Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:38:21.903Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notions of the family, lordship and the evolution of naming processes in medieval English rural society: a regional example

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2008

David Postles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
Continuity and Change , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , August 1995 , pp. 169 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ENDNOTES

1 For an overview, see Clark, C., ‘Anthroponymy’, in Blake, N. ed., The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. II: 1066–1476 (Cambridge, 1992), 551–87.Google Scholar

2 Bourin, M. and Chevalier, B. eds., Genèse médiévale de l' anthroponymie moderne, vol. I (Tours, 1990)Google Scholar; Bourin, M. and Chareille, P. eds., Genèse médiévale de l'anthroponymie moderne, vols. II–1 and II–2 (Tours, 1992).Google Scholar This consortium of research is continuing for medieval ‘Germany’ and ‘Italy’. Volume I reports also on some regions of the Iberian peninsula. The discussion below omits naming processes in boroughs and towns. For a general counsel against cultural conflation as a resort of first instance, see Archer, M., Culture and agency: the place of culture in social theory (Cambridge, 1989).Google Scholar

3 McKinley, R., Norfolk and Suffolk surnames in the middle ages, English Surnames Series (hereafter ESS) I (London, 1973)Google Scholar; The surnames of Oxfordshire, ESS III (London, 1977)Google Scholar; The surnames of Lancashire, ESS IV (London, 1981)Google Scholar; The surnames of Sussex, ESS V (London, 1989)Google Scholar; and Redmond, G., The surnames of the West Riding, ESS II (London, 1973).Google Scholar For some earlier regional differences in naming processes, reflecting different ‘ethnic’ compositions of the local populations, see Insley, J., ‘Some aspects of regional variation in early Middle English personal nomenclature’, Leeds Studies in English 18 (1987), 183–200.Google Scholar

4 The eleventh century is mentioned here, since bynames were attributed to a small proportion of Old English dignitaries; see Tengvik, G., Old English bynames, Nomina Germanica, 4 (Uppsala, 1938).Google Scholar

5 Britnell, R. H., The commercialisation of English society 1000–1500 (Cambridge, 1993), 5–6.Google Scholar

6 See, for example, the statement made by J. A. Raftis about the need to adopt bynames for identification where commercial transactions were involved, in this case in a small town (A small town in the later middle ages: Godmanchester 1278–1400 (Toronto, 1982), 153).Google Scholar

7 The standard work on Continental-Germanic names in use, particularly in the twelfth century, is Forssner, T., Continental-Germanic personal names in England in Old and Middle English times (Uppsala, 1916).Google Scholar

8 For the process of concentration of ‘forenames’, see Clark, C., ‘Willelmus Rex? vel alius Willelmus?, Nomina 11 (1987), 7–33Google Scholar, and ‘English personal names ca. 650–1300’, Medieval Prosopography 8 (1987), 31–60Google Scholar; for the local context, see Postles, D., ‘The changing pattern of male forenames in medieval Leicestershire and Rutland to c. 1350’, Local Population Studies 51 (1993), 54–61.Google Scholar For a diffusionist model which was not directly downwards, see Duby, G., ‘The diffusion of cultural patterns in feudal society’, Past and Present 39 (1968), 3–10, esp. pp. 6–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Structures de parenté et de noblesse: France du Nord, ixe-xiie siecles’, in Miscellanea mediaevalia in memoriam Jan Frederik Niermayer (Gröningen, 1967), 149–65.Google Scholar

9 For such circumstances in different naming systems, see Klapisch-Zuber, C., ‘The name “remade”: the transmission of given names in Florence in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries’, in Klapisch-Zuber, , Women, family and ritual in Renaissance Italy (Chicago, 1985), 283–309Google Scholar; Dupâquier, J. ed., Le prénom: mode et histoire - entretiens de Malher 1980 (Paris, 1984)Google Scholar; Smith, D. S., ‘Child-naming practices, kinship ties and change in family attitudes in Hingham, Massachusetts, 1641–1880’, Journal of Social History 18 (1985), 541–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Fines, A., ‘L'héritage du nom de baptême’, Annales: Economies, Societes, Civilisations 42 (1987), 853–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For different meanings of homonymous forenames in later medieval England, see Bennett, M. J., ‘Spiritual kinship and the baptismal name in traditional European society’, in Frappell, L. O. ed., Principalities, power and estates (Adelaide, 1979), 1–13Google Scholar; Miles, P.,‘Baptism and the naming of children in late medieval England’, Medieval Prosopography 3 (1982), 95–107Google Scholar; and L. Haas, ‘Social connections between parents and godparents in late medieval Yorkshire’, ibid. 10 (1989), 1–21. Mair, L. (An introduction to social anthropology (2nd edn, Oxford 1972; repr. 1988), 69–82)Google Scholar provides a résumé of anthropological approaches to patrilinear naming; for a more recent study, see Harrison, S., Stealing people's names: history and politics in a Sepik river cosmology (Cambridge, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, where names were associated with the power of ancestors and cognition of the past.

