by a certain Alfred.[39]

††††††††††† In Nottinghamshire this is the extent of the concrete evidence for pre-Conquest groups of manors. As in circuit 6 generally, it is not extensive, but it is also clear that the phenomenon was usually of little interest to the Domesday scribe. Nevertheless, overlordship was probably common and was responsible for the relative ease with which land was transferred from Anglo-Saxon lord to Norman tenant-in-chief since title to one manor conferred title to those dependent upon it. A difficult passage in Ilbert de lacy's breve probably refers to the process. Words in square brackets are interlineations:

2M. In Cropwell (Butler) Wulfgeat [and Godric] had 2 [4] bovates of land to the geld. Land for 2 ploughs. Ilbert de Lacy was seized of this land, but when Roger de Poitou received (his) land he took possession of this manor against Ilbert. The wapentakebearswitness that Ilbert was in possession. Now it is in the king's hands, except the third part and a thane who is the head of the manor whom Ilbert holds.[40]

Various emendations have been suggested and clearly the entry as it now stands is obscure if not corrupt.[41] But the term caput manerii is reminiscent of capitale manerium, 'chief manor', which is used in the Lincolnshire folios,[42] and may point to a central manor from which title was derived. It can be hazarded that Ilbert could claim undisputed title to his portion because the thane was his antecessor.[43] It subsequently passed to the king because Roger forfeited all his estates which escheated to the crown. If this reference is somewhat obscure, two examples from outside the county illustrate the mechanism. In Derbyshire Gilbert de Gant held two carucates of land in Shipley, just over the boundary of Broxtowe wapentake, which had been held by Brown and Odincar in 1066. His title was apparently challenged for the sworn men stated that the land had not belonged to Ulf Fenisc, Gilbert's predecessor, in 1066, but that the two thanes so held it that they could grant or sell to whom they would.[44] His title was presumably invalid. There was, nevertheless, the expectationthat the land was held from Ulf, through whom Gilbert made his claim, for probably the same Odincar had held of him elsewhere in the East Midlands.[45] In Lincolnshire Robert of Stafford's claim against Count Alan to Carle's land in Billingborough was deemed unjust because the same Carle had held from Ralf the Staller, Alan's predecessor.[46] The Billingborough entry makes no reference to Ralf, but it is clear that Count Alan derived his title from the overlord rather than from the tenant Carle.[47] Robert's claim was presumably made on the basis of his tenure of Carle's land which had been held from his predecessor Dane in Carlby, Braceborough and Banthorpe.[48] The manors of the same individual, then, were held from two overlords in 1066 and therefore passed to different Norman tenants-in-chief.

††††††††††† Traces of the same process are evident throughout the Nottingham-shire Domesday, for estates of apparently the same individual have frequently been incorporated into different fiefs by 1086. It is, of course, not always possible positively to identify one individual with another in Domesday Book. Pre-Conquest lords are but rarely given distinguishing epithets. Thus, Alfsi Illing and Alfsi son of Kaskin arelisted as enjoying sake and soke, toll and team, and the king's customary dues of two pennies in 1066, but, with one exception, they cannot be identified among the many undifferentiated Alfsi's that appear in the text.[49] But the coincidence of names and groups of names in the same or neighbouring vills in different breves is so common, that we can be sure that the same individuals are frequently indicated. For example, Fran held two manors in Keyworth that passed to Roger de Bully and Ralf son of Hubert.[50] The predecessor of the former cannot be determined, but Leofnoth, and possibly Leofric, were the latter's.[51] Fran had also held an estate in nearby Stanton under the Count of Mortain's predecessor Stori.[52] Wulfric likewise held two manors in Coddington which had passed to the bishops of Lincoln and Bayeux by 1086, probably through Countess Godiva and Leofric or Godwin, their predecessors.[53] Many such relationships are apparent or may be suspected within the text.[54]

