No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Acta of William the Conqueror, Domesday Book, the Oath of Salisbury, and the Legitimacy and Stability of the Norman Regime in England
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 January 2021
Abstract
Domesday Book, which is usually considered to be the product of William the Conqueror's great survey of England in 1086, is one of the most important sources of English medieval history. This article contributes to the vigorous and long-standing debate about the purpose of Domesday Book. It does so by exploring the light cast by some of William's royal acta on the activities and concerns of the king and his advisers while the Domesday survey was in progress. These are linked to the difficult political and military circumstances confronting William and his followers in 1085–86 and their desire to deal with these by strengthening the stability, legitimacy, and security of their regime in England. The article also casts additional light on the importance and dating of the relevant acta.
- Type
- Original Manuscript
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The North American Conference on British Studies, 2021
References
1 For the council, see Irvine, Susan, ed., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition, vol. 7, MS. E (Cambridge, 2004), 93–94Google Scholar; Whitelock, Dorothy, Douglas, David C., and Tucker, Susie I., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Revised Translation (London, 1961), 161Google Scholar; McGurk, P., ed. and trans., The Chronicle of John of Worcester, vol. 3 The Annals from 1067–1140 with the Gloucester Interpolations and the Continuation to 1141 (Oxford, 1998), 42–43Google Scholar; Whitelock, Dorothy, Brett, M., and Brooke, C. N. L., eds., Councils and Synods with Other Documents Relating to the English Church, I A.D. 871–1204, part 2, 1066–1204 (Oxford, 1981), 632–34Google Scholar.
2 Irvine, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 7:94. See also McGurk, John of Worcester, 3:44–45; translation from Stenton, F. M., The First Century of English Feudalism, 1066–1166, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1961), 112Google Scholar; Holt, J. C., “1086,” in Domesday Studies: Papers Read at the Novocentenary Conference of the Royal Historical Society and the Institute of British Geographers Winchester, 1986, ed. Holt, J. C. (Woodbridge, 1987), 41–64, at 41Google Scholar.
3 The bibliography on Domesday Book was already substantial by the mid-1980s. See Bates, David, A Bibliography of Domesday Book (Woodbridge, 1986)Google Scholar. For discussions of the historiography, see Kapelle, William E., “F. W. Maitland and His Successors,” Speculum 64, no. 3 (1989): 620–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Higham, N. J., “The Domesday Survey: Context and Purpose,” History 78, no. 252 (1993): 7–21, at 10–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roffe, David, “Domesday Now: A View from the Stage,” in Domesday Now: New Approaches to the Inquest and the Book, ed. Roffe, David and Keats-Rohan, K. S. B. (Woodbridge, 2016), 7–60Google Scholar; Baxter, Stephen, “The Domesday Controversy: A Review and a New Interpretation,” Haskins Society Journal, no. 29 (2017): 225–93, at 225–78Google Scholar.
4 Round, J. H., Feudal England: Historical Studies of the XIth and XIIth Centuries (London, 1895), 3–98, esp. 53–54, 91–98Google Scholar; Maitland, Frederic William, Domesday Book and Beyond: Three Essays in the Early History of England (Cambridge, 1897), 3–5, 24–25Google Scholar. See also Baxter, “Domesday Controversy,” 235–42, who also noted Maitland's references to other purposes.
5 Galbraith, V. H., The Making of Domesday Book (Oxford, 1961), esp. 10–17, 29–44, 54, 116–17Google Scholar; Galbraith, V. H., Domesday Book: Its Place in Administrative History (Oxford, 1974), 35–37, 61–62, 165–73Google Scholar. See also Baxter, “Domesday Controversy,” 242–47.
6 Sally P. J. Harvey, “Domesday Book and Anglo-Norman Governance,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., no. 25 (1975): 175–93, at 183–89; Harvey, Sally P. J., “Taxation and the Ploughland in Domesday Book,” in Domesday Book: A Reassessment, ed. Sawyer, Peter (London, 1985), 86–103Google Scholar.
7 Holt, “1086,” 54. See also Baxter, “Domesday Controversy,” 248–51.
8 Hyams, Paul, “‘No Register of Title’: The Domesday Inquest and Land Adjudication,” Anglo-Norman Studies, no. 9 (1987): 127–41Google Scholar. For a different view, see Patrick Wormald, “Domesday Lawsuits: A Provisional List and Preliminary Comment,” in England in the Eleventh Century: Proceedings of the 1990 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. Carola Hicks (Stamford, 1992), 61–102. See also Baxter, “Domesday Controversy,” 248.
9 Higham, “Domesday Survey,” 13–20. See also Maddicott, J. R., “Responses to the Threat of Invasion, 1085,” English Historical Review 122, no. 498 (2007): 986–97, at 996Google Scholar.