10 Compare the following: Milsom, S. F. C., The legal framework of English feudalism (Cambridge, 1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Palmer, R., ‘The feudal framework of English law’, Michigan Law Review 79 (1981), 1130–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘The origins of property in England’, Law and History Review 3 (1985), 1–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Holt, J. C., ‘Feudal society and the family in early medieval England: notions of patrimony’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 5th ser., 33 (1983), 210–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Politics and property in early medieval England’, in Aston, T. H. ed., Landlords, peasants and politics in medieval England (Cambridge, 1987), 65–114Google Scholar; DeAragon, R. C., ‘The growth of secure inheritance in Anglo-Norman England’, Journal of Medieval History 8 (1982), 381–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hudson, J., ‘Life-grants of land and the development of inheritance in Anglo-Norman England’, in Chibnall, M. ed., Anglo-Norman studies XII: proceedings of the Battle Conference 1989 (Woodbridge, 1990), 67–80Google Scholar, ‘Legal aspects of seignorial control of land in the century after the Norman Conquest’ (unpublished D.Phil thesis, Oxford 1988), 27–175Google Scholar, and Land, law and lordship in Anglo-Norman England (Oxford, 1994), 65–156.Google Scholar Space does not permit reference to the vast French literature on changes in the nature of the family from the tenth to the twelfth centuries, but see White, S. D., Custom, kinship and gifts to saints: the laudatio parentum in Western France (Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1988).Google Scholar

11 Beckerman, J. S., ‘Customary law in English manorial courts in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries’ (unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of London, 1972), 168–9Google Scholar; Smith, R. M., ‘Some thoughts on “hereditary” and “proprietary” rights in land under customary law in thirteenth and early fourteenth century England’, Law and History Review 1 (1983), 107–10, 114CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smith, R. M., ‘Some issues concerning families and their property in rural England 1250–1800’, in Smith, ed., Land, kinship and life-cycle (Cambridge, 1984), 62–4Google Scholar; and Slota, L., ‘Law, land transfer and lordship on the estates of St Albans Abbey in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries’, Law and History Review 6 (1988), 122–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 See, generally, Hyams, P. R., King, lords and peasants in medieval England: the common law of villeinage in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (Oxford, 1980).Google Scholar For the practical implications of inheritance customs within the family, see Faith, R. J., ‘Peasant families and inheritance customs in medieval England’, Agricultural History Review 14 (1966), pp. 77–95.Google Scholar

13 This argument owes much to Searle, E., ‘Seignorial control of women's marriage: the antecedents and function of merchet in England’, Past and Present 82 (1979), 3–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar, developing the ideas of Milsom, Legal framework. I owe much too to Professor Robert Palmer for discussion of analogous (but not direct) points on the Listserv discussion list Mediev-L and by private e-mail.

14 Merton College, Oxford, Muniments (hereafter MM) 6565: ‘Quia Radulphus films Hereberti custumarius dominorum est mortuus ideo terra et tenementa sua capiantur in manu dominorum et venit Roggerus fllius et heres dicti Radulphi et petiebat hereditatem patris sui et Jus secundum consuetudinem manerii…’; MM 6568, ‘Memorandum de ingressibus eorum Tempore Scolarium de Merton' Oxon'’, lists 15 entry fines since Merton acquired the lordship (Barkby) and in seven cases the term hereditas is mentioned to justify the level of payment: ‘et non erat hereditas sua’; ‘quia non herat hereditas sua’; ‘et est hereditas sua’ (four cases); and ‘quia non est hereditas sua’.

15 More importantly, bynames from nicknames and personal names more frequently reflect these colloquial forms of naming.

16 Here and elsewhere the general folios of Domesday Book (hereafter DB) for the two counties are I, fos. 223b, 230a–237b, 272d, 273b, 274b, 278a, and 293a–297b. The specific references for these thegns with bynames are: I, fos. 232b, 234a, 234d and 235d. Additionally, descriptions were attributed to Godwin presbiter, Ernebern presbiter and Aluric presbiter at Peatling Magna, Swinford and Wigston Parva (I, fo. 231b).

