A list of the Holders of Land in Kent c. 1120

A LIST OF THE HOLDERS OF LAND IN KENT, c.1120

colin flight

The twelfth-century document printed below by permission of the British Library seems to survive only in one late sixteenth-century copy. Presumably for that reason, it has seldom been consulted by historians. The first person to cite it (as far as the author knows) was Elton (1867, 145-6), who gave a brief report of its contents, not altogether accurate. Alerted to its existence by reading Elton’s book, Round looked at the text, transcribed it, but ‘came to the conclusion that it was not sufficiently trustworthy for publication’, because the names, he thought, ‘involve some anachronism’ (Round 1895, 109). That dismissive remark of Round’s was apparently enough to reconsign the text to oblivion.¹ In the author’s view, it deserves a better fate than that. To the extent that he has been able to make sense of it, he has not discovered any significant anachronisms. There are certainly some surprises; but it would be a greater surprise if there were not.

The sole surviving copy occurs in a compilation of excerpts from the Exchequer records, mostly the work of a single scribe, now British Library, Cotton Claudius C. iv. A note written into the manuscript by Cotton (fo. 2r) states that he obtained it from Lord Burghley; otherwise its history seems to be unknown. The contents largely coincide with those of the Red Book of the Exchequer (Public Record Office, E 164/2). A seventeenth-century librarian (who added a note to this effect on fo. 1r) took the Claudius manuscript to be a mere transcript of the Red Book, but the case is a little more complicated than that. The section relating to scutages (fos. 3r-41v) is certainly derived (directly or indirectly) from the Red Book, because it incorporates the explanatory passages supplied by the Red Book’s compiler. On the other hand, the section relating to the Cartae baronum of 1166 (fos. 52r-153v) presents a conflated text. Basically it derives from the compilation called the Little Black Book (PRO, E 164/12); but some headings and other elements derive from the Red Book.2 Since there is no sign that the conflation was occurring in Claudius, it seems likely that Claudius was a clean copy of a somewhat earlier transcript, where these additions had already been dovetailed into the text.

However that may be, the following text does not derive from either of these sources, nor from any other identifiable source. The only clue to its provenance is in the heading, where we are told that it comes ‘from a trustworthy very old book’. That remark (which perhaps originated in Claudius’s exemplar) seems to be intended to tell us that this text is not to be found in any of the well-known sources – such as the Red Book or the Little Black Book – but only in a little-known source which seems none the less to be reliable. As far as the author can see, it is futile to guess at what that ‘very old book’ might have been. We have to take this text as it stands and judge it on its own merits.

The text is a record of the assessments for danegeld, distributed among the tenants who hold directly from the king. It consists of two parallel lists: a list of the names of the holders of land in Kent, and a list of the numbers of sulungs for which each holder is liable. Considering that it must have been copied several times, the text is in surprisingly good shape. Some of the names are corrupted, but none to the point of becoming unrecognizable;³ some of the numbers may be corrupted too, but that is harder to decide.

A glance through the names which appear in this list is enough to prove that it dates from around the middle of the reign of Henric I. Sheriff Willelm (line 9) must be Willelm de Einesford; because he held no lands directly from the king,⁴ he appears here only in his official capacity. His term of office can be dated quite closely (Green 1990, 50),⁵ and it follows that this list is not earlier than 1114, not later than 1129. The later bound can be improved upon, because in a list drawn up after 1125 the count of Boulogne (line 5) would have been replaced by his daughter’s husband, the count of Mortain. If we could think it certain that Eudo the steward (line 19) was still alive at the time, the dating could be sharpened up still further, because Eudo died at the end of 1119;⁶ but in his case there was no heir who would instantly take his place, and a dead man’s name might perhaps be retained, in a list of this sort, until someone else was firmly in possession.⁷ In short, there seems to be no reason not to think that what we have here is a tolerably accurate account of the state of affairs existing in Kent at the time – a state which did not exist before 1114 and which had ceased to exist after 1125. Apparently Round must have thought that some entries were incompatible with this dating; but he did not say, and the author is disinclined to guess, which entries he had in mind.

The situation described to us here is earlier, by a margin of 5-15 years, than the situation of which we catch glimpses in the solitary surviving Exchequer roll for this period, the roll drawn up in September 1130 (PRO, E 372/1).⁸ By that time, the count of Mortain had succeeded the count of Boulogne, in Kent as everywhere else; the earl of Gloucester and Robert de Crevequer had each acquired a share of the lands of Hamo the steward (line 13); and Willelm Patric had established himself in Kent, taking the place (so it seems) of Tirel de Maineres (line 27). There are two danegeld accounts for Kent included in this roll. One covers the arrears of the previous year’s geld (E 372/1, p. 66), brought forward from the roll for 1129; the other, more importantly, covers the current geld, over 98 per cent of which has already been accounted for to the Exchequer’s satisfaction (E 372/1, pp. 67-8), though a small sum remains to be carried forward into the roll for 1131.⁹ Roughly speaking, half of the money has been paid into the treasury: about this we are given no further information. The other half has been forgiven: a writ exists notifying the Exchequer that a certain person is not to be made to pay a certain sum of money which, in the absence of this writ, he would be expected to pay. The sums forgiven are itemized for us – there are 21 of them here – but we are not told why or with respect to what the payment has been remitted. In some instances we can guess at the explanation,10 but often the circumstances are obscure.¹¹

text

As it appears in the manuscript (BL, Cotton Claudius C. iv, fos. 154v-155r), the text is not very carefully written, and in places it is difficult to read. Ignoring a few slips of the pen, the author aims to print what the scribe intended to write (see p. 364). He has numbered the lines for reference and made one correction at the end (line 36).

comments

The following comments are as brief as the author can make them. They are intended to point the reader towards the relevant entries in the ‘Domesday Book’ booklet for Kent (DB = PRO, E 31/2, fos. 0-15); but exact references are generally not provided, because the indexes to any edition of DB – such as Morgan’s (1983) – will enable the necessary connections to be made. For the later history of the baronies recorded here, the author has simply cited the relevant paragraph in Sanders’s (1963) book; but much work still remains to be done in working out the family trees and tracing the descent of property. The trees which appear below are included only to simplify the exposition: they are not meant to be complete.

