# Claims

Notes:
Burgred and Thorkil re-state their claim in B12; on the fief of Eustace the sheriff (19,9) they are represented as tenants.

Text:
The men who have sworn in Huntingdon say that the Church of St Mary in the Borough and the land that belongs to it was the Church of Thorney's; but the Abbot gave it in pledge to the burgesses. However, King Edward gave it to Vitalis and Bernard, his priests; they sold it to Hugh, King Edward's chamberlain. But Hugh sold it to two priests of Huntingdon, for which they have King Edward's seal. Eustace ^[the sheriff]^ now has it without deliverer, without writ and without installer.


Notes:
Leofeva may be the widow of Aelfric the sheriff, whose wife and children were deprived of their residence by Eustace despite confirmation by royal grant (B10). Oger is not recorded elsewhere in Huntingdonshire.

Text:
Eustace [* the sheriff *] took Leofeva's house by force and gave it to Oger of London.


Notes:
The title of Countess Judith had apparently been challenged, perhaps by Eustace who claimed the manor (20,3) to which these houses were probably attached.

Text:
They testify that the land of Hunef <of Stukeley> and Gos was in King Edward's hands on the day of his death, and that they held from him, not from the Earl [* Waltheof *]. But they say that they heard that King William should have given it to [* Earl *] Waltheof.


Notes:
Eustace claimed 5 hides in 6,3, probably these 5. This entry sets out the grounds on which Ramsey held the disputed 5 hides, without mentioning Eustace.

Text:
Concerning the 5 hides at Broughton, they say that it was Freemen's land in King Edward's time, but that the same king gave the land and the jurisdiction over them to St Benedict's of Ramsey, because of a service which Abbot Alwin did for him in Saxony; and that since then [the Abbey] has always had it.


Notes:
Brictmer does not occur elsewhere in DB Huntingdonshire. The entry is apparently concerned to establish that the reeveland should contribute to the farm of the borough paid to the king and earl.

Text:
The County testifies that the land of Brictmer Balehorn was reeveland before 1066 and belonged to the [Borough] revenue.


Notes:
Alwin the priest does not occur elsewhere in DB Huntingdonshire, and no Alwin occurs on the land of any abbey. The entry is apparently concerned to establish the status of the land Alwin had held. The reeve's land may refer back to D5.

Text:
They testify that the land of Alwin the priest was the Abbot's; and that each was the priest's and the reeve's land respectively.


Notes:
The abbey held in both vills (6,15-16). Boxted in Essex was held by an Aelfric (20,37), presumably the same man, although there is no mention of the abbey's claim there. There are no other traceable connections between Aubrey, Aelfric or the abbey.

Text:
They testify that the lands of Aelfric <of Yelling> in Yelling and Hemingford [Grey] were St Benedict's ^[of Ramsey]^; and that they were granted to Aelfric for his lifetime on this condition that after his death they should have returned to the church, and Boxted with them. However Aelfric himself was killed in the battle at Hastings, and the Abbot recovered his lands, until Aubrey de Vere dispossessed him.


Notes:
Godric's hide, and the abbey's title and claim, is recorded in 6,17; the other, waste, hide constituted Ralph's fief, entered at 27,1 without comment. Ralph held in Hemingford Grey & Yelling (22,1-2), also claimed by the abbey: see D7.

Text:
Concerning the 2 hides which Ralph son of Osmund holds in Hemingford [Abbots], they say that one of them was [part] of the lordship of the Church of Ramsey in King Edward's day and that he holds it against the Abbot's will. Concerning the other hide, they say that Godric held it from the Abbot, but when the Abbot was in Denmark, Ralph's father, Osmund, seized it from Saewin the falconer, to whom the Abbot had given it out of [his] love for the King.


Notes:
Sumarlithi was the predecessor of Eustace but the jurors deny that this conferred title. Neither Thorulf or Sumarlithi appear elsewhere in Huntingdonshire so it is not apparent on whose behalf this statement was made, unless it be the king.

Text:
Concerning Sumarlithi <of Waresley>, they say that he held his land ^[in Waresley]^ from Thorulf, who gave it to him, and afterwards from his sons, and that they had full jurisdiction over him.


Notes:
The jurors presumably mean that this holding should not descend with Kimbolton, held by William of Warenne in 1086 (13,1), implicitly supporting Robert's title: see also D17-18.

Text:
They say that the land of Young Wulfwin in [Hail] Weston was a manor in its own right, and did not belong to Kimbolton; but that nevertheless he was Earl Harold's man.


Notes:
Judith's claim is re-stated in the entry for Eustace's fief (19,27). The jurors imply that the sheriff's predecessor did not confer title, supporting the claim of Countess Judith as heir to her husband, Earl Waltheof, Algeat's lord.

Text:
Concerning the 1 1/2 hides of land ^[in [Hail] Weston]^ which were Algeat <of Weston>'s, the men who have sworn say that Alfgeat held them himself from Earl Tosti, with full jurisdiction, and afterwards from [* Earl *] Waltheof.


Notes:
Judith's claim is not re-stated in the entry for Eustace's fief (19,31). The jurors imply that the sheriff's predecessor did not confer title, supporting the claim of Countess Judith as heir to her husband, Earl Waltheof, Godric's lord.

Text:
Godric the priest likewise held 1 hide of land ^[in Boughton]^ from Earl Waltheof before 1066. Now Eustace ^[the sheriff]^ holds it.


Notes:
The jurors implicitly support the tenure of Eustace against a possible but unrecorded claim by Robert, who acquired another holding in Weston from Saxi (25,1).

Text:
They say that the land of Godwin in [Hail] Weston in no way belonged to Saxi, the predecessor of ^[Robert son of]^ Fafiton.


Notes:
By emphasising Earl Harold's tenure of this dependency of Kimbolton, the jurors may be supporting Warenne's title against an unrecorded claim by Eustace the sheriff, his tenant.

Text:
The men of the County testify that King Edward gave Swineshead to Earl Siward [and] full jurisdiction, and so Earl Harold had it in the same way except that [its men] paid tax in the Hundred, and went with them against the enemy.


Notes:
The implication is that Fursa's land was not held with full jurisdiction, as stated in 19,11, and that Eustace's title was not well-founded.

Text:
Concerning Fursa's land, it was a jurisdiction of the King [* in Swineshead *].


Notes:
In 2,9 the  royal officers claim the virgate for the king's use; Pertenhall was possibly part of Kimbolton.

Text:
Concerning Alwin Devil's 1 virgate of land in Pertenhall, King Edward had the jurisdiction.


Notes:
In emphasising King Edward's jurisdiction and denying Harold's tenure, the jurors appear to impugn Warenne's title, possibly supporting an unrecorded claim by Eustace (the sheriff), his tenant: see also D10;18.

Text:
They say that the hide of land which Young Wulfwin had in Catworth was in the King's jurisdiction and that Earl Harold did not have it.


Notes:
The jurors appear to be supporting a claim based upon jurisdiction buttressed by royal grant, against Warenne's rights to the dependencies of Kimbolton: see also D10;17.

Text:
In Little Catworth the same ^[Young]^ Wulfwin had 1 hide over which King Edward always had full jurisdiction; but he could give and sell the land to whom he would. But the Countess' ^[Judith]^ men say that the King gave the land to Earl Waltheof.


Notes:
The sheriff's depredation is not mentioned in the entry which records the abbey's holding in Easton (4,4)

Text:
The County testifies that the third part of 1/2 hide which lies in Easton and pays tax in Bedfordshire belongs to the Abbot of Ely's manor of Spaldwick. The Abbot had it in the same way before 1066 and for 5 years after the arrival of King William. Eustace [* the sheriff *] seized this [land] by force from the church and kept it.


Notes:
The sheriff's depredation is not mentioned in the entry which records the King's holding (1,7), where Ranulf son of Ilger is stated to be 'in charge'.

Text:
They say that Keyston was and is [part] of King Edward's revenue; and although Aelfric the sheriff resided in that village, yet he always paid the King's revenue from it, and his sons after him, until Eustace ^[the sheriff]^ received the sheriffdom; they have never seen or heard of the sealed [writ] of ?r? King Edward's which had put it outside his revenue.


Notes:
The claim is repeated in 19,15 where William the artificer also claimed part of the land; he held elsewhere in the vill (26,1).

Text:
Alwold and his brothers claim that Eustace ^[the sheriff]^ unjustly took away from them their land ^[in [Great] Gidding]^. The County denies that they have seen the seal, or an installer who had put him in possession of it.


Notes:
The statement is repeated in 1,6. None of the holdings in Gidding are identified as outliers so the purpose of this pronouncement is unclear.

Text:
In 1066 [Great] Gidding was an outlier of Alconbury, in the King's revenue.


Notes:
Buckworth is recorded as a manor in 1086 (10,1). Paxton was held by Countess Judith (20,8) so the statement may imply a claim on her behalf, though none is recorded. Tosti held both Buckworth and Paxton before 1066

Text:
The County testifies that Buckworth was an outlier of [Great] Paxton before 1066.


Notes:
Richard's holding is not recorded but was probably part of the royal manor of 15 hides (36  is an error). He was presumably trying to avoid paying dues on the grounds that his was exempt Forest land.

Text:
They say that the 36 hides of land in Brampton, which Richard the artificer claims belong to the Forest, were [part] of the King's lordship revenue, and did not belong to the Forest.


Notes:
Eustace held 1/2 hide (possibly a duplicate of part of 1,9) in Grafham (19,22) which this statement could allude to and so also to the royal manor at 1,9.

Text:
They say that Grafham was and is a jurisdiction of the King's and that they have seen neither writ nor installer who had delivered it to Eustace [* the sheriff *].


Notes:
The bare facts are repeated in the entry in Countess Judith's fief, implicitly supporting the title of the abbey to 6 of the 9 hides of that entry.

Text:
Concerning the 6 hides in Conington, they said that they had heard that they formerly lay in [the lands] of the Church of Thorney and that they had been granted to Thorkil [* the Dane *] on this condition that after his death they should return to the church with the other 3 hides of the same village. They said that they had heard but had not seen this, nor had they been involved in it.


Notes:
This land was held by Eustace (19,1), where there is no reference to this claim. The jurors support the title of the abbey against the tenure of Eustace and his tenant.

Text:
Concerning the land of Tosti <of Sawtry> in Sawtry, they say that his brother Erik <of Tealby> bequeathed it by name to the Church of Ramsey after the death of himself, his brother and his sister.


Notes:
The abbey held the only holding in Fletton at both dates so it is unclear what prompted this affirmation of its title.

Text:
Concerning [Old] Fletton, they say that in King Edward's day it all lay in [the lands of] the Church of Peterborough, and ought to lie there.


Notes:
The Bishopric of Lincoln was established in 1072 so this detail is anachronistic.

Text:
Concerning Leofric's land ^[in Orton [Waterville]]^, they say that it was in the King's jurisdiction, but Bishop Remigius has shown the writ of King Edward by which he gave Leofric, with all [his] land, to the Bishopric of Lincoln, with full jurisdiction.


Notes:
William of Percy held a carucate in Fyling on his own fief and another ar part of the manor of Whitby, held from Earl Hugh; the claim evidently relates to the former. YS accords a carucate each to Hugh and William

Text:
For copyright reasons, the text for Yorkshire cannot be displayed.


Notes:
The 6 bovates are recorded as a gift by Ulf to the Canons (2N15); Ralph held the remainder of the 6-carucate vill as a jurisdiction of his manor of Nunnington (16N1), acquired from Merleswein. YS agrees with DB about both Stonegrave holdings.


Notes:
Apart from the royal lands (1N22-24;118;120-22. SN,L29-30. SN,A3-4) - all without tenants - Havarthr's only other holding was the manor of Stokesley (29N8) and its dependencies (29N9) held by Uhtred in DB but by the king in YS. See also CE34.


Notes:
These 7 carucates were held by Hugh son of Baldric in DB; they do not appear to be recorded in YS. See also CE34.


Notes:
This holding is recorded as royal land, without tenants in DB & YS. Nigel held elsewhere from the Count of Mortain in [Sheriff] Hutton (5N54 & SN,B3).