10 Roffe, David, Domesday: The Inquest and the Book (Oxford, 2000), esp. ix, 224–48Google Scholar; Roffe, David, Decoding Domesday (Woodbridge, 2007), esp. 62–108, 176–82, 306–19Google Scholar; Roffe, “Domesday Now,” 27; David Roffe, “Talking to Others and Talking to Itself: Government and the Changing Role of the Records of the Domesday Inquest,” in Roffe and Keats-Rohan, Domesday Now, 289–303, at 293–303. Roffe's views have received mixed reactions; see Baxter, “Domesday Controversy,” 251–60; Palmer, J. J. N., review of Domesday: The Inquest, by David Roffe, English Historical Review 116, no. 466 (2001): 408–9Google Scholar; Bruce R. O'Brien, review of Domesday: The Inquest, by David Roffe, Speculum 78, no. 3 (2003): 988–90; Symes, Carol, “Doing Things beside Domesday Book,” Speculum 93, no. 4 (2018): 1048–1101, at 1054, 1066–70, 1095–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 Bates, David, William the Conqueror (New Haven, 2016), 463Google Scholar. See also Roffe, “Domesday Now,” 59.
12 For the threatened invasion, see Irvine, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 7:93; Whitelock, Douglas, and Tucker, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 161; McGurk, John of Worcester, 3:423; Mynors, R. A. B., Thomson, R. M., and Winterbottom, M., eds. and trans., William of Malmesbury Gesta Regvm Anglorvm: The History of the English Kings, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1998–99), 1:480–83Google Scholar; Chibnall, Marjorie, ed. and trans., The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1969–1980), 4:52–55Google Scholar. For examples of scholars drawing several connections between various threats to William's regime and the survey, see Freeman, E. A., The History of the Norman Conquest of England: Its Causes and Its Results, 3rd ed., 6 vols. (Oxford, 1870–1879), 4:691, 5:4Google Scholar; Douglas, David C., William the Conqueror: The Norman Impact upon England (London, 1964), 346–47, 351–53Google Scholar; Harvey, “Taxation and the Ploughland,” 103; Harvey, “Domesday Book and Anglo-Norman Governance,” 181–82; Holt, “1086,” 62; Prestwich, J. O., “Mistranslations and Misinterpretations in English Medieval History,” Peritia: Journal of the Medieval Academy of Ireland 10 (1996): 322–40, at 331–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Higham, “Domesday Survey,” 11–16; Roffe, Domesday: The Inquest, 68–69; Maddicott, “Responses to the Threat of Invasion, 1085,” 986–97; Harvey, Sally, Domesday: Book of Judgement (Oxford, 2014), 1, 3, 32, 309–10, 314CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roffe, “Domesday Now,” 28; Roffe, “Talking to Others,” 299; Symes, “Doing Things,” 1055, 1056–57. For views placing less importance on the influence of the threat, see Bates, William the Conqueror, 466. Baxter, in “Domesday Controversy,” 292–93, argues that the crisis “doubtless concentrated the king's mind on his fiscal resources and had the effect of bringing a critical mass of the ‘landholders of any account’ into England, thereby creating uniquely propitious circumstances for the survey. But its origins lay deeper. An operation of this scale and sophistication must have been carefully planned, probably over a long period by the inner circle of administrative agents.”
13 Irvine, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 7:94; McGurk, John of Worcester, 3:44–45; Stenton, First Century, 112; Holt, “1086,” 41–44, 56, 62–63; Garnett, George, Conquered England: Kingship, Succession, and Tenure, 1066–1166 (Oxford, 2007), 83, 84–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hyams, “‘No Register of Title,’” 139; Higham, “Domesday Survey,” 17, 19–20; Roffe, Domesday: The Inquest, 238–42, 250; Roffe, Decoding Domesday, 179–82; Roffe, “Domesday Now,” 28, 41; Bates, William the Conqueror, 463, 476.
14 Holt, “1086,” 56, see also 54.
15 Holt, 56; see also 54. See also Hyams, “‘No Register of Title,’” 139; Garnett, Conquered England, 85–87. For different views, see Wormald, Patrick, “Engla Lond: The Making of an Allegiance,” Journal of Historical Sociology 7, no. 1 (1994): 1–24, at 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roffe, “Talking to Others,” 292; Prestwich, “Mistranslations and Misinterpretations,” 335–36. See also Maddicott, J. R., “The Oath of Marlborough, 1209: Fear, Government and Popular Allegiance in the Reign of King John,” English Historical Review 126, no. 519 (2011): 281–318, at 305–6, 311Google Scholar, arguing that the homage performed at Salisbury was not linked to the tenure of land but was probably an “inaugural act ‘for mere lordship”’ that “might also be used to justify a demand for future service, especially military service.”
16 For what follows, see Harvey, Domesday, esp. 1–6, 32, 44–45, 53–55, 86, 102, 108, 113, 124, 140, 142, 210, 227, 232, 235–39, 242, 245, 251, 267–68, 270, 272, 275–78, 280, 286–328. See also Baxter, “Domesday Controversy,” 270–78, which provides a useful summary of Harvey's views, especially on the importance of Domesday values, and a judicious critique (especially in relation to Harvey's interpretation of ploughland data) but pays insufficient attention to their spiritual dimensions.
