H

HADEMAR OF `OF STOCKLEIGH'. As the four Hademars in Domesday Book are all predecessors of the Count of Mortain, at Perranuthnoe in Cornwall and 'Stockleigh' and Chitterley in Devon, it is highly probable that they are one man; the three Devonshire manors cluster near each other.

HAGNI THE REEVE. All Hagnis in Domesday may be one man. With a single exception, the forename is confined to Norfolk, borne by a substantial pre-Conquest landowner, a thane of the king and archbishop Stigand, most of whose estates were absorbed into the royal demesne; of those which were not, both Weybourne and Pentney are also substantial manors, while Hagni's overlord at Heckingham is Archbishop Stigand. Hagni is also the name of a royal reeve who held a small fief after the Conquest, as did his son, Ralph, both of which passed to the Warenne family: Keats-Rohan, Domesday people, pp. 242, 339-340. As the name is rare and the distribution restricted, it is not unlikely that Hagni the reeve is also the Cock Hagni at Creake and Burnham, whose manors devolved upon Roger Bigot, who acquired Pentney; Creake is another valuable manor. Dr Lewis suggests that the one other Hagni in Domesday Book, who held the respectable manor of Sollers Hope in Herefordshire in 1066, may be the same man, perhaps imported from Norfolk by Earl Harold who had earldoms in both counties: Lewis, 'Introduction to the Herefordshire Domesday', p. 12. Hagni's tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 1410) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 242.

HAIMERIC OF ARQUES. Haimeric, who held a small fief in Devon, is named Haimeric of Arques by Exon. on three of the five manors on his fief. The name Haimeric does not occur again in Domesday Book. He was presumably from Arques (Pas-de-Calais: arrondissement Saint-Omer). His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 803) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 242.

HAIMO. Haimo is a fairly common name which occurs on two fiefs and more than sixty manors, distributed among eight counties and the lands of the king and eight of his tenants-in-chief, with clusters in Kent, Essex and Suffolk. All Haimos are post-Conquest landowners.

HAIMO OF MASCY. Haimo, who held tenancies from Earl Hugh in Cheshire and Wiltshire, is almost certainly Haimo of Mascy, identified by the descent of his lands: Farrer, Honors, ii. 288-91; Sawyer and Thacker. 'Domesday survey of Cheshire', p. 312. He was probably from Macey in Lower Normandy (Manche: arrondissement Avranches): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, pp. 61-62. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 959) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 242.

HAIMO OF VALOGNES. The Haimos who held Parham, Blaxhall, Carlton, Bruisyard, Rendham, Swefling, Benhall and Great Glemham in Suffolk from Count Alan of Brittany are probably Haimo of Valognes, Count Alan's tenant at Wrabetuna and Blaxhall in the same county, Blaxhall being a vill in which one of the unidentified Haimos had another manor. His descendants held Parham and its appurtenances as 5 1/2 fees - the Valognes fee - from the Honour of Richmond: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 234-37. As Parham is valued at only £2, it is likely that the remaining holdings are included in the 'appurtenances' of the Valognes fee, the whole being worth approximately £14 in 1086, not an extravagant endowment for 5 1/2 fees; the manors form a fairly tight cluster between Blaxhall and Bruisyard. Count Alan had no other Haimos on his Honour. The one other unidentified Haimo in East Anglia, at Hundon on the other side of the county, may be another man. Haimo's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 753) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 242-43, apart from Rendham, Swefling, Benhall, assigned to the Count's demesne; the tenant of Hundon is unidentified (no. 13334).

HAIMO THE SHERIFF. Haimo the sheriff, alias Haimo the steward, was steward to both the Conqueror and William Rufus, and sheriff of Kent: Domesday Monachorum, pp. 55-56. He was a tenant-in-chief in Essex, Kent and Surrey, and held tenancies in Kent from the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of Bayeux; in Surrey from Chertsey abbey, and in Essex from the king, in all of which he is accorded one of his two bynames. At Nettlestead in Kent he is identified as the sheriff in the Domesday Monachorum (p. 103); and he is probably the Haimo on the royal manor of Hatfield Broad Oak, where he is associated with Ralph of Marcy, his tenant on seven manors in the county. He is also likely to be the Haimo on an unnamed holding in the county, where his man Richard had annexed land and 'still has the booty from it', the sheriff being the only Haimo with a tenant named Richard. Haimo's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 282) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 242.

HAIMO THE SHERIFF'S SON. The son of Haimo whose Holding is referred to at Notley in Essex is - if not a scribal error - probably Haimo, son of Haimo the sheriff, since he is associated with Ralph of Marcy (q.v.), a tenant of the sheriff. However, his appearance at Notley may be a scribal error - though it is not apparent what feudo filii hamonis might be a corruption of - since this entry is a duplicate of part of the sheriff's manor of Notley, where Ralph was the tenant of the sheriff himself. The only son of Haimo named in Domesday Book is Geoffrey, a tenant of Richard son of Count Gilbert, who appears to be unrelated. The sheriff did, however, have a son named Haimo, who succeeded him in his lands and office: Domesday people, p. 242.

HAKON. Hakon is not a particularly common name, occurring twenty-one times, distributed among nine counties between Wiltshire and Yorkshire, and the lands of the king and fifteen of his tenants-in-chief; three manors are held by Hakons in 1086.

HAKON OF ASHE. Hakon, whose share in Ashe in Derbyshire was acquired by Henry of Ferrers, has no links with other Hakons.

HAKON OF STAVELEY. The Hakons whose manors of Barlow and Staveley in Derbyshire were acquired by Haimo of Mascy are probably one man, who is possibly also the Hakon at Calow, all these manors being within six miles of one of the others. Hakon was a fairly substantial landholder so may have had other estates in the area, the most likely being that at Rotherham in Yorkshire, twelve miles to the north, or even the predecessor of Henry of Ferrers at Ashe; but there are no links to confirm either identification.

HAMELIN. Hamelin is a rare name, distributed among five counties between Cornwall and Yorkshire and the lands of the king and four of his tenants-in-chief, probably borne by no more than that number of individuals, all post-Conquest landowners.

HAMELIN OF CORNWALL. As his name is rare, it is probable that the Hamelin who held a fief from the Count of Mortain in Cornwall is his tenant on two other manors in the county, one a part of the royal manor of Winnianton at 'Crawle', where Hamelin held the other part of the vill, the other stolen by the Count from one of the Cornish churches, a consistent feature of his endowment of his tenants. Hamelin held two more manors from Count Robert in Devon. There are no other Hamelins in the south-western counties or on the Honour of the Count of Mortain. Hamelin is perhaps the Hamelin of Cornwall who witnessed a charter of Count William of Mortain, circa 1103-1106, his style suggesting he may have been sheriff of the county. There is no documentary evidence for this, and he is not listed among the English sheriffs identified by Professor Green; but no sheriff of Cornwall prior to 1086 has been identified: Calendar of documents: France, p. 437; English sheriffs, pp. 33, 35. Hamelin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 164) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 243.

HARDING. Although the name Harding is stated or implied on forty-eight manors, it is a rare name in the sense that it was probably by few individuals, perhaps fewer than half-a-dozen. The manors - many of them substantial - are distributed among eleven counties and the lands of the king and nine of his tenants-in-chief. Roughly a third of the manors were held by survivors in 1086.

HARDING OF COVEHITHE. Harding, who had a smallholder and four oxen at Covehithe in Suffolk acquired by Roger Bigot, has no links with his namesakes, though as the name is rare he may be the Harding at Horswold, some thirty miles south-west of Covehithe.

HARDING OF HORSENDEN. The Hardings who held Horsenden and Bradenham among the king's thanes in Buckinghamshire are almost certainly the same man, the name being rare and the vills four miles apart. It is possible, even likely, that he is Harding son of Alnoth, though there are no links to confirm this: VCH Buckinghamshire, ii. 254; iii. 35. He is identified as Alnoth's son in Coel.

HARDING OF HORSWOLD. Harding, who shared four oxen with another free man at Horswold in Suffolk acquired by Roger of Auberville, has no links with his namesakes, though as the name is rare he may be the Harding at Covehithe, some thirty miles north-east of Horswold.

HARDING OF OXFORD. Harding, who shared with Leofeva nine messuages in Oxford, is probably Harding of Oxford, who granted Eynsham abbey two houses in the city before going to Jerusalem, where he died: Eynsham cartulary, i. 37. He may be the Harding reputed to have strangled a lion with his bare hands in Constantinople at about the time of the Domesday Survey: William of Malmesbury, Gesta regum, ii. 245-46. His death in the Holy Land precludes the possibility that he is Harding son of Alnoth, who was alive when William of Malmesbury was writing in the 1120s: Gesta regum, i. 470-71. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 4732) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 244.

HARDING SON OF ALNOTH. The Hardings who held thirteen manors in 1086, and thirty-three before the Conquest, are probably Harding son of Alnoth, so-named at Lopen among the royal thanes in Somerset in 1086. His father was the English magnate, Ednoth the constable (q.v.) - Alnoth and Ednoth being sometimes confused by the scribe - and he was the ancestor of the Merriott family in Somerset and of Robert fitz Harding, the wealthy burgess of Bristol. There is little reason to doubt that he is the Harding who held the five manors among the royal thanes of Somerset which follow Lopen, although the scribe has omitted an 'also' in three cases; he is named as the son of Alnoth owing geld on 1.125 hides in the Geld Roll for 'Abdick' Hundred which must refer to one or more of these manors where his patronymic is omitted: VCH Somerset, i. 536. His most substantial manor was at Merriott, from which he is named in the Geld Roll for Crewkerne Hundred where Merriott lay; his son Nicholas held it at a later date: VCH Somerset, i. 532; Book of Fees, p. 85. Dr Williams suggests that the Harding at Wheatenhurst in Gloucestershire in 1086 is Alnoth's son, as the nearest of the Domesday Hardings to Bristol, where his descendants were to flourish: English and the Norman Conquest, p. 120.
     One other Harding held land in Somerset in 1086, as a tenant of Glastonbury abbey at Cranmore. He is named Harding of Wilton in the Geld Roll for Frome Hundred, and so may be the royal thane Harding in Wiltshire, who retained his manors for two decades: VCH Somerset, i. 537. He is probably also the Harding who held Bredy in Dorset, held by Berengar Giffard in 1086 but farmed in 1086 by his predecessor according to the Geld Roll for the Hundred in which Bredy lay: VCH Dorset, iii. 131. It is also likely he is the Harding at Alton in Hampshire and 'Burley' in Berkshire in 1086, both previously held by Queen Edith from whom Harding is said to have held 'Burley'. He is likely to be Queen Edith's butler of that name, recorded in the Waltham charter of 1062 and the butler of subsequent charter of 1065: Keynes, 'Regenbald the chancellor', pp. 206-207. His service with the queen may explain his byname, Queen Edith being the patron of Wilton abbey, which she rebuilt, where she was educated, to which she was exiled in the crisis of 1051-1053, and where she may have passed her widowhood; it was also where she held court in 1072 at a meeting of her counsellors where Harding was present: Stafford, Queen Emma & Queen Edith, pp. 109, 145, 257-59, 264-65, 269-70.
     As Harding of Wilton held land in both 1066 and 1086, he is possibly to be identified with the pre-Conquest lord of six of the remaining eight Wiltshire manors, two of which were within a mile of two of his Wilton manors, and another within three miles, an unlikely clustering if the Hardings were different individuals, the only two in the county and both survivors. A seventh manor, at Winterslow, lay in the same vill as one of the other six. Those six were acquired by Earl Aubrey of Coucy, who obtained his fief in Leicestershire, and three of his manors in Warwickshire, from an Harding, presumably Queen Edith's butler. He may also be the one other Harding in Warwickshire, a tenant of Thorkil of Warwick at Hodnell, which lay between the three Coucy manors.
     Harding of Merriott, the son of Alnoth, of Somerset and Gloucestershire, and Harding of Wilton, Queen Edith's butler, of Somerset and six other counties, have been identified as the same man by Dr Clarke and others, an identification considered improbable by Dr Williams on the grounds that Harding son of Alnoth is reported by William of Malmesbury to be alive and active in the 1120s, and so unlikely to have held land in 1066: Gesta regum, i. 470-71; English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 119-22. However, while unlikely, it is not impossible, and the Harding who according to Domesday Book held Beechingstoke in Wiltshire from Shaftesbury abbey in 1066 is almost certainly Harding son of Alnoth, since his daughter was a nun in the abbey and he was in possession of the manor in the 1120s: Williams, 'Knights of Shaftesbury abbey', pp. 227-28. Beechingstoke is just a few miles from a cluster of the manors assigned to Harding of Wilton. On general grounds, too, the identification is likely, since two survivors with more than modest holdings in the same area, with a name borne by few individuals, is statistically unlikely. Other Domesday landowners - Forne son of Sigulf, Frawin of Cornwall and Roger of Beaumont - may have lived as long as Harding.
     A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 282-83, which includes every manor held by an Harding before the Conquest except two small holdings in Suffolk. Dr Clarke ranks the combined wealth of Harding and his father Ednoth twenty-seventh among the nobility, sixteenth among untitled laymen; additional manors assigned to Ednoth would raise them two and one places respectively. Apart from Harding of Oxford, all 1086 Hardings recorded in Coel (no. 557) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 244, are identified there as Harding son of Alnoth, including those here identified as Harding of Horsenden.

HARDWIN. The name Hardwin is not uncommon, occurring on two fiefs and more than three dozen other manors; but it is rare in the sense fewer than half-a-dozen names may be identified with some confidence as one of two individuals named in the text, the exceptions being two Hardwins each in Cheshire and Suffolk and one in Northamptonshire.

HARDWIN BROTHER OF EARL RALPH. It is likely that most Hardwins in East Anglia are the son of Ralph the constable and brother of Earl Ralph Wader, who lost his lands in the aftermath of Ralph Wader's rebellion in 1075. He is named as Ralph's brother, accused of removing a half-mill from each of two adjacent vills in Suffolk, presumably the halves of a shared mill. He is almost certainly the Hardwin at Barking, holding free men from Ely abbey 'when he forfeited', presumably in 1076 when his brother lost his lands. All three cases refer to the period after the Conquest, his intermediate status allowing him to be identified as the Hardwin at Brundon in Essex, Repps in Norfolk, and Blakenham, Weston and Creeting in Suffolk. Three of these manors were acquired by William of Ecouis, who obtained all but one of Hardwin's manors in Norfolk, as well as others from those disinherited after 1075. The remaining manor, at Didlington, was held by Ralph of Limésy in 1086, who also succeeded Hardwin at Brundon in Essex. Two other Hardwins held land in England before 1066, both free men on tiny holdings in Suffolk, presumably different individuals.