††††††††††† Overlords, then, were probably a common feature of the tenurial landscape of pre-Conquest Nottinghamshire, but it is not always possible to identify them. In many cases, the individuals who are named in manorial entries must be tenants. Countess ∆lfeva in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, Ulf Fenisc in Yorkshire, and Fyach and Swein son of Swafi in Lincolnshire are all said to enjoy sake and soke, toll and team, and the king's two pennies over their lands, but none is recorded in the text as holding any estates in those counties.[55] The apparent contradiction can only be resolved by supposing that they held no manors in demesne, but enjoyed the service of tenants. The Domesday commissioners no doubt recorded their names in preference to those of their lords because they appeared in the geld rolls used in the compilation of the survey as those who paid the geld and therefore facilitated the identification of estates. But those who enjoyed such regalian privileges were almost certainly predecessors and, indeed, each usually appears in only one breve. Thus, Countess Godiva gave title to the bishop of Lincoln, Ulf Fenisc to Gilbert de Ghent, Toki to Geoffrey Alselin.[56] But other names in the list appended to the shire customal cannot be positively identified. We can suggest, however, that one, possibly Alfsi son of Kaskin or Swein son of Swafi, gave title to at least part of Roger de Bully's lands. In 1088, some two years after the Domesday survey, Roger founded the priory of Blyth, endowing it with the church, the whole vill of Blyth and tolls over an extensive area of north Nottinghamshire and southern Yorkshire. The whole was to be held with sake and soke, toll and team.[57] At the time of Domesday Book the vill was soke of the manor of Hodsock which had been held by a Wulfsi in 1066.[58] This individual does not appear among those with sake and soke, toll and team. It cannot, of course, be assumed that this list is complete - it seems likely that there were many omissions. Nevertheless, in the absence of a direct grant, Roger's rights in Blyth may well have been derived from an overlord from whom Wulfsi held and through whom Roger had title. It is not possible, however, to positively identify him among the scores of names which appear in the breve.

††††††††††† In Lincolnshire and Yorkshire the overlord, and the manors over which he exercised his authority, can sometimes be identified within the text for the tenant-in-chief often seems to have made a return directly related to title. The estates of each of his predecessors are thus grouped together and defined by a separate wapentake sequencewhichis frequently emphasised by the use of spaces in the text.[59] The archbishop of York's Nottinghamshire breve may have owed its form to a return of this kind. As we have seen,[60] it is divided into three groups, two relating to the pre-Conquest lands of St. Mary of Southwell, and the third to the lands held personally by the archbishop himself in 1066, each of which has its own wapentake sequence (figure 3). The Southwell lands had been granted to York in 956,[61] but the archbishop's own estates had, with the exception of Sutton, been acquired in various ways shortly before the Conquest.[62] This latter section includes a manor in Oxton which was held by Alnoth, but most of which belonged to the archbishop's manor of Blidworth.[63] It seems likely that the land of unspecified status in Ranskill, held by Godric in 1066, was a dependency of the same manor.[64] But no other example of this type can be suggested.

††††††††††† It seems likely, then, that the orderly transfer of land from English to Norman control was only possible because there was no fundamental revolution in the organisation of land. Differences in tenures were, of course, subsequently introduced. But the principles and practice of overlordship were known before the Conquest and organised what appears in Domesday Book as a mass of independent lords. The whole process suggests some degree of continuity of both tenuresandperson. It has already been noted that some multiple-manors still retained their form in the 1086 and, on rare occasions, even their pre-Conquest tenants survived.[65] The same form is often apparent in the thirteenth century. Linby, for example, was divided into two manors in 1066 and the two parts persisted until 1250.[66] Some degree of continuity, however,may be more widespread. The king's thanes, the description of the land of whom is usually appended to the end of the county Domesday, are generally seen as the only English survivors of the Norman Conquest. But they were probably only the more prominent. They were evidently not of high status, but, nevertheless, held of the king and were probably ranked with sergeants.[67] In Nottinghamshire many others who had held from the predecessors of the tenants-in-chief seem to have retained their lands until the survey as tenants of the Normans. Agemund, for example, was the TRE tenant of an estate in Clifton and held the same manor from the bishop of Lincoln in 1086.[68] As with the multiple-manor type of entry, depression of status seems unlikely in this context. Indeed, English thanes managed to defend their right to property without difficulty judging by the number of king's thanes recorded in the text.[69] There are only eleven cases in the breves of the tenants-in-chief in which the same individual held in 1066 and 1086.[70] The large number of tenants in 1086 with native names, however, suggests that continuity of tenure was more extensive. As in much else, Domesday Book is rarely consistent in its record of sub-tenancies. The articles oftheenquiry do not include any questions on this matter and the information seems to have come in an ad hoc fashion from seigneurial returns for the number of tenants recorded varies from fief to fief in a haphazard way.[71] In the 328 manorial entries of the Nottinghamshire Domesday, there are only 146 named tenants. The number of individuals is probably considerably less - as with the TRE holders, it is not usually possible to determine whether the same name refers to one person or a number of people. At least 58 of them are English or Anglo-Scandinavian, that is 40% of the total. The proportion may in fact be higher since un-named vassals, clerics and men-at-arms have been counted as foreigners. Only eleven, some 20% of the total with native names, held in both 1066 and 1086, but this figure is comparable with the ten out of 41, 25%, of the king's thanes who held at both dates. Moreover, the diplomatic of the text suggests that there was a similarity in tenure. Almost without exception, those with English or Anglo-Scandinavian names are said to 'hold from', 'have under' or 'have from' the tenant-in-chief. The same formula is found in the land of the king's thanes.[72] By way of contrast, those with continental names are usually said to be 'the men of' the Norman lord. The different formulas are clearly used with deliberation and purpose. It seems likely that the intention was to distinguish the native tenures. At present, little is known about the history of these estates in the twelfth century. As elsewhere, most of the land of the king's thanes had lost its independence by the thirteenth century. Lambley, for example, held of the king by Haldan in 1086, had been incorporated into the honourofTickhillby1242.[73] Nevertheless, it was not held by military service but rendered 46 pounds per annum. Some fees did survive, however, and were likewise held by non-military service. Ratcliffe, for example, was held of the king by Saewin in 1086 and Thomas de Headon held in 1226 in sergeancy.[74] This type of tenure was common in Nottinghamshire in the thirteenth century and many of the fees seem to correspond to those held by Englishmen in 1086 of the Norman tenants-in-chief. Brinsley, for example, was held by Alric from William Peverel in 1086. In 1212, along with Trowell, held by Haldan of the king at the time of Domesday, it was held by a Geoffrey of the honour of Peverel in sergeancy.[75] In no case, however, has it proved possible to establish continuity of tenure from 1086.