17 Harvey, Domesday, 3.
18 Harvey, 6.
19 Harvey, 272, 318.
20 Harvey, 2.
21 Harvey, 55.
22 Harvey, 321, 322.
23 Bates, William the Conqueror, 462–80.
24 Bates, 468.
25 Bates, 469
26 Bates, 469.
27 Bates, 470.
28 Bates, 470.
29 Bates, 471.
30 Bates, 472.
31 Bates, 476.
32 Bates, 473.
33 Bates, 476.
34 Bates, 476, 477.
35 Bates, 477.
36 Bates, 478.
37 Baxter, ‘‘Domesday Controversy.’’
38 Baxter, 288.
39 Baxter, 289.
40 Baxter, 289.
41 Baxter, 289–90.
42 Baxter, 290.
43 Baxter, 290–91.
44 Baxter, 291.
45 Baxter, 289.
46 Baxter, 292.
47 Baxter, 292.
48 See Harvey's discussion of the harsh methods employed to coerce part-English juries and of the survey's function of legitimizing William's illegitimate succession and the Normans’ illegal seizure of land: Domesday, 281–82, 285, 286, 291, 298, 304–5, 307–8, 310. See also Irvine, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 7:94, 97–98; Whitelock, Douglas, and Tucker, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 161–62, 164–65; McGurk, John of Worcester, 3:44–45; Chibnall, Orderic Vitalis, 2:266–69; W. H. Stevenson, “A Contemporary Description of the Domesday Survey,” English Historical Review 22, no. 85 (1907): 72–84, at 74; Douglas, William the Conqueror, 351; Roffe, Domesday: The Inquest, 3; Roffe, “Domesday Now,” 26–27. See also Baxter, “Domesday Controversy,” 292.
49 Bates, David, ed., Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum: The Acta of William I (1066–1087) (Oxford, 1998)Google Scholar (hereafter Acta William I).
50 Maddicott, “Responses to the Threat of Invasion, 1085,” 986–87.
51 See Irvine, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 7:93; Whitelock, Douglas, and Tucker, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 161.
52 Maddicott, “Responses to the Threat of Invasion, 1085,” 986–97. For the levying of the geld in 1086, see Baxter, “Domesday Controversy,” 244, 263, 283.
53 Maddicott, “Responses to the Threat of Invasion, 1085,” 986.
54 Acta William I, no. 146; R. C. van Caenegem, ed. and trans., English Lawsuits from William I to Richard I, 2 vols. (London, 1990–91), 1:no. 163A (see also nos. 163B–D); David C. Douglas and George W. Greenaway, eds., English Historical Documents, 1042–1189, 2nd ed. (London, 1981), 453–54.
55 Acta William I, 34–35.
56 Acta William I, 482–83.
57 Acta William I, 35.
58 See appendix 2. Appendix 2 lists those named as present, signa, or witnesses to each of the four acta.
59 For the presence of the witnesses, see appendix 1.
60 Abraham Farley, ed., Domesday Book seu Liber Censualis Willelmi Primi Regis Angliae, 2 vols. (London, 1783), 1:17r (b), 24v (b), 28r (b). For the de Briouze portion of Steyning, see T. P. Hudson, “The Origins of Steyning and Bramber, Sussex,” Southern History, no. 2 (1980): 11–29, at 19. Rapes were administrative districts in Sussex.
61 Farley, Domesday, 1:17r (b), 28r (b). For a different interpretation, see Ann Williams, ‘‘The Piety of Earl Godwine,’’ Anglo-Norman Studies, no. 34 (2012): 237–68, at 247–48.
62 Hudson, “The Origins,” 14–16; T. P. Hudson, “Steyning,” in A History of the County of Sussex, vol. 6, part 1, Bramber Rape (Southern Part), ed. T. P. Hudson (London, 1980), 220–46, at 220, 222, 226–27, 231, 234, 241; John Blair, “Saint Cuthman, Steyning and Bosham,” Sussex Archaeological Collections, no. 135 (1997): 173–92, at 183–85.
63 David Dumville and Michael Lapidge, ed., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition, vol. 17, The Annals of St. Neots with Vita Prima Sancti Neoti (Cambridge, 1985), 51; Blair, “St. Cuthman,” 183–84.
64 Bramber's church and castle existed by 1080: J. Horace Round, ed., Calendar of Documents Preserved in France, Illustrative of the History of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 1, A.D. 918–1206. (London, 1899), no. 1130; Acta William I, no. 266 and note; van Caenegem, English Lawsuits, 1:no. 163B. For discussion of Bramber and de Briouze's interference in Steyning, see also Hudson, “The Origins,” 19–22; Hudson, “Bramber,” 201–14, at 201, 203, 204–5, 208–9, 212–14.
65 David Bates, “Two Ramsey Abbey Writs and the Domesday Survey,” Historical Research 63, no. 152 (1990): 337–39.
66 For Bishop William's presence at Salisbury, see Harvey, Domesday, 113.
67 Round, Calendar of Documents, no. 114. See also Acta William I, 482.
68 Farley, Domesday, 1:69v (b), 70v (a).
69 H. W. C. Davis et al., eds., Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, 4 vols. (Oxford, 1913–1969), 1:no. 220.
70 Farley, Domesday, 1:71v (b); A History of Wiltshire, vol. 2, ed. R. B. Pugh and Elizabeth Crittall (London, 1955), 101, 149, 187. See also Acta William I, 484; Eilert Ekwall, The Concise Dictionary of English Place-Names, 4th ed. (Oxford, 1960), 283.