1 Abbey of St Augustine, 145.75 sulungs. The abbey continues to hold the land that it held in 1086. In the danegeld account for 1162 a deduction of 3588 pence, equivalent to 149.5 sulungs, is allowed for St Augustine’s; apparently a little more land had been acquired by then.

De Suylingis Comitatus Kanciæ, et qui eas tenent.

Ex valde veteri libro fidedigno.

[1] Abbacia sancti Augustini, c sul’ et 45 et 3 iuga

[2] Canonici sancti Martini, 24 sul’ et c acras et 32

[3] Ecclesia sancti Petri de Gand de Grenewch, 2 suling’

[4] Simon de Molins, 41 Suling’

[5] Comes Eustachius, 11 suling’ de terra Ep’i b’ 1 sul’

[6] Niwentona, 7 suling’ et dim’

[7] Comes Leicestriæ, 2 suling’ et dim’

[8] Ep’us Lincolniæ, 13 Suling’ et dim’

[9] Willelmus vic’ de eo dim’ sul’ præter 6 sul’ de loneis

[10] Ruelandus de Albric, 39 Sul’

[11] Comes de Gisnes, 12 sul’ et dim’

[12] Baldwinus falconarius, dim’ suling’

[13] Hamo dapifer, 43 suling’ et 3 iuga

[14] Nigellus de Albineio, 3 suling’

[15] Willelmus de Albineio, 15 suling’

[16] Ricardus filius Gileberti, 13 suling’

[17] Patricius de Caurtio, 4 suling’

[18] Mansorus Arsic, 4 suling’ et dim’

[19] Eudo Dapifer, 57 suling’ et dim’ et 1 iug’

[20] Fulbertus de Doura, 27 sul’

[21] Willelmus Peuerel, 31 sul’ (lee)i (et)c dim’ (sul’)i (et 1 iug’)c

[22] Hugo Maminot, 39 sul’

[23] Helte filius Ansgodi, 7 sul’

[24] Peuerel de London, 3 suling’ pro Becheham

[25] Galfridus Talebot, 25 suling’

[26] Henricus de Pot, 26 sul’ et dim’

[27] Tirel’ de Maneriis, 15 suling’ et 3 iug’ et dim’

[28] Godwinus frenesena, 2 sul’

[29] Robertus de Hasting’, 1 suling’ et 1 iug’

[30] Robertus Malet, 1 suling’ et dim’

[31] Randulfus de Valbadun, dim’ iug’

[32] Radulfus Canutus, dim’ suling’

[33] Aschetellus de Peccham, 2 suling’

[34] Archiep’us et Ep’us Roffæ habent in dominio 56 suling’ et 3 iuga

[35] Archiep’us et idem Ep’us habent 300 sul’ et 35 suling’ et 3 iuga gildantes,

[36] in Hoe et Boxele …

[37] M iiiixx et i

2 Canons of St Martin (of Dover), 24 sulungs and 132 acres. The canons continue to hold the land that they held in 1086.

3 Church of St Peter of Gent, 2 sulungs of Greenwich. The abbey continues to hold the land that it held in 1086.

4 Simon de Molins, 41 sulungs. These are the lands which in 1086 were held by Hugo de Montfort. Simon acquired them by marrying Hugo’s daughter Adelina.¹² Honour of the Constabulary, alias the honour of Haughley, Suffolk, or the honour of the count of Le Perche (Sanders 1963, 120).

5 Eustachius count (of Boulogne), 11 sulungs, 1 sulung of the land of the bishop of Bayeux. The count continues to hold the land that he held in 1086. The author cannot identify the extra sulung; perhaps it was part of Hoo.¹³ Honour of the count of Boulogne (Sanders 1963, 151).

6 Newington, 7.5 sulungs. This is Newington near Sittingbourne, held in 1086 by Albert the chaplain. Apparently Newington was in the king’s hand when the present list was drawn up. Not long before this, it was held by Radulf Goiz (Johnson and Cronne 1956, nos. 1140-2, 1157); not long afterwards it was held by Avelina, Ricard de Luci’s mother.¹⁴

7 (Robert) earl of Leicester, 2.5 sulungs. The manors in question are Hastingleigh and Goodnestone (near Faversham). In 1086, Hasting-leigh was held by Roger son of Anschetil from the bishop of Bayeux; the only other manor held by this man is listed in DB under Faversham hundred, but its name is given, probably by error, as Eastling. Second-tier barony of Weston Turville, Bucks. (Crouch 1986, 116-20), included in the honour of the earl of Leicester (Sanders 1963, 61).

8 (Robert Bloet) bishop of Lincoln, 13.5 sulungs. This is a difficult entry – complicated further by the following line – and the author has not been able to make much sense of it. One of Robert’s acquisitions in Kent was probably Wickhambreaux, formerly held in domain by the bishop of Bayeux.¹⁵

9 Willelm the sheriff, 0.5 sulungs from him, in addition to 6 sulungs of Lessness. The meaning of this line appears to be that some of Robert Bloet’s land has been taken into the king’s hands and is being administered by the sheriff, Willelm de Einesford. The sheriff has custody of an unnamed half sulung; he also has custody of 6 sulungs of Lessness (= Erith). At around this time, the abbot of Westminster was trying to recover Lessness from Robert Bloet (Johnson and Cronne 1956, no. 1383); possibly the land was taken into the king’s hands pending a resolution of that dispute.