HARDWIN OF SCALES. All Hardwins in Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire are probably Hardwin of Scales, tenant-in-chief in those counties. He is identified as the tenant of Count Alan at Reed, where he also held in chief, by the tenure of the Scalers fee from Count Alan's descendants: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 260-65. On four Cambridgeshire manors, his byname is supplied by the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 18, 54 107); the other ten Hardwins in the county occur on the fief of Ely abbey, in every case in vills where he was a tenant-in-chief. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 633) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 244-45.

HARDWULF. The name Hardwulf occurs three times, on modest holdings distributed among three widely separated counties and the lands of as many tenants-in-chief, borne by pre-Conquest lords, one of whom survived until 1086.

HARDWULF OF BRADLEY. Hardwulf, whose land valued at ten shillings at Bradley in Devon in 1066 was acquired by the bishop of Coutances, has no links with his two namesakes, both remote and as poorly endowed.

HARDWULF OF BURNSALL. Hardwulf, who retained land without recorded resources at Burnsall in Yorkshire for two decades, has no links with his two namesakes, both remote and as poorly endowed; he is the only survivor among them.

HARDWULF OF COTTAM. Hardwulf, whose modest manor valued at sixteen shillings at Cottam in Nottinghamshire was acquired by Roger of Bully, has no links with his two namesakes, both remote and as poorly endowed.

HAROLD. Harold is one of the most common names in Domesday Book, occurring several hundred times in total, in every county except Derbyshire and Northamptonshire, and on the fiefs of almost a hundred tenants-in-chief. However, if those who are named or identified as the two earls - Harold Godwinson and Harold son of Earl Ralph - are excluded, there are about two dozen names, distributed among a dozen counties and the lands of fifteen tenants-in-chief, occurring at different dates.

HAROLD BROTHER OF AELFRIC AND GUTHFRITHR. It is possible that all Harolds in Lincolnshire other than Earl Harold are the brother of Aelfric and Guthfrithr, named as predecessor of the bishop of Durham in the Lincolnshire Claims; the bishop acquired Kirkby-on-Bain and Keddington from him. Less certainly, Aelfric's brother may be the Harold at Westlaby. The bishop's dispute with Eudo concerned rights which he claimed his predecessor, Harold, had in Langton-by-Wragby. Harold's interest is not recorded in the relevant entry; but Westlaby is just a few miles from Langton, and the bishop also held land in the nearby vill of Snarford. As the only significant landowner in the region other than the earl, Harold may be Harold the constable, who had 'full jurisdiction and market rights' in the county but not, apparently, any land there or in any other county.

EARL HAROLD. Most unidentified Harolds in Domesday Book are probably Earl Harold Godwinson, the scribes being particularly remiss in omitting his title, far more often than seems to be the case with his fellow earls. His identification is these cases is suggested by two general considerations: first, apart from Harold son of Earl Ralph, only two other Harolds in Domesday Book have a title or byname (both in Lincolnshire); and, secondly, in twenty counties where Harold's identity is not in doubt, only five other Harolds are named, four of them post-Conquest tenants, the one pre-Conquest landowner, a free man with a virgate in Hampshire. Two other counties offer few difficulties. In Nottinghamshire, the unidentified Harolds from whom Earl Hugh of Chester acquired three of his four manors are probably the earl, who preceded him in seven other counties; while the Harold who shared a modest holding at Keyworth acquired by Roger of Bully is unlikely to be him, Roger succeeding the earl nowhere else. Buckinghamshire presents the one ambiguous case: Harold of Tyringham, the one untitled Harold in the county, is conceivably the earl, though probably not.
     Of the remaining counties in Great Domesday, the Harolds in Berkshire, Kent, Wiltshire, Hertfordshire, Worcestershire, Herefordshire and Yorkshire present only minor problems. The Harolds on seven royal manors in Berkshire, and the Harold who preceded Earl Hugh of Chester at Drayton, are unlikely to be anyone other than the earl; the Harold at Barcote less certainly so, though the manor is a respectable one and had passed through the Conqueror's hands. In Kent, only Earl Harold is likely to have had such a well-endowed a concubine, or to have behaved violently towards the Church with impunity, or to be the lord of men; and in Yorkshire, where Earl Harold was a major landowner, the Harold who held the very valuable (£32) manor of Cleeton and its dependency is surely the earl, the Harold with fourteen carucates at Rothwell and its dependencies probably - though less certainly - so. There is no doubt at all that Harold and Godwin, reported as exiled or acting together in the Herefordshire folios, are the two earls exiled in 1051, little doubt that Harold's 'war against the Norsemen' mentioned in a Worcestershire entry refers to King Harold's Stamford Bridge campaign. Almost as certainly, the earl is the one unidentified Harold in Hertfordshire, a lord of men in a county where he was overwhelmingly the greatest lay landowner. Finally, the one untitled Harold in Wiltshire - at Clyffe Pypard - is circled by the earl's manors. Clyffe was held by Miles Crispin, who acquired the previous and a subsequent manor from the earl.
     Most unidentified Harolds in Great Domesday occur in Sussex and Surrey, in both of which counties the earl was the greatest lay landowner in 1066. In Surrey, his identity at Pyrford is established by a royal writ (Regesta, i. no. xviii, p. 123), and at Oxted, Lambeth and Streatham by references to his mother and his relationship with the Canons of Waltham, his foundation. He is probably the Harold who held the valuable manor of Limpsfield used to endow Battle abbey and also the Harold whose men held two others, and more likely than not the one other Harold in the county, on the modestly prosperous manor of Wotton, acquired by the tenant who held the following manor from the earl. In Sussex, the Godwinson heartland, the very largest manors will have been Earl Harold's. Of those valued at less than £20, Compton lay in Laughton, where his father held the main manor; Tottington in Findon, was worth £28; and Fulking in Shipley, which is not recorded in Domesday Book but is adjacent to Steyning where the Harold who held the borough worth £86 must be Harold Godwinson. The remaining Harolds are overlords, so probably the earl, there apparently being no other Harolds with demesne holdings in the county.
     In Great Domesday, therefore, there are comparatively few uncertainties in identifying the earl, and very few Harolds who are not the earl. There is no reason to suppose that matters are different in the three counties of Little Domesday, once part of Harold's earldom. This is important because unidentified Harolds occur far more frequently there than anywhere else - more times in each one of the three counties than in all of Great Domesday - but the earl is given his title only once in each county. In itself, of course, this may reflect the scribes' knowledge that other Harolds were extremely rare, if they existed at all. It is possible that there was only one such. Elsewhere, the royal estates, the larger manors, his lordship over men, his territorial predominance in some areas, association with members of his family, high-handed acts of violence, and relationships between estates, point to his identity.
     Clarke, English nobility, pp. 169-91, lists Harold's manors. The list does not include manors named only in satellite texts or without valuations, or the demesne manors of Heddington, Hullavington and Latton (doubtful) in Wiltshire; St Stephens in Cornwall; Kimbolton and its dependencies in Huntingdonshire; Stoneley in Cheshire; Childerditch in Essex; Dereham (doubtful) or Panworth in Norfolk; or those of Harold's men at Balham in Surrey; Amwell in Hertfordshire; Wavendon in Buckinghamshire; Lexham, Ingworth and Spixworth in Norfolk; or Bealings and Derneford in Suffolk. Harold was, by a very considerable margin, the wealthiest English landowner after the king, far wealthier in demesne lands than any of the Conqueror's tenants-in-chief, even without taking the lands of his dead father into account. Baxter, Earls of Mercia, p. 129, supplies other estimates of his manorial income, all lower than his own (£3174); the Statistics database total is higher still than his estimate (£3432). Williams, 'Land and power', pp. 171-72, calculates his assessed land as approximately 2400 hides/carucates, the Statistics database as 2850.

HAROLD OF BISHOPSTONE. As the name is rare in 1086, the tenants of the bishop of Chichester at Bishopstone and Aldingbourne are probably one man, despite the distance separating the vills. This Harold is the best endowed of the survivors so it is not improbable that he is also Hugh of Montfort's tenant on two manors in East Kent, not much further from Bishopstone than it is from Aldingbourne. Harold's manors in Kent are recorded in Coel (no. 8805) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 249; the Sussex tenants are unidentified (nos. 15644, 15654).

HAROLD OF CLAPCOT. Harold, who held a tiny subtenancy from Miles Crispin at Clapcot in Berkshire, has no links with his namesakes. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 949).

HAROLD OF CODDENHAM. The abbot of Ely's free man with a plough and a couple of smallholders at Coddenham in Suffolk in 1066 may be the free man with a similarly modest holding at Thurleston, four miles away.

HAROLD OF KEYWORTH. Harold, who shared a modest holding at Keyworth in Nottinghamshire acquired by Roger of Bully, has no links with his namesakes.

HAROLD OF KNIGHTON. The thane Harold who held a virgate worth five shillings and the fifth part of a mill worth 22d in the royal manor of Knighton on the Isle of Wight before the Conquest has no links with his namesakes; he is unlikely to be the earl.

HAROLD OF TYRINGHAM. Harold, who held three hides at Tyringham in Buckinghamshire, may be the thane who had shared ownership of the following unnamed manor, probably at Astwood some eight miles away, both acquired by William son of Ansculf. It is just possible that he is Earl Harold Godwinson, despite his holding being conflated with that of four other thanes (normal bureaucratic procedure in circuit three). This is suggested by a number of coincidences. Harold of Tyringham is the only Harold other than the earl who was a lord of men before the Conquest, though he apparently had no manors other than these, and no men other than Godric. He is the only Harold apart from the earl to have a wife who held land in her own right. Earl Harold and his men were also predecessors of William son of Ansculf and his uncle Giles elsewhere in the county. The name of his wife, Aelfeva (Aluueua), however, seems to preclude an identification. The earl's wife, named in Domesday Book only as the wife of her first husband, King Gruffydd (d. 1063), is Aldgeat or Aldgid, variously rendered as Aldid, Aldgyth, Edith (Orderic Vitalis, ii. 138, 216) or Ealdgyth. But the scribe committed worse blunders in dealing with Old English name-forms.

HAROLD OF WESTLECOTT. As the name is rare in 1086, it is not unlikely that the Harold with a modestly substantial tenancy from Hugh the ass at Westlecott in Wiltshire is the one other survivor there, at Enford, though this is on the other side of the county. Both are unidentified in Coel (nos. 16582, 17072).

HAROLD OF WHITNEY. Harold, who held a waste holding worth six shillings at Whitney in Herefordshire from the Canons of St Guthlac's in 1086, has no links with his namesakes, though it is just possible that he is Harold son of Earl Ralph, who held land elsewhere in the county. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 30239).

HAROLD SON OF EARL RALPH. Harold, son of Earl Ralph of Hereford (d. 1057), held land as a minor before the Conquest and had small fiefs in Gloucestershire, Worcestershire and Warwickshire in 1086. He is almost certainly the Harold who had two or four messuages in Warwick which 'belong to the lands which these barons hold outside the Borough', since he is the only Harold with land in the county, though it is curious that his name occurs twice in the list of 'barons'. It is possible, though unlikely, that he is the surviving Harold at Whitney in Herefordshire. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2572) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 245 as Harold of Ewyas; the tenant at Whitney is unidentified (no. 30239.

HAWARTH OF STOKESLEY. The name Hawarth is entirely confined to the adjacent wapentakes of Allerton and Langbaurgh in the North Riding of Yorkshire where the tight cluster of seventeen vills spanning fifteen miles from east to west very probably belonged to one man, the lord of the very valuable manor of Stokesley; only the king, the earls, the archbishop and two magnates had more valuable manors. Hawarth was an early casualty of the Conquest, the Yorkshire Claims recording that his land was held by William Malet 'before the castle was taken'. Dr Newman doubts that William Malet 'ever came into actual seisin' of Hawarth's land, largely on the grounds that Hawarth's recorded land lay far beyond the area the Normans are thought to have controlled by September 1069: 'Yorkshire Domesday Clamores', pp. 265-69. But direct evidence for the area under Norman control is slight, and there appears to be no substantial reason to doubt the explicit statement of the jurors about Malet's possession of Hawarth's lands. As Hawarth was clearly a significant landowner, Dr Fleming's judgement that Malet's predecessors 'were an undistinguished lot', needs some modification: Kings and lords, pp. 159-60.

HEALFDENE. Healfdene is common name, with a skewed distribution, most names occurring in Suffolk and the adjacent counties of Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, and Yorkshire, a pattern suggesting a few significant landowners among the small fry. Seventeen manors were held by survivors, all but two of them in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire.

HEALFDENE OF CROMWELL. It is likely that most if not all fourteen Healfdenes in Nottinghamshire are one man, the lord of Cromwell, where he had a church: Thoroton, Antiquities of Nottinghamshire, i. 169-70. Of the twelve survivors among them, eleven are recorded among the king's thanes, seven preceded by an Ulfkil, while in two other cases no pre-Conquest lord is recorded and a tenth is held by an anonymous group. All were in vills a few miles from one or more of the others, in several cases in adjacent vills. The one other survivor in the county was a tenant of the Count of Mortain at Normanton, eight to ten miles from the holdings of Healfdene of Cromwell at Widmerpool, Chilwell and Toton. As only one other Healfdene may have survived in the other thirty-three counties combined (below), it is likely the Nottinghamshire survivors are one man. Four manors were held by other survivors, three in the West Riding of Lincolnshire where one is a priest and the others likely to be so too and so probably not the Nottinghamshire thane. The fourth thane probably is (below).
     Healfdene of Cromwell may also be the pre-Conquest lord of seven manors in Nottinghamshire. Of these, Chilwell is a jurisdiction of Toton, and Broxtowe and Watnall of Nuthall; only Broadholme is at a distance from the others. Although none of the post-Conquest holdings are in the same vills, Trowell lies between Nuthall and Toton, while Awsworth is adjacent to Broxtowe, a mile from Nuthall, and two from Watnall. The two Healfdenes in Derbyshire may also be Healfdene of Cromwell. This is very likely the case at Esnotrewic, where he was succeeded by William Peverel, who acquired most of Healfdene's manors in Nottinghamshire, and probably also at Vlvritune, held by the one remaining survivor among the royal thanes; though a lost vill, its position in the text suggests it cannot be too far across the county border from those of the Nottinghamshire thane. Healfdene's Nottinghamshire tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 3807) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 134; the priest is identified as another man (no. 3808), the other tenants being unidentified (nos. 32512, 34889, 34891).