71 For Edward, see Ann Williams, The English and the Norman Conquest (Woodbridge, 1995), 105–7. For his land in Lacock, see Farley, Domesday, 1:69v (b). For the advowson, see W. G. Clark-Maxwell, “On the Appropriation of the Rectory of Lacock,” Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, 33, no. 102 (1903–04): 358–75, appendix I, at 365, translated in Kenneth H. Rogers, ed., Lacock Abbey Charters, Wiltshire Record Society (Devizes, 1979), charter no. 29 and p. 2.
72 For the argument above identifying ‘‘La Choche’’ as Lackham, I am indebted to Professor Edmund King.
73 H. C. Darby and R. Welldon Finn, eds., The Domesday Geography of South-West England, (Cambridge, 2009), 49. Churches might not be mentioned in Domesday because they were exempt from taxation, listed “under the name of a hamlet on the land of whose lord it was probably built,” or held by a religious house that had “appropriated its endowment, or established it unendowed and served it from its own house”; William Page, “Some Remarks on the Churches of the Domesday Survey,” Archaeologia no. 66 (1915): 61–102, at 61, 72–73. See also John Blair, The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society (Oxford, 2005), 418–19, showing that places where churches or priests are mentioned in Wiltshire in Domesday Book are in the range of 5–20 percent of all places mentioned in the county and noting that Wiltshire is one of the counties where there is architectural evidence of “well-financed building campaigns” before ca. 1050.
74 This Saint Cyriac was probably the Roman nobleman killed in Emperor Diocletian's time rather than the child saint of the same (or a similar) name, since the former's feast was celebrated at Salisbury cathedral on 8 August rather than 16 June, the child's feast day. See W. H. Rich Jones, ed. and trans., Vetus Registrum Sarisberiense Alias Dictum Registrum S. Osmundi Episcopi: The Register of S. Osmund, 2 vols. (London, 1883–84), 1:114–15; Joanne Carnandet et al., ed., Acta Sanctorum Augusti [. . .] II, (Paris, 1867), 327–40.
75 Jones, Vetus Registrum Sarisberiense, 1:276; see also 1:276n4 for a reference to a chapel or altar dedicated to Saint Cyriac in the church of Sonning.
76 For his life and miracles, see Carnandet, Acta Sanctorum Augusti, 327–40.
77 Bates, William the Conqueror, 474.
78 Bates, William the Conqueror, 474. For Remigius, see Harvey, Domesday, 50, 72, 91.
79 Bates, 465.
80 See Pierre Chaplais, “William of Saint-Calais and the Domesday Survey,” in Holt, Domesday Studies, 65–77, esp. 73–77. See also Harvey, Domesday, 91, 104, 112–14; Baxter, “Domesday Controversy,” 283.
81 H. R. Loyn, “William's Bishops: Some Further Thoughts,” Anglo-Norman Studies, no. 10 (1988): 223–35, at 229; Teresa Webber, Scribes and Scholars at Salisbury Cathedral c. 1075–c. 1125 (Oxford, 1992), 7, 16–17. See also Harvey, Domesday, 25, 41, 91, 94–95, 106, 114–15. Baxter, “Domesday Controversy,” 269, observes that it is possible that Osmund, bishop of Salisbury, “commissioned treasury scribes to write books for the Salisbury library, or that the treasury was periodically staffed with scribes trained at Salisbury,” agreeing with Colin Flight, The Survey of the Whole of England: Studies of the Documentation Resulting from the Survey Conducted in 1086, British Archaeological Reports, British Series 405 (Oxford, 2006), 49n3, 127n10.
82 Chaplais, “William of Saint-Calais,” 75; Harvey, Domesday, 7–9, 19, 31, 101, 103, 105.
83 Harvey, Domesday, 90–91, 103–4, 106, 110–11, 226, 249.
84 Baxter, “Domesday Controversy,” 248, 248n72.
85 See above, text between notes 13 and 15, notes 18 and 20, and notes 46 and 47; Baxter, 292. For a different view, see Roffe, Domesday: The Inquest, 17–48; Roffe, “Domesday Now,” 27. However, Roffe also notes, “The definition of duty [relating to tax and service] also defined right: the tenant-in-chief and his men were confirmed in their title.” Roffe, “Talking to Others,” 300.
86 Harvey, Domesday, 53. See also Robin Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law: Society and Legal Custom in Early Medieval England (Cambridge, 1998), 84; Garnett, Conquered England, 11–24. On the treatment of Harold's titles in the Domesday project, and the Norman denial of his royal status, see Symes, “Doing Things,” 1057, 1092–94.
87 Bates, William the Conqueror, 477.
88 Harvey, Domesday, 45. See also Hyams, “‘No Register of Title”’ 134–36; Fleming, Domesday Book, 72–73, 84; Garnett, Conquered England, 24–33, 42–43, 73; Roffe, “Domesday Now,” 39.
89 See Hyams, “‘No Register of Title,’” 132–33, 135; Garnett, Conquered England, 16, 45–47, 71–73, 80, 87; Fleming, Domesday Book, 33, 50, 56–67, 84.
90 Acta William I, no. 146; van Caenegem, English Lawsuits, no. 163.
91 Acta William I, 469.
92 Acta William I, no. 141.
93 Acta William I, no. 144.
94 Harvey, Domesday, 205–6, 315, at 206, 315.
95 See Emma Mason, “Pro Statu et Incolumnitate Regni Mei: Royal Monastic Patronage 1066–1154,” in Religion and National Identity, ed. Stuart Mews (Oxford, 1982), 99–117, at 103.