10 Rualon de Avrences, 39 sulungs. These are the lands – Folkestone and all its dependencies – which in 1086 were held by Willelm de Arches from the bishop of Bayeux. Willelm’s daughter Emma inherited his lands in England (Stapleton 1846). By the date of this list, though Emma was still alive, she was not in possession of Folkestone, which had passed to the husband of her daughter by her first marriage. It continued with Rualon’s heirs. Barony of Folkestone (Sanders 1963, 45).

11 (Manasser) count of Guînes, 12.5 sulungs. This is Newington (near Hythe), omitted from DB. In 1095 it was held by Beatrix, the widow of Willelm de Arches (line 10): the document which reports this fact calls Newington her dower, but also proves that she held it on terms entitling her to give away some of its assets (Caley, Ellis and Bandinel 1817-30, 4, 674). By the time that this list was drawn up, Newington had passed to Beatrix’s daughter’s second husband. In 1130 the count of Guînes was forgiven payment of geld for 12.5 sulungs (E372/1, p. 67). His successors continued in possession of Newington (with some interruptions) till the early thirteenth century.¹⁶

12 Baldwin the falconer, 0.5 sulungs. Presumably Falconhurst (TR 0734), later held by serjeanty.¹⁷ This entry looks out of place here: it seems to belong with lines 28-33.

13 Hamo the steward, 43.75 sulungs. The nucleus of Hamo’s holding is the lands which in 1086 were held by his father, the elder Hamo, either directly from the king or from the bishop of Bayeux. The elder Hamo, apparently still alive in 1086, was dead by 1088:¹⁸ he left two sons, Robert and Hamo. It is to be assumed that the bulk of the inheritance passed to the elder son, Robert son of Hamo, who died in 1107; through Robert’s daughter Mabilia it then passed (before 1114) to one of the king’s bastard sons, another Robert, who in 1121-2 was created earl of Gloucester. But Mabilia’s husband does not appear in this list (neither as ‘Robert the king’s son’ nor as ‘the earl of Gloucester’), and it therefore seems certain – if this list is to be trusted – that Hamo’s lands in Kent had passed to his younger son, who also succeeded his father as sheriff of Kent. (Presumably this was the result of some arrangement worked out within the family and approved by the king.) By the time that this list was drawn up, the younger Hamo had, so it seems, acquired for himself a large amount of extra land: if the figure given here is correct, his holding exceeded his father’s by more than 30 sulungs.

It is not known when the younger Hamo died. He was still alive, and (by implication) still serving as sheriff, after 1114 (Johnson and Cronne 1956, no. 1161). He was replaced as sheriff within the next year or two (no later than 1116), but may have lived on in retirement. He was certainly dead by 1129,¹⁹ and his property had been divided. In the Exchequer roll for 1130, Robert de Crevequer is found paying an instalment of the money that he had promised ‘for a share of the land of Hamo the steward’.²⁰

The clue to what had been happening was first discovered by Colvin (1964, 11-12). As well as the land which he held from the kind and the bishop of Bayeux, the elder Hamo held some land from the archbishop. All this land was in Kent; like the rest of his land in Kent, it passed to his younger son. A list of the archbishop’s knights, which largely describes the situation existing in the 1090s, records that (the younger) Hamo is answerable for six knight’s fees.²¹ A later list, which describes the situation existing around 1170, divides these six fees equally between the earl of Gloucester and Daniel de Crevequer, the sons respectively of Robert Earl of Gloucester and Robert de Crevequer. Thus it appears that the younger Hamo’s lands were divided, more or less equally, between the husband of his niece Mabilia and (so it seems) the husband of another niece, whose name was Roesia.²² The doubtful point is the relationship between Roesia and Mabilia. Under the rules which applied in the thirteenth century, it would be difficult to understand how Roesia could have been entitled to a share of Mabilia’s uncle’s land without also being entitled to a share of Mabilia’s father’s land; but the rules were much more flexible in the early twelfth century. The simplest guess would be that she was Mabilia’s younger sister, and that her claim to a share could be ignored or (for a price) respected, depending on the circumstances.²³

The upshot was this. After the date of this list but before 1129, the younger Hamo’s lands were divided between the earl of Gloucester and Robert de Crevequer. By and large, the earl got all of the manors held in 1086 by the elder Hamo and a few of the manors acquired by the younger Hamo; Robert got the remainder, principally Chatham and Leeds. Honour of the earl of Gloucester, the earl’s share (Sanders 1963, 6);²⁴ barony of Chatham, alias Leeds, Robert de Crevequer’s share (Sanders 1963, 31).

14 Nigel de Albigni, 3 sulungs. This is the land at Easole which before 1086 had been held by Adelold from the bishop of Bayeux, but which in 1086 was in the king’s hands. Nigel gave it to the monks of St Alban’s, probably before 1114 (Greenway 1972, nos. 2-3; Johnson and Cronne 1956, no. 1161), but he may still have been liable for paying the geld himself.

15 Willelm de Albigni, 15 sulungs. These are the lands which were later held by the counts of Eu from the earls of Arundel. The principal manors were Elham and Bilsington, both of which in 1086 were held in domain by the bishop of Bayeux. Honour of the earl of Arundel (Sanders 1963, 1).

16 Ricard son of Gilbert, 13 sulungs. These are the lands which in 1086 were held by Ricard’s grandfather, Ricard son of count Gilbert, either directly from the king or from the bishop of Bayeux. Honour of the earl of Clare (Sanders 1963, 34).

17 Patric de Caources, 4 sulungs. These are the lands which in 1086 were held by Ernulf de Hesding from the bishop of Bayeux. Patric de Caources, who married Ernulf’s daughter Mathildis, acquired a large share of Ernulf’s lands, including all his manors in Kent. Second-tier barony of Chelsfield, treated here as part of the barony of Kempsford, Gloucs (Sanders 1963, 125), but later included in the honour of the earl of Pembroke.²⁵

18 Manasser Arsic, 4.5 sulungs. These are the lands which in 1086 were held by Wadard from the bishop of Bayeux. Barony of Cogges, Oxon. (Sanders 1963, 36).