Notes:
These 2 carucates are recorded in YS and may be the one carucate each attributed to the king (1Y6) and to Northmann (29E5) in DB; but see SE,C5 note to the printed text.


Notes:
The holding of Barn and Ulf is not separately recorded in DB. YS attributed 2 carucates in Ellerton to both the King and the Count of Mortain but DB records only the Mortain holding (5E24).


Notes:
YS attributes 12 carucates and 1 1/3 bovates to the Count of Mortain, of which 4 carucates and 2 bovates do not appear in DB; this holding is one of them though it might be included in 5E21; see also CE4-7.


Notes:
YS attributes 12 carucates and 1 1/3 bovates to the Count of Mortain, of which 4 carucates and 2 bovates do not appear in DB; this holding, however, is described in 5E22; see also CE3;5-7.


Notes:
YS attributes 12 carucates and 1 1/3 bovates to the Count of Mortain, of which 4 carucates and 2 bovates do not appear in DB; this holding is one of them though it might be included in 5E21; see also CE3-4;6-7.


Notes:
YS attributes 12 carucates and 1 1/3 bovates to the Count of Mortain, of which 4 carucates and 2 bovates do not appear in DB; this holding, however, is described in 5E27 where title is also denied; see also CE3-5;7.


Notes:
This holding is described in 5E28 which states that Richard 'has the land, but the King does not have the jurisdiction', meaning that it had been withheld, or 'not returned', by Richard.


Notes:
Nigel had 8 carucates in Dalton (acquired from Northmann and others) according to DB, 6 in YS, where the King is accorded 3.625 carucates not described in DB; Northmann's share may have been included in this though the totals still do not match exactly.


Notes:
The 2 carucates are recorded as held by the king in both DB and YS.


Notes:
The same facts are recorded in the entry on the fief of the Count of Mortain (5E73). YS attributed 4 carucates in Croom to the king, this holding (1E58) and another of 2 carucates (1E59).


Notes:
The DB entry agrees with these statements. DB attributes a manor of 12.75 carucates to the Canons; YS 14.25 (SE,Sn7), which may therefore include this carucate though the totals still do not match. Earl Morcar had held Welton (3Y1).


Notes:
These 4 bovates are attributed to the king in both DB and YS.


Notes:
Ulf had held part of North Cave (5E1) but Brantingham is recorded as Ulfkil's (5E9). Both Nigel and Malet had predecessors named Ulf and Northmann; several other Malet claims relate to land held by a Northmann: see also CE23;34.


Notes:
DB attributes to Ralph and Gilbert holdings in both vills from the named predecessors, of 2 1/2 carucates and 1 1/2 carucates respectively; YS agrees.


Notes:
The recorded holdings of Asa were held by William of Percy and Gamal in DB, the Percy holdings being also recorded in YS where Gamal's is subsumed in that of the king; see also CE26;31;34.


Notes:
The bishop's holding in Burland is recorded in YS but not in DB proper though the account of Howden includes its jurisdictions (3Y4).


Notes:
The bishop's holding is recorded in DB and subsumed with another of his holdings (3Y4) is YS. Muli, Orm and Basing are recorded as predecessors of Robert Malet (11E2;5).


Notes:
Aughton is recorded as held by Nigel in both DB and YS; Ernwin had held it before 1066.


Notes:
Both DB & YS record Nigel's holding, though give its size as 7 carucates and 2 bovates. See also CE34.


Notes:
DB and YS record a Mortain holding of 7 carucates and 5 bovates; DB additionally records 14 bovates in both Daltons, half of which would make this 8 carucates. Neither source records a connection with the royal manor of Pocklington (1Y10). See also CE34.


Notes:
DB and YS attribute both holdings to the Mortain fief though DB is 1/2 bovate short in Osgodby. Both holdings had some dependency on Howden, the bishop of Durham's manor, but no apparent Malet connection unless it be through Northmann. See also CE34.


Notes:
Both DB & YS attribute 15 carucates in Sancton to Gilbert, held by Northmann, a predecessor of Robert Malet elsewhere (11E3). Robert also held a jurisdiction in the vill (11E8). See also CE34.


Notes:
Malet was named in several of the 14 claims relating to a Northmann. In the East Riding, the Count of Mortain and William of Percy succeeded to the bulk of the lands held by a Northmann but several other tenants-in-chief had an interest. See also CE34.


Notes:
DB & YS attribute Welton & Gardham to the bishop and do not mention the Canons' claim. The carucate in Gardham is recorded in DB and YS, and the 5 carucates and 2 bovates presumably subsumed in the total given for Welton in both.


Notes:
The holding is attributed to William of Percy in both DB and YS; the archbishop and Canons had a manor in Clifton (C30).


Vill:
Scoreby [Manor] & {Ianulfestorp} & Dunnington

Notes:
These holdings are attributed to William of Percy in both DB and YS; see also CE15;31. Several other Malet claims relate to land held by a Northmann: see CE23;34.


Notes:
Both DB and YS attribute the 2 carucates to the Mortain fief; William of Percy held a carucate in the same vill (13E8. SE,Sn10).


Notes:
Both DB & YS attribute these 6 bovates to Gilbert Tison; the basis of the archbishop's claim is not apparent.


Notes:
Both DB & YS attribute these 6 carucates to William of Percy. See also CE34.


Notes:
Neither DB nor YS mention the jurisdiction in Clifton; both attribute the whole vill of 6 carucates and 6 bovates to William of Percy. Several other Malet claims relate to land held by a Northmann: see CE23;34.


Notes:
In DB Gamal held the 4 carucates claimed by Richard; but in YS it was aggregated with another royal holding in Lowthorpe (1E31) as royal land; see also CE15;26.


Notes:
DB & YS both attribute the holdings to Odo the bowman; DB names his predecessors and Orm and Forni.


Notes:
Gamal is not mentioned in the DB entries; but a Gamal, presumably the same man, held a carucate in Walkington in 1086 (29E24).


Jurors:
[[West Riding ] Barkston & `Skyrack' Wapentakes

Notes:
No Wulfbert is recorded on Osbern's fief, or indeed in the West Riding. If this is not a scribal error (see CW4), he may therefore have been the overlord of some, if not most, of the pre-Conquest landowners named in Osbern's fief; see also CW36.


Vill:
Yeadon & Oglethorpe & Hazelwood [Castle]

TenInChief:
King William & Count of Mortain & William of Percy

Lord66:
Gamal & Grim & Esger <of Oglethorpe> & Gamal son of Asmund & Arnketil

Defendant:
King William & Count of Mortain & William of Percy

Notes:
TRE owners not named in some entries. See also CE34.


Vill:
Stutton & Tadcaster & [North] Milford [Hall] & {Neuhuse} & Toulston & Ryther & {Saxehale} & Lead & Newton [Kyme]

Holding:
20 carucates & 2 bovates & 1 mill & 1 arable holding

Lord66:
Thorkil & Wulfstan & Ketil & Ligulf & Thorn


Notes:
Aelfric named as TRE holder in 9W26 so Ulf was presumably his overlord. A scribal error is possible; but there are too many such discrepancies between DB and the Claims to attribute them all to errors.


Notes:
Perhaps implying that Malet was rightful owner (cf CW3)


Notes:
Ligulf still held in 29W24 in 1086 (and possibly in 28W30 where the holder is unnamed), Gospatric sharing half these holdings (SW,Sk3). A Ligulf was a predecessor of Richard. Since Compton is not recorded in DB or YS the implication of all this is unclear


Notes:
Not in YS; Siward not named in DB entries


Notes:
Not apparently in YS, nor on royal fief; Brune not named in DB entries;


Notes:
No holding in Barnborough attributed to Warenne in YS but 6 carucates in Barnborough and Bilham House are accorded to Roger of Bully there (SW,Sf9; also 10W15).


Notes:
Not separately noticed in YS but possibly included in SW,Sf9 (see CW9 note)


Notes:
Mortain and Warenne held in Sandal but other details (including Alwin's and Sotakollr's names) of these holdings are not individually recorded in either DB or YS; they are probably subsumed 12W1 as the Mortain holding is only 1/2 carucate.


Notes:
Warenne held in Bramwith but other details (including Ulfkil's name) of this holding are not individually recorded in either DB or YS; they are probably subsumed in 12W1 & SW,Sf1.


Vill:
Tudworth [Green] & Stainforth & Fishlake

Notes:
Warenne held in all 3 vills but other details (including Ulfkil's & Northmann's names) of these holdings are not individually recorded in either DB or YS; they are probably subsumed in 12W1 & SW,Sf1.


Notes:
Warenne and Mortain held in these vills but other details (including Wulfmer & Swein's names) are not individually recorded in either DB or YS. Fulco was a tenant of Roger of Bully elsewhere in DB but Roger had no holdings in the vills.


Notes:
The only holding in Cantley was the 1 carucate held by Geoffrey Alselin. This Delphic statement presumably hides a claim by Roger of Bully who acquired 6 other holdings from an Alsi in Strafforth, presumably the same individual.


Notes:
Only Mortain is recorded as holding in Loversall so this statement presumably implies a claim by him. Other details (including Toki's name) of the holding are not individually recorded in either DB or YS


Notes:
The implication of this statement is not apparent; but Roger of Bully acquired 1 holding from a Northmann in Strafforth Wapentake & William of Percy several others, but no one else, so a claim involving these two men is possible.


Notes:
Roger of Bully held the 12 carucate vill of Wadworth, acquired from Siward and Toki. This claim and that in CW19 amount to 12.25 carucates. Stancil is not recorded in DB or YS (?an error for Stainton, also acquired by Bully from Siward: 10W3;5 & SW,Sf3-4)


Notes:
This and the previous claim (CW18) amount to 12.25 carucates; Wadworth is 12 carucates in DB and YS. Toki was the predecessor of Geoffrey Alselin for all but a handful of his holdings; this is one of the few holdings of Toki not acquired by Geoffrey.


Notes:
The Count of Mortain is recorded as holding this and other parts of Houghton in both DB and YS; it does not occur on the royal fief.


Notes:
Nigel Fossard held Hexthorpe from the Count of Mortain (5W8 & SW,Sf21) so his claim may refer to the 9 bovates in Marr held by Fulco of Lisors of the jurisdiction of Hexthorpe.


Notes:
If this statement relates to land held by Swein in Adwick, then it refers to Roger of Bully's holding in the vill. The 7 carucates and 3 bovates in Adwick and its dependency are probably those in YS under Osgodcross though the total there is 1 bovate less


Notes:
Ilbert held the manor of Morley and the king the manor of Wakefield, which may account for this pronouncement.


Notes:
The individual details of Arnketil's holdings in these vills are not given, being subsumed among those for other pre-Conquest lords; but these are evidently the entries referred to. See also CE34.


Notes:
The DB entry states that the jurisdiction of all 3 carucates lay in Healaugh; but CW40 tends to confirm the statement made here. See also CE34.


Notes:
A Northmann held 3 carucates in 25W21;26 but these lay in 'Burghshire' Wapentake; none of Osbern's holdings in Ainsty (25W1-19) clearly match this statement


Notes:
The individual details of Godwin's holdings in these vills are not given, being subsumed among those for other pre-Conquest lords; but these are evidently the entries referred to. See also CE34.


Notes:
The DB entry names Aldred & Svartkollr as the pre-Conquest holders. If this is not a scribal error (see CW4), Ulf was either their overlord or an intermediate holder. See also CE34.


Notes:
The individual details of Wulfstan's holding in this vill is not given, being subsumed among those for other pre-Conquest lords; but this is evidently the entry referred to. See also CE34.


Notes:
Neither Landric or Northmann held in these vills, neither of which has holdings of the stated size. The 1/2 carucate might be that held by Landric in Bishopthorpe (29W27); Acaster is the only other holding of his in Ainsty (29W28). See also CE34.


Notes:
Healfdene is named in the DB entry but not Oddi or Alwin; the individual details of holdings in the vill are not given; but this is evidently the entry referred to. See also CE34.


Notes:
Despite the reference to the Poppleton of 25W13 only, since the DB total with Scagglethorpe is 6 1/2 carucates. See also CE34.