96 See Acta William I, 14, 469, 477, 482. For Edward and Fécamp, see Frank Barlow, Edward the Confessor (London, 1970), 39, 39n3; Simon Keynes, “The Æthelings in Normandy,” Anglo-Norman Studies, no. 13 (1991): 173–205, at 188, 193, 203.
97 Acta William I, 49 (citing nos. 1, 31, 34, 36, 38, 66, 80, 98, 180, 224, 276, 339, 340, 351). For other references in William's genuine acta (or acta possibly based to some extent on genuine originals) to Edward's day or time or to Edward's grants, see also Acta William I, nos. 2–4, 10, 35–36, 60, 82, 100, 117, 118(?), 119–24, 126, 133, 141, 144, 146, 160, 181, 194, 216, 221, 222, 227, 249, 254, 263, 265, 270(?), 292, 295, 300, 307, 310, 311, 316, 317, 321, 322, 329, 330, 331, 333, 335, 340, 342, 347, 348, 349, 352 (if this is a charter of William I rather than of William II). For other references to Edward as William's kinsman or antecessor, see Acta William I, 2, 39, 133(?), 139, 141, 176, 181, 254, 263, 286. For the argument that William was Edward's kinsman and legitimate successor, see R. H. C. Davis and Marjorie Chibnall, eds. and trans., The Gesta Gvillelmi of William of Poitiers (Oxford, 1998), 150–51. For William's wife and sons appearing in acta with him more generally, see David Bates, “The Prosopographical Study of Anglo-Norman Royal Charters,” in Family Trees and the Roots of Politics: The Prosopography of Britain and France from the Tenth to the Twelfth Century, ed. K. S. B. Keats-Rohan (Woodbridge, 1997), 89–102, at 95–96; Acta William I, 92–96.
98 For Fécamp as a possible ducal chancery, see Keynes, “The Æthelings,” 188 and 188n81. Apart from Acta William I, nos. 144 and 176, only three or four of William's royal acta refer to Edward's soul: Acta William I, nos. 2, 141, 181, 286 (this might have been the intention here).
99 Elisabeth M. C. van Houts, ed. and trans, The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis, and Robert of Torigni, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1995), 2:134–35, 288–89; Brian Golding, “The Coming of the Cluniacs,” Anglo-Norman Studies, no. 3 (1981): 65–77, at 66; David Bates, Normandy before 1066 (Harlow, 1982), 193. For the importance of Fécamp in Norman rule, see Mark Hagger, Norman Rule in Normandy, 911–1144 (Woodbridge, 2017), 208–9, 213, 262.
100 Jules Lair, ed., De Moribus et Actis Primorum Normanniæ Ducum Auctore Dudone Sancti Quintini Decano (Caen, 1865), 298–99; Eric Christiansen, trans., Dudo of St. Quentin History of the Normans (Woodbridge, 1998), 172–73; van Houts, Gesta Normannorum Ducum, 2:38–41, 263n4; David Bates, The Normans and Empire: The Ford Lectures Delivered in the University of Oxford during Hilary Term 2010 (Oxford, 2013), 167, 167n26.
101 Van Houts, Gesta Normannorum Ducum, 2:80, 80n2, 81; Mynors, Thomson, and Winterbottom, William of Malmesbury, 1:426–27; Hagger, Norman Rule, 262.
102 Elisabeth M. C. van Houts, “The Ship List of William the Conqueror,” Anglo-Norman Studies, no. 10 (1988): 159–83, esp. 166–68, 178–79; H. E. J. Cowdrey, “Remigius (d. 1092), Bishop of Lincoln,” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/23361. For Remigius at Hastings, see Diana Greenway, ed. and trans., Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum: The History of the English People (Oxford, 1996), 588–89.
103 Davis and Chibnall, Gesta Gvillelmi, 178–81.
104 M. Winterbottom with R. M. Thomson, eds. and trans., William of Malmesbury Gesta Pontificvm Anglorvm: The History of the English Bishops, 2 vols. (Oxford, 2007), 1:472–73; Davis and Chibnall, Gesta Gvillelmi, 120n1; Cowdrey, “Remigius,” 458–59, at 458.
105 David Knowles, C. N. L. Brooke, and Vera C. M. London, eds., The Heads of Religious Houses: England and Wales, vol. 1, 940–1216, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 2001), 76.