19 Eudo the steward, 57.75 sulungs. These, mostly, are the lands which in 1086 were held by Eudo’s brother, Adam son of Hubert, from the bishop of Bayeux. The lands of Goisfrid de Ros are also to be counted here; but even then the total falls short. Eudo died in 1119; his lands all fell to the king. Much of the honour remained intact till 1155, when it was given to Warin son of Gerold (Richardson and Sayles 1963, 437). Honour of Eudo the Steward, alias honour of Walbrook.

20 Fulbert de Dovre, 27 sulungs. Fulbert continues to hold the lands which in 1086 he held from the bishop of Bayeux; since 1088 he has held directly from the king. Barony of Chilham (Sanders 1963, 111).26

21 Willelm Pevrel (of Dover), 31 sulungs, Lee, 0.5 sulungs (?).²⁷ These are the lands which before 1086 were held by Herbert son of Ivo from the bishop of Bayeux, and which in 1086 were mostly held either by Herbert’s nephew Hugo or by Herfrid (who, possibly by marriage, had acquired a share of Herbert’s lands, later the second-tier barony of Throwley). It seems that Herbert had died quite recently, and that the disposition of his inheritance was still being sorted out. Not much later, apparently before 1100, the whole barony – of which Ospringe was certainly the head – was acquired by Willelm Pevrel. From him it passed briefly to his nephew, also named Willelm Pevrel;28 but it was confiscated from him, in or soon after 1138, and never recovered by his heirs.²⁹ Honour of Peverel of Dover (Sanders 1963, 151).

22 Hugo Maminot, 39 sulungs. These are the lands which in 1086 were variously held by Gislebert Maminot bishop of Lisieux, another Gislebert Maminot and Radulf de Curbespine from the bishop of Bayeux. It is fairly certain that these men were all related, but it does not seem to be known exactly how. Barony of (West) Greenwich (Sanders 1963, 97).

23 Helto son of Ansgot, 7 sulungs. These are the lands which in 1086 were held by Ansgot de Rovecestre from the bishop of Bayeux, except for two manors which had become detached (next line). As far as the author knows, this is the only evidence that Helto was Ansgot’s son (and therefore that Willelm son of Helto (d. 1178-9) was Ansgot’s grandson). Barony of Stockbury (Sanders 1963, 1).

24 (Honour of) Peverel of London, 3 sulungs for Beckenham. Two of the manors which in 1086 belonged to Ansgot de Rovecestre (line 23) followed a separate trajectory: Beckenham and Malmaynes in Stoke.³⁰ They fell to the king with the rest of the lands of Willelm Pevrel of London, who had presumably acquired them by marriage. Honour of Peverel of London, alias honour of Hatfield Peverel, Essex (Sanders 1963, 120).

25 Galfrid Talebot, 25 sulungs. These are the lands which in 1086 were held by Helto or Radulf son of Turold (perhaps Helto’s nephew) from the bishop of Bayeux. Barony of Swanscombe (Sanders 1963, 144).

26 Henric de Port, 26.5 sulungs. These are the lands which in 1086 were held by Henric’s father, Hugo de Port, from the bishop of Bayeux. Barony of Basing, Hants. (Sanders 1963, 9).³¹

27 Tirel de Maineres, 15.875 sulungs. This is the most surprising entry in the list. As far as the author is aware, there is no other evidence connecting Tirel with Kent. The best-known fact about him is that he was one of the closest supporters of the king’s nephew, Willelm Clito, and was dispossessed in consequence, in or soon after 1124.³² Some of Willelm Clito’s followers are said to have made their peace with the king after their patron was killed, but Tirel, it is clear, did not. He is never heard of again. In the author’s view, it can be proved that the lands seized from Tirel were given, shortly afterwards, to Willelm Patric, who is absent from this list, but is known to have been established in Kent by 1129.³³ The crucial evidence comes from Surrey, where the manor of Banstead is known to have belonged to Tirel: it was he who gave the church to the canons of Southwark.34 Later the manor belonged to Willelm Patric, who gave it to his daughter Mabilia when she married Nigel de Moubrai (Greenway 1972, nos. 266, 269); when Mabilia died, it descended to her son.35 The lands in Kent continued with Willelm’s heirs. Barony of Patrixbourne (Sanders 1963, 135).

28 Godwin Frene’s son (?), 2 sulungs. This is Bekesbourne, formerly held in domain by the bishop of Bayeux, later held by serjeanty.³⁶ The next five entries seem to be for similar holdings; line 12 refers to another.

29 Robert of Hastings, 1.25 sulungs. Presumably Grange [in Gilling-ham], later held by serjeanty, and like Bekesbourne connected with Hastings.

30 Robert Malet, 1.5 sulungs. Not identified.

31 Rannulf de Valbadon, 0.125 sulungs. Presumably this is the same man who in 1086 was holding half a yoke in Hamestede (not identified) from the bishop of Bayeux.

32 Radulf Canut, 0.5 sulungs. Not identified.

33 Anschetil of Peckham, 2 sulungs. Presumably West Peckham, later held by serjeanty.

34 The archbishop and the bishop of Rochester have in domain 56.75 sulungs.

35 The archbishop and the same bishop have 335.75 sulungs paying geld. These two entries cover the lands of the archbishopric in the largest sense of the word (which includes the lands of the bishopric of Rochester). The first entry gives the number of sulungs notionally held in domain: the assumption seems to be that the corresponding amount (1362 pence) will be regularly deducted from the danegeld account. The Exchequer rolls record deductions of precisely this amount with respect to the arrears of the geld of 1129, 37 and with respect to the gelds of 1156 and 1162. In these later rolls, the amount in question is called the archbishop’s ‘superhidage’: that seems to mean the number of hides (or sulungs in Kent) for which a deduction is regularly allowed.