Notes:
Ligulf's share of the 8 carucates of the DB entry is not given; but this is evidently the entry referred to. Geoffrey's manor of Healaugh is recorded in 18W3. Neither entry refers to this jurisdiction.


Notes:
Godwin's land in Walton is not separately recorded in DB or YS but was presumably included in the 9 carucates held by 6 thanes, the only recorded holding in Walton. Neither this entry nor Geoffrey's (18W3) mentions the jurisdiction.


Notes:
Both DB and YS attribute Bolton to William of Percy. See also CE34.


Notes:
No Wulfbert is recorded on Osbern's fief, or indeed in the West Riding. This, and the reference to 'all the other lands', raises the possibility that Wulbert was the overlord of some, if not most, of the pre-Conquest landholders named; see also CW1;4


Vill:
Steeton [Hall] & Hornington [Manor] & Oxton & [Palla]thorpe & Colton

Notes:
Ulfkil is not named in DB or YS. If not a scribal error (see CW4), he may have been the overlord of those who are named. [Palla]thorpe is the only holding attributed to the Count. The others probably lay in 25W1, 13W17, 25W5, & 25W3 respectively


Notes:
The only holding in Monkton was of 8 carucates, held by 5 thanes. Merleswein is not named so if not a scribal error (see CW4), he was presumably overlord of one or more of them; he was Ralph's predecessor on almost all of his manors.


Notes:
Drogo's depredations are recorded in only one entry in DB.


Notes:
None of the lands held by William Malet in YKS were acquired by his son though the jurors evidently thought he was the rightful heir: see ANS XXII (2000), 261-77.


Notes:
This must refer to Drogo's 12.5 carucates in Brandesburton which names Ulf and Ulfkil but not Aldwif. If not a scribal error (see CW4) Aldwif was perhaps overlord of one of the 7 named pre-Conquest lords. See also CE34.


Notes:
This holding does not appear in DB or YS See also CE34.


Notes:
Not included in DB and YS though the discrepancy between the 5 1/2 carucates of Rise in DB & YS and 7 1/2 in the Claims (CE39) may possibly conceal this holding. See also CE34.


Notes:
Both holdings of a Cnut - presumably the same individual - in Holderness were claimed for the Malets but he was not their predecessor elsewhere. See also CE34.


Notes:
The assessment of Rise is given as 5 1/2 carucates in DB & YS. The half carucate of the Archbishop of York (2E37) would make Rise a 6-carucate unit so 7 1/2 is probably a scribal error (cf CE37). See also CE34.


Notes:
This holding is probably included in the 5 carucates held by Swein & Murdac. If not a scribal error (see CW4), Aldwif was presumably the overlord or one or other of these two men. See also CE34.


Notes:
Frani was one of 5 pre-Conquest landowners named in the DB entry; he may have therefore been the overlord of the other four men. See also CE34.


Notes:
Thor is named as the pre-Conquest holder of Langthorpe. If not a scribal error (see CW4), Ecgfrith was probably his overlord. See also CE34.


TenInChief:
Drogo of la Beuvrière & Archbishop of York

Lord86:
Drogo of la Beuvrière & Archbishop of York

Defendant:
Drogo of la Beuvrière & Archbishop of York

Notes:
6 carucates were divided between 4 holdings, none of which name Thorsten; if not a scribal error, Thorsten was presumably the overlord of those named. DB does not detail the Archbishop's bovate, possibly subsumed under Swine (2A2). See also CE34.


Notes:
Thorfridh's 8 carucates was the only holding in Keyingham so this is certainly the entry referred to. See also CE34.


Notes:
DB & YS list one holding of 11 bovates and another of either 12 carucates & 1 bovate (YS) or 10 carucates & 2 bovates (DB), the latter held by 8 named individuals of whom Frani was one and presumably the overlord of the others. See also CE34.


Notes:
{Andrebi} was a jurisdiction of Withernsea whose holders are not named; but as this was the only holding in the vill there is no doubt that this is the entry referred to. See also CE34.


Notes:
The 5 carucates were divided between 3 holdings, none of which name Brandulfr; if not a scribal error, he was presumably the overlord of the two men who held 14E17 but the other holdings were dependencies of manors held by other lords. See also CE34.


Notes:
Ravenkel & Karli held 1 1/2 carucates in Redmere, of which Ravenkel's share was presumably 1 carucate. See also CE34.


Notes:
DB names 3 other pre-Conquest holders of the 8-carucate manor of Holmpton, the only holding in that vill. See also CE34.


Notes:
DB names Thorgot, confirming that this is the entry referred to. See also CE34.


Notes:
DB names the pre-Conquest holder as Thorgot. Grimkel was presumably his overlord, or a scribal error is involved (see CW4). See also CE34.


Notes:
Oddi & Ravenkel hold 13 bovates in Southcoates & Drypool in DB, of which YS specifies that 1 carucate lay in Southcoates. Drogo is presumably named by the jurors to distinguish this holding from the 1 carucate of the archbishop (2E35). See also CE34.


Vill:
Bolton [Percy] & `Haggenby' & Acaster [Selby] & Ouston [Farm]

Notes:
Bolton (CW33), 'Haggenby' (CW25) and Ouston (13W14) were dependencies of Geoffrey Alselin's manor of Helaugh. Percy is not recorded as holding in Acaster. A Malet interest in  'Haggenby is recorded in CW25


Notes:
Dependency on Healaugh seems to be implied by the layout of the text but is not mentioned in DB in relation to any part of the Osbern's holdings 9 & 4 carucates respectively. There is little doubt, however, that these are the holdings referred to.


Notes:
Dependency on Healaugh seems to be implied by the layout of the text but is not mentioned in DB in relation to any part of the Count's holding of 8 carucates.  There is little doubt, however, that this is the holding referred to.


Notes:
Robert and Odo both had a predecessor named Siward which may have caused confusion.

Text:
In Tathwell hundred the Bishop of Bayeux's men claim 1 carucate of land against Robert the bursar, and the men of the Wapentake say that the Bishop himself ought rightly to have it.


Notes:
The earl's manor was assessed at 5 carucates, with dependencies of 9 carucates and 2 bovates, any part of which may have included the 3 bovates.

Text:
In the same hundred ^[Tathwell]^ the same Bishop ^[of Bayeux]^'s men claim 3 bovates of land against Earl Hugh, and the Wapentake says that the Bishop himself ought to have them.


Notes:
Jocelyn did not hold in Tathwell so this statement presumably refers to one of the two mills recorded as held by Robert.

Text:
In the same hundred ^[Tathwell]^ the mill which was Aghmund's and [which] after him Lambert and Jocelyn his son had, the Wapentake says that Robert the bursar ought to have with his land.


Notes:
Count Alan is not recorded as holding in Louth so the disputed mill is presumably one of the 13 recorded on the bishop's manor of Louth

Text:
In Louth hundred the Bishop of Lincoln claims 1 mill against Count Alan, and the Wapentake testifies it ought to be the same Bishop's.


Notes:
Hill, Medieval Lincoln, suggested the lands were those in 7,56, a suggestion supported by the fact that this is the only holding  attributed to the Church of Lincoln before 1066. William of Percy has a predecessor named Alsi who held in the Wapentake.

Text:
Those lands which Alsi and Ulfgrim had in Lindsey they place [among the lands of] the Church of St Mary, Lincoln, and at Bishop Wulfwige's discretion, and so Bishop Remigius claims them because they had £160 for the lands themselves before 1066.


Notes:
Godric and Edric held in both Haugham (with Aelfeva) & Maidenwell (with Aleifr).

Text:
In Burwell hundred the King's officers claim against Earl Hugh in Haugham and Maidenwell the lands of the two brothers Godric and Edric, and the men of the Wapentake have adjudged them for the King's use.


Notes:
Kolsveinn did not hold in Carlton so this refers to part of the 3 carucates held by Percy in Reston and Carlton

Text:
In [Little] Carlton hundred William of Percy claims 1/2 carucate of land against Kolsveinn [* of Lincoln *], and the Wapentake testifies in favour of the same William.


Notes:
The king had 2 1/2 carucates and 1 1/3 bovates in Yarburgh; the jurors allow a fraction of Alfred's claim

Text:
In Somercotes hundred Alfred of Lincoln claims 1/2 carucate of land against the King in Yarburgh, but the Riding says that he has nothing there except 9 1/2 acres and 1 plot, the jurisdiction of which lies in the King's manor of Gayton[-le-Wold].


Text:
In the same hundred ^[Somercotes]^ Siward Buss claims 1 mill against Alfred [* of Lincoln *], and the men of the Riding [say] that Alfred [* of Lincoln *] has half in Rainer of Brimeux's [manor] of Keddington and [that] the Bishop of Durham has the other half as a jurisdiction of Keddington.


Notes:
Alfred held 13 bovates in Stewton; his claim perhaps refers to the remaining 3 bovates in the vill, held by the bishop of Bayeux

Text:
In `Skidbrooke' hundred Alfred [* of Lincoln *] claims 3 bovates of land in Stewton against Ilbert. The men of the Riding say that Alfred [* of Lincoln *] ought to have them himself.


Notes:
40,26 Rainer held 1/3 of the church and claimed the other 2/3rds; these are not recorded on Ilbert's fief.

Text:
In Withcall hundred Rainer claims the whole minster [church], and the ?rq? men of the Riding say that it was his predecessor's, and [so was] the third part of the jurisdiction, and that Ilbert of Lacy [has] 2 parts of the jurisdiction over the church and the land which is an adjunct of it.


Notes:
Earl Hugh held 12 carucates in Claythorpe and 3 other places, jurisdictions of Greetham (13,1), Robert's claim evidently referring to part of this holding; Vigleikr is not named there but he was Robert's predecessor elsewhere (38,8;10-11. CS,36).

Text:
In Swaby hundred Robert the bursar claims against Earl Hugh 1 carucate of land in Claythorpe. The men of the Riding say that the jurisdiction lies in Greetham and was Vigleikr's and he himself left the land and forfeited it and they say that Robert the bursar has nothing there.


Notes:
Thorulf was the predecessor of Bishop Odo, whose tenant was the claimant, Losoard; Gilbert succeeded Tonni.

Text:
In Rigsby hundred Losoard claims against Gilbert of Ghent 1 carucate of land in Well. The men of the Riding say that before 1066 Thorulf had it with full jurisdiction and afterwards Tonni <of Lusby> had it, and [that] this land was delivered to Bishop Odo by charter, but they have not seen the King's writ for it, and he had it himself on the day he was taken, and later he was dispossessed.


Notes:
Recorded on Rainer's fief but not Earl Hugh's.

Text:
In the same hundred ^[Rigsby]^ Rainer of Brimeux claims against Earl Hugh 2 bovates of land in Ulceby, and the men of the Riding say that he ought to have nothing except the jurisdiction in Cumberworth, and the Earl [ought to have] the land.


Lord66:
Bergthorr & Sumarlithi & Godric & Siward

Notes:
Earl Hugh's holding in Mablethorpe is subsumed in a larger complex; neither Blunt nor the pre-Conquest landowners are named there. Blunt also acquired 49,2 from Godric & Siward, presumably the same individuals.

Text:
In Theddlethorpe hundred the Bishop of Durham claims against Earl Hugh 2 bovates in Mablethorpe. The men of the Riding say that he has nothing except 1 bovate which was Bergthorr's and that the jurisdiction is Earl Hugh's in Greetham. There also William Blunt [has] 3 bovates which were Sumarlithi's, Godric's and Siward's, and the jurisdiction is in Greetham, by witness of the whole Riding.


Notes:
The holdings are recorded on Alfred's fief; Earl Hugh's jurisdiction in Huttoft (13,8) is aggregated with that for several other places.

Text:
In Huttoft hundred Alfred [* of Lincoln *] claims 2 bovates of land, and the men of the Riding say that he ought to have one with full jurisdiction, and the other likewise is his, but Earl Hugh has the jurisdiction in Greetham.


Notes:
The bovate was a jurisdiction of Huttoft, presumably Alfred's manor there (27,60). The Siwards of Huttoft and Sutton were probably the same individual.