106 Acta William I, no. 139.
107 Van Caenegem, English Lawsuits, 1:no. 163B.
108 Acta William I, no. 167. See also Bates, William the Conqueror, 471, 471n73.
109 Acta William I, 560–61.
110 See appendix 1.
111 See appendix 2.
112 For Robert's first rebellion, see G. P. Cubbin, ed., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition, vol. 6, MS. D (Cambridge, 1996), 88–89; Irvine, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 7:92; Whitelock, Douglas, and Tucker, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 159; McGurk, John of Worcester, 3:30–33; Chibnall, Orderic Vitalis, 3:97–101, 102, 102n2, 103, 108–11; William M. Aird, Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy c. 1050–1134 (Woodbridge, 2008), 71–76, 78–89; Bates, William the Conqueror, 396–404; Hagger, Norman Rule, 135–38, 346. For the date of the beginning of Robert's second rebellion, see Acta William I, no. 252 and note; Bates, William the Conqueror, 454–56; John Hudson, ed. and trans., Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis: The History of the Church of Abingdon, 2 vols. (Oxford, 2002–7), 2:16–17. This rebellion is usually regarded as continuing until William's death: see Charles Wendell David, Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy (Cambridge, 1920), 36–41; Douglas, William the Conqueror, 243, 243n4, 347, 356, 360; Frank Barlow, William Rufus (London, 1983), 38–39; Aird, Robert Curthose, 95–98; Hagger, Norman Rule, 327. For a different view, see Katherine Lack, “Robert Curthose: Ineffectual Duke or Victim of Spin?,” Haskins Society Journal, no. 20 (2008): 110–40, at 128–31; Bates, William the Conqueror, 456, 465. But Acta William I, no. 156, 513, supports the general view, and it is significant that Robert appears not to have attended his father's deathbed: Chibnall, Orderic Vitalis, 3:112–13, 4:80–95; De obitu Willelmi, in van Houts, Gesta Normannorum Ducum, 2:184–91, at 186–89.
113 For Henry's knighting, see Irvine, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 7:94; Whitelock, Douglas, and Tucker, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 162; Chibnall, Orderic Vitalis, 4:120, 121, 121n5. See also Baxter, “Domesday Controversy,” 279.
114 See appendix 1.
115 See appendix 2.
116 For the source of the text, see Acta William I, 559.
117 For Miles Crispin, see K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, “The Devolution of the Honour of Wallingford, 1066–1148,” Oxoniensia, no. 54 (1989): 311–18, at 311–15. For the Norman Crispins, see G. R. Evans, “Crispin, Gilbert (c.1045–1117/18), Theologian and Abbot of Westminster,” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/6709; Acta William I, nos. 166–67; Christopher Harper-Bill, “Herluin, Abbot of Bec and His Biographer,” in Religious Motivation: Biographical and Sociological Problems for the Church Historian, ed. Derek Baker (Oxford, 1978), 15–25.
118 Acta William I, 1102.
119 Acta William I, no. 166.
120 Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, 2:16–19; C. Warren Hollister, Henry I, ed. and comp., Amanda Clark Frost (New Haven, 2001), 36–37.
121 Evans, “Crispin, Gilbert.”
122 Acta William I, no. 176. For the foundation date of Lewes Priory, see Graham Mayhew, The Monks of Saint Pancras: Lewes Priory, England's Premier Cluniac Monastery and Its Dependencies, 1076–1537 (Lewes, 2014), 12–13; Golding, “Coming of the Cluniacs,” 65; C. P. Lewis, “Warenne, William (I) de, First Earl of Surrey [Earl Warenne] (d. 1088), Magnate,” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/28737.
123 See appendices 1 and 2.
124 Acta William I, 585; Farley, Domesday, 2:160r (a), 450r. For the importance of West Walton in the early endowment of the priory, see Mayhew, Monks of Saint Pancras, 16.
125 See above, text between notes 55 and 56, and notes 111 and 112. For the date of Robert's second rebellion, see above, text between notes 111 and 112.
126 See above, text between notes 77 and 82, and appendix 2.
127 Harvey, Domesday, 91.
128 See appendix 2; E. B. Fryde et al., eds., Handbook of British Chronology, 3rd ed. (London, 1986), 255, 270, 276.
129 Farley, Domesday, 1:69r (b). My thanks are due to Edmund King for drawing my attention to Wilcot. Darby and Finn, Domesday Geography, 49, underlines the unusual nature of the reference to the church there.
130 See Henry Ellis, A General Introduction to Domesday Book [. . .], 2 vols. (London, 1833), 1:45, 242; Frank Thorn, “Non Pascua sed Pastura: The Changing Choice of Terms in Domesday,” in Roffe and Keats-Rohan, Domesday Now, 109–36, at 112, 120.
131 For the quotations, see Acta William I, 72.
132 Acta William I, no. 101.
133 Acta William I, 13–14, 38–39, 97, 376, 477, nos. 144, 334.
134 William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, ed. John Caley, Henry Ellis, and Bulkeley Bandinel, 8 vols. (London, 1817–1830), 5:13–14; Davis et al., Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, 2:no. 510; Mayhew, Monks of Saint Pancras, 40–41; Judith A. Green, Henry I: King of England and Duke of Normandy (Cambridge, 2009), 43.
135 Mason, “Pro Statu,” 99.
136 Mason, 109; also 99, 101, 103, 104–5. Similar links between crises and ecclesiastical patronage undertaken to promote the stability and safety of kingdoms can be found in the Frankish world; see Alan Harding, Medieval Law and the Foundations of the State (Oxford, 2001), 38–42.
137 On the foundation of Reading, see Green, Henry I, 170–71.
138 Henry granted a charter to Lewes Priory's daughter house, Castle Acre Priory, for the health of his soul and those of his ancestors, and for the “state and prosperity” of his kingdom. Mayhew, Monks of Saint Pancras, 398.