HEALFDENE OF HANSLOPE. Healfdene, who held Tewin in Hertfordshire in 1066 which he retained as a tenant of Peter of Valognes, may be the juror in Broadwater Hundred recorded in the Inquisition Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 100). He was a royal thane, evidently a significant figure since the Conqueror granted him and his mother Tewin 'for the soul of his son Richard, as he says himself and shows through his writ'; Peter tried to wrest the manor from him, claiming another royal grant. As his name is uncommon in southern England, Healfdene is probably also Peter's predecessor at Higham Hill in Essex, and the royal Guard at Hanslope and Earl Harold's man at Chearsley, both in Buckinghamshire, all three valuable manors held by the only Healfdenes in those counties; Hanslope, in particular, is a high status manor (£26). It was held in 1086 by Winemar of Flanders, who also acquired three of his five manors in Northamptonshire from Healfdene. Chearsley was held by Miles Crispin, who obtained two of his Berkshire manors from Healfdene, all three being subinfeudated by Miles to Richard son of Rainfrid (q.v.), as was Ickford in Buckinghamshire, and Swyncombe, Draycot and Alkerton in Oxfordshire, where no pre-Conquest lords are named, possibly therefore all held by Healfdene in 1066. It is not unlikely that one or more of the three Healfdenes in Gloucestershire and Leicestershire are the same man, but there are no links to support this. Healfdene qualifies as a magnate of regional significance; if included in Clarke, English nobility, he would rank among the ninety wealthiest untitled laymen of 1066, in the top eighty if the Oxfordshire manors are included. His one tenancy is recorded in Coel (no. 9880) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 134; see also Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 79-80, who suggests that it is 'possible, though perhaps unlikely' that his mother is Edeva, a landholder in Dorset in 1086 whose land was freed of tax by Queen Matilda in memory of her son Richard.

HEALFDENE SON OF TOPI. Healfdene Topi, from whom the bishop of Lincoln acquired Bigby, is Healfdene son of Topi, brother of Ulf, who granted Claxby to him in his will: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, pp. 94-97, 208, 211-12. The Peterborough chronicle recounts that Abbot Brand, his relative, leased Dunsby to him because he had been deprived of his lands by the Conqueror to endow the bishop of Lincoln, an arrangement alluded to in the Lincolnshire Claims: Hugh Candidus, p. 69. This identifies Healfdene as the bishop's predecessor on eight manors, six of which were the subject of grants by Ulf, though to other family members. He must also be the Healfdene at Steyning, which the Claims for the county identify as belonging to the bishop, not Count Alan of Brittany, because it was held by the bishop's predecessor, Healfdene. The manors acquired from Healfdene by the bishop fall into two groups, at the two extremities of the county, which suggests that some of the intervening Healfdenes may be the same man. The predecessor of the archbishop of York is the most likely candidate. His principle manor of Dowsby lay within a couple of miles of the son of Topi's manor at Dunsby, and one of its dependencies a similar distance from the Steyning wrongfully detained by Count Alan. The archbishop had, moreover, bought the manors from Ulf son of Topi, and one of those he acquired from Healfdene lay in vills where other members of his family held land. He may also be the Healfdene at Bonby, a mile from his manor of Worlaby. The archbishop had no other Healfdenes on his Honour but the bishop was preceded by Healfdene at Buckminster in Leicestershire, a county in which the bulk of the episcopal fief appears to be a new endowment, so this Healfdene may also be Topi's son. The one other Healfdene in the county has no apparent link; neither do the many other unidentified Healfdenes in Lincolnshire.

HEINFRID OF ICKLINGHAM. The three Heinfrids in Domesday Book (Henfridus, Hainfridus), are certainly one man, all being intermediate landowners on the Honour of Eudo son of Spirewic in East Anglia, twice described as the predecessor of Eudo. He is almost equally certainly the Herfrindus - a unique form - who preceded Eudo at Alburgh, where he is also described as Eudo's predecessor. As an intermediate landowner, Heinfrid's manors are not listed in Coel, Domesday people or the Statistics database.

HELGHI. Helghi is a rare name which occurs only in Sussex and Nottinghamshire, all Helghis being pre-Conquest lords.

HELGHI OF OWTHORPE. As the name is rare, the three Helghis in Nottinghamshire, whose manors were acquired by Roger of Bully and lay close to each other, are almost certainly one man, conceivably the Sussex Helghi though there are no links to confirm this.

HELGHI OF WORTH. As the name is rare, the three Helghis in Sussex may be one man. Two of his manors were acquired by Earl Roger of Shrewsbury and were subinfeudated to Reginald the sheriff. The third, at Worth, some fifty miles away, acquired by the Count of Mortain, may also have been his given the rarity of the name, its free tenure under King Edward, and its reasonably substantial nature. The tenurial settlement of Sussex by Rapes means that little significance can be attached to its acquisition by another tenant-in-chief.

HELGOT. Helgot is an uncommon name which occurs on one fief and eleven manors, distributed among four counties between Devon and Buckinghamshire and the lands of five tenants-in-chief; two more Helgots are recorded in Exon., both in Devon.

HELGOT OF AWLISCOMBE. As the name is uncommon, it is very probable that the Helgot who held Awliscombe in Devon from Ralph of Pomeroy is his tenant at Heaton, and possibly also the tenant of Fulchere the bowman at Huish, both named in Exon. but not in Domesday Book itself. It is not clear whether Domesday is correcting Exon. or has accidentally omitted the information; but the coincidence suggests both Helgots are the same man: Devonshire Domesday, ii. 924, 1128. Although the manors are not insubstantial, it is unlikely that he is related to his namesakes in Buckinghamshire or Shropshire with whom there are no links. Helgot is unidentified in Coel (no. 4061).

HELGOT OF DRAYTON. As the name is uncommon, it is very probable that the Helgots who held Helsthorpe and Drayton Beauchamp in Buckinghamshire from Mainou the Breton are the same man; the vills are seven miles apart. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1655) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 246.

HELGOT OF HOLDGATE. As the name is uncommon, it is likely that all Helgots in Shropshire are one man, the ancestor of the barons of Castle Holgate. Apart from his fief from Earl Roger, Helgot was a tenant of Ralph of Mortimer at Adley, Bucknell, Sheinton and Burwarton. Only Sheinton appears to have descended to his heirs; but Burwarton shared the same predecessor - Azur - as Sheinton and Norton, and was adjacent to Charlcotte, as was Belswardyne to Sheinton; Eyton suggests, with some circumstantial support, that the tenancies were lost, or sold, to subtenants, the Girros family: Antiquities of Shropshire, iii. 31-33; vi. 214-15; xi. 312-13, 318, 332-33.
     Earl Roger also had a tenant named Helgot at Meaford in Staffordshire, as did Robert of Stafford at Barlaston and Bobbington. Barlaston is less than two miles from Meaford; and since a Philip son of Helgot held land in Shropshire and fees of the Honour of Stafford in 1166, and the heirs of John son of Philip had fees of the Honour of Stafford in Barlaston and Bobbington in the thirteenth century, it is not unlikely that the Staffordshire Helgots are one man, Earl Roger's tenant Helgot of Holdgate: Red Book, i. 267, 277; ii. 454; Book of Fees, p. 967. The heirs of John son of Philip are said to hold fees in Barlaston, Bobbington and Hilderstone with a Ralph de la Mare: Book of Fees, p. 974, and the de la Mare family married into that of the barons of Holgate: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 28-29. Philip and John presumably represent a cadet branch of the baronial family. Helgot's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2973) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 246.

HELIO OF OAKLEY. The two Helios in Domesday Book, tenants of Robert of Stafford at Cooksland and Oakley in Staffordshire, are very probably one man. Robert had two other tenants with uncommon names - Algot and Helgot - holding land within a few miles of Cooksland; and since the name Helio is otherwise unknown, it is possible that it is a corrupt form of one or other of them, Helio possibly being Helgot of Holdgate. The two Helios are unidentified in Coel (nos. 31493, 31518).

HELTO THE STEWARD. As there are no other Heltos in Domesday Book, those who held three manors in Kent and four in Buckinghamshire from Bishop Odo of Bayeux are probably Helto the steward, who held part of the royal manor of Dartford. Helto was one of a handful of Odo's honorial barons who were wealthier than the majority of tenants-in-chief, his manors of Swanscombe in Kent and Dinton in Buckinghamshire being particularly valuable. He may have lost his lands when Bishop Odo was exiled, since he was in Normandy with the bishop after the Conqueror's death: Calendar of documents: France, pp. 530-31. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 161) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 247.

HEMMING. Hemming is an uncommon name which occurs thirteen times, distributed among six counties and the lands of as many tenants-in-chief. Most of the manors are substantial, suggesting few men, possibly only one or two.

HEMMING OF BRANSTON. It is possible that all Hemmings in Domesday Book are one man. Those who preceded Walter of Aincourt in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire almost certainly are. This Hemming had full jurisdiction and market rights in Lincolnshire and was a substantial landowner in both counties, his manors at Branston and Granby each being worth more - £20 and £12 respectively - than the entire manorial wealth of many tenants-in-chief. Walter's three most valuable manors came from Hemming, who contributed roughly a quarter of the total value of his Honour. With the addition of Blankney and Metheringham, his manorial income would place him among the hundred wealthiest pre-Conquest landowners. In view of this, it is possible that he is to be identified with the Hemmings of Buckinghamshire, Gloucestershire or Sussex, also substantial landowners, though these were acquired by other tenants-in-chief, Walter of Aincourt having no fiefs in those counties. The Buckinghamshire and Gloucestershire manors at Hitcham, Marlow and Claydon and Cherington in Gloucestershire, individually valuable and together worth £13, were acquired by Miles Crispin and so were probably held by one man. As Marlow is only a few miles further from Granby than it is from Cherington, he may be the Lincolnshire Hemming rather than another wealthy landowner with a rare name.
     This may also be the case with the Sussex Hemming, whose Sussex manors are roughly as far from Marlow as Marlow is from Cherington. There is little doubt that all the Sussex manors were held by one man. The four respectable manors which devolved upon the Count of Mortain were held by Hemming as the Count's tenant as well as his predecessor, and two such survivors with this uncommon name in the same Rape is improbable. Rottingdean, though held by Hemming only in 1066 and acquired by William of Warenne, 'lay in Firle', one of the manors Hemming held from the Count of Mortain. Hemming's son, Richard, endowed Wilmington priory from these lands: Round, 'Some early grants', p. 77. There is another link, albeit slight, between the predecessors of the Count of Mortain and Miles Crispin. In Buckinghamshire, Hemming is described as a royal thane, and he held his Gloucestershire manor from King Edward. He also held three of the Sussex manors directly from the king, the other two from Earl Godwin. The one other Hemming in Domesday Book had a tiny property at Shepreth in Cambridgeshire. This Hemming was, however, King Edward's man, so even he may be the Lincolnshire magnate. Apart from the Worcestershire monk and a moneyer of circa 900, the name appears to be otherwise unrecorded, which lends a little weight to the suggestion that the Domesday Hemmings are one man. If these deductions are valid, Hemming held land valued at £67, placing him among the sixty wealthiest English landowners. If not, one at least of the two or three landowners bearing this name - Walter of Aincourt's predecessor - was wealthy enough to rank among the untitled laymen listed by Clarke, English nobility. In Sussex, Hemming survived on the bulk of the land he held there before the Conquest, more fortunate than the majority of his English peers. His Sussex tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 2157) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 244.

HENRY. If the three tenants-in-chief are excluded, the name Henry is rare, most tenants occurring on the Honour of Henry of Ferrers, where they are carefully distinguished from their lord. There are three other Henrys in Domesday Book, one each in Norfolk, Suffolk and Yorkshire, one a pre-Conquest landowner.

HENRY OF FERRERS. Henry, who held a site in Wallingford, is probably the tenant-in-chief Henry of Ferrers, whose tenant Nigel held this site from him. The context suggests he is also the Henry who held part of the royal manors of Shalbourne and Hendred, since he was sheriff of the county and his predecessor, Godric, was involved with the land concerned. In Derbyshire, he is identified as the Henry at Mapperley and Ednaston by reference to his manors in those vills. Henry was a tenant-in-chief in fourteen counties; his manors are recorded in Coel (no. 639) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 247-48.

HENRY OF FYFIELD. As the name is rare among tenants, those of Henry of Ferrers in Berkshire, Derbyshire and Essex are almost certainly the same Henry, variously named Henry, a second Henry, or Henry the steward. In the cartulary of the Ferrers' foundation of Tutbury priory, he is named Henry of Fifidre, evidently from his manor of Fyfield in Berkshire, where he is 'a second' Henry: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, p. 65. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 280) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 248.

HENRY OF OTTRINGHAM. Henry, a tenant of Drogo of la Beuvrière on a fairly substantial manor at Ottringham in Yorkshire, is the only Henry in the county, or indeed in the north of England other than the tenant-in-chief Henry of Ferrers; it is unlikely therefore that he is related to any other Henry in Domesday Book. His manor was later held from the Holderness fee of Drogo's successors by a family which took its name from the vill: Early Yorkshire charters, iii. 83. Henry is unidentified in Coel (no. 37865).

HENRY OF RUSHALL. The three Henrys in East Anglia are almost certainly one man. He held Rushall in Norfolk from the abbey of Bury St Edmunds before the Conquest and part of Rede in Suffolk from the abbey twenty years later. He held another twenty acres in the vill from Ely abbey in 1086, where he is described as a man of the abbot of St Edmunds in the Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 182). His holdings are assigned to the demesne of the abbeys in Coel.

HERBERT. Herbert is a fairly common name which occurs more than seventy times, distributed among twenty-two counties and the lands of the king and thirty of his tenants-in-chief, all borne by post-Conquest landowners.