The second entry gives the number of sulungs from which geld is due unless it is specifically remitted: the sum in question would be 8058 pence. In 1156 these sulungs were made to pay, only the ‘superhidage’ being deducted, but the payment is merged into the total sum received , and it cannot be said how many sulungs were charged to the archbishop at the time. In 1162 the geld from the geldable sulungs was remitted, to the amount of 8994 pence, beyond the sum deducted as ‘superhidage’. The archbishop, it seems, had acquired an additional 38 geldable sulungs (paying 936 pence) since 1130. Part of that increase is explained by archbishop Willelm’s acquisition of St Martin’s of Dover; the author cannot explain the rest.

The numbers given here agree quite closely with the numbers recorded in 1086. There are some ambiguities in DB, but the totals which the author arrived at, before seeing this list, are tabulated below (Table 1). These may not be the best possible results, but at least the reader may be sure that they have not been fudged. (The Rochester numbers are easy to calculate; the Canterbury numbers are not.) It is also possible, of course, that some assessments may have been adjusted between the 1080s and the 1120s.

36 In Hoo and Boxley … This phrase has attached itself to the previous line, but should certainly be read as the beginning of a separate entry: neither the archbishop nor the bishop of Rochester had anything to do with Hoo and Boxley. These two manors, as the author thinks he has proved (Flight 1998), were annexed to the earldom of Kent. They were in the king’s hands for the time being because there was no earl; they were administered separately because at any moment the king might decide to create a new earl (though in fact he never did). On the Exchequer roll for 1130, both in the account of the arrears of last year’s geld and in the account of the current geld, the sheriff is credited with 1224 pence (representing 51 sulungs) ‘in the king’s domain of Hoo and Boxley’.³⁸ By 1156, the king’s domain in Boxley had all gone,39 and the king’s domain in Hoo had been reduced to 13 sulungs.⁴⁰

37 (Total,) 1081 sulungs. Though the numbers listed above do not come close to adding up to this, in fact it is not difficult to see how the total might have been arrived at. If we count 24.5 sulungs in line 2 (ignoring the odd 32 acres)⁴¹ and 31.5 sulungs in line 21, we get a total of 1023 sulungs, which is 58 sulungs short. But the text as it stands omits a number for Hoo and Boxley, where the Exchequer roll of 1130 records (twice) an exemption for 51 sulungs; and it also lacks an entry for the abbey of Battle, which held the manor of Wye, assessed at 7 sulungs in 1086 (DB, fo. 11vb). If we suppose that these two numbers were part of the text at the moment when the total was calculated, the total would be correct (Table 2).

Nevertheless, it would not be safe to trust this total far. The geld account for 1130 is unimpeachable evidence, and the sum accounted for there is 25234 pence (£105 2s. 10d.). At 24 pence per sulung, that represents 1051 plus ¼ plus 1/6 sulungs. On the face of it, the basis for the calculation would have been the same: both totals ought to cover the whole of Kent, excluding only the four manors held in domain by the king himself.⁴² Instead we find a discrepancy of roughly 30 sulungs. It is conceivable that some assessments were revised , during the 1120s, and that the net effect was to bring the total down by this amount. But it seems to the author more probable that the total given in the Claudius list is wrong – that the text had already been garbled to some extent before the total was calculated.

references

F. Barlow, William Rufus (London, 1983).

J. Caley, H. Ellis and B. Bandinel (eds), Monasticon anglicanum, new ed., 6 vols (London, 1817-30).

M. Chibnall (ed.), The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis (Oxford, 1969-80).

H.M. Colvin, ‘A list of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s tenants by knight-service in the reign of Henry II’, in F.R.H. Du Boulay (ed.), Documents illustrative of medieval Kentish Society (KAS, Kent Records XVIII, Ashford, 1964).

D. Crouch, The Beaumont twins: the roots and branches of power in the twelfth century (Cambridge, 1986).

H.W.C. Davis (ed.), Regesta Willelmi conquestoris et Willelmi rufi 1066-1100 (Regesta regum Anglo-Normannorum I, Oxford, 1913).

D.C. Douglas (ed.), The Domesday Monachorum of Christ Church Canterbury (London, 1944).

F.R.H. Du Boulay, The Lordship of Canterbury: an essay on medieval society (London, 1966).

C.I. Elton, The Tenures of Kent (London, 1867).

C. Flight, The Bishops and Monks of Rochester 1076-1214 (KAS, Monograph Series VI, Maidstone, 1997).

C. Flight, ‘The Earldom of Kent from c.1050 till 1189’, Archaeologia Cantiana, cxvii (1998), 69-82.

J.A. Green, English Sheriffs to 1154 (PRO Handbooks XXIV, 1990).

D.E. Greenway (ed.), Charters of the honour of Mowbray 1107-1191 (British Academy, Records of Social and Economic History, NS I, 1972).

A. Grove, ‘The lost manor and church of Elnothington’, Archaeologia Cantiana, c (1985), 153-6.

H. Hall (ed.), The Red Book of the Exchequer (Rolls Series XCIX, 1896).

J. Hunter (ed.), Magnus rotulus scaccarii…de anno tricesimo-primo regni Henrici primi (1833, repr. 1929).

C. Johnson and H.A. Cronne (eds), Regesta Henrici primi 1100-1135 (Regesta regum Anglo-Normannorum II, Oxford, 1956).

B.R. Kemp (ed.), Reading Abbey cartularies (Royal Historical Society, Camden Fourth Series XXXI, XXXIII, 1986-7).

L.B. Larking, ‘Notes from the chartulary of the abbey of St. Bertin’, Archaeologia Cantiana, iv (1861), 203-19.

H.R. Luard (ed.), Flores historiarum (Rolls Series XCV, 1890).

F.W. Maitland (ed.), Three rolls of the king’s court (Pipe Roll Society XIV, 1891).