139 Mayhew, 171.
140 For Saint Pancras, see Joanne Carnandet, ed., Acta Sanctorum Maii [. . .] III (Paris, 1866), 17–22; Mayhew, Monks of Saint Pancras, 114, 116.
141 Elisabeth M. C. van Houts and Rosalind C. Love, eds. and trans., The Warenne (Hyde) Chronicle (Oxford, 2013), 14. For discussion of this source's date and political purpose, see van Houts and Love, Warenne (Hyde) Chronicle, xxviii–xliii; Nicholas Vincent's review in History 100, no. 341 (2015): 442–43. For other references to the ox's eye, see van Houts and Love, Warenne (Hyde) Chronicle, 14n22; C. P. Lewis, “The Earldom of Surrey and the Date of Domesday Book,” Historical Research 63, no. 152 (1990): 329–36, at 332–34.
142 For reasonable doubts, see Lewis, “Earldom of Surrey,” 334.
143 Lewis, 332, 332n26. See also Joan E. Barclay Lloyd, “The Church and Monastery of S. Pancrazio, Rome,” in Pope, Church and City: Essays in Honour of Brenda M. Bolton, ed. Frances Andrews, Christoph Egger, and Constance M. Rousseau (Leiden, 2004), 245–66, at 246, 246n4, 248–49; Thomas F. X. Noble, trans., Charlemagne and Louis the Pious: The Lives by Einhard, Notker, Ermoldus, Thegan, and the Astronomer (Pennsylvania, 2009), 82n50; Patricia Healy Wasyliw, Martyrdom, Murder and Magic: Child Saints and Their Cults in Medieval Europe (New York, 2008), 41.
144 For Robert's oaths, see L. C. Bethmann, ed., Genealogia comitum Flandriae Bertiniana, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica [. . .] Scriptorvm [. . .] IX, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz (Hanover, 1851), 306; Jeff Rider, ed., Galbertus Notarius Brugensis, De Multo Traditione, et Occisione Gloriosi Karoli Comitis Flandriarum, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis (Turnhout, 1994), chap. 69; Jeff Rider, “Vice, Tyranny, Violence, and the Usurpation of Flanders (1071) in Flemish Historiography from 1093 to 1294,” in Violence and the Writing of History in the Medieval Francophone World, ed. Noah D. Guynn and Zrinka Stahuljak (Cambridge, 2013), 55–70, at 57; Alan V. Murray, “Voices of Flanders: Orality and Constructed Orality in the Chronicle of Galbert of Bruges,” Handelingen der Maatschappij voor Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde te Gent, new ser., 48 (1994): 103–19, at 107.
145 See Chibnall, Orderic Vitalis, 4:180–81; Elisabeth van Houts, “The Warenne View of the Past, 1066–1203,” Anglo-Norman Studies, no. 26 (2004): 103–21, at 108, 108n42, 109; Frank Barlow, “William I's Relations with Cluny,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 32, no. 2 (1981): 131–41, at 135; Golding, “Coming of the Cluniacs,” 65; Mayhew, Monks of Saint Pancras, 10–12, 18.
146 L. C. Bethmann and W. Wattenbach, eds., “Chronicon sancti Huberti Andaginensis usque ad a. 1106,” in Monumenta Germaniae Historica [[. . .]] Scriptorvm [. . .] VIII, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz (Hanover, 1848), 565–630, at 582–83; Karl Hanquet, ed., La Chronique de Saint-Hubert Dite Cantatorium (Brussels, 1906), 65–67; Léon Vanderkindere, ed., La Chronique De Gislebert De Mons (Brussels, 1904), 8–10; C. P. Lewis, “Warenne, Gundrada de (d. 1085), Noblewoman,” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/11736; van Houts and Love, Warenne (Hyde) Chronicle, 98, 98n33. See also Chibnall, Orderic Vitalis, 2:260–61; van Houts and Love, Warenne (Hyde) Chronicle, 26–27.
147 Van Houts and Love, 98–100, at 100.
148 Van Houts and Love, 100–1.
149 Barlow, “William I's Relations with Cluny,” 131–32, 137, 140.
150 Warenne had fought at Hastings and was a major stakeholder in the Norman regime. See Lewis, “Warenne, William”; van Houts, “Warenne View,” 104; Hagger, Norman Rule, 89–90.
151 Mason, J. F. A., William the First and the Sussex Rapes (Hastings and Bexhill, 1966), 5–6, 8–9, 15, 20–21Google Scholar, and map, inside back cover.
152 Farrer, William and Clay, Charles Travis, eds., Early Yorkshire Charters, vol. 8, The Honour of Warenne (Cambridge, 2013), 1–3Google Scholar.
153 Lewis, “Warenne, Gundrada.” See also van Houts and Love, Warenne (Hyde) Chronicle, xlvi–vii, 26–27, 93–106.
154 See appendices 1 and 2.
155 Acta William I, no. 195 and note.
156 Winterbottom, William of Malmesbury Gesta Pontificvm Anglorvm, 1:632–35; Handbook of British Chronology, 270.
157 Winterbottom, William of Malmesbury Gesta Pontificvm Anglorvm, 1:636–41.
158 Cheney, Based on C. R., ed., A Handbook of Dates for Students of British History, revised by Michael Jones, new ed. (Cambridge, 2004), 160Google Scholar, 168, 174, 182, 184, 190, 192, 198, 214–15, 222–23.