HERBERT OF BURROUGH. As the name is rare in the area - there is one other Herbert in Leicestershire and none in Derbyshire - the tenant of Henry of Ferrers at Breaston in Derbyshire may be the king's servant who held Cold Newton and Burrough in Leicestershire, where Henry had a second manor. He was perhaps the ancestor (or predecessor) of the FitzHerbert family. The descent of the Leicestershire holdings is obscure; but FitzHerberts were tenants of the Honour in both counties at a later date, and the family was established in both by the 1120s: VCH Leicestershire, v. 64; Nichols, History and antiquities of Leicestershire, ii. 526-27; iv. 860. Herbert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8808) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 250.

HERBERT OF FURCHES. The Herberts who held four manors in Shropshire and two in Herefordshire from Roger of Lacy are identified by their descent as the ancestor of the Furches family; he is probably the Herbert de furcis who witnessed a Lacy charter in 1085: Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, v. 44-45; Red Book, i. 282; Galbraith, 'Episcopal land-grant', p. 373. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3712) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 249, where Eaton, held from Ralph of Tosny, is also attributed to him, though on what grounds is unclear.

HERBERT OF HARGRAVE. The Herberts who held three modest holdings at Stukeley and Hargrave in Huntingdonshire from Eustace the sheriff are probably one man. There are no other Herberts in the county, or in the neighbouring counties of Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire, and Eustace had no tenant of this name elsewhere on his Honour. Herbert is unlikely to be Herbert son of Ivo, his nearest namesake, all of whose manors were held from Odo of Bayeux. The descent of the Huntingdonshire holdings is unrevealing: VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. 230-31; VCH Northamptonshire, iv. 18-19. Herbert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8809) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 251.

HERBERT SON OF AUBREY. The Herberts who held Langton in Leicestershire and three manors in Lincolnshire from the archbishop of York may be Herbert son of Aubrey, father of Herbert the chamberlain of Henry I, who received further grants from Archbishop Thomas II: Early Yorkshire charters, i. 35-36. He held Lissington and its dependencies in the Lindsey Survey, later held together with Stallingborough and Rigsby by the same family: Early Yorkshire charters, i. 36, 44-47, 50-51; Book of Fees, pp. 159, 1014, 1062, 1082, 1476. The descent of the Leicestershire manor has not been traced: VCH Leicestershire, v. 210. The archbishop had no other Herberts on his Honour. Herbert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2992) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 250, apart from Langton, attributed to another Herbert (no. 8808).

HERBERT SON OF IVO. The Herberts who held Ospringe, Ringleton, Hammil and Boswell Banks in Kent and Turvey and Wilden in Bedfordshire from the bishop of Bayeux are probably Herbert son of Ivo, his tenant on two other manors in Bedfordshire and several in Kent, many of them substantial. In Bedfordshire, Ivo's son held the two preceding manors, so the scribe may have omitted an 'also'; Wilden, the most valuable, was subinfeudated by Herbert to his nephew, Hugh. Herbert and his nephew also appear together in Kent, at Ospringe and Hammil, and probably also at Boswell Banks, where Herbert was succeeded by a Hugh who is probably his nephew since the same succession occurs at Ospringe, and Herbert is elsewhere recorded as an intermediate tenant. Ringelton was one of his most valuable manors, though farmed for a substantial premium. Bishop Odo had no other tenants named Herbert on his Honour, and the one other Herbert in the two counties, a reeve with a half-hide at Eversholt in Bedfordshire, is unlikely to be the bishop's tenant. Herbert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 547) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 250.

HERBERT THE JERKIN-MAKER. Herbert, who had a subholding in the manor of Upton in Cheshire in 1086, has been identified as Herbert Wambasarius, or jerkin-maker, from a reference to his half-hide in the cartulary of Chester abbey: Lewis, 'Herbert the jerkin-maker', pp. 159-60. As the only other Herbert in the county, or anywhere in England, holding from the Honour of Chester, the Herbert at Heswall may be the same man. Both manors are in the Wirral, some thirteen miles apart. Both Herberts are unidentified in Coel (nos. 28746, 38693).

HERBERT THE LATINIST. Herbert, named by Orderic Vitalis (ii. 262-63) as one of the three 'learned clerks' of the household of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury', elsewhere described as Herbert grammaticus, may be the Herbert who held Albright Hussey and Great Sutton: Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, i. 109-10. He was archdeacon of Shropshire, and witnessed charters of the earl as Herbert the archdeacon: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. 30; ii. 255. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8806) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 250; see also Mason, 'Officers and clerks', p. 253.

HERBERT THE STEWARD. Herbert, who held Farwood in Devon from William of Poilley, is identified as Herbert the steward in William's grant of the tithes of his manors to St Martin's of Sées in 1093: Calendar of documents: France, p. 235. There are no other Herberts on William's Honour, or in the county. Herbert's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 2038) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 250.

HERBRAND. Herbrand is a rare name which occurs five times, distributed among three counties and the lands of as many tenants-in-chief.

HERBRAND OF PONT-AUDEMER. As the name is rare, the Herbrand of Pont-Audemer listed among the tenants-in-chief in Hampshire is probably the Herbrand at Pan in the Isle of Wight, both manors - of equivalent status - being acquired from a Godric. The two Herbrands in Worcestershire are tenants of Urso of Abetot, so very probably one man. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that the Hampshire and Worcestershire Herbrands are the same man. Their estates are similar, and Abetot and Pont-Audemer are both in Upper Normandy, separated by the Seine estuary, so the identification is plausible given the rarity of the name. Manorial descents do not clarify the issue, since all four manors were in different hands at a later date, though it is most improbable that they were held by four individuals in 1086: VCH Hampshire, iii. 442; v. 200; VCH Worcestershire, iii. 24-25; iv. 145-46. Herbrand's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 964) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 251.

HERBRAND OF SACKVILLE. Herbrand, who held Fawley in Buckinghamshire from Walter Giffard, has been identified as his steward, from Sauqueville in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe), on the basis of later evidence accepted by Round as essentially sound due to its circumstantial detail, including Herbrand's name (Esbrandus), the name of his manor (selected, it is said, for the beauty of its site), and the statement that Giffard acquired his land from Aelfeva 'the crazy', when he did in fact obtain his principal manor in Buckinghamshire - Long Crendon - from Saeric son of Aelfeva, and two more from Sired son of Aelfeva: Peerage and pedigree, ii. 285-89. Herbrand's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 8810) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 251.

HEREWARD 'THE WAKE'. It is possible that all Herewards in Domesday Book are the famous outlaw, Hereward 'the Wake', though the manors lay in four counties and devolved upon six tenants-in-chief; his byname is not contemporary but so familiar it would be pedantic to use another. He is almost certainly the Hereward whose Lincolnshire manors were acquired by the abbey of Peterborough and Oger the Breton, the Lincolnshire Claims revealing that the predecessors of both tenants-in-chief fled the country. As the name is rare, it is likely that the four Warwickshire Herewards are one man; the three tenants of the Count of Meulan held their manors for twenty years, and the fourth manor was held from Thorkil of Warwick who shared other tenants with the Count. It is also possible that the Hereward who held Evenlode in Worcestershire from the Church before the Conquest is the same man as Count's tenant, two Evesham satellite texts implying that the 'held' of Domesday Book may be an error for 'holds', or even 'held and holds'. Ladbroke, the fourth Warwickshire manor, held by Hereward in 1066, lay between the others in the county and that in Worcestershire.
     Freeman and others have suggested that the Lincolnshire and Warwickshire Herewards are one man, a suggestion forcefully rejected by Round, who argued that 'there was absolutely nothing' to connect the two; this remains the accepted view: Feudal England, p. 162; Oxford DNB, xxvi. 767. Dr Baxter, however, has argued that 'the balance of probability is that there was only one Hereward', pointing to links between the Herewards of both counties and the earls of Mercia to support this view: Earls of Mercia, pp. 261-66. The Lincolnshire Hereward was associated with the Leofricsons, possibly a dependant. The abbot of Peterborough, who was present at the battle of Hastings and died shortly thereafter, was a cousin of Earl Leofric of Mercia; and Bourne, with which Hereward the Wake is strongly associated in later sources, was held by Leofric's grandson, Earl Morcar. Both Morcar and Hereward were, of course, involved in the rebellion of 1071 and the siege of Ely. As for the Warwickshire Hereward, he held land at Ladbroke, where Earl Leofric's family were endowed by Aethelred the Unready; and at Evenlode from Evesham abbey, of which the Leofricsons were patrons. The Warwickshire Hereward, and perhaps the Worcestershire one, was alive in 1086, by which date Hereward is usually assumed to be dead, having lost his Lincolnshire manors; but the date of his death is unknown, and later sources record that he made his peace with the Conqueror (though not, perhaps, the abbey). Dr Baxter does not discuss one other Hereward in Domesday, with a small holding at Wickham in Suffolk. Its status, and distance from the Midlands manors, suggest that this Hereward is another man; yet he, too, was a dependant of the house of Leofric, commended to Burghard of Mendlesham (q.v.), a son of Earl Algar and grandson of Earl Leofric. See also Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 49-51. Hereward's Warwickshire tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 4756) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 251, without reference to the outlaw.

HERFAST. Although the name Herfast occurs more than two dozen times, it is rare in the sense that it was probably borne by no more than two individuals, Bishop Herfast of East Anglia and a tenant in Bedfordshire.

HERFAST OF MARSTON. As all laymen named Herfast are tenants of Nigel of Aubigny in Bedfordshire, there is little doubt that they are one man though the manors are in several different hands when next documented: VCH Bedfordshire, ii. 261-62, 281; iii. 309; Brett, English Church, pp. 147-48. Herfast's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 308) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 190.

BISHOP HERFAST OF THETFORD. All Herfasts in East Anglia are almost certainly Bishop Herfast of Elmham, who moved the see to Thetford in 1071/2 and was succeeded by William of Beaufour in 1085. He therefore appears in Domesday Book as an intermediate landowner, which together with associations with his bishopric and with his episcopal predecessor and successor allows him to be identified where his title is omitted in Norfolk and Suffolk. One Norfolk entry refers to his sons, so he was presumably married.

HERFRID OF THROWLEY. All Herfrids in Domesday Book are almost certainly one man. Seven of his eight manors were held from the Bishop Odo of Bayeux, four in Kent and the other three in Surrey, where even his hide in the royal manor of Dorking was held from the bishop. Several of these manors are valuable, notably Throwley in Kent and Gatton in Surrey. The eighth manor, Poulton, held from Hugh de Montfort, is adjacent to his tenancy from Odo at Boswell Banks in the same Hundred. By the thirteenth century, Herfrid's successor held Throwley and Gatton from the Honour of Peverel of Dover, though the composition of the remainder his fee had changed: Book of Fees, p. 582. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he may have come from Bavent in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Caen), where a Ralph son of Herfrid gave land to St Stephen's of Caen. Herfrid's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 965) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 251.

HERLEWIN. Herlewin is uncommon forename, stated or implied on fifteen manors in Domesday Book, and in Exon., distributed among six counties and the lands of as many tenants-in-chief, perhaps borne by half-a-dozen individuals, one of them a pre-Conquest landowner.

HERLEWIN OF COLLYWESTON. As the name is uncommon, the Herlewin who held Collyweston in Northamptonshire from Ralph of Limésy may be the same man as one or more of his namesakes in Huntingdonshire or Warwickshire; but there are no links to confirm this. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 27241).

HERLEWIN OF LUDDINGTON. As the name is uncommon, the Herlewin who held Luddington in Huntingdonshire from Eustace the sheriff may be the same man as one or more of his namesakes in Northamptonshire or Warwickshire; but there are no links to confirm this. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 32687).

HERLEWIN OF PEASEMORE. Herlewin, whose manor of Peasemore in Berkshire was acquired by Gilbert of Bretteville, is the only pre-Conquest Herlewin; the name-form (Vrleuuine) is held to be an indigenous variant of the Old German name: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 248. It is, however, possible that he is Herlewin of Shelswell, Peasemore lying between his manors in Somerset and Northamptonshire. Peasemore is a few miles from two of the Berkshire manors of Baldwin son of Herlewin (q.v.), so Herlewin may be his father and the name continental.

HERLEWIN OF SHELSWELL. As the name is uncommon, the Herlewins who held four manors in Somerset and Shelswell in Northamptonshire from the bishop of Coutances are probably one man. According to Exon., he also held a subtenancy from the bishop at Winscombe in Somerset, on the manor of abbey of Glastonbury there. An Herlewin held a second manor in Northamptonshire, but this was the other end of the county and acquired by another tenant-in-chief so he may be another man. Herlewin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2002) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 252, apart from the tenant at Shelswell, who is unidentified (no. 26887).

HERLEWIN OF SHUCKBURGH. As the name is uncommon, the Herlewin who held Shuckburgh in Warwickshire from the Count of Meulan may be the same man as one or more of his namesakes in Huntingdonshire or Northamptonshire; but there are no links to confirm this. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 28304).

HERLEWIN SON OF IVO. The six Herlewins in Norfolk are almost certainly Herlewin son of Ivo, named in the Norfolk Annexations of Reginald son of Ivo, his tenant on the other five manors. There are no other Herlewins in Little Domesday, and Reginald's Honour is confined to Norfolk. In a grant of the tithes of his manor Panworth to Thetford priory, he is styled Herlewin of Panworth, the second of these manors: Regesta, ii. no. cxxvii, p. 338. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1955) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 252, where it is suggested that Ralph and Herlewin were brothers.

HERMER. Although the name Hermer is fairly common in Norfolk, it rare elsewhere, occurring once in Berkshire, Gloucestershire and Lincolnshire, and three times in Devon, on the lands of the king and four of his tenants-in-chief. One Hermer held land in 1066.

HERMER OF FERRERS. It is probable that all Hermers in East Anglia are the tenant-in-chief, Hermer of Ferrers, who held a substantial fief in Norfolk and a single manor in chief in Suffolk. All but two of the references to Hermer are to his predecessor, which can only refer to Hermer of Ferrers as there are no other Hermers among rural landholders in the county. He is probably also the Hermer with eight burgesses, a man named William and a priest, Fulbert, in the city of Norwich, since a William and Fulbert are among his tenants. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 640) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 252-53.