Text:
In the same hundred ^[Huttoft]^ the Riding says that the same Alfred [* of Lincoln *] ought to have the jurisdiction of 1 bovate which Alfred [* of Lincoln *] claims against Ketilbiorn <of Nettleton> in Sutton[-on-Sea].


Notes:
Gilbert's predecessor here is Tonni <of Lusby>. The bulk of Gilbert's lands came from Ulf Fenman but Tonni ranked second among his predecessors.

Text:
In Mumby hundred Count Alan claims 2 bovates of land against Gilbert of Ghent, but the Riding says that Gilbert's predecessor had full jurisdiction over it before 1066 and it ought to be his.


Notes:
Tonni <of Lusby> held the manor of Willoughby in 1066 (24,54) but this claim may refer to the outlier in Willoughby (24,59); an Alnoth was the Bishop's predecessor at 3,21;25

Text:
In Willoughby hundred the Bishop of Durham claims the land of Alnoth the priest against Gilbert of Ghent, and the men of the Riding say that they never saw the Bishop's predecessor put in possession of it, either by writ or officer, and they testify [it is] for Gilbert's use.


Claimant:
Ivo Tallboys & Ketilbiorn <of Nettleton>

Notes:
Not recorded elsewhere. Ivo Tallboys had an interest in Hanby (14,86;101) but Ketilbiorn is not recorded as holding anywhere in `Calcewath' wapentake. The woodland is presumably subsumed in one of the entries for Willoughby manor (24,54-60).

Text:
In the same hundred ^[Willoughby]^ the men of the Riding testify that Ketilbiorn <of Nettleton> ought to have 20 acres of woodland in Hanby, and Ivo Tallboys the jurisdiction.


Lord66:
Harold (brother of Aelfric and Guthfrithr)

Notes:
Eudo claimed Thorpe, a jurisdiction of Kirkby-on-Bain (3,13) held by Harold. Another of his claims against the bishop, to Spilsby (3,22), appears to be unrelated and concerns the North Riding.

Text:
Concerning the claim [disputed] between the Bishop of Durham and Eudo son of Spirewic, the men of Horncastle Wapentake have borne witness, with the agreement of the whole Riding, that the three brothers, Harold, Guthfrithr and Aelfric, divided their father's lordship land equally and jointly, and that only Harold and Guthfrithr divided their father's jurisdiction, without the third brother, and they held it equally and jointly before 1066.


Notes:
Eudo held the manor of Little Sturton (29,1) of which the 6 bovates of Langton was a jurisdiction. Guthfrithr's son are identified in 29,1 as Godwin & Gunnhvati.

Text:
Concerning the jurisdiction of 6 bovates about which there is a claim [disputed] between the Bishop ^[of Durham]^ and Eudo [* son of Spirewic *] in Langton[-by-Wragby] and in {Torp}, the men of `Wraggoe' Wapentake say that the said two brothers had the jurisdiction equally and jointly before 1066, but in 1066 Guthfrithr's sons had the whole jurisdiction, but they do not know how they had it, whether by force or by their uncle's gift.


Notes:
Gilbert held Baumber (24,20) whose predecessor was Ulf Fenman, Tonni holding one of its dependencies (22,23), acquired by William of Percy (22,23); Ulf & Tonni were Gilbert main predecessors. Robert the bursar held in the same vill (38,11).

Text:
Concerning the claim which Robert the bursar makes against Gilbert of Ghent about the woodland which is in Langton[-by-Wragby], `Wraggoe' Wapentake says, with the agreement of the whole Riding, that Tonni <of Lusby> had it before 1066 with full jurisdiction in Baumber, and therefore Gilbert of Ghent rightly has it.


Notes:
Erneis held in Wragby but the other claims cannot be traced.

Text:
Concerning the underwood which Robert the bursar claims against the King in Hainton and against Erneis of Buron in Wragby, by the witness of the Wapentake he has nothing there. But over Earl Hugh's 12 acres and the Bishop of Bayeux's 8 acres he has jurisdiction according to the witness of the men of the Wapentake and Riding.


Notes:
Alfred of Lincoln's 3 1/2 bovates lay in Torrington, a jurisdiction of Hainton (16,14), both held by Klakkr in 1066. Rainer held 3 1/2 bovates as a manor in Hainton itself (40,9).

Text:
[In] the claim which Rainer of Brimeux made against Alfred of Lincoln concerning the jurisdiction of 3 1/2 bovates of land, he ought to have nothing there, as the men of the Wapentake and Riding testify; but Roger of Poitou ought to have it [as belonging] to the house of his predecessor Klakkr in Hainton.


Notes:
The jurors pronouncement is explained by the DB entry which states that the jurisdiction of the 4 bovates lay in Wragby, a manor of Erneis (34,12).

Text:
Concerning the claim which Erneis of Buron makes against William of Percy in Legsby about the jurisdiction of 4 bovates, the Wapentake says that the same Erneis ought rightly to have it.


Notes:
This claim probably refers to land in Benniworth where both Ivo and the archbishop (2,16) held land, acquired from Siward and Godwin respectively. Siward was also the predecessor of Ivo at 14,9-10;15;30-31;34-36 but these holdings were in the North Riding

Text:
Concerning the claim which Archbishop Thomas made - that is, that he ought to have jurisdiction over the land of Siward, the predecessor of Ivo Tallboys - the Wapentake says, and the Riding, that Siward held his land with as full jurisdiction as Godwin, the Archbishop's predecessor, held his, and therefore he does not claim it justly.


Notes:
The archbishop's manor in South Willingham is described in 2,1.

Text:
Archbishop Thomas ought to have jurisdiction over Eskil's land which the Bishop of Bayeux has in [South] Willingham because, as the whole County testifies, the Archbishop's predecessor had full jurisdiction over the same land, and the Bishop's men wrongfully took the same jurisdiction away from the same Archbishop.


Notes:
Rainer's entry notes a claim, by a marginal 'k'. Willingham is described there as a jurisdiction of Bramwith, held by Koddi (40,7); it had evidently been a jurisdiction of the archbishop's manor of [South] Willingham (2,1), held by Almer, before 1066.

Text:
Before 1066 Almer, Archbishop Thomas's predecessor, was in possession of the jurisdiction of 10 bovates in [South] Willingham. This land was Koddi's and is now Rainer of Brimeux's; it was pledged for £3 before 1066. Now the men of the Riding affirm that the Archbishop ought rightly to have this jurisdiction until £3 are paid to him.


Notes:
Norman of Arcy's interest is not apparent; but Tonni was an important predecessor of Gilbert. The jurors statement seems also to imply that he had a manor of Barlings, unrecorded in the main text. A royal grant trumped everything.

Text:
Gilbert of Ghent and Norman of Arcy claim against William of Percy the jurisdiction of 12 bovates in Stainfield, which belongs to Barlings and was Tonni <of Lusby>'s. But the Wapentake, and the County, says that Gilbert ought to have it, not Norman. But William of Percy holds it by the King's gift as Robert son of Stigand held it.


Notes:
This statement seems also (see CS30) to imply that Tonni had a manor of Barlings, unrecorded in the main text; the claimant was presumably Gilbert of Ghent.

Text:
They put forward the same argument concerning the jurisdiction of 7 bovates in Apley because it lies in Barlings and Tonni <of Lusby> held it before 1066.


Notes:
The 2 bovates were a jurisdiction of Bullington, a manor of the Bishop of Durham (3,8); both had been held by an Aelfric in 1066. Percy's holding is annotated with a marginal 'k', for a claim.

Text:
Also in Apley the Bishop of Durham claims the jurisdiction of 2 bovates against William of Percy, and the Wapentake says that the same Bishop's predecessor had it and he ought to have it himself in Bullington.


Notes:
These two 1/2 carucates must be subsumed in Gilbert's manors of Baumber & Edlington (24,20;22). Ulf Fenman, not Tonni, is Gilbert's predecessor there; but Tonni may have been his 'man' for the subholdings, as he was on another fragment of Baumber (22,23).

Text:
The Wapentake of Horncastle says that Robert the bursar wrongfully makes a claim against Gilbert of Ghent about 1/2 carucate of land in Baumber and about another 1/2 carucate in Edlington. Before 1066 Tonni <of Lusby> had this land. Robert had several holdings in Horncastle but the specific basis of his claim is not apparent.


Notes:
Aki was Robert's main predecessor (38,1-2;13).

Text:
Robert the bursar ought to have jurisdiction over the fishery and over the plot which Ketilbiorn <of Nettleton> holds in Coningsby because Aki, Robert's predecessor, had it before 1066.


Notes:
Earl Hugh's holding in Ashby does not mention a mill; it was a jurisdiction of his manor of Greetham (13,1). Ivo did not hold in the vill so the nature of his claim is unclear.

Text:
`Candleshoe' Wapentake says that Ivo Tallboys ought to have in Ashby[-by-Partney] what he claims against Earl Hugh, that is, 1 mill and 1 bovate of land, but the jurisdiction belongs to Greetham.


Notes:
Vigleikr was Robert's predecessor at 38,8;10-11 (also CS12); Scremby was a jurisdiction of Gilbert's manor of Bardney (24,17). Robert's claim, based upon a predecessor who had forfeited his land to the lord of the jurisdiction, is similar to CS37.

Text:
Concerning 2 carucates of land which Robert the bursar claims against Gilbert of Ghent in Scremby through Vigleikr, his predecessor, the Wapentake says that he had only 1 carucate and the jurisdiction of that was in Bardney; Vigleikr, however, forfeited that land to [the loss of] his lord, Gilbert, and therefore Robert has nothing there, by the witness of the Riding.


Notes:
This case is similar to CS36: a claim based upon a predecessor who had forfeited his land to the lord of the jurisdiction. Godric is not recorded as holding in Scremby nor as a predecessor of Ketilbiorn in Lincolnshire.

Text:
Also in Scremby Ketilbiorn <of Nettleton> claims 1 carucate against Gilbert of Ghent through Godric, but they say that he had only 1/2 carucate and its jurisdiction was in Bardney; and Ketilbiorn wrongfully claims it as the Wapentake says, because his predecessor forfeited it.


Jurors:
South Riding `Candleshoe' & Bolingbroke Wapentakes

Notes:
Eudo acquired the lands of Sighvatr (29,10), and the bishop of Durham those of his brothers (3,21-26;43-47). Their father was probably the Godwin who held 29,11-13;16-17;30-32. See also CN30.

Text:
The men of `Candleshoe' Wapentake testify, with the consent of the whole Riding, that Sighvatr, Alnoth, Fenkell and Eskil equally and jointly divided their father's land between themselves before 1066 and held it in such a way that if a royal expedition was necessary and Sighvatr could go, the other brothers helped him. After him, the next one went and Sighvatr, with the rest, helped him; and so on with them all. However, Sighvatr was the King's man. [The men] of Bolingbroke [Wapentake] testify to the same with the above men, and the South Riding also agrees.


Lord86:
Ansger of `Skidbrooke' & Rainald & Humphrey & Geoffrey

Notes:
Neither the toll, the places named, or the individuals with bynames are recorded elsewhere in the text; and only a Geoffrey among the 1086 landowners held in `Louthesk' Wapentake; see also CS40.

Text:
In Saltfleet, `Mare' and `Swine' a new toll has come into use and Ansger of `Skidbrooke' has been receiving it, also Rainald, Humphrey and Geoffrey; `Louthesk' Wapentake, and the whole South Riding, says that this toll did not exist before 1066. Godric paid a toll of 1d according to the testimony of Ulfkil of Asterby who saw it. Arnketil of Withern testifies that he himself saw Ansger receive the toll from 24 ships from Hastings.


Notes:
Neither Saltfleet, the customary dues, or Hugh the servant is recorded elsewhere in the text, and no Hugh held in `Louthesk' Wapentake; see also CS39

Text:
In Saltfleet Hugh the servant receives the customary dues of the ships which come there willingly and unwillingly. These [dues] did not exist there before 1066; they originated this new practice and the men of the Riding say that they saw a claim made for it.