17 Those mentioned here are at I, fos. 231a, 231c, 231d, 232c, 234b, 235d, 236a, 236c, 236d, and 237b. The others comprise: Ketelbern at Holwell (231a); Wulfbert at Cotesbach (232d); Swein at Syston (232d); Godric at Houghton (233b); Gleduin at Newton Burgoland (233c); Swan at Husbands Bosworth (234b); Ingold at Illston (231b, 234b); Godwin and Fran at Slawston (234b); Ingold at Rearsby (234c); Ansfrid at Great Dalby and Wymondham (234c); Thurstan at Hose and Long Clawson (235a, 237c); Saxfrid at Ashby Magna (235b); Grimbald at Owston and Allexton (236c); Osbern at Stonton Wyville (236c); Gundwin at Theddingworth (236c); Feggi at Gaddesby (236c); Godwin at Welby (236c); Thurkill at Sharnford (236d); Leofric and Godric at Burton on the Wolds (237a); and Ingenwulf at Ibstock (237b). For these names, see Von Feilitzen, O., The pre-Conquest personal names of Domesday Book, Nomina Germanica, 3 (Uppsala, 1937).Google Scholar

18 For the general tenurial changes c. 1066, see Fleming, R., Kings and lords in Conquest England (Cambridge, 1993).Google Scholar

19 DB, I, fo. 237a; and see Lewis, C. P., ‘The formation of the honor of Chester, 1066–1100’, in Thacker, A. T. ed., The earldom of Chester and its charters: a tribute to Geoffrey Barraclough, Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society 71 (1991), 37–68.Google Scholar

20 DB, I, 293a–297b.

21 Holt, J. C., What's in a name? Family nomenclature and the Norman Conquest (Stenton Lecture, Reading University, 1982).Google Scholar For a different perception of the changes in kinship and inheritance, see Wareham, A. F., ‘The aristocracy of East Anglia c. 930–1154: a study of family, land and government’ (unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of Birmingham, 1992), esp. pp. 198–225 and 360–4.Google Scholar

22 Loyd, L. C., The origins of some Anglo-Norman families, Harleian Society, 103 (1955), 47 and 104Google Scholar; Sanders, I. J., English baronies: a study of their origins and descent (Oxford, 1960), 12 and 61.Google Scholar

23 The late Cecily Clark had much to say about pevrel in a paper given to a conference on ‘Naming, society and regional identity’ at Leicester in 1991. ‘Metonymic’ in this case refers to an occupational nickname. Patronyms and metronyms in this paper comprise Latin forms with filius, such as filius Johannis or filius Sibile and vernacular forms with -son. Appositional patronyms or metronyms, sometimes called bynames or surnames from personal names, are those forms which are elided from the Latin forms, so that the form becomes such as ‘Sibile’.

24 Lewis, , ‘Formation of the honor of Chester’.Google Scholar

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

26 Crouch, D.,‘The foundation of Leicester Abbey and other problems’, Midland History 12 (1987), 4–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Bodleian Library MS Laud Misc 625, fo. ivv.

28 Ibid., fo. 186r: ‘Ipse [sic] quoque Roberto defuncto successit ei Robertus le Boczeu filius et heres eiusdem [who founded the Abbey] … Isto Roberto fundatore nostro defuncto successit ei in hereditatem Robertus films eius et vocabatur Robertus as Blanchesmeyns qui Robertus accepit in uxorem Petronellam filiam Hugonis de Grantmeynil…Et ex dicta Petronilla genuit Tres filios et duas filias scilicet Robertum qui vocabatur Robertus filius Petronelle ad differenciam predictorum…’.

29 DB, I, 293a–297b.

30 Here, as elsewhere, the edition used is Slade, C. F., The Leicestershire Survey (c. A.D. 1130), Leicester University Occasional Papers in English Local History, first series, 7 (1956).Google Scholar

31 Hall, H. ed., The Red Book of the Exchequer, vol. I (Rolls Series, 1896), 328–9, 336, 506, 516–25Google Scholar; Greenway, D. E. ed., Charters of the honour of Mowbray, 1107–1191, British Academy Records of the Social and Economic History of England and Wales, new series 1 (1972), 256–7 (no. 401).Google Scholar

32 Crouch, , Beaumont twins, 220 (Appendix II, Table II)Google Scholar; Hunter, J. ed., Magnum rotulum scaccarii vel magnum rotulum pipae (Record Commission, 1833), 87 and 98Google Scholar; Slade, , Leicestershire Survey.Google Scholar