HERMER OF GOOSEY. The tenant of Abington abbey at Goosey (or Denchworth) in Berkshire is unlikely to be the same man as any of his namesakes. The abbey's house chronicle records that when he was granted Goosey by the abbey he held no other land, the abbey endowing him at the king's request because he had been seized by pirates and mutilated while on the abbey's business abroad: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 8-9. The chronicler records somewhat sourly that his mutilation rendered him unfit to perform his knightly duties for the abbey; less obligated patrons were unlikely to take a more humanitarian view. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 966) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 253.

HERMER OF HOLTON. Hermer, tenant of Ivo Tallboys on at respectable manor at Holton-le-Clay in Lincolnshire, has no links with his namesakes, all of them remote. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 3009) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 253.

HERMER OF SPURWAY. As the name is rare, the tenants of Gotshelm of Claville at Hampson and Washbourne in Devon are almost certainly the same man, who is probably also the tenant of Walter of Douai at West Spurway, the one other Hermer in the south-western counties. Hampson is somewhat closer to Spurway than to Washbourne. According to Dr Keats-Rohan, Hermer's manors were later held by men named from Washbourne. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2109) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 253.

HERMER OF STOKE. Hermer, whose share in the royal manor of Stoke Orchard was held by Bernard (Pancevolt) in 1086, is the one pre-Conquest landowner of this name. It is unlikely that he is related to any of the Hermers of 1086, all remote apart from a maimed man-at-arms in Berkshire.

HERVEY. Hervey is a fairly common name which occurs on two fiefs and more than fifty manors between Wiltshire and Yorkshire, distributed among fifteen counties and the lands of the king and eleven of his tenants-in-chief, all borne by post-Conquest landowners. There are clusters in Wiltshire, Oxfordshire and Suffolk.

HERVEY OF BOURGES. H, or Hervey, who held several manors from the abbey of Ely in Suffolk, is almost certainly Hervey of Bourges, alias Hervey of Berry, alias Hervey Bedruel, a tenant-in-chief in Suffolk, named as the abbey's tenant on twenty more manors in Domesday Book or the Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 162, 179-80). He held Westerfield from the abbot 'by order of the King', a formulae repeated in the following entry for Pettaugh, where he held in chief. In Bredfield, he held in chief and had another manor from the abbey there, four miles from Bromswell, whose holdings are intermixed with those of Bredfield. Walton and 'Plumgeard', five miles from his manor of Bucklesham, are like Westerfield held from the abbey after Hervey claimed to hold in chief. Ely had no tenant of this name elsewhere. Hervey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 141) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 253-54.

HERVEY OF HARDMEAD. Hervey, who held three and a half virgates in Hardmead from William son of Ansculf, is identified by Dr Keats-Rohan as Hervey the commissioner, who held at Ibstone in the county and probably elsewhere. There appear to be no links between this Hervey and his namesakes in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, however, and the property is small and isolated from other holdings; its descent has not been traced.

HERVEY OF `SPAIN'. The Herveys who held Willingale, Finchingfield and Stevington in Essex from Count Alan of Brittany are almost certainly Hervey of 'Spain', who held three other manors on the same fief, the six constituting the bulk of the Count's fief in Essex; he gave his name to Willingale Spain and to Spain's Hall in Finchingfield. His Essex manors later constituted the Espagne fee in the Honour of Richmond: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 230-34. There are no other Herveys in the county. Count Alan had tenants named Hervey in Norfolk, Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, the first of whom may be Hervey of 'Spain', the only unidentified Hervey in the county. Hervey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 663) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 254-55.

HERVEY OF STRETTON. The Herveys who held a tight cluster of manors at Stretton, Water Eaton, Gailey, Great Saredon and Shareshill in Staffordshire from Robert of Stafford are probably one man, who is possibly also Robert's tenant at Norton Lindsey in Warwickshire. They are the only Herveys in either county or on Robert's Honour. Hervey of Stretton held two fees of the barony of Stafford in 1166, and Richard of Stretton had fees in Stretton and Eaton in the following century, Gailey apparently being subinfeudated: Book of Fees, pp. 266, 951, 967, 974; Staffordshire chartulary, pp. 245, 252-53. The remaining manors were held by two other families when next recorded; but it is improbable that Robert had three tenants with this uncommon name in a limited area; none occur in Robert's charter of 1072: Staffordshire chartulary, pp. 178-82; VCH Staffordshire, v. 174; VCH Warwickshire, iii. 138. Hervey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3617) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 255.

HERVEY OF WILTON. It is possible that all Herveys in the five south-western counties of circuit two are Hervey of Wilton, so-named among the king's officers of Wiltshire at Edington but named Hervey the chamberlain among the king's servants of Dorset, at Wimborne St Giles; he is probably also the Hervey with a second manor in Edington. A royal charter names Hervey of Wilton as a landowner in Netheravon, where a Domesday Hervey had two manors: Regesta, iii. no. 450. Another royal charter suggests he is the Hervey in Ratfyn, where a royal sergeant and a tenant of Edward of Salisbury named Hervey had manors in Domesday: VCH Wiltshire, ii. 75, 106. Hervey's two bynames may be accounted for by the fact that he farmed the borough revenues of Wilton for the king, a chamberlain's task. The one other Hervey in the south-west, at Stockland in Dorset, is named Hervey son of Ansger in Exon. Stockland is the most valuable of the manors held by a Hervey, and its tenant might be expected to have others, so he too may Hervey of Wilton; but there are no links to confirm an identification. Hervey later became a monk: Calendar of documents: France, p. 511. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 172) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 254-55.

HERVEY THE COMMISSIONER. Although the manors descended by different routes, the Herveys who held three consecutive manors among the king’s servants at Ibstone and Bix in Oxfordshire are probably Hervey the commissioner, who held a second manor at Ibstone, recorded in the Buckinghamshire folios, where his byname is supplied: Round, 'Domesday survey of Buckinghamshire', pp. 215-16; VCH Buckinghamshire, iii. 62. He may also be the Hervey who held four manors from the bishop of Bayeux in Oxfordshire which cluster a few miles to the north-west of Ibstone and Bix. These manors descended to the Scalebroc family, of Skelbrooke in Yorkshire, held from Ilbert de Lacy in 1086 by a Hervey who is evidently the commissioner. He is identified in a Lacy charter as Hervey de Campellis, alias Hervey of Sai if the Henry de Saieo who granted tithes in Skelbrooke to St Clement in Pontefract is a clerical error for Hervey de Saieo: Book of Fees, pp. 449, 829-30, 838; Early Yorkshire charters, iii. 185-87, 228-29. He was probably from Campeaux in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Vire): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 23. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he also held part of the royal manor of Cholsey in Berkshire which, as a royal commissioner, is not unlikely, and also Hardmead in Buckinghamshire, here assigned to another man. He is more likely to be the Hervey who purloined the profits of the royal manor in the lost vill of Verneveld, in Benson Hundred, where two of his other manors lay. There are no other Herveys in the four counties apart from two in Yorkshire, identified as the ancestor of tenants of the Sutton fee in the Honour of Richmond: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 258-60. Hervey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 330) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 255.

HILDEBERT OF TOURS. Hildebert, tenant of the bishop of Wells at Evercreech and Yatton in Somerset, has been identified as the steward and brother (or brother-in-law) of John of Tours, bishop of Wells (1088-1122): Keynes, 'Giso, bishop of Wells', p. 219 note 93. He is probably also the tenant of Matthew of Mortagne at Clevedon and Milton Clevedon, the only other Hildeberts in Domesday Book. Yatton was later held together with Clevedon and Milton, and Milton Clevedon is less than two miles from Evercreech; the other two manors are four miles apart: Oggins, 'Richard of Ilchester's inheritance', pp. 74-75. Hildebert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 969) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 279.

HILDWIN. Hildwin is a rare name which occurs four times, distributed among three counties and the lands of two tenants-in-chief.

HILDWIN OF "ASSECOTE". Hildwin (Elduinus), who held a villager paying thirty pence at Assecote in Devon from William of Poilley, is unlikely to be related to his namesakes in the Midlands. He may have lost his manor by 1093 as he is not mentioned William's grant of tithes of all his manors to the abbey of Sées, though neither is Assecote, which is perhaps subsumed in another manor: Calendar of documents: France, p. 235. Hildwin is unidentified in Coel (no. 3870).

HILDWIN OF BRAMPTON. As the name is rare, it is all but certain that the tenants of Robert of Tosny at Bottesford (Helduinus) in Leicestershire and Brampton and Dingley (Ilduinus) in Northamptonshire are one man. In the Northamptonshire Survey, Brampton was held by his son, Ralph fitz Eldewyn, Dingley apparently being by then absorbed into Brampton: VCH Northamptonshire, i. 386; Farrer, Honors, ii. 393. Hildwin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3704) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 279.

HOWARD OF NAVESTOCK. The name Howard (Houardus) occurs only twice in Domesday Book. Although the substantial manor at Navestock in Essex in 1066 is more than eighty miles from the modest holding on the royal manor of Bungay in Suffolk, it is very probable they were held by one man, Howard being paired with a Wulfsi in both cases, both men apparently surviving for two decades. Although they lost Navestock to the Canons of St Paul's, they protested that they 'had it by the king's gift', so their share in the royal manor at Bungay may have been by way of compensation. It was a modest compensation, however, as they were obliged to pay sixteen shillings to the manor, said to be worth thirty shillings in 1086, leaving the two lords with a tenth of their former manorial income. Dr Keats-Rohan identifies the Howard at Bungay as Huard of Vernon: Domesday people, p. 256.

HUARD. Huard is an uncommon name which occurs about sixteen, distributed among five counties and the lands of six tenants-in-chief. There is some uncertainty about its relationship with Oder and Odard. According to Forssner, Continental-Germanic personal names, pp. 154-55, 194, 196, Huard, Oder, and Odard are separate names; but Dr Keats-Rohan suggests they may be interchangeable. Circumstantial evidence suggests that all Oders, who occur on two fiefs in Norfolk, may be Huards; and the Feudal Book of Abbot Baldwin records an Oder (Odarus) where Domesday has Odard (Odardus): Feudal documents, p. 19. Elsewhere, the case for identifying Odard and Huard is not clear. Unidentified Odards and Huards both occur in four counties, on the lands of five tenants-in-chief, the only overlap being the occurrence of an Odard and Huard in Leicestershire, though they are tenants on different fiefs. No pre-Conquest lords bear these names.

HUARD OF LUS HILL. Huard, tenant of Edward of Salisbury at Lus Hill in Wiltshire, has no links with his namesakes, all of them remote. He does not appear to be referenced in Keats-Rohan, Domesday people, but is recorded in Coel (no. 11532) as an Odard, whose successor in 1166 was Richard of Listelhul: Red Book, i. 240.

HUARD OF NOYERS. Huard (Huardus), tenant of Geoffrey de Mandeville at Bengeo in Hertfordshire, is almost certainly Huard of Noyers (Huart de noderes), the juror in Hertford Hundred where Bengeo lay; there are no other Huards, Oders or Odards in the county: Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 100). It has been suggested that the Hugh who held Barkway from Geoffrey may be a scribal error for Huard, whose descendants held Barkway by the 1140s; though the manor may, of course, have been acquired by the Noyers family after 1086: VCH Hertfordshire, iv. 30; Lewis, 'Domesday jurors', p. 36. Dr Keats-Rohan also suggests that the Odard (Odardus) who held Foulton in Essex from Swein of Essex - here identified as Odard of Foulton (q.v.) - is the same man. Huard's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 6691) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 307, under the form Odard, where it is suggested that he was 'perhaps' from Noyers in Upper Normandy (Eure: arrondissement Les Andelys).

HUARD OF PEATLING. As the name is uncommon, the Huards who held four manors in Leicestershire from Hugh of Grandmesnil are probably one man, the only Huard Leicestershire or neighbouring counties. Dr Keats-Rohan identifies him as the Odard (Odardus) at Ilmington in Warwickshire. Huard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8766) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 307.

HUARD OF VERNON. There are grounds for identifying all Oders, Odards and Huards in East Anglia as Huard of Vernon, named as a tenant of William of Ecouis at Ixworth Thorpe and Market Weston in Suffolk. Dr Keats-Rohan has shown that he is also named Odard in contemporary sources, and the Feudal Book of Abbot Baldwin names the Oder of Domesday Book at Great Ashfield and Stow as Odard: Feudal documents, p. 19. Oder is a name-form which occurs only in Norfolk, where four Oders are tenants of William of Ecouis, the other four of Ralph of Beaufour. As Oder, Odard and Huard are all uncommon, William's Norfolk tenant Oder is very likely his Suffolk tenant, Huard of Vernon; Ralph's possibly also. The Odard who held Stow and Great Ashfield from Bury St Edmunds according to Domesday Book - Oder according to the Feudal Book of Abbot Baldwin (Feudal documents, p. 19) - may be the same man, Ashfield being roughly equidistant from Ixworth and Weston, six or seven miles from either. Huard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1961) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 256, with the addition of the Houart on the royal manor of Bungay, here identified as Howard of Navestock (q.v.).

HUBERT. Hubert is a fairly common name which occurs on two fiefs and some forty manors, distributed among thirteen counties between Devon and Yorkshire and the lands of the king and fourteen of his tenants-in-chief, all borne by post-Conquest landowners.

HUBERT OF COURSON. Hubert, who held the valuable manor of Lockinge in Berkshire from Henry of Ferrers, is identified as Hubert of Courson by the Abingdon chronicle, which names his sons, including another Hubert who succeeded him, and a Giralmus of Curzon, who held West Lockinge, or part of it: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 44-45, 282-85. The son is probably the Hubert of Courson who held three fees from the Ferrers Honour in the reign of Henry I: Red Book, i. 337. Hubert also held Fauld in Staffordshire from Henry, where he is identified by its descent to his heirs: Book of Fees, p. 969. Henry had no other tenants of this name on his Honour, and there are no other Huberts in Staffordshire. Hubert probably came from Notre-Dame-de Courson in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Lisieux): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 37. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1572) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 256, where he also is identified as a tenant of Abingdon abbey at Wytham. As the only Hubert in Berkshire or surrounding counties who is not plausibly identified, this is not improbable, given the family's association with the abbey; but it is curious that the house chronicle does not mention associate their tenant - 'a knight named Hubert' who was endowed with peasant land - when discussing the Coursons, or vice-versa: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 8-9. Other scholars have identified this Hubert as probably the ancestor of a family which took its name from the vill, established by the 1130s: VCH Buckinghamshire, iv. 428.