Notes:
Ferries are recorded at both Barton and Ferriby, and a market at Barton; but there is no mention of tolls. The road from Lincoln (and ultimately London) probably terminated at Barton, from where the ferries gave passage across the Humber to the north.

Text:
In Barton[-upon-Humber] and in [South] Ferriby Gilbert of Ghent's men receive a different toll to the one they received before 1066, from bread, fishes, skins and very many other things, for which nothing was ever given.


Notes:
The meaning is unclear. Caistor was more than 10 miles from the nearest point on the coast and almost 20 from Barton; if Barton were not intended, then the ferry was presumably that at Grimsby (4,70. 36,1).


Notes:
This statement presumably refers to part of the king's 4 1/2 carucates in [Great] Limber since he held only 3 bovates in [Little] Limber where Ivo held 9 bovates (14,32).

Text:
In Limber Ivo Tallboys claims 6 bovates of land against the King. The men of the County say that he ought to have the land himself and the King the jurisdiction.


Notes:
Of the 4 holdings in Ulceby, this claim probably refers to 7,22 (though no meadow is mentioned there) as both Alfred and the bishop had a predecessor named Healfdene who may have been the source of a dispute.

Text:
Instead of 30 acres of meadow which Alfred [* of Lincoln *] claims in Ulceby he ought to have in the same village 1 strip of ploughland.


Claimant:
Drogo of la Beuvrière & Alfred of Lincoln

Notes:
Drogo acquired Morcar's manor of Barrow[-upon-Humber] (30,1), of which Goxhill had presumably been a jurisdiction like Drogo's own holding there (30,2), alienated by Morcar. Alfred held in the same vill (27,1) but the basis of his claim is not apparent.

Text:
Yarborough Wapentake testifies that in Goxhill [* Earl *] Morcar gave Hugh 4 bovates of land with full jurisdiction, which Drogo of la Beuvrière claims. Alfred [* of Lincoln *] claims 1 bovate of this land. The Wapentake says that the land is Hugh's, and the jurisdiction is Alfred's.


Notes:
The bishop's claim to the church is restated in 1,65.

Text:
The Wapentake testifies that King William gave the church of Caistor to St Mary's of Lincoln in alms; to which church belong 2 bovates of land in lordship, 2 villagers and 1 mill, and in Hundon the jurisdiction of 1 carucate.


Notes:
The 3 bovates of Searby were an outlier of Count Alan's manor of Kelsey (12,9), acquired from Grimbald. Jocelyn had no predecessor of that name nor did he hold in either vill, so the basis of his claim is not apparent.

Text:
Jocelyn claims 3 bovates of land in Searby against Count Alan. The County says that Jocelyn ought to have it, not Alan.


Notes:
Norman's 1 1/2 bovates in Brocklesby were a jurisdiction of his manor of Stallingborough (32,1). Hugh also had a manor there (25,7) but no dependent jurisdictions are named.

Text:
Hugh son of Baldric claims 1/2 bovate of land in Brocklesby. The men of the Riding say that the land ought to be his, and the jurisdiction Norman's, through their predecessors.


Notes:
Rainer was an intermediate holder, the predecessor from whom title derived, here and at 2,8; Eilafr's other holdings devolved upon Waldin the artificer (47,4-7): see also CN1113;18;23.

Text:
In Stallingborough the Wapentake says that Rainer the deacon held Eilafr's 2 manors on the day he left this country.


Notes:
Rainer held a manor in Limber (40,1) and the archbishop had two holdings dependent upon Limber: 3 bovates in jurisdiction (2,24) and 1/2 bovate of {inland} (2,25); the claim presumably refers to part of 2,24.

Text:
Rainer of Brimeux ought to have the jurisdiction in Limber of 1/2 bovate of land which Archbishop Thomas has in Stallingborough.


Notes:
Rainer was an intermediate holder, the predecessor from whom title derived, here and at 2,6-7; Eilafr's other holdings devolved upon Waldin the artificer (47,4-7). See also CN9;13;18;23.

Text:
Concerning one manor of Eilafr's which Archbishop Thomas now has in Keelby, Rainer the deacon was in possession of it on the day he left this land.


Notes:
Both Alfred and Durand held in Great Coates, neither holding being precisely 2 bovates so it is unclear who was claiming against whom.

Text:
In [Great] Coates Alfred [* of Lincoln *] ought to have the land of the 2 bovates and Durand Malet the jurisdiction [of them] with 3 villagers who belong to it.


TenInChief:
Archbishop of York & Bishop Odo of Bayeux

Lord86:
Archbishop of York & Bishop Odo of Bayeux

Notes:
The 1 carucate was probably the archbishop's since Rainer held Cuxwold, of which Swallow (2,9) was a dependency; Odo also had a carucate there. Rainer was an intermediate holder, the predecessor from whom title derived. See also CN9;11;18;23

Text:
Rainer the deacon was in possession of 1 carucate of land in Swallow when he left this land. Likewise the same Rainer the deacon was in possession of Erik <of Tealby>'s land which is in Grimsby hundred; now the Bishop of Bayeux has it.


TenInChief:
Ralph of Mortimer & Bishop Odo of Bayeux

Lord86:
Ralph of Mortimer & Bishop Odo of Bayeux

Lord66:
Erik <of Tealby> & Tosti <of Sawtry> & Edeva

Defendant:
Ralph of Mortimer & Bishop Odo of Bayeux & Losoard

Notes:
Ferries are recorded in Grimsby on the fief of Ralph of Mortimer and of the Bishop of Bayeux, whose man Losoard was (4,8;41;61-64); tolls are not mentioned there.

Text:
Ralph of Mortimer's men and Losoard's men receive a new toll in Grimsby, which did not exist before 1066, but Losoard denies that his men did it on his authority.


TenInChief:
Bishop Odo of Bayeux & Bishop of Lincoln

Lord86:
Bishop Odo of Bayeux & Bishop of Lincoln

Claimant:
Bishop Odo of Bayeux & Bishop of Lincoln

Notes:
The lands of Winghal church lay in Owersby, where both bishops held land (4,74. 7,28)

Text:
The Bishop of Bayeux and the Bishop of Lincoln ought to have jurisdiction over 2 1/2 bovates of land which lies in [the lands of] the church of Winghale.


Notes:
The jurisdiction is not recorded on either Siward's or the bishop's (4,74) holdings.

Text:
In Owersby hundred the Bishop of Bayeux has jurisdiction over 1/2 carucate of land which was Ernwin the priest's, and is now Siward the priest's.


Notes:
Perhaps a reference to part of 4 bovates in Keisby whose jurisdiction lay in Osgodby; no 1086 holder is recorded for this land. Jocelyn had two holdings in Osgodby, both jurisdictions of his manor of Tealby (28,20;22;24).

Text:
In Osgodby Jocelyn son of Lambert ought to have jurisdiction ?rq? over 1/2 bovate of land.


Notes:
Rainer was an intermediate holder, the predecessor from whom title derived. See also CN9;11;13;23. Neither Count Alan nor his main predecessor held in the wapentake so the basis of his jurisdiction is not apparent.

Text:
In Tealby hundred Rainer the deacon had Erik <of Tealby>'s land with all that belongs there. Jocelyn holds it and Rainer claims it. The Riding testifies that Count Alan's predecessor had the jurisdiction but they do not know of what type.


Notes:
The details identify the holding as 14,11. Jocelyn had a jurisdiction in Claxby (28,23).

Text:
In Claxby Jocelyn son of Lambert ought to have 1 mill which Geoffrey, Ivo Tallboys' man, seized against his [will].


Notes:
Ivo had 3 mills at Croxby where William Blunt also held land (49,2)

Text:
In Croxby William Blunt ought to have 1 garden in Ivo Tallboys' land, but he is prevented [from doing so] on account of a mill which was not there before 1066.


Notes:
The holdings of bishop and count were in 3,6 and 12,19 respectively; it is unclear who was claiming against whom.

Text:
In Fulstow the Bishop of Durham ought to have 40 acres of land - of meadow - and 4 plots, and Count Alan jurisdiction over them, as the Wapentake says.


Notes:
Count Alan also held in Fulstow but the interest of Drogo - presumably Drogo of la Beuvrière -  is not apparent.

Text:
In the same village ^[Fulstow]^ they judge that Count Alan has jurisdiction over 1 carucate of land in Robert the bursar's land, and Drogo ought to have 1 salt-house there which he claims, and Count Alan jurisdiction over it.


Notes:
Rainer was an intermediate holder, the predecessor from whom title derived. See also CN9;11;13;18. The archbishop held Swallow, a jurisdiction of Cuxwold (2,10); Rainer did not hold in the vill or the wapentake or succeed Fulcric elsewhere.

Text:
Rainer the deacon was in possession of Fulcric's land in Cuxwold when he left this land. Now Archbishop Thomas holds it; Rainer of Brimeux claims it.


Notes:
Hugh's holding was of 3 bovates Both Hugh (25,9) and William Percy (22,9-10) had holdings in Cuxwold which were outliers of Cabourne held by Grimkel, a possible source of confusion

Text:
Also in Cuxwold William of Percy ought to have 2 bovates of land, which he claims, in Hugh son of Baldric's land. The Wapentake testifies in favour of him.


Notes:
The bishop's holding in Wold Newton records 'a hall with a plot and full jurisdiction'.

Text:
The Wapentake says that Count Alan ought to have jurisdiction over Grimkel's Hall, whose land the Bishop of Durham has in [Wold] Newton.


Notes:
The brothers were probably One, Edric and Ecgwulf (12,29).

Text:
Kolsveinn [* of Lincoln *] did not deliver the land of Ingimundr and his brothers to Count Alan, but the same Ingimundr made it subject to this Count on account of other land which he held from him.


Notes:
The bishop held 13 bovates in Ormsby but these were a jurisdiction of Wyham, held by Rothulfr; the claim probably refers to the 4 carucates and 7 bovates held by Ulf and Skemundr which do not mention Stow or the bishop: see Whitelock, Wills, no. 39.

Text:
The North Riding, and all the County, testifies that the land of Ulf in [North] Ormsby, that is 4 1/2 carucates of land, was sold to St Mary's of Stow before 1066 and it lay in its [lands] in 1066, and later on Bishop Remigius was in possession of it.


Notes:
The printed notes identify {Schemin} as Skemundr and the holding as that at 30,20; but Ivo's holding(14,65)  is the one specified.

Text:
In {Schemin} [* [North] Ormsby *] in Ivo Tallboys' land Drogo [* of la Beuvrière *] claims 3 dwellings which he ought to have, by witness of the Wapentake, with full jurisdiction.


Notes:
Berengar's 4 carucates and 5 bovates at Fotherby was a jurisdiction of Binbrook (18,7); it was presumably these 5 bovates which the bishop claimed, in addition to his 7 bovates in the vill (3,20), Berengar retaining the jurisdiction.

Text:
In Fotherby, the land of Berengar of Tosny, the Bishop of Durham ought to have 5 bovates of land and Berengar [* of Tosny *] jurisdiction over it.


Notes:
Eudo acquired the lands of Sighvatr (29,10), and the bishop of Durham those of his brothers (3,21-26;43-47). Their father was probably the Godwin who held 29,11-13;16-17;30-32.  See also CS38

Text:
The Wapentake, and the whole County, testifies that the Bishop of Durham ought to have the land of 3 brothers with full jurisdiction, and Eudo son of Spirewic the land of the fourth brother, likewise with full jurisdiction: their names are Sighvatr - or Godwin - Alnoth, Fenkell and Eskil.


Notes:
Four other tenants-in-chief held in Burton, their holdings all being dependencies of other manors (7,9. 18,5. 24,3. 60,1); the full jurisdiction claimed for Swartbrand would give title against possible claims from those four.

Text:
`Lawress' Wapentake testifies that Alnoth had full jurisdiction over his land, 3 carucates in Burton. Now Swartbrand [* son of Ulf *] has it after him.


Notes:
Kolsveinn held as a tenant of the abbey (8,13). The circumstances in which the abbey acquired the church of All Saints and its land are detailed in C16, where Ernwin's claim is explained.