33 The following is from Franklin, M. J. ed., The cartulary of Daventry Priory, Northamptonshire Record Society, 35 (1988), 290–6 (nos. 884–96).Google Scholar

34 Slade, , Leicestershire SurveyGoogle Scholar; Sanders, , English baronies, 49–50.Google Scholar

35 Loyd, , Origins, 12Google Scholar; Reedy, W. T., ‘The first two Bassets of Weldon’, Northamptonshire Past and Present 4 (1966–1972), 241–5 and 295–8.Google Scholar

36 Chibnall, M. ed., The ecclesiastical history of Orderic Vitalis, Book VI (Oxford, 1980), 468Google Scholar; Stephenson, J. ed., Chronicon monasterii de Abingdon 2 (Rolls Series, 1858), 170Google Scholar (Radulphus etiam cognomento Basset).

37 See, for example, Morlet, M.-Th., Etude d'anthroponymie Picard: les noms de personne en Haute Picardie au xiiie, xive, xve siècles (Amiens, 1967), 184Google Scholar, and ‘Les noms de personne à Eu du xiiie au xve siècle’, Revue Internationale d'Onomastique 12 (1960), 205Google Scholar (Basset, found in Eu, ‘ajoute une nuance à l'idée de petitesse, il désigne un individu à courtes jambes’).

38 Chibnall, , Ecclesiastical history of Orderic Vitalis, Book VI, 468Google Scholar; Green, J., The government of England under Henry I (Cambridge, 1986), 231–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 DeAragon, Ragena C., ‘In pursuit of aristocratic women: a key to success in Anglo-Norman England’, Albion 14 (1982), 263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar I differ from DeAragon on the circumstances of the marriage, since it seems to me that the integration of the Ridel lands with the Basset was entirely fortuitous, since every effort was made in the writ-charter, whether at the instigation of Henry I or the Chester affinity, to preserve the integrity of the Ridel lands. The other implication would be that the Chester affinity was attempting to flank the territorial power and challenge of the earl of Leicester in Leicestershire at this stage, a theme which I hope to develop further.

40 Johnson, C. and Cronne, H. A. eds., Regesta regum Anglo-Normannorum 1066–1154, vol. II: Regesta Henrici Primi 1100–1135 (Oxford, 1956), 184 (no. 1389).Google Scholar

41 Hunter, , Magnum rotulum, 31Google Scholar; Slade, , Leicestershire Survey.Google Scholar

42 Pipe Roll 7 Henry II, Pipe Roll Society, 4 (1885), and subsequent volumes.Google Scholar

43 Regesta regum Anglo-Normannorum, vol. II, 184 (no. 1389).Google Scholar

44 Red Book of the Exchequer, vol. I, 329 (Northants.).Google Scholar

45 Jeayes, I. H. ed., A descriptive catalogue of the charters and muniments… at Berkeley Castle (Bristol, 1892), 30–1, 45, 53, 62 (nos. 72, 116–17, 149 and 177).Google Scholar

46 Bridgman, C. G. O. ed., ‘The Burton Abbey twelfth-century surveys’, in Collections for a History of Staffordshire (London, 1918 for 1916), 244–6.Google Scholar B is the earlier of the two surveys.

47 Bridgman, , ‘Burton Abbey twelfth-century surveys’, 212–47.Google Scholar

48 For an analysis of the patterns of forenames, see Clark, C., ‘Women's names in post-Conquest England: observations and speculations’, Speculum 53 (1978), 238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49 Lees, B. A. ed., Records of the Templars in England in the twelfth century, British Academy Records of the Social and Economic History of England, 9 (1935), 112–13.Google Scholar

50 Associated Architectural Society Reports (hereafter AASR), 34 (1917–1918), 170 (no. 157).Google Scholar

51 Niemeyer, E., ‘An assessment for the fortieth of 1232’, English Historical Review 24 (1909), 733–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Mean tax was 8.8d. with standard deviation of 4.708, with a median of 7.4d., entirely modest levels of assessment.