HUBERT OF MONT-CANISY. All Huberts in East Anglia are probably Hubert of Mont-Canisy, who held Wyverstone in chief and Bromeswell and Staverton in Suffolk from Robert Malet. The remaining Huberts in East Anglia - all without bynames - are also tenants of Robert Malet, five of his manors lying in one of the vills named above; three more - Edwardstone, Rickinghall and Yaxley - being later held by the Mont-Canisy family: Eye priory cartulary, i. 13; ii. 58, 76. A Hubert also held two manors in Essex from Robert. The only other Hubert in that county, or elsewhere in eastern England, is possibly the same man, though there are no links to confirm this. He held a virgate at Waltham from Geoffrey de Mandeville. Hubert of Mont-Canisy also had a messuage in York, so may be the one other Hubert in the county, at Goldsborough, a tenant of Ralph Paynel. With a house in York and a manor in the general area of the 'lost fee' of William Malet, Hubert may have been one of William Malet's men who followed his son south, since the Malet lands in Yorkshire were lost to his son. The manor was later held by a family which took its name from the vill: Early Yorkshire charters, vi. 118. Hubert was seneschal of Eye. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 686) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 256-57, apart from Goldsborough, assigned to another Hubert (no. 10781); the tenant at Waltham is unidentified (no. 5056).

HUBERT OF ST CLAIR. The Huberts who held 'Winterborne', Hemsworth and Witchampton in Dorset and Charleston in Sussex from Count Robert of Mortain are probably Hubert of St Clair, named in Exon. as the Count's tenant on the substantial manor of Kingstone in Somerset. Count Robert had no other Huberts on his Honour, and there are none in either county or, in the case of Sussex, in the surrounding counties either. Hubert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 778) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 257, apart from Charleston, assigned to Hubert of Mont-Canisy.

HUGH. Hugh is one of the most common names in Domesday Book, occurring over a thousand times and in every county except Cornwall. Almost sixty Hughs have different bynames, thirty of them tenants-in-chief, Hughs also occurring as tenants of nearly a hundred other tenants-in-chief. Six Hughs appear in pre-Conquest contexts.

HUGH BURDET. The Burdets who held Braunstone and Gaulby in Leicestershire from Hugh of Grandmesnil are probably Hugh Burdet, a tenant of Countess Judith in the same county: Crouch, Beaumont twins, pp. 127-28. The Domesday scribe occasionally omitted a forename, and Burdet occurs only in Leicestershire. He was perhaps the son of Robert Burdet, whose wife held Ratcliffe from Robert of Bucy and probably Croft from Hugh of Grandmesnil. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3078) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 258.

[HUGH] DE MONTFORT. Montfort, named on the royal manor of Ringsfield in Suffolk, can only be Hugh de Montfort, a byname here being used as a forename, as occasionally elsewhere; no one else in Domesday had this byname. Hugh held parts of other royal manors in Essex and Suffolk. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 682) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 265-66.

EARL HUGH OF CHESTER. Earl H on the royal manor of Bungay in Suffolk can only be Earl Hugh of Chester. It has been suggested that the Hugh who held 'Shipton Dovel' in Gloucestershire from William of Eu may also be the earl, who was William's brother-in-law; if so, it is an exceptional tenurial arrangement for an earl. The descent of Hugh's manor has not been traced; but the earldom of Chester later had an interest in Shipton: VCH Gloucestershire, xi. 252.

HUGH GOSBERT. Hugh, who held Lewell among the king's thanes in Dorset, is named Hugh Gosbert in the Geld Roll for Cullifordtree Hundred, where Lewell lay: VCH Dorset, iii. 147. He held four other manors on the fief where his byname is supplied. He is possibly also the tenant of Roger Arundel at Powerstock, adjacent to his manor of Woolcombe, as suggested by Dr Keats-Rohan. Though a very common name, Hughs are not particularly thick on the ground in Dorset, and all but the Arundel tenant may be identified with a degree of confidence. Hugh of Teversham, a tenant of Roger Arundel in Somerset, is conceivably the same man; like the Hugh at Lewell, he was preceded by an Alward, though the name is a common one, particularly so in the south-western counties. Apart from these slight associations, there are no specific links between the Arundel tenant and the thane. Powerstock was later the centre of the Arundel barony, Roger's heirs favouring Roger and Robert as forenames: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 72-73. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 291) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 270 apart from Lewell, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 3054).

HUGH HUBOLD. Hugh, who held three manors in Warwickshire from Osbern son of Richard - said to be the same Hugh - is very probably Osbern's Bedfordshire tenant, Hugh Hubold, the Warwickshire manors descending to another Hugh Hubold in the thirteenth century, together with Longstanton in Cambridgeshire, where Hugh is identified as Hugh Hubold in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 93): VCH Cambridgeshire, ix. 226. Longstanton was held from Gilbert son of Turold, who also had a tenant named Hugh in Worcestershire, possibly Hubold since Gilbert's fief was modest and his tenants few, one Hugh being more likely than two. As Gilbert was disinherited during the reign of William Rufus, the descent of his manors is unrevealing: VCH Worcestershire, iv. 275-76. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 312) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 270, apart from the Warwickshire manors, attributed to another Hugh (no. 9396).

HUGH MALTRAVERS. The Hughs who held ten manors from William of Eu in the south-western counties may all be Hugh Maltravers. He is named in Exon. as William's tenant on part of Hinton in Somerset, and is probably the Hugh on part of the following entry, at Yeovil, where a manor was later named Henford Matravers: Morland, Glastonbury, p. 14. On similar grounds, he is likely to be the Hugh at Lytchett Matravers in Dorset, the most valuable of the ten; the other manors in the county were later held by the Maltravers family or were 'also' held by the same Domesday Hugh: Feudal Aids, ii. 36; Hutchins, History and antiquities of Dorset, iii. 314, 683. Of the three Wiltshire manors, Sopworth was later held by the Maltravers family. Hugh's estate included substantial manors in all three counties, making him the wealthiest of William's tenants, so the other two Wiltshire manors - valuable and said to be held by one man - are perhaps more likely to have been held by Hugh Maltravers than a second Hugh, particularly as William had no tenants named Hugh in the other six counties of his Honour: Book of Fees, pp. 711, 724, 745, 1421. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 781) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 271, apart from the Wiltshire manors, assigned to Hugh the large (no. 344), and Woolcombe, whose tenant is unidentified. The tenant of William of Mohun on three Somerset manors is also identified as Maltravers.

HUGH NEPHEW OF HERBERT SON OF IVO. The anonymous nephew who justified the mill built by his uncle, Herbert son of Ivo, at the entrance to Dover harbour which 'wrecks almost all ships, through its great disturbance of the sea' on the grounds that it was authorised by Bishop Odo of Bayeux, is probably Hugh, both Hugh and his nephew Herbert (q.v.) being important tenants of the bishop in Kent and elsewhere, Hugh succeeding his uncle on other manors in Kent and on the bishop's fief in Bedfordshire. He is probably also the unnamed nephew of Herbert son of Ivo on Odo's fief in Essex, at Kelvedon Hatch, and likely to be the unidentified Hugh who succeeded the unidentified Herbert at Boswell Banks on Odo's fief in Kent, the one other Hugh in Domesday to do so. Nepos is ambiguous and may mean nephew, grandson, cousin or even kinsman; but as it was his uncle (avunculus) who built the offending mill in Dover, his relationship is that of nephew. Hugh was the bishop's tenant in Kent, Bedfordshire, Nottinghamshire and Essex; his manors are recorded in Coel (no. 853) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 271.

HUGH OF BEAUCHAMP. The Hughs who held two manors from William Speke in Bedfordshire, and nine from Countess Judith, may be Hugh of Beauchamp, the sheriff and most important tenant-in-chief in the county. The two Speke manors were in vills where Beauchamp held in chief, William Speke having no other tenants named Hugh. Six of the nine manors held from Countess Judith are also in vills where Hugh of Beauchamp held in chief, two of the remaining three - Bolnhurst and Radwell - being adjacent to other such vills. A half-virgate in Potton is somewhat apart. Hugh does not appear to be a tenant elsewhere; and although the Countess had at least four other Hughs among her tenants, none held land in counties where Beauchamp had a presence other than Bedfordshire itself. In that county, all other unidentified Hughs are plausibly identified as either Hugh of Flanders or Hugh of Hotot, though the latter's manor in Houghton Conquest lies in a vill where Beauchamp also had a manor. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 423) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 260, apart from the tenants of William Speke, who are unidentified (nos. 341, 355).

HUGH OF BOLBEC. Twenty-seven manors were held from Walter Giffard by tenants named Hugh, all of whom are very probably Hugh of Bolbec, named as his tenant on three Bedfordshire manors, two in Buckinghamshire, and two more in Cambridgeshire in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 12, 14, 102); one of these, Swaffham Bulbeck in Cambridgeshire, preserves his name. His remaining tenancies in Buckinghamshire, Huntingdonshire and Oxfordshire descended to his heirs, the earls of Oxford, who held them from Giffard's heirs: Book of Fees, pp. 829, 833, 881-82, 930. He may have been a relative of Walter, the founder of the Giffard dynasty being Osbern of Bolbec: Round, 'Domesday survey of Berkshire', p. 213. Hugh was also a tenant-in-chief in Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Huntingdonshire. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 368) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 261, apart from the tenant in Huntingdonshire, who is unidentified (no. 32640).

HUGH OF BOSCHERBERT. The tenants of the wife of Hugh son of Grip at Stafford, Bridge, Chaldon and Ringstead in Dorset may be Hugh of Boscherbert, named in Exon. as her tenant at Brenscombe and Winterborne Houghton. Stafford, Chaldon and Ringstead were later held by a William of Gouiz; Bridge is in the same Hundred: Feudal Aids, ii. 1, 9, 20, 29, 38. Hugh had a small fief of his own in the county. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 438) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 261, apart from Stafford, attributed to another Hugh (no. 9196), and Bridge, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 2945).

HUGH OF FLANDERS. The tenants of Walter of Flanders at Turvey, Podington, Thurleigh, Astwick and Henlow in Bedfordshire, and at Canons Ashby, Preston Capes and an anonymous holding in Northamptonshire, are probably Hugh of Flanders, who may be Walter's brother. He is probably also the Hugh who held Silsoe in Bedfordshire from Walter brother of Sihere, possibly his uncle: Fowler, Bedfordshire in 1086, p. 100. Hugh himself had a small fief in Bedfordshire, including the one other manor in Podington. Podington, Thurleigh, Henlow and Canons Ashby descended to Hugh's successors, the La Lega family of Thurleigh, other members of the family having interests in Turvey and Silsoe: Farrer, Honors, i. 69-76. Preston and Astwick were held by the Wahull family, barons of Odell, whose relationship to their Flemish predecessors is unknown: ibid. i. 77-78, 82; Sanders, English baronies, pp. 68-69. Preston Capes is adjacent to Canons Ashby, Henlow to Astwick, and neither Walter had tenants named Hugh elsewhere, so Preston and Astwick may have been held Hugh of Flanders, despite their descent. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 476) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 270, apart from those in Northamptonshire, where the tenants are unidentified (nos. 27314, 27319, 27322); some Bedfordshire references are missing in Domesday people.

HUGH OF GOUVILLE. Hugh, who held Marston Trussell, Thorpe Lubenham, Weedon Bec and Ashby St Ledgers in Northamptonshire from Hugh of Grandmesnil - stated to be the same man in the text - is Hugh of Gouville (Witvile), who held five houses from Hugh in Leicester 'in exchange for Watford', Weedon being part of that exchange. He is probably also the Grandmesnil tenant at Shangton and Stonton Wyville in Leicestershire, Stonton taking its name from his family. Grandmesnil had several other tenants named Hugh in Leicestershire and Northamptonshire, most or all of whom may be Hugh of Gouville though this cannot be demonstrated because the descent of Hugh's manors was disrupted, the Northamptonshire Survey revealing that every one of his tenancies in that county - including those where Hugh's identity is not in doubt - had escheated or were held by different individuals, no one successor having more than a single manor: VCH Northamptonshire, i. 367-68, 370, 372, 384. Those held by three lay tenants in the Survey were held by their families in the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, pp. 920, 929-40. As it is unlikely that three or more Grandmesnil tenants named Hugh lost their manors between Domesday and the Survey, Hugh of Gouville probably held them all in 1086. Kings Sutton, like Maidford, was acquired from Willa - who appears nowhere else in Domesday Book - and which like Thorpe Lubenham was held by the earl of Leicester - successor to Hugh of Grandmesnil - in demesne in the Survey; Middleton Cheney, like Weedon, had been used to endow one of the earl's ecclesiastical foundations. Hugh has been identified as the ancestor of the Wyville family, major tenants of the Honour of Mowbray from the twelfth century: Crouch, Beaumont twins, p. 129; Ancient charters, pp. 59-63. If so, the family had lost all its Domesday manors by then: Charters of the Honour of Mowbray, pp. xxxiv-vi, 264. Hugh's Leicestershire manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3685) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 267, apart from Whitwick, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 26340). Marston, Weedon and Ashby are assigned to another Hugh (no. 12082), the remainder are unidentified (nos. 27175, 27177-78, 27181).

HUGH OF GRANDMESNIL. Hugh, tenant of Earl Hugh of Chester at Loughborough and Burton-on-the-Wolds in Leicestershire, may be Hugh of Grandmesnil, the greatest landowner in the county. The scribe has indicated by his sigla that the two Hughs are the same person, and Hugh of Grandmesnil claimed jurisdiction in Burton-on-the-Wolds. He had no other recorded holding in the vill in Domesday, though two fees were later held of his descendants as part of the Honour of Leicester: Feudal Aids, vi. 558. The Hugh who held Kirkby Mallory from St Mary's, Coventry, may also be Grandmesnil, who held the other part of the vill. Hugh's manors, which are recorded in Coel (no. 652) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 262-63, do not include these manors, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 26216, 26676, 26686).