Text:
The Abbot of Peterborough claims 4 bovates of land in Riseholme, Kolsveinn [* of Lincoln *]'s land, and the Wapentake testifies that before 1066 they lay in [the lands of] the church of All Saints in Lincoln.


Notes:
Aghmund was Jocelyn's main predecessor (28,4;10-11;14-18;25-32;36;42-43), and Norman had succeeded Guthroth in C3 so the dispute concerned the terms of the pledge.

Text:
Three burgesses of Lincoln, Guthroth, Leofwin and Sigewine, before 1066 held in pledge from Aghmund the land which Jocelyn son of Lambert claims in `[Middle] Carlton' against Norman the fat.


Notes:
As neither Norman or Ivo Tallboys held in Scampton, Norman presumably acted as an official of the sheriff in extorting this money. Gilbert of Ghent held the only substantial holding in Scampton (24,1-4;6-7;9).

Text:
In Scampton Norman the fat added £3 and 1 gold mark, and he pledged this to Ivo the sheriff.


Notes:
Norman succeeded Godric elsewhere in Scothern (32,29); Kolsveinn presumably held the 4 1/2 bovates as a dependency of his manor of Scothern (26,4).

Text:
In Scothern hundred before 1066 Godric, Norman ^[of Arcy]^'s predecessor, had 4 1/2 bovates of land, as the Wapentake testifies.


Notes:
The abbey held jurisdictions of 5 1/2 carucates in Scothern and 2 other vills; although Gilbert had a substantial manor in `Lawress' wapentake, the basis of his claim is not apparent.

Text:
In the same hundred ^[Scothern]^ Gilbert of Ghent claims 1 carucate of land against the Abbot of Peterborough. But the Wapentake testifies that St Peter's had this land with its jurisdiction in 1066.


Notes:
Not recorded in the text; but the bishop held the royal manor of Nettleham (1,35-36) in the Lindsey survey: Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 79.

Text:
In Nettleham hundred Bishop Remigius claims 2 bovates of land and the Wapentake testifies he ought to have them himself.


Claimant:
Ranulf of St Valery & Kolsveinn (of Lincoln)

Notes:
All three parties (and no others) held land in Reepham: 8,3. 26,9. 43,5.

Text:
The Wapentake says that St Peter's of Peterborough ought to have the fourth part of the woodland which Ranulf and Kolsveinn [* of Lincoln *] claim in Reepham.


Notes:
This may imply a claim by the bishop of Lincoln (who acquired the lands of St Mary's of Stow) since the land in Sturton had presumably been forfeited. There was no earl in 1086, his rights devolving on the Crown.

Text:
The Wapentake testifies that Ulfkil, Asfrith, Restelf and Wulfmer had full jurisdiction over their lands and over their men in Sturton[-by-Stow] hundred. St Mary's [* of Stow *] has 2 parts of the jurisdiction over the forfeiture in the Wapentake, and the Earl the third. Now the King [has it]. Likewise concerning heriot. If they had forfeited their land, St Mary's would have had 2 parts and the Earl the third.


Notes:
This may imply a claim by the bishop of Lincoln (who acquired the lands of St Mary's of Stow). {Broctone} does not occur in the text. There was no earl in 1086, his rights devolving on the Crown.

Text:
The Shire testifies that Gunnhvati's land - 1 manor of 1 carucate in lordship - was forfeited, 2 parts [going] to St Mary's [* of Stow *] and the third part for the Earl's use. Likewise concerning all the jurisdiction which belongs to [Gate] Burton or {Broctone}. Likewise also concerning Steingrimr's land, 18 bovates of land.


Notes:
This may imply a claim by the bishop of Lincoln (who acquired the lands of St Mary's of Stow). Several tenants-in-chief held land in `Well': 8 tenants-in-chief other than the bishop held in `Well' wapentake; but not apparently Ralph of Mortimer.

Text:
Concerning all the thanes who have land in `Well' Wapentake, St Mary's has 2 parts of the forfeiture, the Earl the third; likewise concerning heriot. Likewise if they had forfeited their land, two parts [would have been] in St Mary's [* of Stow *] and the third part in the Earl's hands. Now the King has it. In this custom Gilbert of Ghent does not partake nor Robert of Tosny nor Ralph of Mortimer because of their predecessors.


Notes:
The Claims here appear to concern `Aslacoe, in which case Grimkel's estate was Willoughton (47,1), which does not mention Merleswein. Possibly Broughton in `Lawress', where Grimkel held and Ralph Payenel succeeded Merleswein (35,1-2), is intended.

Text:
Before 1066 Grimkel had full jurisdiction over his land, but in 1066 he forfeited it and gave it to Merleswein the sheriff, because he stood accused before the King, and made him heir to it.


Notes:
The bishop's claim to jurisdiction is acknowledged in both entries; the jurisdiction presumably lay in Stow (7,1)

Text:
In Owmby[-by-Spital] Jocelyn has 9 bovates of Aghmund's land and Ivo 1 bovate. Bishop Remigius ought to have the jurisdiction of these.


Notes:
Eskil, not Siward Rufus, is named as the pre-Conquest landowner in 8,16; Siward was possibly his overlord. The 1086 tenant is named, not Ralph, possibly a scribal error: Foster & Langley, p. 56.

Text:
In Northorpe hundred Siward Rufus had 1 carucate of land with full jurisdiction before 1066, and more recently Ralph of Neville held it from Abbot Turold, but he did not have a deliverer for it. Now it is adjudged for the King's use.


Notes:
Swein's 1 1/2 carucates in Laughton is described as a manor not a jurisdiction but marked as subject to a claim by a marginal 'k'; Guy's holding in the same vill is recorded in 57,7.

Text:
In the same hundred ^[Northorpe]^ in Laughton village Guy of Craon claims jurisdiction over Swein's land through his predecessor Ulfgrim, and the Wapentake testifies that Ulfgrim himself had full jurisdiction over the same Swein before 1066.


Notes:
The abbey derived its title from Eskil, who subsequently bequeathed these and other manors to the abbey. Manton is attributed to Rothulfr in the text (8,20), and Muskham to the abbey (NTT 8,2). Rothulfr held other manors bequethed by Eskil (8,14;22).

Text:
The Shire testifies that in 1066 and later Eskil ^[brother of Brand]^ had from King Edward these three manors, Scotton, Scotter and Raventhorpe, under his free authority. Likewise he had Muskham in Nottinghamshire. He held 1 manor, Manton, on lease from his brother [* Abbot *] Brand, the monk.


Claimant:
Norman the fat & Gilbert of Ghent & Henry of Ferrers

Notes:
Ulf Fenman was the principal predecessor of Gilbert of Ghent, and Siward Barn (not named in 63,17) of Henry. Norman the fat did not hold in the wapentake so the basis of his claim is not apparent.

Text:
The West Riding testifies that the claims which have been [made] in Epworth Wapentake have been rightly made. [a] Norman the fat claims 7 bovates of land against Geoffrey of la Guerche in Haxey. [b] Gilbert of Ghent claims 4 carucates of land and 6 bovates against Geoffrey himself. This is Ulf Fenman's land in Belton. [c] Henry of Ferrers claims 3 bovates of land against Geoffrey himself. This is Siward Barn's land in Amcotts. [d] Again, Gilbert of Ghent claims 1/2 carucate of the jurisdiction in Belton against the same Geoffrey which was Ulf Fenman's.


Notes:
Gilbert also held in Walcot (24,93), a jurisdiction of his manor of Folkingham (24,82-105), acquired from his principal predecessor, Ulf Fenman.

Text:
The Wapentake testifies that in Winteringham hundred Erneis of Buron ought to have Veggi's land, that is 6 bovates of land and 1 plot in Gilbert of Ghent's jurisdiction and another plot with full jurisdiction.


Notes:
Ralph had several holdings in `Manley' wapentake but none in Thealby; the king's jurisdiction in Kirton is recorded in 1,64.

Text:
In Thealby hundred Ralph Payenel claims 1 plot. The Wapentake says that he ought to have it himself and the King the jurisdiction in Kirton[-in-Lindsey].


Notes:
Norman had several holdings in `Manley' wapentake but none in Normanby; Drogo held 5 carucates in the vill.

Text:
Norman of Arcy claims 3 bovates of land in Normanby against Drogo [* of la Beuvrière *]. The Wapentake says that the land ought to be his and the jurisdiction Drogo's.


Vill:
Uffington & Tallington & Casewick & Deeping [St James]

Notes:
This statement may have been made to clarify the Alfred's title since Robert of Tosny and Godfrey of Cambrai had predecessors named Arnbiorn in 3 of the 4 named vills: 18,11-12. 51,2.

Text:
`Ness' Wapentake and the whole Riding have testified that the land of Wulfgeat and his mother Wulffled was not Arnbiorn's, his sister's relative, and he only had it in charge until Wulfgeat could hold the land: that is, 7 carucates in Uffington, 6 1/2 carucates in Tallington, 6 bovates in Casewick and 4 bovates - 1/2 carucate - in East Deeping [* Deeping [St James] *].


Notes:
The essential facts are repeated in the entry in the fief of the countess (56,4); Alfred's holding is recorded in 27,34-35.

Text:
The Wapentake says that before 1066 St Peter's of Peterborough had 60 acres of land which Countess Judith has and cultivates with ploughs from Belmesthorpe. The {warnode} of these 60 acres of land and of 48 acres of meadow lies in Uffington [the land] of Alfred of Lincoln, but it has been kept back by force


Notes:
The 1/2 carucate was held by Gilbert of Ghent as a jurisdiction of Gunfrid's manor of Casewick (52,1); the jurors state that Gunfrid should have the land as well as the jurisdiction.

Text:
The Wapentake says that Azur's 1/2 carucate of land in Barholm ought to be Gunfrid of Chocques'.


Notes:
This is presumably stated to clarify the title of the abbey, since the land of an outlaw would be forfeit to the Crown. This Hereward is the famous outlaw, commonly known as Hereward 'the Wake'.

Text:
The Wapentake says that Hereward <of Witham> did not have Asfrith's land in Barholm hundred on the day he fled.


Notes:
Merleswein was Ralph's principal predecessor so the statement impugns Ralph's title, though to whose benefit is unclear: possibly the king, or perhaps Oger who had acquired his main holding from Earl Morcar (42,1-7).

Text:
Ralph Payenel has 6 bovates of land of [* Earl *] Morcar's land in Burton[-le-Coggles] hundred, but Merleswein did not have it before 1066.


Claimant:
Gilbert of Ghent & Abbey of Peterborough

Notes:
Both claims are repeated in the entry on Drogo's fief (30,32). Gilbert's manor of Edenham is recorded in 24,25, and the abbey's manor of Witham in 8,34.

Text:
The Abbot of Peterborough claims 1 bovate of land against Drogo [* of la Beuvrière *] in Witham[-on-the-Hill] hundred. The Wapentake says that the land ought to be St Peter's and the jurisdiction Gilbert of Ghent's in Edenham.


Notes:
Radbod is not named in the text. Both the abbey and Drogo of la Beuvrière (30,31) had holdings of a carucate or more in [Little] Bytham.

Text:
In [Little] Bytham hundred Radbod ought to have 1 carucate of land which he claims, but the jurisdiction is St Peter's of Peterborough.


Notes:
The archbishop's manor of Skillington (2,37) records 'pasturable woodland' of 60 acres in the {warnode} of Bishop Remigius. Neither archbishop or bishop held in Little Bytham so the implication of this statement is not apparent.

Text:
They say that the {warnode} of 4d from 60 acres of woodland which lies in Skillington belongs in [Little?] Bytham.


Holding:
13 acres of woodland & 25 acres of arable

Notes:
Neither of the holdings in Irnham (27,41. 35,14) mention Arnbiorn so the implication of this statement is unclear.

Text:
They say that Arnbiorn had 13 acres of woodland and 25 acres of arable land in Irnham and that it belongs to Aslackby which Robert of Tosny has.


Notes:
The archbishop held in Lenton and Skillington but not Hardwick, only Lenton being recorded as acquired from Ulf. Skillington (2,37) had been held by Earl Morcar and Hardwick by Queen Edith (T2-4): see Whitelock, Wills, no. 39. Ilbold is not named in DB.