P. Morgan (ed.), Domesday Book – Kent (Chichester, 1983).

U. Rees (ed.), The cartulary of Shrewsbury Abbey (Aberystwyth, 1975).

U. Rees (ed.), The cartulary of Haughmond Abbey (Cardiff, 1985).

H.G. Richardson and G.O. Sayles, The governance of medieval England (Edinburgh, 1963).

J.H. Round, Feudal England (London, 1895).

J.H. Round, ‘The counts of Boulogne as English lords’, Studies in peerage and family history (1901), 147-80.

J.H. Round, ‘The early charters of St. John’s Abbey, Colchester’, English Historical Review, xvi (1901), 721-30.

A. Saltman, Theobald archbishop of Canterbury (London, 1956).

I.J. Sanders, English baronies (Oxford, 1960, repr. 1963).

D.M. Smith (ed.), Lincoln 1067-1185 (British Academy, English Episcopal Acta I, 1980).

T. Stapleton, ‘Observations upon the succession to the barony of William of Arques’, Archaeologia, xxxi (1846), 216-37.

J. Thorpe, Registrum Roffense (London, 1769).

W. Urry, Canterbury under the Angevin kings (London, 1967).

A.M. Woodcock (ed.), Cartulary of the priory of St. Gregory, Canterbury (Royal Historical Society, Camden Third Series LXXXVIII, 1956).

endnotes

¹ Perhaps it did not help that he misquoted the reference as ‘Cland. A. IV’.

² This statement is based, not on any study of the original manuscripts, but on the footnotes in Hall’s (1896) edition of the Red Book citing variant readings from Hearne’s edition of the Little Black Book.

³ In line 17, for instance, Caurtio is doubtless a garbled form of Caurcis. But mutations of this kind – t for c, o for s – are not enough to cause trouble.

⁴ Eynsford was a second-tier barony, held from the archbishop of Canterbury (Du Boulay 1966, 342-3).

⁵ The suggestion that Willelm may have served a second term, after 1130, depends on a single charter from the Rochester archive (Johnson and Cronne 1956, no. 1867). This is a forgery (Flight 1997, 106-8) and had better be disregarded.

⁶ It was established by Round (1901b, 728) that Eudo died during the winter of 1119-20. An exact date, 25 November, is supplied by the Rochester annals (BL, Cotton Vespasian A. xxii, fo. 27r, sub anno 1120), which include a small number of Colchester-specific entries.

⁷ Again, if we could say for certain that the priory of Leeds was founded in 1119, it would follow that the lands of Hamo the steward (line 13) had already been divided between his heirs, one of whom, Robert of Crevequer, was the priory’s founder. But the only evidence for that date is an interpolation made in a fourteenth-century manuscript from Rochester (Luard 1890, 2, 48 from BL Cotton Nero D. ii, fo. 111rb). Otherwise the indications are that Leeds was founded in 1125x35.

⁸ Edited by Hunter (1833); references below are to the page of the printed text. E 372/1 may be one of the chancellor’s rolls, rather than one of the great rolls; in either case its survival is a mystery.

⁹ On this occasion, without doubt, the geld was levied at the rate of 24 pence per sulung. But there is a small arithmetical or clerical error somewhere in the account.

¹⁰ The monks of Bermondsey, for example, are forgiven payment with respect to 1 sulung, and the land in question is sure to be the manor of Charlton, given to them by Robert Bloet (line 8).

¹¹ In the 1120s the geld was being levied every year, and the receipts were regularly being recorded in the great roll of the Exchequer. By the 1150s, one or both of these facts, probably just the second, had ceased to be true. There are only two subsequent occasions, 1156 and 1162, when danegeld accounts appear in the Exchequer rolls. (The great roll for 1156 was printed by the Record Commission in 1844; the chancellor’s roll for 1162 – the great roll is not extant – was printed by the Pipe Roll Society in 1885.) On both occasions, the rate was the same as it had been in 1130, 24 pence per sulung. Despite the lapse of time, a few of the entries in these accounts prove helpful.

¹² The author sees nothing to justify the tree suggested by Douglas (1944, 65-70), in which Hugo de Montfort has a younger son named Hugo, and this Hugo, just like his father, has a son named Robert and a daughter named Adelina.

¹³ In the language of the Exchequer, ‘land of the bishop of Bayeux’ meant land of the earldom of Kent, of which Hoo was the largest component (line 36). After this, the count of Boulogne acquired some of the lands of Eudo the steward, including one manor in Kent (Round 1901a, 164). In 1130 the count’s successor – his daughter’s husband, the count of Mortain – was forgiven payment for 15.5 sulungs with respect to the geld of 1129 (E 372/1, p. 66).

¹⁴ Avelina sold half a sulung to Archbishop Willelm, who gave it to the canonesses of Sheppey (Caley, Ellis and Bandinel 1817-30, 2, 50; cf. Calendar of Charter Rolls 4, 112).

¹⁵ As well as Erith (next line), Robert Bloet’s name occurs in connection with Charlton, which he gave to the monks of Bermondsey (Davis 1913, no. 340; Smith 1980, no. 6).

¹⁶ And the abbess and convent of Guînes continued in possession of Newington church (plus two dependent churches) for another two hundred years.

¹⁷ Possibly ‘Baldwin’ should be corrected to ‘Baldric’: payment of 12 pence was forgiven to Willelm son of Baldric in 1156 and 1162.

¹⁸ This seems to the author to be proved by a writ of Willelm II (Davis 1913, no. 451) conceding a donation made by the elder Hamo to the church of Rochester, and stating that Hamo’s sons have conceded it too, in the king’s presence. It is surely implied that Hamo had made this donation on his deathbed. (Since the king calls him dapifer meus, not dapifer patris mei, there is a hint that he may have survived till after September 1087.) One of the two named witnesses is Robert count of Mortain, whose known movements allow the writ to be dated quite closely (cf. Barlow 1983, 92-3): the count came over to England towards the end of 1087, and by the following Spring had shut himself up in his castle at Pevensey (Sussex). So the writ seems to date from Dec. 1087 x Apr. 1088. But there is something badly wrong with this document: what Hamo is said to have given – Dartford Church – is something that he was in no position to give. For that and for other reasons, a question mark still has to be put against the date.