HUGH OF HOTOT. It is likely that the Hugh who appears three times - two entries are duplicated - as a tenant of Countess Judith in Thistleton are one man. He has been identified as Hugh of Bucy, ancestor of the Bussey family, which held land in the vill at a later date: VCH Rutland, ii. 156. But the descent of the tenancies of the Honour of Huntingdon were disrupted by political upheavals and are an unreliable guide to Domesday identities. The Busseys first appear in Thistleton in the thirteenth century, other tenants intervening: Farrer, Honors, ii. 296-301, 304, 306, 308. It is more likely that Hugh is Hugh of Hotot, named as Judith's tenant in Whissendine, seven miles away, particularly as he and the unidentified Hugh appear in consecutive entries, described in each as the Countess's man, a scribal eccentricity if they were different men. The descent of the Whissendine manor was also disrupted, being later granted to the Moreville family, constables of Scotland, who also held Houghton Conquest in Bedfordshire and Offord d'Arcy in Huntingdonshire from the Honour, both held from Countess Judith by an unidentified Hugh in 1086. On this basis, Farrer suggested these Hughs may be Hugh of Hotot: Honors, ii. 356-58. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1648) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 264, apart from Offord and Thistleton, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 32714, 32627).

HUGH OF HOUDAIN. 'Of Houdain' at Whatfield in Suffolk, and 'H of Houdain', who administered a group of royal manors in the county when Roger Bigot was sheriff, can only be Hugh of Houdain, Roger's brother-in-law and tenant in Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk. He may also be Roger's tenant in a group of vills in 'Clackclose' Hundred, several of which also contained royal manors, albeit not those he was responsible for. Roger had one other unidentified tenant of this name, at Aslackton. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 659) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 264, apart from Aslackton, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 9660). The byname does not occur elsewhere in Domesday.

HUGH OF INGESTRE. The tenants of Robert of Stafford in the adjacent vills of Tixall and Ingestre are likely to be the same man, represented by the Wastenis family in the thirteenth century, probably descendants of the William of Wastimais who held two fees of the Honour of Stafford in 1166: Red Book, i. 266; Book of Fees, pp. 966, 974. Hugh's manors are assigned to Hugh son of Constant in Coel.

HUGH OF LACY. All or most of the nine tenants of Roger of Lacy named Hugh may be his younger brother, who according to Orderic Vitalis (iv. 284-85) was granted the Lacy Honour by William Rufus when he banished Roger for rebellion in 1096. Four of the six Herefordshire manors - Pudleston, Collington, Sawbury and Wolferlow - appear to be Lacy demesne early in the following century, perhaps re-united by Hugh's succession: Herefordshire Domesday, pp. 79, 103-104, 127-29. The descent of the other two is obscure: ibid., pp. 103-105. Of the two Gloucestershire manors, the Lacy Honour retained a demesne interest in Wick Rissington and perhaps Windrush, both substantial: VCH Gloucestershire, vi. 115. It has also been suggested that Hugh of Lacy held Chesterton in Cirencester from William son of Baderon; the manor is adjacent to the Lacy vill of Siddington, both manors being subsequently held by the Langley family; William had no other Hughs among his tenants. Finally, the one other Hugh on the Lacy Honour, at Stanford-on-Teme in Worcestershire, may also be Lacy. The vill is four miles from Wolferlow and also four from Windrush, acquired from the royal thane Godric who may be the Godric at Stanford. One curious circumstance lends some general support to these identifications: although Hugh is one of the most common names in Domesday Book, there remains only one unidentified Hugh among the landholders of the three counties of Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire if the identification of Lacy and Hugh Hubold are acceptable. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4368) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 264-65, apart from Chesterton in Gloucestershire, assigned to another Hugh (no. 4337), and Stanford and Bishops Frome in Herefordshire, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 30309, 30376).

HUGH OF `SPAIN'. The tenants of Alfred 'of Spain' at Plainsfield, Marsh Mills, Leigh, Rodhuish and Preston in Somerset may be Hugh 'of Spain', named in the Geld Roll for Cannington Hundred where two of the manors lay: VCH Somerset, i. 533. Hugh de Tevera, also named in the Geld Roll for this Hundred, is probably another Hugh, a tenant of Roger Arundel. Alfred is known to have had unnamed brothers (Domesday people, p. 141), and Hugh has more manors and the most valuable tenancy on Alfred's Honour, if all five manors are his. Alfred had no tenants named Hugh in the other four counties in his Honour. Hugh's manors - including both in Cannington Hundred - are recorded in Coel (no. 1987) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 264.

HUGH OF TEVERSHAM. The Hughs who held the consecutive manors of Fiddington and Tuxwell in Somerset from Roger Arundel may be Hugh of Teversham, named in the Geld Roll for Cannington Hundred where both manors lay: VCH Somerset, i. 533. Tevera has been identified as Teversham in Cambridgeshire (Tengvik, Old English bynames, p. 52), though the form bears little resemblance to the Domesday place-name and Roger had no known connection with that county, his Honour being limited to those of Dorset and Somerset. Roger had another Hugh on his Honour at Powerstock in Dorset, here identified as Hugh Gosbert, who is conceivably the same man. Hugh's Somerset manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2099) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 272.

HUGH OF VAUTORTES. The tenants of Count Robert of Mortain at Bolberry and Batson in Devon are probably Hugh of Vautortes, named in the Geld Roll for Diptford Hundred, where both manors lay; he may have owed tax on parts of one or other or both. Exon. records that Hugh was also a Mortain subtenant on part of the royal manor of Brompton Regis and his tenant at Foddington in Somerset, a vill in which he held another manor on his own account. The Count of Mortain had no other unidentified Hughs on his extensive Honour, except in Sussex. Hugh may be the brother of Reginald of Vautortes (q.v.), a major tenant of Count Robert in the south-west. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1213) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 267, apart from his subtenancy, which is unrecorded, and Bolberry, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 3442).

HUGH OF WANCHY. Hugh, who held Barsham in Norfolk from William of Warenne, is identified as Hugh of Wanchy, his tenant at Depden in Suffolk, by Hugh's grant of a church, a priest and tithes in those vills to Castle Acre priory, to which his son added the mill on the bridge, some peasants and land: Monasticon, v. 49, no 1. He is probably also the Hugh at Clopton, near Depden, all three manors being acquired from Toki of Walton (q.v.). They were later held by members of the Wanchy family, together with Fincham, Denver and Larling in Norfolk, all held by a Hugh from William of Warenne in 1086: Farrer, Honors, iii. 373, 380-82. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 764) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 267, apart from Barsham, assigned to Hugh son of Golda, and Clopton, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 13486).

HUGH SON OF CONSTANT. The Hughs who held five manors in Warwickshire and two in Staffordshire from Robert of Stafford and two other tenants-in-chief are probably Hugh son of Constant, tenant of Hugh of Grandmesnil at Loxley. Hugh held another manor in Loxley from the Count of Meulan, Loxley descending to Robert son of Odo of Loxley, probably the grandson of the Stafford tenant, Hugh. Robert was his last male descendant, one of his heiresses marrying into the Bagot family, their descendants holding Preston and Morton Bagot, held by Hugh in 1086 from the Count of Meulan and Robert of Stafford respectively, these links suggesting the identity the tenants of the three tenants-in-chief as one man: Red Book, i. 265, 326; VCH Staffordshire, xx. 163-64; VCH Warwickshire, iii. 130-31, 135, 142-43. Hugh's descendants also held land in Spernall, held by a Hugh from William Bonvallet in 1086, and Patshull in Staffordshire, held by Hugh from Robert of Stafford. Hugh may also have held the following manor, Oaken, acquired from the same pre-Conquest lord, and possibly Tixall and Ingestre, though these were in the hands of another family by 1166 and are here assigned to another Hugh. Hugh's manors in Loxley and Preston are recorded in Coel (no. 2573) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 268; the remaining tenants are unidentified (nos. 28466, 28468, 28521, 31515, 31516).

HUGH SON OF GOLDA. The tenant of William of Warenne at Threxton in Norfolk may be Hugh son of Golda, a Warenne tenant at Barnham in Suffolk, fifteen miles south of Threxton; Hugh's successors held land in both counties, and Threxton 'belongs to Lewes' in Sussex, where Hugh was also a Warenne tenant, the descent of his manors identifying him at Ilford, Rottingdean, Warningore, Beeding and perhaps Allington: Farrer, Honors, iii. 334-39. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 594) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 268-69, with the addition of Barsham in Norfolk, here attributed to Hugh of Wanchy.

HUGH SON OF GRIP. All references to H, or Hugh, as an intermediate landowner on the fief of his wife - actually his widow - in Domesday Book or Exon. are to Hugh son of Grip, the sheriff of Dorset, who was dead by 1086. The context makes it clear that he is also the Hugh who granted a manor at Gillingham to St Mary's of Cranborne, acting as a royal official. He is several times referred to as Hugh the sheriff in the Dorset folios, always in the past tense. As an intermediate landowner, his manors are not listed in Coel, Domesday people or the Statistics database.

HUGH SON OF GRIP'S WIFE. The wife of Hugh son of Grip is named in the rubric of her fief and on a number other Dorset manors. Only two landowners named Hugh had a wife recorded in Domesday Book, and only one of them held land in the south-west, or was a widow, so there is little doubt that Hugh's wife in Dorset and Wiltshire is the widow of the deceased sheriff of Dorset, Hugh son of Grip. Her identity was so well-known that the scribe could simply refer to her as 'H's wife' on one occasion. Her name, not recorded in Domesday, is Hawise. She later married Alfred II of Lincoln and many - though not all - of her manors were held by their descendants: Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, i. 181-82; iii. 413-15 Keats-Rohan, 'Domesday Book and the Malets', pp. 28-29; Williams, 'Domesday survey of Dorset', pp. 55-56. Her manors are recorded in Coel (no. 596) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 441.

HUGH SON OF NORMAN. The Hughs who held Shenley in Buckinghamshire and a fief and Odd Rode in Cheshire from Earl Hugh of Chester are probably Hugh son of Norman, his principal tenant of that name, who also held manors elsewhere in Cheshire, Suffolk and Yorkshire from him. Hugh's predecessor on the Buckinghamshire manors was Burghard of Mendlesham (q.v.), from whom he also obtained some of his Suffolk manors where his byname is supplied; Odd Rode was acquired from a Godric, from whom he also inherited his Cheshire fief: Tait, Domesday survey of Cheshire, pp. 50-51, 56-57, 217; Farrer, Honors, ii. 15-16, 110-15, 236; Sawyer and Thacker. 'Domesday survey of Cheshire', pp. 312-14. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 535) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 269, apart from those in Buckinghamshire, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 1253-54), but with the addition of Gresford, here assigned to Hugh son of Osbern.

HUGH SON OF OSBERN. The Hughs who held South Ormsby and Ketsby in Lincolnshire and fiefs in Cheshire from Earl Hugh are probably Hugh son of Osbern, alias Hugh Blundus, as suggested by the descent of his manors: Farrer, Honors, ii. 127-29. He is given his byname as the earl's tenant at Broughton and Claverton in Cheshire. He may be the Hugh at Gresford in the county, where he shared the manor with Osbern son of Tezzo (q.v.), probably his father, a tenant of the earl elsewhere in Cheshire and in Lincolnshire: Sawyer and Thacker. 'Domesday survey of Cheshire', pp. 313-14. He was the Hugh who held the remaining manors in Exestan Hundred, including the neighbouring vill of Allington where his predecessor is Thorth, from whom he probably acquired Gresford. Less certainly, he may be the Hugh at Eastham, Osbern holding Poulton three miles away. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2584) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 269, apart from Eastham, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 28661), and Gresford, attributed to Hugh son of Norman. See also Tait, Domesday survey of Cheshire, pp. 50-52.

HUGH THE BOWMAN. Hugh, tenant of Henry of Ferrers at Trusley in Derbyshire, is very probably Hugh the bowman, who gave tithes in that vill to Tutbury priory: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, p. 65. Hugh had tenants of this name in Leicestershire, conceivably the same man, since only one Hugh witnesses Henry's charters; but the name is a common one. For that reason, Hugh the bowman, who held land at Filsham in Sussex from the Count of Eu, may be another Hugh the bowman. Hugh's Derbyshire manor is recorded in Coel (no. 3857) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 258; the Leicestershire tenants are unidentified (nos. 26367, 26383) and the Sussex bowman identified as another man (no. 107).

HUGH THE INTERPRETER. Hugh the interpreter, who held land at Arnewood in the New Forest, is 'probably identical' with Hugolin the interpreter who held a house in Bath and three manors among the king's thanes in Somerset and with Hugh the interpreter, a tenant of Bath abbey in Bathampton according to Exon.(SOM 7,11): Round, 'Domesday survey of Somerset', p. 416. He is named Hugolin the commissioner (legatus) in the Geld Roll for Bath Hundred: VCH Somerset, i. 528. Hugh Beard, who held Dogmersfield among the king's thanes in Hampshire, may be another alias of his, Hugh the interpreter making a grant to Wells abbey as Hugolin cum barba: English episcopal acta, x. no. 3. Hugh at Dogmersfield and Hugolin at Claverton were each preceded by a Swein, who may be the same man as the name is rare in the area - there is only one other Swein between the two counties - and both manors are substantial. Hugh/Hugolin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 314) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 258.

HUMPHREY HASTANG. Humphrey, who held land at Chebsey in Staffordshire from Henry of Ferrers, is probably the Humphrey who held three manors - said to be held by one man - in Warwickshire from Hascoit Musard; Chebsey was later held from Henry's descendants by Robert de Hastenc, and the Hastang family held fees in 1166 from Hascoit's descendants, their representative, Aitrop, being named as the son of Humphrey Hasteng in a charter of Henry I: Book of Fees, pp. 969, 975; Red Book, i. 110, 338, 342; Early Yorkshire charters, iii. 132. Another son, Saloman the cleric, held the churches of Chebsey and Leamington Hastings during the reign of Henry I: Regesta, ii. no. 1857. Leamington is the one remaining manor on the fief of Hascoit Musard, its name indicating the association with the Hastang family, which acquired the whole of Hascoit's fief. Neither Henry of Ferrers or Hascoit had other Humphreys on their Honours, and there are no other such tenants in either of the two counties. Humphrey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3542) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 275.