Text:
Archbishop Aldred acquired Lenton and Skillington, with the outlier Hardwick, from Ulf son of Topi with his own money which he gave him in the sight of the Wapentake; later they saw the King's seal through which he was possessed of these lands because Ilbold had dispossessed him of them.


Notes:
This section appears to refer to `Flaxwell' Wapentake, where Eskil held in Ashby. Ralph acquired another holding in the vill from Merleswein (35,15), his predecessor, so denial of Merleswein's superiority may imply rejection of a claim made by Ralph.

Text:
The Wapentake says that Eskil was the King's thane and never had his land under Merleswein.


Notes:
Arnketil is not named as holding land in Rauceby, but both Robert of Vessey (37,4) and Geoffrey Alselin (64,8-9) held jurisdictions there whose holders are unnamed; Robert of Stafford had several holdings in the vill (59,12-15).

Text:
Robert of Stafford wrongfully held 6 bovates, a jurisdiction, of Arnketil's land in Rauceby hundred, as the Wapentake says.


Notes:
DB describes the bishop of Durham's holding in Rauceby (3,37) as a jurisdiction of [Silk]_Willoughby, Arnketil's manor held by the bishop of Lincoln; but this statement implies that Remigius had exchanged the jurisdiction for 10 bovates of land.

Text:
They say that Bishop Remigius's claim which he makes concerning Arnketil's jurisdiction in Rauceby hundred is wrongful because he only had 10 bovates himself from the lordship of the same Arnketil's land in exchange, and the whole of the other land was delivered to the Bishop of Durham.


Notes:
Walter manor of Branston (31,11) had no named jurisdiction held by an Alsi; if the entry is in DB, the most likely holding is Kolsveinn's at Marston, acquired from Alsi and held by a Walter, conceivably Aincourt; but this was in Loveden Wapentake.

Text:
The Wapentake says that the 9 bovates of land which Walter of Aincourt claims are a jurisdiction of Branston, the land of Alsi the deacon which Walter has now: therefore he is claiming rightfully.


TenInChief:
Walter of Aincourt & Norman of Arcy & Heppo the bowman

Lord86:
Walter of Aincourt & Norman of Arcy & Heppo the bowman

Overlord66:
Walter of Aincourt & Norman of Arcy & Heppo the bowman

Claimant:
Walter of Aincourt & Norman of Arcy & Heppo

Notes:
Navenby (44,16) and Scopwick are still separated by Scopwick Heath, which was presumably the source of the dispute

Text:
The men of Navenby hold back by force 16s from the customary dues of pasturage which are in Scopwick and Kirkby [Green] and they did not give them before 1066.


Notes:
Robert acquired Metheringham (59,19) from Leofsi, and the archbishop 3 bovates in Hackthorn (in `Aslacoe') from Auti, claiming that 3 bovates - presumably Auti's - lay in the jurisdiction of his manor.

Text:
Robert of Stafford claims that the land of Auti, Archbishop Thomas's man, ought to lie in the jurisdiction of his predecessor, Leofsi, but the Wapentake says that they never saw Auti give the jurisdiction to Leofsi.


Notes:
Othin only holding was at Hainton (16,12), acquired by Roger of Poitou; Potterhanworth (31,17) was held by Walter of Aincourt. There is no indication of the nature of Earl Hugh's claim.

Text:
Concerning Earl Hugh's claim, they say that Othin had the land before 1066 and the jurisdiction lay in Potterhanworth.


Notes:
6 tenants-in-chief held in Canwick any one of whom could have been the subject of the claim; Swartbrand held in nearby vill of Metheringham (68,4).

Text:
In Canwick Swartbrand claims 140 acres. The Wapentake bears witness in favour of him because his father, Ulf, gave 1 gold mark in pledge for this land.


Notes:
Countess Judith did not hold in Marston; the holding referred to was probably that held by Osbern the priest (54,1), acquired from Thorfridh, probably Almer's brother of 56,7.

Text:
In Ponton Countess Judith holds 2 manors which were Almer's and his brothers'. Robert of Tosny claims them, and the Wapentake bears witness for him that they were delivered to him in exchange for Marston.


Notes:
Robert of Tosny held the vill of Woolsthorpe[-by-Belvoir] (18,27-28); Robert of Stafford's manor of Casthorpe is recorded in 59,2.

Text:
In Casthorpe Robert of Tosny claims 2 bovates and 2 plots against Robert Malet and the Wapentake says they ought to lie in Woolsthorpe[-by-Belvoir]. Concerning 1 garden in the same village they say that it ought to lie in Robert of Stafford's [manor of] Casthorpe.


Notes:
Northmann's holding is not recorded in the text but was probably the 7 'plots' claimed by the bishop in the royal manor of Grantham (1,9) and 2 bovates of its jurisdiction in Gonerby (1,10). The Bishop of Durham had a manor in Gonerby (3,31).

Text:
They say that Northmann son of Merewin had 7 gardens in ?rq? Grantham and their jurisdiction belongs there, but the gardens themselves belong to Gonerby. They say likewise concerning 2 bovates of land which belong to Gonerby and the jurisdiction lies in Grantham.


Notes:
Neither Ivo Tallboys or Robert of Tosny are recorded as holding in Stenwith, the single holding in the vill being held by Robert Malet (58,5). The comment on the division of land may have wide-ranging implications for the administration of the settlement.

Text:
Ivo Tallboys claims 2 carucates of land, less 30 acres, in Stenwith against Robert of Tosny for which he pays the tax himself. Concerning this, they say that it is right that they themselves should go over this land and divide it rightly in proportion to the tax they pay.


Notes:
Both tenants-in-chief had a predecessor named Karli (12,52;55. 59,4-6) though he is not recorded as holding in Stoke [Rochford] or `Winnibriggs' wapentake.

Text:
In Stoke [Rochford] half hundred Robert of Stafford claims Karli's land, 3 carucates of land. The Wapentake says that this land was Ralph the constable's and the said Robert has nothing there.


Notes:
The holdings of St Wulfram's of Grantham in the 2 wapentakes constitute the fief of the bishop of Salisbury.

Text:
They say that the tithes and customary church dues from `Winnibriggs' Wapentake and `Threo' Wapentake, from all the jurisdictions and {inlands} which the King has there, belong to the church of Grantham; see also CK62.


Notes:
Judith held 7 1/2 carucates in Thurlby, as a jurisdiction of her manor of Eagle (56,14); Osbern had no recorded holding in Thurlby.

Text:
Osbern, the King's officer, claims 1 carucate of land in Thurlby which by the Wapentake's witness he ought to have and to render the jurisdiction in Eagle, Countess Judith's manor.


Notes:
Neither tenant-in-chief is recorded as holding in the vill and only Drogo held land in the wapentake (30,27) so the nature of the dispute is not apparent.

Text:
Drogo of la Beuvrière claims 10 bovates of land, a jurisdiction, in Thurlby against Osbern of Arques, but the Wapentake says that he is claiming them wrongfully.


Vill:
Haddington & Hykeham & Skellingthorpe & Whisby

Notes:
The claim is repeated in the account of Baldwin's fief, which adds 8 carucates in North Hykeham (65,5); Aelfric's grant is rehearsed in a writ of the Conqueror; see also 9,1.

Text:
Concerning the claim which the Abbot of Westminster makes against Baldwin [* of Flanders *] about the land and jurisdiction of Aelric son of Mergeat, they say that they heard that the same Aelric gave it to St Peter's, but they do not know whether [it was] the whole or the half. However, they say that in Haddington there are 8 1/2 carucates of land, a jurisdiction and {inland} of Doddington, in [South] Hykeham 4 carucates of land, a jurisdiction of Doddington, in Skellingthorpe 12 carucates, a jurisdiction of Doddington, and in Whisby 6 carucates of land, {inland} and a jurisdiction of Doddington. The Abbot of Westminster claims the whole of this because the head manor was given to St Peter's. All the County bears witness in favour of St Peter's.


Notes:
The abbey held 6 carucates and 2 bovates in Thorpe, part of which was a jurisdiction of Doddington; Kofsi was the predecessor of Ralph of Mortimer so statement this may imply a claim on his behalf.

Text:
The Wapentake says that Kofsi had 10 bovates of land and 1 ?rq? church in the jurisdiction of Thorpe[-on-the-Hill].


Notes:
Neither Ulf or Swartbrand held in Hykeham or in Graffoe Wapentake so the basis of Swartbrand's claim is not apparent; the claim is repeated in the entry for North Hykeham (12,92).

Text:
The Wapentake says that Siward, not Ulf - Swartbrand's father -, had the manor of 4 carucates of land in North Hykeham, and therefore his claim is not right.


Notes:
The one manor in Ewerby was Kolgrim's (67,1) so this statement appears to imply a claim on his behalf.

Text:
They say that the 6 bovates of land in Austhorpe which were Godric's and now are Martin's, ought to be {inland} of Ewerby.


Notes:
Merleswein was Ralph's principal predecessor so the statement amounts to a denial of Ralph's claim. Thorkil and Algar held 1 carucate and 6 bovates in Heckington as 2 manors, the carucate presumably being Thorkil's.

Text:
Ralph Payenel claims against Kolsveinn [* of Lincoln *] in Heckington 6 bovates, land which was Algar the deacon's. The Wapentake says that Merleswein, Ralph's predecessor, did not have it.


Notes:
Waldin did not hold in Quarrington, nor did he succeed elsewhere to anyone who had held in the vill, so the basis of his claim is not apparent.

Text:
In Quarrington Waldin the Breton claims 14 bovates of land against the Abbot of Ramsey, but the Wapentake says that he does not claim it rightly.


Notes:
The Bishop of Lincoln's holding in Quarrington mentions neither Arnketil nor a pledge, and Arnketil himself is not recorded as holding in the vill, though he had 3 other properties in the wapentake (67,5-6 and 68,26).

Text:
Also in Quarrington Bishop Remigius claims that he held Arnketil's land in pledge, but [Arnketil] denies this and holds from the King.


Notes:
Thorkil is not named in the entry for Kirkby, his holding presumably being subsumed in the 5 carucates of the manor.

Text:
Kolsveinn [* of Lincoln *] claims 2 bovates of land and 1 garden against the King in Kirkby[-la-Thorpe] from Earl Morcar's land which Thorkil held. The Wapentake says both that the jurisdiction was Earl Morcar's and that this land does not lie in another manor.


Notes:
Both Robert (58,3) and Gilbert (24,29) held in Ingoldsby and both had predecessors named Azur, possibly the source of this dispute. Azur is not named in either entry. See also the note to the printed volume.

Text:
In Ingoldsby Robert Malet claims jurisdiction over 4 bovates of land which Gilbert of Ghent has. The Wapentake says that Robert himself ought to have it through Azur, his predecessor.


Notes:
Robert of Vessey acquired his entire fief from Aelric; his holding in Caythorpe was the only one in the vill.

Text:
In Caythorpe hundred Gilbert of Ghent claims against Robert of Vessey the meadow which was Aelric [* son of Mergeat *]'s, his predecessor, but the Wapentake says that the same Aelric had the whole meadow, and Gilbert's predecessor did not have anything of it except by renting it for money.


Notes:
This may imply a claim by Count Alan, who held in the same vill (12,46), or by the tenant, or the priest of the vill.

Text:
The Wapentake testifies that the tithe and the other customary dues of Carlton [Scroop] lie in the church of the same village.


Notes:
Like William of Warenne, Count Alan held in both vills (12,46;49) which may have been the source of the dispute.

Text:
In [Long] Bennington Count Alan claims 10 bovates of land, but the Wapentake says that they belong to Carlton [Scroop], William of Warenne's manor, and that Earl Harold, his predecessor, had them thus.


Notes:
Thorfridh's land in Loveden Wapentake was held by Osbern the priest; neither the bishop's nor Northmann's interest is recorded in the main text.

Text:
The Bishop of Durham claims 2 bovates of land in Marston from Thorfridh's land. Concerning this, they say that Northmann gave Thorfridh himself 3 gold marks for this land before 1066, and after 1066 he gave a fourth mark.