††††††††††† The high incidence of sergeancies in mediaeval Nottinghamshire, then, probably points to the survival of both pre-Conquest families and tenures into the later Middle Ages.[76] Although the Domesday commissioners employed separate terminology to distinguish the lands of the native population from the fees of the newcomers, the novelty of the Normans' tenures, however, should probably not be exaggerated. Little is known about the genesis of knights fees, and specifically feudal services, in the area in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries. But there are characteristics of the fees that are pre-Conquest in form. As we shall see,[77] the value of a manor, a render paid to the overlord, was derived from an English organisation of estates. Since such dues were still paid in 1086, albeit oftenchanged, there was evidently a degree ofcontinuityoftenureinmostfees.Whatever obligations, such as knight's service, were subsequently introduced, were in addition to existing terms of tenure. Thus, in both Derbyshire and Yorkshire many fees were only held for a life or term of lives in 1086 and enfeoffment in hereditary fee was only introduced in the early twelfth century.[78] In origin feudal military service was probably essentially personal and was only later attached to the land itself.[79]

[1] E. M. Hallam, Domesday Book Through Nine Centuries, London 1986, 29-30; D. R. Roffe, The Derbyshire Domesday, Darley Dale 1986, 20.

[2] ASE, 626. Colsuain in Lincolnshire and Thurkil of Arden in Warwickshire are the most notable examples.

[3] ASE, 626-7.

[4] M. Chibnall, Anglo-Norman England, Oxford 1986, 23-8. The honours of Peverel and Ferrers are often seen as castleries.

[5] Notts. DB, breve no. 12.

[6] Notts. DB, breve no. 9.

[7] Notts. DB, breve no. 10.

[8] Notts. DB, 9,20.

[9] See, for example, Notts. DB, 10,61.

[10] In the Lincolnshire Domesday it may be indicative of tenure in parage; see G. Black, D. R. Roffe, The Nottinghamshire Domesday: a Reader's Guide, Nottingham 1986, 23.

[11] Notts. DB, 20,7.

[12] Notts. DB, 9,20; 26; 50; 69. 10,61. 14,5. Aula, 'hall', was the essential indicator of a manor; see chapter 5.

[13] Lincs. DB, 12/1; 71/10; 12/85, 96; Yorks. DB, passim.

[14] Notts. DB, 6,10-12.

[15] Notts. DB, 9,6; 10; 11. 9,7-9 are postscriptal: they are written across both columns in the bottom margin. See Black and Roffe, Nottinghamshire Domesday, 31.

[16] TMS, 52; R. W. Finn, The Making and Limitations of the Yorkshire Domesday, York 1972, 8.

[17] TMS, 32.

[18] Notts. DB, 9,12-14.

[19] Notts. DB, 10,20; 21.

[20] Notts. DB, 6,5. 9,31; 41; 66; 70. 10,51; 55.

[21] Notts. DB, 9,41.

[22] Notts. DB, 10,55.

[23] Notts. DB, 9,26.

[24] Notts. DB, 18,5.

[25] Notts. DB, 10,20.

[26] The two concepts are difficult to disentangle from the Domesday evidence. Although in reality an estate may have been divided between heirs, it is possible that legally it retained a unitary identity, for the overlord still expected dues from it. As we shall see, the terms of tenure, in effect the creation of a new nexus, was the prerogative of the lord. See chapter 5 and Black and Roffe, Nottinghamshire Domesday, 23.

[27] Lincs. DB, 22/26.

[28] Lincs. DB, 12/31; 70/26.

[29] Lincs. DB, 3/41.

[30] Lincs. DB, 59/4, 5, 9, 12.