HUMPHREY NEPHEW OF RANULF BROTHER OF ILGER*]. Humphrey, who held the Norfolk fief of Ranulf brother of Ilger, is very probably his nephew, named on the royal manor of Aylsham, three miles south of his manor at Erpingham. He is perhaps also Ranulf's one other tenant of this name, on the respectable manor of Ramsden Bellhouse in Essex, and possibly also the tenant of Peter of Valognes at Great Walsingham, a manor he acquired from Bondi of Raynham (q.v.), a thane from whom Ranulf's nephew acquired two of his manors. Peter's tenure of Walsingham was apparently queried, the scribe noting that it 'was delivered to make up a manor, his men do not know which'. Walsingham is eight miles west of two of Humphrey's other manors. He may have held other manors, his forename being particularly common in East Anglia, but there are no links to identify him elsewhere. His manors on Ranulf's fief are recorded in Coel (no. 8886) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 273; the tenants at Ramsden and on a second manor in Erpingham are unidentified (nos. 5305, 11275), the tenant at Walsingham as another man (no. 3672), Domesday people, p. 274.

HUMPHREY OF ANNEVILLE. Humphrey, who held Knebworth in Hertfordshire from Eudo the steward, is named Humphrey of Anneville in the account of Hertford, where he held two houses with one garden under Eudo; he probably also held the anonymous manor in Hertford Hundred from Eudo. The Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 70, 82) names him as the Humphrey who held Wimpole from Eudo and Barton from Guy of Raimbeaucourt; and he is identified as Eudo's tenant at Clopton, East Hatley and Kingston, and of Guy at Eversden, by their descent: Farrer, Honors, iii. 207-10. The Inquisitio names him as a juror in 'Arringford' Hundred, where three of his manors lay. There are no other tenants of this name in Cambridgeshire or on the Honours of Guy and Eudo. Humphrey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 408) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 274.

HUMPHREY OF CARTERET. H of Carteret, who held land at Beaminster in Dorset from the bishop of Salisbury, can only be Humphrey of Carteret, who is probably also the Humphrey who held Up Exe in Devon as a subtenant Drogo son of Mauger, tenant of the bishop of Coutances there, the Geld Roll for Witheridge Hundred revealing that Drogo's subtenant at Thelbridge - who is not included in Domesday Book - is Humphrey of Carteret: Devonshire Domesday, i. p. xxiii-iv. The bishop of Salisbury had no other tenants of this name; but Geoffrey of Coutances had, at Cameley in Somerset and Sharnbrook in Bedfordshire, the latter at least probably Humphrey of Carteret, even though the forename is a common one, since he is the only Humphrey in the county, as is the bishop's tenant in Devon, which makes it somewhat more likely that he is also his Somerset tenant. Humphrey may have been the son of Mauger, brother of Drogo of Carteret, alias Drogo son of Mauger (from whom he held Up Exe), major tenants of the Count of Mortain and the bishop of Coutances in the south-western counties. Humphrey's manor of Beaminster is recorded in Coel (no. 611) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 273; his subtenancy at Up Exe is not included, and the tenants in Bedfordshire and Somerset are unidentified (nos. 123, 14490).

HUMPHREY OF MAIDENHILL. Humphrey, who held a hide at Upton St Leonards in the royal manor of 'Kings Barton' in Gloucestershire, is probably Humphrey of Maidenhill, whose small fief included a hide at Upton. Maidenhill, not named in Domesday, is close to Humphrey's manor of Sezincote. The Humphrey on several other royal manors in the county is probably another man, Humphrey the chamberlain. Humphrey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3380) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 275.

HUMPHREY OF ST OMER. The Humphreys at Wickmere and Helhoughton in Norfolk are identified as Humphrey of St Omer at Brampton by his status as an intermediate landowner and predecessor of Drogo of la Beuvrière, characteristics which also identifies him as the Humphrey of St Bertin at Sotherton in Suffolk. The Brampton entry reveals that he had forfeited his lands. There are no other intermediate landowners of this name. As an intermediate landowner, his manors are not listed in Coel, Domesday people or the Statistics database.

HUMPHREY OF THE COTENTIN. Humphrey, who held land at Tushingham in Cheshire from Robert son of Hugh, is probably Humphrey of the Cotentin, witness to the grants of Robert son of Hugh to St Werburgh's abbey: Charters of the Anglo-Norman earls of Chester, p. 41. As the name is uncommon in the north of England and only one Humphrey witnessed Earl Hugh's charters, he may be Robert's tenant at Burwardsley and Earl Hugh's tenant at Coppingford in Huntingdonshire, where he shared the fief (in adjacent vills) with Fulco of Bainville (q.v.), a fellow-witness to Robert's grant and his tenant in Cheshire, where Humphrey and Fulco also held in adjacent vills; the descent of Coppingford confirms his identity there: Farrer, Honors, ii. 27-28. Less certainly, he may be the one other Humphrey in Cheshire, the subtenant of William son of Nigel at Halton. Humphrey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3832) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 275, apart from Coppingford, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 32638). Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that he may be the Humphrey with demesne at Damblainville in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Caen).

HUMPHREY OF VEILLY. Humphrey, tenant of Ilbert de Lacy at 'Newton Wallis', Ackworth and Snydale in Yorkshire, is almost certainly Humphrey of Veilly, who gave tithes in Newton and Snydale to the Lacy foundation of St Clement's of Pontefract, and whose descendants held all three manors at times, though with fluctuating fortunes: Early Yorkshire charters, iii. 186-87, 254-56; Early Yorkshire families, pp. 95-97. Ilbert has no other Humphreys among the tenants on his Honour, and Humphrey of Veilly appears unconnected with his two namesakes in the county, both in the East Riding. Humphrey came from Villy-Bocage (Calvados: arrondissement Caen): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 109. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4623) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 275.

HUMPHREY OF WIGGINTON. The Count of Mortain had two dozen Humphreys among his tenants, most if not all of whom are probably one man. In Northamptonshire, where all Humphreys are Mortain tenants, thirteen of fourteen are stated to be the same man; the fourteenth, who held a subtenancy, is not grouped with the others in the text but it is surrounded by them on the ground. By the time of the Northamptonshire Survey, Humphrey or his descendants had lost their lands, which were in the hands of the king and several other men: VCH Northamptonshire, i. 374, 378-79, 381, 383-86. This is presumably the case elsewhere, so clues to his identity are slight. He is probably the Humphrey in Buckingham and Cornwall, where the Mortain tenants are the only Humphreys in those counties, and in Dorset where all but one of the Humphreys are identified. Less certainly, he may be the Humphrey in Sussex, where there is one other unidentified Humphrey, Somerset, where there are two, and Hertfordshire, which has three, the Count being the only tenant-in-chief with a tenant named Humphrey in more than one of those counties. The two Hertfordshire manors of Wigginton and Little Gaddesden are the most substantial held by Humphrey, both close to Berkhamsted (of which Gaddesden was an outlier), the centre of the Mortain Honour, and on that account probably held by the Humphrey widely endowed by the Count. If these identifications are valid, Humphrey would rank among the ten wealthiest of the Count's tenants. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3394) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 276, apart from Goathill in Somerset, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 14812).

HUMPHREY SON OF ROBERT. Humphrey son of R, who held Boyton in Suffolk from Robert Malet, and the Humphreys who held another fourteen manors in the county from him, as well as Shotford in Norfolk, are probably Humphrey son of Robert, who held the Malet manors of Playford and Grundisburgh. Apart from two small holdings in Henley and Thicchebrom, all these manors were held by Alan of Withersdale in the thirteenth century. Thicchebrom is apparently in Weybread, where Humphrey had a manor: Eye priory cartulary, i. nos. 311-13; ii. p. 75. Robert Malet had no other tenants of this name on his Honour. Humphrey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 513) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 273, apart from Thicchebrom, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 12229).

HUMPHREY SON OF RODRIC. Humphrey, William of Warenne's man, who held land in Rattlesden in Suffolk from Ely abbey, is almost certainly Humphrey son of Rodric, who held a manor from William in the same vill. He may also be the Humphrey who held Buxhall and Creeting - between six and eight miles from Rattlesden - from Warenne. William had no other tenants of this name on his Honour. Humphrey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 512) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 273, apart from Buxhall and Creeting, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 13477, 13480).

HUMPHREY THE CHAMBERLAIN. Humphrey, who held Holton in Somerset, is almost certainly Humphrey the chamberlain who held the preceding and following manors according to Exon. He is very likely also the Humphrey who farmed three royal manors in Gloucestershire and held another from the king on the same fief. He held a fief in the county, in which one other Humphrey can be distinguished with reasonable confidence. Less certainly, he may be the Humphrey who 'holds a bit' of the royal manor of Bowcombe in Hampshire, another county in which he held in chief. He had modest fiefs in several other counties between Dorset and Leicestershire. He was chamberlain to Queen Matilda and the brother of Aiulf the chamberlain (q.v.). Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he may be Humphrey Goldenbollocks, who illegally held a manor in Essex. Humphrey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 179) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 274; those of Humphrey Goldenbollocks (aurei testiculi) in Coel (no. 116), p. 272.

HUMPHREY THE COOK. Humphrey, who shared Widhill in Wiltshire with another royal servant, Theobald the doctor (q.v.), is almost certainly Humphrey the cook, both being named together in the Geld Roll for the county: VCH Wiltshire, ii. 210. Humphrey held another ministerial-type fief in Gloucestershire, where his byname is given. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1832) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 274.

HUNDING. Hunding is a rare name which occurs five times, distributed among the three northern counties of Cheshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire and the lands of as many tenants-in-chief, all on modest, pre-Conquest holdings. As two of the counties and tenants-in-chief shared an even rarer name - Hundulf - scribal error in one or other name may reasonably be suspected. Hunding appears to be otherwise unknown, but Hundulf occurs at the York mint around the millennium and left its name on the landscape, at Hundulfthorpe Farm in the North Riding.

HUNDING OF BUTLEY. Hunding, whose manor of Butley in Cheshire was acquired by Robert son of Hugh, has no apparent links with his namesakes though he is possibly the same man as the Hundulf at Tiverton, also acquired by Robert, and perhaps the Hunding at Winnington, which lay between the two.

HUNDING OF CASTLETON. Hunding, whose modest holding at Castleton in Derbyshire was acquired by William Peverel, has no apparent links with his namesakes though he is possibly the same man as the Hundulf at Hucklow, also acquired by William.

HUNDING OF RAISTHORPE. Hunding, who shared a modest holding at Great Houghton in Yorkshire retained by the king, has no links with his namesakes. The three unnamed sons of Hunding at Great Houghton, more than fifty miles away, are presumably the sons of another man.

HUNDING OF WINNINGTON. Hunding, whose very modest holding at Winnington in Cheshire was acquired by Osbern son of Tezzo, has no links with his namesakes but may nevertheless be the same man as the Hunding at Butley and the Hundulf at Tiverton, whose manors span his own.

HUNDULF. Hundulf is a rare name which occurs three times, twice in Derbyshire and once in Cheshire. As two of the counties and tenants-in-chief shared an even rarer name - Hunding - scribal error in one or other may reasonably be suspected though the names are recognised as distinct: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 295. It has also been suggested that it may be the same name as Hunwulf, but it is unlikely that the one Hunwulf in Domesday is either of the Cheshire men: Dodgson, 'Some Domesday personal-names', p. 42.

HUNDULF OF HUCKLOW. Hundulf, whose modest holding at Great Hucklow in Derbyshire was acquired by William Peverel, has no apparent links with his namesakes though he is possibly the same man as the Hunding at Castleton, also acquired by William. He may also be the Hundulf at Walton, given Peverel's association with the royal manors.

HUNDULF OF TIVERTON. Hundulf, whose holding at Tiverton in Cheshire was acquired by Robert son of Hugh, has no apparent links with his namesakes though he is possibly the same man as the Hunding whose manor at Butley was also acquired by Robert, and perhaps also the Hunding at Winnington, which lay between those manors.

HUNEF. Hunef is a rare name which occurs once in Kent and twice in Huntingdonshire where it is almost certainly the same name as Huneva, though recorded as distinct in von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 296, and in the Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England.

HUNEF OF OAKLEIGH. Hunef, whose respectable manor of Oakleigh in Kent was acquired by the bishop of Bayeux, is conceivably the same man as the one other Hunef in Domesday Book, his prosperous Huntingdonshire namesake, though there are no links to confirm this.

HUNEF OF STUKELEY. Huneva, whose valuable manor of Great Stukeley in Huntingdonshire was acquired by Countess Judith, is almost certainly the Hunef whose sixteen houses with full jurisdiction and market rights in the borough were also acquired by the Countess. The borough holdings were shared with a Gos who according to the Claims for the county shared land with Hunef intended for Earl Waltheof, Judith's husband; the name Gos is unique to Huntingdonshire, so there can be no doubt that Hunef and Huneva here refer to one individual. As a significant landowner, it is conceivable that he is the same man as the one other Hunef in Domesday, at Oakley in Kent, though as Stukeley is said in the Claims to have been in the king's hands in 1066, this is perhaps unlikely.

HUNNING BROTHER OF WULFGEAT. Apart from Hunning of Colchester, all Hunnings in Domesday Book are concentrated in Shropshire so are probably one man, the Hunning who shared Moreton Corbet with his brother Wulfgeat for twenty years, and Preston Brockhurst with him before the Conquest. He held Lawley, Moreton, Preston and Willey as a tenant of Turold of Verley (q.v.), three of them retained since 1066. He also held Fitz and Merrington, acquired by Picot de Sai; Pulverbatch, shared with Wulfgeat and acquired by Roger the hunter; and Cothercott and Leaton, retained by Earl Roger of Shrewsbury. His manors in Rossall, Welbatch and Stapleton were acquired by Reginald the sheriff and Roger son of Corbet, both of whom obtained manors from a Wulfgeat; and he is likely, too, to be the Hunning a Neen Savage, acquired by Ralph of Mortimer. Dr Williams suggests that Hunning and his brother may be the two unnamed milites who held part of Longford from Turold; either of them may also have held his manor of Lawley, where no pre-Conquest lord is named: English and the Norman Conquest, p. 90. Hunning's tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 3017) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 276, apart from Longford, whose milites are unidentified (no. 30976).

HUNNING OF COLCHESTER. Hunning, who had two houses in Colchester, is the only urban Hunning and the only man of this name other than Hunning of Preston.