Notes:
Drogo acquired Earl Morcar's manors in 4 wapentakes; but all those in Aveland went to Oger (42,1;3-5;7-8).

Text:
The men of Aveland Wapentake testify that the manor [of] Bourne was Earl Morcar's before 1066. Now Oger [* the Breton *] has it from the King. Drogo claims it, but wrongfully.


Notes:
Heppo held a jurisdiction of 3 bovates in Dyke (61,2), possibly a duplicate (but see CK42); he also held the manor of Haconby (61,1). Oger had another jurisdiction in Dyke (42,5) which may have been the source of confusion.

Text:
The Wapentake says that the 3 1/2 bovates which Oger [* the Breton *] has in Dyke lie in Haconby and are by rights Heppo the bowman's.


Notes:
Heppo, who held Haconby (61,1), had a holding of the same size (61,3), perhaps resulting from a division. The implication is unclear: either the land or the superiority was Heppo's, perhaps the land since the superiority is ackowledged in Oger's entries.

Text:
They say that 1 carucate of land in Morton, {inland}, and 1 1/2 bovates in Hanthorpe, a jurisdiction, belong to Haconby, and were there before 1066 and [that] Leofric had them.


Notes:
Morton was a jurisdiction of Quarrington, a manor of the Abbey of Ramsey (10,1).

Text:
They say that also in Morton St Benedict's of Ramsey ought to have 1/2 carucate of land with full jurisdiction. Oger [* the Breton *] holds it wrongfully.


Notes:
Haconby was a jurisdiction of Edenham, a manor of Gilbert of Ghent acquired from Ulf Fenman (24,25).

Text:
They say that in Haconby Oger [* the Breton *] holds wrongfully 9 bovates of land because Gilbert of Ghent ought to have them through Ulf Fenman, his predecessor, who had them before 1066.


Notes:
The chronicle of Hugh Candidus (ed. Mellows, p. 69) claims that Healfdene's land was granted King William to the Bishop of Lincoln but that Dunsby had been held from the abbey at a rent and so was rightfully the abbey's: see also Whitelock, Wills, no 39.

Text:
The Wapentake says that Healfdene [* son of Topi *]'s land in Dunsby, which Bishop Remigius holds and the Abbot of Peterborough claims, was not St Peter's before 1066.


Notes:
Rippingale is associated with Ringstone where Robert of Tosny's predecessors were Aslak and Dene (18,15-16), possibly the men of one of Robert's principal predecessors, Thorgot and Arnbiorn, probably the latter: see CK47.

Text:
In Rippingale Oger [* the Breton *] holds 1 carucate of land which the Wapentake says was Robert of Tosny's predecessor's.


Notes:
Robert of Tosny held in Kirkby [Underwood] (18,16) and Arnbiorn was one of his principal predecessors so this may imply a claim on his behalf; see also CK46.

Text:
They say that Osfram's land in Kirkby [Underwood] was not in Arnbiorn's jurisdiction.


Notes:
DB records Crowland as holding Rippingale 'for the monks' supplies'; Hereward appears to have had an interest in part of the vill elsewhere (42,11).

Text:
They say that St Guthlac's [* of Crowland *] land which Oger [* the Breton *] holds in Rippingale was lordship revenue of the monks, and that Abbot Ulfkil assigned it to Hereward <of Witham> at a revenue as might be agreed between them each year, but the Abbot repossessed it before Hereward fled from the country because he had not held to the agreement.


Notes:
Both the abbey (42,13) and Guy (57,10) had manors in Rippingale, a possible source of confusion; Dowsby is entered as a manor, not a jurisdiction, on Guy's fief,

Text:
They say that the jurisdiction of 3 carucates of land in Dowsby, which Osfram had in pledge and was later redeemed, ought to lie in Rippingale, St Guthlac's [* of Crowland *] manor. They say it was thus before 1066 and later until Guy of Craon took possession of it.


Notes:
Possibly a reference to Earl Morcar's lands retained by the king though 7 other tenants-in-chief also held in the same area.

Text:
The claims which Drogo of la Beuvrière makes on the lands of [* Earl *] Morcar they leave to the King's judgement.


Notes:
Ralph the constable, Count Alan's principal predecessor, is not named in the Billingborough entry; both the count (12,52;55) and Robert (59,4-6) had a predecessor named Karli, presumably the source of the conflict.

Text:
They say that Robert of Stafford wrongfully claims Karli's land in Billingborough because the same Karli held it from Ralph the constable.


Notes:
The facts are re-stated in the Bishop's entry (3,32) for the whole holding at Newton, Wulfgeat's share being duplicated in 67,10.

Text:
They say that Wulfric Wilde's land in Walcot hundred ought to be half the Bishop of Durham's, and half that of a certain man Wulfgeat who has it in alms from the King.


Notes:
Ralph is not recorded as having land or jurisdiction in Osbournby or a predecessor named Aelfric so the basis of his claim is not apparent.

Text:
Ralph Payenel claims full jurisdiction over Aelfric [* son of Godram *]'s land which Guy of Craon has in Osbournby. The Wapentake says that the same Ralph ought to have 1 horse from this land whenever he goes on a [military] expedition


Notes:
The facts concerning the 2 carucates are restated in the entry (26,53). The statement of immunity might have been made to pre-empt similar claims in Pickworth or for Auti's other lands.

Text:
In Pickworth there are 2 carucates of land which were Auti's and now are Kolsveinn [* of Lincoln *]'s. They are not in the count of any hundred and do not have their like in Lincolnshire.


Notes:
The entry on Walter's fief does not mention a pledge, and neither statement is unambiguous about the date, so the implication is unclear. Robert of Tosny had a predecessor named Thori who held in this wapentake.

Text:
Concerning Thori's land in [Old] Somerby which Walter of Aincourt has, they say that before 1066 they saw the same Thori have it, but in 1066 Northmann held it in pledge. The men of the Wapentake do not know on what basis because they have not seen him perform any service for it.


Notes:
Neither Peterborough or Westminster had interests in the Wapentake so St Peter's is perhaps the manorial church, the statement 'defining parochial obligation tenurially': Blair, Church in Anglo-Saxon Society, p. 499.

Text:
They say that the tithe and other customs [due] to the church from Thori's land in Ropsley hundred belong to St Peter's church [* of Ropsley *].


Notes:
Walter held in the adjacent vill of Belton (31,1), perhaps the source of his claim.

Text:
Walter of Aincourt claims the service of Guy of Raimbeaucourt's men in the manor of Syston, but he does not have a just claim.


Notes:
Drogo did not hold land in the wapentake but he had a predecessor named Aethelstan (30,33-35;37), perhaps the source of his claim

Text:
In Welby hundred Drogo claims 4 carucates of land against Guy of Craon, but the Wapentake bears witness in favour of Guy that they are rightly his.


Notes:
The king had no holding in Belton; Walter held 4 carucates there.

Text:
They say that Walter of Aincourt ought not to have 1/2 carucate of land which he claims against the King in Belton, but the King [ought to have it].


Notes:
Guy held 1/2 carucate in Belton (57,25). Kolgrim held in the same vill, but acquired his holding from a different predecessor, Roald (67,13). Both holdings were connected to 'Towthorpe', providing several possible sources of conflict.

Text:
Also in Belton Kolgrim ought to have 1 bovate of land of Algar's land which Guy of Craon has, but the jurisdiction belongs to Guy in `Towthorpe'.


Notes:
Guy & Ingelrann of Raimbeaucourt held this meadow, its manorial status undefined; Kolgrim had a manor in Belton (67,13).

Text:
They say that before 1066 Young Leofric withheld the {warnode} of 10 acres of meadow also in Belton. Kolgrim claims the jurisdiction of these 10 acres.


Notes:
This claim had earlier been made for `Winnibriggs' & `Threo' Wapentakes (CK24); it is not apparent why `Westhorpe' was singled out for separate treatment.

Text:
They say that the whole of the customs [due] to the church and the tithe from `Westhorpe' belong to the church of Grantham, as Bishop Osmund claims.


Notes:
Both tenants-in-chief had jurisdictions in Honington, dependant upon manors held by Ulf Fenman (14,89) and Godwin <of Teigh> (24,84) respectively; Azur is unnamed but presumably held 2 1/2 of Ulf's 3 carucates from him.

Text:
In Honington hundred Gilbert claims the jurisdiction of 2 1/2 carucates of land through his predecessor Ulf, but the Wapentake says that Ivo ought to have the jurisdiction as Azur, his predecessor, had it from Ulf.


Claimant:
Kolsveinn of Lincoln & Robert of Stafford

Notes:
Kolsveinn held land in Barkston (26,33) but Robert did not hold in either vill or wapentake; his claim may have been based upon his predecessor, Thorfridh (59,13-14).

Text:
Robert of Stafford claims 2 mills which are in Barkston, and Kolsveinn [* of Lincoln *] likewise claims them. The Wapentake says that they lie in Marston and their jurisdiction in Grantham.


Notes:
The entry for Count Alan's fief repeats the claims of the Abbey of Ramsey and of Bishop Remigius (through his predecessor) but state that they do not know on what basis Bishop Wulfwige held from the abbey.

Text:
In Drayton hundred Count Alan has 1 carucate of land from St Benedict's of Ramsey. Bishop Remigius claims it and the Wapentake bears witness in favour of him that ^[Bishop]^ Wulfwige, his predecessor, held it from St Benedict's before 1066.


Notes:
Count Alan had holdings in Drayton and Bicker (a jurisdiction) acquired from Earl Ralph the constable (12,60;75); Guy's holding in Drayton emphasised its manorial status, perhaps the  source of the conflicting claims. Algar is not named.

Text:
Guy of Craon holds 4 bovates of land in Drayton and 10 bovates in Bicker hundred from the land of Aethelstan son of Godram. Count Alan claims these, and Algar, his man, has given a pledge to the King's barons to establish by court-judgement or by combat that Aethelstan ^[son of Godram]^ himself was not in possession of these 14 bovates before 1066. Against this Guy's man, Alstan of Frampton, has given his pledge to prove that he was in possession of them with full jurisdiction, and that Guy was in possession of them from the time of Ralph the constable until now, and he holds them now.


Notes:
Several of the Bishop of Lincoln's manors (7,16;18;20;22;27;30-33) had been acquired from Healfdene (son of Topi), possibly this Healfdene of Steyning.

Text:
The men of Holland testify that Healfdene [* son of Topi *], Bishop Remigius's predecessor, had in Steyning 3 carucates of land without interference which Count Alan now has and [has] wrongfully because the Bishop was in possession of them.


Notes:
A Thorkil was Alfred's predecessor on several manors (27,15-18;40;51-53) but not of the Count elsewhere.

Text:
Alfred of Lincoln claims 1 carucate of land in Quadring against Count Alan. The men of Holland agree with the same Alfred both that it was his predecessor's, and [that] he himself was in possession of it in the time of Earl Ralph.


Notes:
Earl Ralph the constable, Count's Alan's principal predecessor, is named as overlord of the 6 bovates in the entry for Gosberton.

Text:
Gyrthr, Count Alan's man, gave a pledge to affirm that Count Alan's predecessor had 6 bovates of land with full jurisdiction in Gosberton and therefore Guy of Craon does not claim them rightly.


Notes:
Neither a monastery or church of Sutton, or a Ketil of Sutton, appears to be to be recorded in Sutton or in the royal manor of Tydd [St Mary] (1,28). (Ivo Tallboys had a church there, in an outlier of Spalding: 14,98).

Text:
The men of Holland testify that the jurisdiction of Ketil of Sutton's minster [church] of [Long] Sutton lies in the King's manor of Tydd [St Mary].


Notes:
12,84 records that Count Alan held 5 carucates of the jurisdiction of Gedney adjudged for the king's use; 1,33 (a duplicate?) states they are in the king's hands. The sixth carucate is probably included in 12,83 & 1,32. None mention a royal gift.

Text:
The 6 carucates of land which the King's officers claim in Holbeach lay in the King's manor of Gedney. Now Count Alan has them as one manor by the King's gift.