[31] TMS, 40-2. A marginal fd is found against the account of some of the bishop of Lincoln's Lincolnshire estates, and marginal f' occurs in the abbot of Peterborough's breve. The significance of both is unclear, but it has been assumed that the devices also indicate frigsoca. Marginal f is also found in some Yorkshire folios. See Lincs. DB, 312; Yorks. DB, 16E1n.; 26E1n.; 29 passim.An f appears against the headings for breves nos 12 and 13 in the Derbyshire folios. Again its significance is unknown. See Derbys. DB, breves nos 12, 13. It has been suggested, however, that it stands for fecit returnum, that is a return was made by the tenant-in-chief (MDB, 82).

[32] Lincs. DB, 26/45; 57/18.

[33] Lincs. DB, 12/96.

[34] Lincs. DB, 12/85.

[35] The assessment of Mumby Hundred is exactly twelve carucates when Holmchetel's four bovates are deducted. See Lincs. DB, 12/93, 96; 24/55, 56; 29/32.

[36] Notts. DB, 5,9;11.

[37] Notts. DB, 17,13.

[38] Notts. DB, 4,5; 6.

[39] Notts. DB, 14,1-3.

[40] Wapentac' portat testimonium Ilbertum fuisse saisitum. Modo est in manu regis preter terciam partem et Tainum qui est caput manerii quem tenet Ilbertus. Notts. DB, 20,7.

[41] Notts. DB, 20,7n.

[42] See, for example, Lincs. DB, 57/14: M. In SCACHERTORP habuit Adestan i carucatam terre ad geldum. Terra i. car. Wido usque nunc tenuit in soca et modo est deratiocinatum capitale manerium ad opus regis. See also ibid., 72/27.

[43] It has not proved possible to identify Ilbert's predecessor in Nottinghamshire.

[44] Derbys. DB, 13,2; Roffe, Derbyshire Domesday, 10.

[45] Lincs. DB, 24/74.

[46] Lincs. DB, 72/51.

[47] Lincs. DB, 12/55.

[48] Lincs. DB, 59/4-5.

[49] Notts. DB, S5; 9,43. Alfsi son of Kaskin held Worksop in 1066 for he is said to have had sake and soke, toll and team over the settlement.

[50] Notts. DB, 9,88.13,7.

[51] Notts. DB, breve no. 13. Tenants are rarely noted in Ralf's Domes-day breves. As was common in many counties such as Leicestershire, the predecessor alone was recorded.

[52] Notts. DB, 4,6.

[53] Notts. DB, 6,6. 7,3.

[54] Notts. DB, 2,1. 9,103. 6,7. 14,2. 10,64. 30,1.

[55] Notts. DB, S5; Yorks. DB, C36; Lincs. DB, 13.

[56] Notts. DB, S5; breves nos6, 12, 17.

[57] TMS, 92-3.

[58] Notts. DB, 9,46; 49.

[59] See Appendix 2.

[60] Chapter 3.

[61] ECNE, 111-12; P. Lyth, 'The Southwell Charter of 956 AD: an Exploration of its Boundaries', TTS 86, (1982), 59. M. Bishop, in 'Multiple Estates in Late Anglo-Saxon Nottinghamshire', TTS 85, (1981), 39, suggests that Norwell was part of the 956 grant. The acquisition of Cropwell is not recorded.

[62] Historians of the Church of York and its Arcahbishops i, ed. J. Raine, London 1879, 353; VCH Notts ii, 153.

[63] Notts. DB, 5,11.

[64] Notts. DB, 5,12. The entry is a postscriptal addition to the section.

[65] See above.

[66] BF, 287.

[67] Notts. DB, breve no. 30; VCH Notts i, 234-5.

[68] Notts. DB, 6,12.

[69] In the Lincolnshire Clamores there are several cases in which Englishmen successfully challenged the right of Norman tenants-in-chief to their land. See Lincs. DB, 70/5; 71/1; 72/52, 60.

[70] Notts. DB, 2,4; 5. 6,12. 9,11; 41; 128. 10,24; 43; 46; 55. 16,2. 17,8.

[71] See chapter 3.

[72] VCH Notts i, 230.

[73] Notts. DB, 30,5; BF, 1000.

[74] Notts. DB, 30,20; BF, 373.

[75] Notts. DB, 10,31. 30,30; BF, 149; D. R. Roffe, 'Norman Tenants-in-Chief and their Pre-Conquest Predecessors in Nottinghamshire', History in the Making, ed. S. N. Mastoris, Nottingham 1985, 3-5.

[76] P. Vinogradoff, English Society in the Eleventh Century, Oxford 1908, 66-8.

[77] See chapter 5.

[78] Roffe, Derbyshire Domesday, 13; D. Michelmore, M. L. Faull, S. Moorhouse, West Yorkshire: an Archaeological Survey to AD 1500 ii, Wakefield 1981, 251-8,

[79] Chibnall, Anglo-Norman England, 28-34.