¹⁹ Hamo dap’ debeb’ quando mortuus fuit … (E372/1, p. 66).

²⁰ Robertus de Crepacor redd’ compot’ de clxvi li’ et xiii s’ et iiii d’ pro parte terrae Hamon’ dapif’. In th’auro lxvi li’ et xiii s’ et iiii d’. Et deb’ c li’ (E372/1, p. 64, an entry brought forward from the previous roll). Expressed in marks, the equation is simply 250–100 = 150. How much was promised originally, how many instalments had already been paid, we have no means of knowing. Robert had also succeeded Hamo in possession of land in Rainham, not granted to Hamo till after the farm of Kent had last become fixed (p. 63).

²¹ Canterbury, Cathedral Library Lit. E 28, fo. 7rb-c (facsimile ed. Douglas 1944). This list, added by a mid twelfth-century hand, cannot be dated as exactly as Douglas believed: there seem to be some serious anachronisms in it.

²² Robert de Crevequer calls Hamo his uncle – pro salute anime avunculi mei Hamonis dapiferi (Thorpe 1769, 209, Calendar of Charter Rolls 2, 300) – and Colvin took this to mean that he was the son of a sister of Hamo’s (‘an otherwise unrecorded daughter’ of the elder Hamo) married to a man with the surname de Crevequer. In the author’s view, Robert meant uncle by marriage; he meant that Hamo was his wife Roesia’s uncle. Roesia is given a prominent place in Robert de Crevequer’s charters for Leeds; and there is also a charter of Daniel de Crevequer confirming a gift made to the monks of Rochester by a tenant of the manor of Chatham assensu meo et assensu Roheis matris mee (Thorpe 1769, 538, from BL, Cotton Domitian x, fo. 188r-v), which suggests that Roesia had some say in the matter. (This charter is doubtfully genuine, but the same facts are reported in a charter of Daniel’s son, Robert de Crevequer (Thorpe 1769, 540, from fo. 145v).)

²³ Robert son of Hamo is said to have had several daughters. One of them, not named, became a nun at Malling during her father’s lifetime (Calendar of Charter Rolls 5, 56, Johnson and Cronne 1956, no. 791); so she would have been disqualified from inheriting (unless, of course, she ceased to be a nun).

²⁴ The earl seems to have maintained a separate court for the tenants of the knight’s fees that he had acquired in Kent (and Surrey): these tenants are listed separately in 1166 and later.

²⁵ The Pembroke connection can be traced back as far as the 1140s (Kemp 1986-7, no. 250).

²⁶ Fulbert’s younger son, Willelm, is presumably the same Willelm de Dovre who distinguished himself fighting for the Empress in 1144-5. The identification was made implicitly by Larking (1861, 214), explicitly by Urry (1967, 49).

²⁷ This entry was corrected and the author is not sure that he understands the sense of it. At first the scribe wrote: Will’mus Peuerel 31 sul’ et dim’ et 1 iug’ where he may or may not have been accidentally repeating the end of line 19. Then, by crossing out and inserting words, he made the entry read: Will’mus Peuerel 31 sul’ lee dim’ sul’. Assuming that lee is a place-name, the author takes it to mean Lee, near Lewisham, which in 1086 was held (for half a sulung) by Walter de Douai from the bishop of Bayeux. There is no evidence known to the author connecting Willelm Pevrel with Lee. It is possible, however, that lee dim’ sul’ should be read as a separate entry, mistakenly attached to line 21. (Line 36 is in a similar case.) There was litigation between Walter de Douai’s son and the abbot of Gent with regard to Lewisham (Johnson and Cronne 1956, no. 934): not impossibly Lee was also in dispute. In circumstances of which the author knows nothing, Lee eventually came to belong to the barony of Stansted Mountfitchet, Essex (Sanders 1963, 82).

²⁸ The Pevrel tree is based on three documents: Johnson and Cronne 1956, no. 1547 (proving that Pagan was the elder Willelm Pevrel’s brother); ibid., no. 1609 (proving that Mathildis was Pagan’s daughter); Rees 1985, no. 188 (proving that the younger Willelm Pevrel was Mathildis’s brother).

²⁹ Hugo de Dovre, through his wife, acquired a share of the lands which the younger Willelm Pevrel had inherited from his father (Sanders 1963, 19) and from his uncle Hamo (Rees 1975, no. 30). For thirteenth-century lawyers, this would have implied that Hugo was also entitled to a share of the lands which Willelm had inherited from his uncle Willelm: but that did not happen. After 1154, the honour of Peverel of Dover was given to the king’s brother Willelm; when he died, in 1164, it fell back into the king’s hands.

³⁰ Part of Beckenham was in the king’s hands in 1130 (E 372/1, p. 68) but the rest was probably already owned by the family which gave its name – Mal es meains, ‘Pain in the wounds’ – to the manor in Stoke.

³¹ But there seems to have been a separate court for the tenants of the knight’s fees in Kent. In the fourteenth century the court was held at Elnothington, a lost place [in Hollingbourne] located by Grove (1985).

³² Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History, ed. Chibnall 1969-80, vol. 6, 358, 370, 376.

³³ E 372/1, p. 66, an entry brought forward from the previous roll.

³⁴ Caley, Ellis and Bandinel 1817-30, 6, 171; cf. Maitland 1891, 42-3.

³⁵ The only explicit statement that Mabilia was Willelm Patric’s daughter occurs in the heading prefixed to Dugdale’s text of Mabilia’s charter for Southwark (reprinted as Greenway 1972, no. 269), which was based on the excerpts copied by Augustine Vincent (d. 1626) from a cartulary which does not survive. Not unreasonably, it has been doubted whether this evidence can be trusted; but the author is sure that it can. The manor of Ash in Kent, which is known for certain to have belonged to Willelm Patric, descended later to Mabilia’s heirs; and Ryarsh has a similar history.

