4. THE TRANSFER OF
TITLE
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 entry except
for a number - 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 represented by 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 Æthelwold 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 evidence about 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, one member 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 TRE
holder of land 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 Æthelstan 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. In Watnall and 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).
|
DB REF. |
STATUS |
VILL |
TRE HOLDER |
RELATIONSHIP |
|
10,43 |
manor |
Watnall |
Grimkell |
|
|
10,44 |
manor |
Watnall |
Siward |
|
|
10,45 |
soke |
ibid. |
Grim |
soke in Watnall |
|
10,46 |
soke |
ibid. |
Aelmar |
soke in Bulwell |
|
10,50 |
soke |
Hempshill |
|
soke of Bulwell and
Watnall |
|
10,66 |
manor |
Bulwell |
Godric |
|
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
wapentake bears witness 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 expectation that 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 are listed 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 Ælfeva 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 sequence which
is 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 tenures and
person. 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 of the
enquiry 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 honour of
Tickhill by 1242.[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
often changed, there was evidently a
degree of continuity of
tenure in most
fees. 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 nos 6, 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.