52 For other commentaries on naming patterns in this document as a whole, see Fellows-Jensen, G., ‘The surnames of the tenants of the Bishop of Lincoln in nine English counties’, in Anderson, T. ed., NORNA-Rapporteur 8 (1975), 39–60Google Scholar, and ‘The names of the Lincolnshire tenants of the Bishop of Lincoln c. 1225’, in Sandgren, F. ed., Otium et negotium: studies in onomatology and library science presented to Olofvon Feilitzen (1973), 86–95.Google Scholar

53 Queen's College, Oxford, MS 366, fos. 16r–17r.

54 Ibid., fos. 18r–v.

55 Ibid., fos. 18v–19r.

56 Ibid., fo. 19r.

57 Clark, G. T., ‘The customary of the manor and soke of Rothley in the county of Leicestershire’, Archaeologia 47 (1882), 89–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar; dated by comparison with Public Record Office (hereafter PRO) C260/86.

58 Hoyt, R. S., The royal demesne in English constitutional history, 1066 to 1272 (Ithaca, New York, 1950), 192–207.Google Scholar

59 Clark, , ‘Customary’, 103.Google Scholar

60 Ibid., 100 and 102.

61 Ibid., 100.

62 Ibid., 99, 102–3, 105, 108–10, 112, 115, 120.

63 AASR 23 (1895–1896), 413–17.Google Scholar

64 PRO E179/165/1.

65 PRO El 79/165/1; Chinnery, G. et al. , The Oakham Survey of 1305, Rutland Record Society (1989), 23 (Hamond) and passimGoogle Scholar; Fletcher, W. G. D., ‘The earliest Leicestershire lay subsidy roll, 1327’, AASR 19 (1888–1889), 130–78 and 209–312.Google Scholar

66 Historical Manuscripts Report on the MSS of the late Reginald Rawdon Hastings, Esq., vol. I (1928) (hereafter HMC Hastings), 12–19.Google Scholar

67 HMC Hastings, 12–15 and 64.

68 Astill, G. G., ‘The medieval gentry: a study in Leicestershire society, 1350–1399’ (unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of Birmingham, 1977), 325.Google Scholar

69 HMC Hastings, 12–21.Google Scholar

70 Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Wood empt 7, fos. 29v–30r.

71 Ibid., fos. 107v–140r.

72 Ibid., fos. 120r–v.

73 Jeayes, , Descriptive catalogue, 103 (no. 313).Google Scholar

74 MM 6367–6405 and 6563–6575 (the material for Kibworth is supplemented by the manorial accounts, MM 6196–6244); for the background for Kibworth, see Howell, C., Land, family and inheritance in transition: Kibworth Harcourt 1280–1700 (Cambridge, 1983).Google Scholar

75 See Poos, L. R. and Smith, R. M., ‘“Legal windows onto historical populations”? Recent research on demography and the manor court in medieval England’, Law and History Review 2 (1984), 128–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘“Shades still on the window”: a reply to Zvi Razi’, Law and History Review 3 (1985), 409–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bennett, J. M., ‘Spouses, siblings and surnames: reconstructing families from medieval village court rolls’, Journal of British Studies 23 (1983), 26–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Razi, Z., ‘The Toronto School's reconstitution of medieval peasant society’, Past and Present 85 (1979), 149–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘The use of manorial court rolls in demographic analysis: a reconsideration’ and ‘The demographic transparency of manorial court rolls’, Law and History Review 3 (1985), 191–200 and 5 (1987), 523–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

76 The gaps are: Barkby, 1296–1345 and Kibworth, 1298–1320; but they are compensated for Kibworth by the manorial accounts and for Barkby by the rentals.

77 MM 6568.

78 MM 6367, 6370.

79 For patronyms and metronyms, see generally Sørensen, J. K., Patronyms in Denmark and England (London, 1983).Google Scholar For patronyms and metronyms in Leicestershire and Rutland, see Postles, D., ‘At Sørensen's request: the formation and development of patronyms and metronyms in late medieval Leicestershire and Rutland’, Nomina (forthcoming).Google Scholar

80 MM 6570, in particular: ‘Pelle de Thorp' dimisit iij Rodas et dimidiam Willelmo filio Mariar' ad terminum quatuor cropporum’ (1348).

81 MM 6569: ‘Radulphus Pellesone de Thorp' venit in plena Curia et de licencia domini petit se admitteri ad tenenciam unius mesuagii et unius bouate terre cum pertinenciis post decessum Pelle matris sue…’.

82 MM 6570: ‘Et predictus Ricardus Pellesone venit ad eandem Curiam et sursum reddidit in manus domini predicta terram et tenementa…’ (9 January 1354).

83 For example, MM 6395 (1327): ‘Robertus quidem extraneus… [hit] quemdem alium extraneum’; Nicholas Wylimot ‘hospitauit contra assisam quosdam extraneos’. In these cases, it may be that the names were genuinely not known by the court, but no effort was expended to discover them.