³⁶ Some early documents relating to Bekesbourne (Woodcock 1956, nos. 34-6) owe their survival to the fact that the parish church was subsequently given to St Gregory’s priory. In one of these, Godwin’s son is called Robertus de Hastinges filius Godwini freni (no. 36) – or filius Godwini Frem, as the name was read by Saltman (1956, no. 63).

³⁷ Archiepiscopo Cantuar’ c et xiii s’ et vi d’ (E 372/1, p. 66). In the account covering the geld of 1130, the archbishop is forgiven a single sum of 7818 pence (ibid., 67), representing 325.75 sulungs. This appears to be the total for Canterbury (see below); the archbishop, it seems, was being forgiven all of the geld from his own manors, none of the geld from the bishop of Rochester’s manors. That is puzzling. Since 1130 was something of a special occasion (both cathedral churches having been dedicated in May of that year), it is conceivable that the remission of geld was handled in some special way.

³⁸ In domino regis de Hou et de Boxeleia c et ii s’ (E 372/1, pp. 66, 67).

³⁹ Five sulungs were given to the monks of Boxley, who were forgiven payment in 1162, There were also later two serjeanties here, at Overhill and Weavering; the former seems to have been in existence by 1130 (Et in terris datis, Ansfr’ dapif’ c solid’ terrae in Boxeleia, E 372/1, p. 64).

⁴⁰ By 1162, this land was included in the holding which belonged to the king’s brother Willelm; so it is not listed separately in the account for that year.

⁴¹ Presumably these 32 acres represent a payment of 4 pence (for one sixth of a sulung), with the rate rounded down.

⁴² In the later accounts the total has been increased by 168 pence (to £105 16s. 10d.), the reason being that Faversham (7 sulungs) was no longer in the king’s domain, and therefore no longer automatically exempt. Payment was forgiven to the abbot of Faversham in 1162.

Hugo de Montfort

occ. 1086

Robert de Montfort Adelina = (1) Willelm de Bretoil

disposs. 1107 d. 1103 (2) Simon de Molins occ. 1115×22 (3) Robert de Ver

occ. 1127-51

Willelm de Arches = Beatrix

occ. 1086

Nigel de Muneville = Emma = Manasser count of Guînes

occ. 1095-1103 occ. 1120-30

Rualon de Avrences = Mathildis Rosa = Henric castellan of Bourbourg

occ. 1127-30

Willelm de Avrences Beatrix = Alberic de Ver

occ. 1134-76 countess occ. 1140-1

of Guînes

Hamo the steward

? d. 1087-8

Robert son of Hamo Hamo the steward

d. 1107 d. 1114-29

Robert Earl of = Mabilia Roesia = Robert de Crevequer

Gloucester d. 1157 d. 1140-55

d. 1147

Willelm Earl of Daniel de Crevequer

Gloucester d. 1183 d. 1176-7

?

Willelm Pevrel Hamo Pagan Fulbert de Dovre

of Dover Pevrel Pevrel occ. 1086-1120

occ. 1100-30

Willelm Pevrel Mathildis = Hugo de Dovre Willelm de Dovre

of Dover d. 1184-5 d. 1170-1 occ. 1141-5

occ. 1137-8

Johan de Dovre

d. 1189-90

Willelm Patric Roger de Molbrai

d. 1174 d. 1188

Willelm Patric Ingelram Patric Eudo Patric Mabilia = Nigel de Moubrai

d. 1174 d. 1190-1 d. 1212-13 d. 1191

two Willelm de Moubrai

daughters d. 1224

Table 1.

Assessments, all expressed in sulungs, of the archbishop’s manors in Kent as recorded in Domesday Book.

[1 sulung = c. 200 acres]

	TRE	Reduction	Now
Archbishop	186.50	16.00	170.50
his knights	25.25	4.50	20.75
his monks	114.50	10.25	104.25
Canterbury	326.25	30.75	295.50
Rochester	66.50	26.50	40.00
Totals	392.75	57.25	335.50

Table 2. Assessments recorded in the Claudius C. iv text (sulungs).

(Note: the king’s land, not counted, at Dartford, Aylesford, Milton and Faversham.)

1	Abbey of St Augustine	145.75
2	Canons of St Martin	? 24.50	+ 32 acres
3	Church of St Peter of Gent	2.00
4	Simon de Molins	41.00
5	Count Eustachius	12.00
6 7	Newington Earl of Leicester	7.50 2.50
8-9	Bishop of Lincoln	13.50
	Willelm the sheriff	6.50
10	Rualon de Avrences	39.00
11	Count of Guînes	12.50
12	Baldwin the falconer	0.50
13	Hamo the steward	43.75
14	Nigel de Albigni	3.00
15	Willelm de Albigni	15.00
16	Ricard son of Gilbert	13.00
17	Patric de Caources	4.00
18	Manasser Arsic	4.50
19	Eudo the steward	57.75
20	Fulbert de Dovre	27.00
21	Willelm Pevrel	? 31.50
22	Hugo Maminot	39.00
23	Helto son of Ansgot	7.00
24	Beckenham	3.00
25	Galfrid Talebot	25.00
26	Henric de Port	26.50
27	Tirel de Maineres	15.875
28	Godwin Frene’s son	2.00
29	Robert of Hastings	1.25
30	Robert Malet	1.50
31	Rannulf de Valbadon	0.125
32	Radulf Canut	0.50
33	Anschetil of Peckham	2.00
34-5	Archbishop and bishop of Rochester	56.75	in domain
		335.75	paying geld
36	Hoo and Boxley	? 51.00
	Abbey of Battle	? 7.00
37	Total	1,081.00