84 MM 6376: ‘Lucas inueniet plegios de fldelitate’. John Finger had illicitly received him: ‘quia hospitauit contra assisam scilicet Lucam’.

85 MM 6385: ‘Ivo filius Henrici in misericordia quia recettauit Lucam’. The hue was raised against Luke in the same year, when he was described as ‘Lucas extraneus’.

86 See, comparatively, Raftis, J. A., ‘The concentration of responsibility in five villages’, Mediaeval Studies 28 (1966), 92–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Olson, S., ‘Jurors of the village court: local leadership before and after the plague in Ellington, Huntingdonshire’, Journal of British Studies 30 (1991), 237–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and DeWindt, E. B., Land and people in Holywell-cum-Needingworth: structures of tenure and patterns of social organisation in an East Midlands village 1252–1457 (Toronto, 1972).Google Scholar

87 MM 6367.

88 MM 6376. John had held a half a virgate as well.

89 MM 6367–6389.

90 MM 6370, 6376.

91 MM 6376.

92 MM 6276–6389; see also further below.

93 MM 6376–6396. Other contemporary rentals enumerated Reginald Sibile, Beatrice Sibile, William Sibile and John filius Reginaldi Sibile as tenants or erstwhile holders of half-virgates.

94 MM 6382 (custos…); MM 6376–6383.

95 MM 6376–6384. The two are contrasted within the same entry in the court roll of 1284: ‘Hec sunt Nomina hominum Qui fecerunt terciam partem domine Agnetis de Harecort’, including Robert Sibile and Robert Sibile junior.

96 As a pledge and affeeror (taxator amerciamentorum) in 1288, chief pledge in 1288–1292, pledge in 1298 and customary tenant of a half-virgate (MM 6379, 6382, 6384–6385, 6388–6389 and 6392). See, in particular, the entry in the court roll for 1283: ‘Robertus Sibile junior dat pro inquisicione habenda utrum Beatrix soror sua habet Jus in tribus rodis terre uel non…et dicunt per sacramentum suum quod dicta Beatrix habet Jus donee habet j marcam de Roberto paruo Sibile…’.

97 MM 6376 and 6385.

98 MM 6376, 6386, 6388 and 6392.

99 MM 6376.

100 MM 6376.

101 MM 6376: ‘Nomina eorum qui ceperunt domos de manerio in Custodia’.

102 MM 6376.

103 MM 6395–6402.

104 MM 6392–6400.

105 MM 6393, 6397 and 6401.

106 MM 6243.

107 MM 6393, 6397 and 6400.

108 MM 6400–6402.

109 MM 6376, especially when, in 1282, she impleaded John filius Roberti carpentarii: ‘Scolasse queritur…’, MM 6385. See also MM 6386.

110 MM 6204, 6385.

111 MM 6390.

112 MM 6376.

113 MM 6208: ‘pro terra matris habenda’; MM 6218.

114 MM 6376.

115 MM 6401–6403.

116 It might thus be suspected that the occupational bynames of those who occur sporadically for entering the lordship are also unstable, such as triturator and textor.

117 The status of the Harcourts is clear from the rentals, as also from the unlicensed tonsuring of one of the siblings in 1331.

118 MM 6556.

119 MM 6564: ‘Robertus le pleytur queritur super Samsonem quod ipse iniuste recetauit cepem suam lacet dictus Samson in misericordia’; ‘Samson invenit plegios…’; ‘plegii Samson et Robertus de Holand’; ‘De Sampsone pro redditu retento’; ‘Electus est Sampson prepositus scolarium quia meliore et maximo potente et sciente omnium per tenencium’.

120 MM 6564–6565 (1296–1297).

121 MM 6565: ‘Quia Henricus filius Sampsonis se maritauit in feodo dominorum sine licencia Sampson pater eius manucepit faciendi [sic] inde emendas’.

122 MM 6567: ‘Henricus Sampson dat domino pro ingressu in ij acras terre et unam placeam’ (5s.). Sampson is last mentioned in a court roll of 1296 (MM 6565).

123 MM 6568.

124 MM 6575.

125 The Holands, for example, inhabited the manor in the late thirteenth century and the transmission of the surname is illustrated by this example from 1349: ‘Ad istam Curiam venit Alicia Holand et petit se admitteri tamquam heres proxima ad tenendum j messuagium et x acras terre natiue que fuerunt Willelmi Holand patris sui et concessum est ei in bondagio iuxta consuetudinem manerii.’