159 Irvine, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 7:94; Whitelock, Douglas, and Tucker, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 162; Chibnall, Orderic Vitalis, 4:120, 121 and 121n5.
160 For Aldhelm's royal connections, see Nicholas Brooks, introduction to Aldhelm and Sherborne: Essays to Celebrate the Founding of the Bishopric, ed. Katherine Barker with Nicholas Brooks (Oxford and Oakville, 2010), 1–14, at 3–4.
161 See appendix 2.
162 Kelly, S. E., ed., Charters of Malmesbury Abbey (Oxford, 2005), no. 18Google Scholar, but noting that “there is no evidence of any post-Conquest Malmesbury interest in this area” (191). See also Winterbottom, William of Malmesbury Gesta Pontificvm Anglorvm, 1:582–85.
163 Winterbottom, William of Malmesbury Gesta Pontificvm Anglorvm, 1:562–63; Michael Lapidge, “Aldhelm [St Aldhelm] (d. 709/10), Abbot of Malmesbury, Bishop of Sherborne,” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/308.
164 Kemp, B. R., ed., English Episcopal Acta 18: Salisbury, 1078–1217 (Oxford, 1999), xxxGoogle Scholar.
165 Winterbottom, William of Malmesbury Gesta Pontificvm Anglorvm, 1:634–35; Kemp, English Episcopal Acta 18, xxix.
166 Winterbottom, William of Malmesbury Gesta Pontificvm Anglorvm, 1:640–41. See also Crook, John, English Medieval Shrines (Woodbridge, 2011), 119Google Scholar; Kemp, English Episcopal Acta 18, xxxv, xxxvii.
167 For the life, see Winterbottom, William of Malmesbury Gesta Pontificvm Anglorvm, 1:498–662, at 508–13. For discussion of the theme of loyalty in the letter, see Gatch, Milton McC., “The Anglo-Saxon Tradition,” in The Study of Spirituality, ed. Jones, Cheslyn, Wainwright, Geoffrey, and Yarnold, Edward (Oxford, 1986), 225–34Google Scholar, at 227–28. See also Foot, Sarah, “Wilfrid's Monastic Empire,” in Wilfrid: Abbot, Bishop, Saint: Papers from the 1300th Anniversary Conferences, ed. Higham, N. J. (Donington, 2013), 27–39, at 28–29Google Scholar.
168 Hudson, “The Origins,” 14; Blair, “Saint Cuthman,” 173–74, 183–84.
169 Bertram Colgrave, ed. and trans., The Life of Bishop Wilfrid by Eddius Stephanus (Cambridge, 1927), 13, 44–47; Blair, “Saint Cuthman,” 174, 179; Alan Thacker, “Wilfrid, His Cult and His Biographer,” in Higham, Wilfrid, 1–16, at 5; Foot, “Wilfrid's Monastic Empire,” 30; Éamonn Ó Carragáin and Alan Thacker, “Wilfrid in Rome,” in Higham, Wilfrid, 212–30, at 219–20.
170 Colgrave, ed., Life of Bishop Wilfrid, 81–83.
171 Blair, “Saint Cuthman,” 173, 176–77, 180–81, 182.
172 Farley, Domesday, 1:16r (b); David M. Wilson, The Bayeux Tapestry (London, 1985), images nos. 2–5.
173 Farley, Domesday, 1:17r (b); William Page, ed., History of the County of Sussex, vol. 2 (London, 1907), 109; L. F. Salzman, ed., History of the County of Sussex, vol. 4, The Rape of Chichester (London, 1953), 185; Wilson, Bayeux Tapestry, image no. 3.
174 For the gravity of using arms against kings, see Strickland, Matthew, “Against the Lord's Anointed: Aspects of Warfare and Baronial Rebellion in England and Normandy, 1075–1265,” in Law and Government in Medieval England and Normandy: Essays in Honour of Sir James Holt, ed. Garnett, George and Hudson, John (Cambridge, 1994), 56–79Google Scholar.
175 For the justification, see, for example, Davis and Chibnall, Gesta Gvillelmi, 120–21, 150–51; Wilson, Bayeux Tapestry, images nos. 1, 24–26, 31. For atonement, consider the so-called Penitential Ordinance and William's foundation of Battle Abbey; see Cowdrey, H. E. J., “Bishop Ermenfrid of Sion and the Penitential Ordinance following the Battle of Hastings,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 20, no. 2 (1969): 225–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eleanor Searle, ed. and trans., The Chronicle of Battle Abbey (Oxford, 1980), 36–37.
176 Reflected, for example, in William's harrying of the north, the criticism of William in the E version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and the massive dispossession of the English evident in Domesday Book. See Irvine, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 7:88, 97–98; Whitelock, Douglas, and Tucker, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 150, 164–65; Farley, Domesday, passim; Bates, William the Conqueror, 313–21.
177 See above, text between notes 11 and 12.
178 Irvine, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 7:93; Whitelock, Douglas, and Tucker, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 161.
179 Acta William I, no. 141.
180 For the overlap between those present at Gloucester and at Lackham, see Bates, William the Conqueror, 474.
181 See appendix 2.
182 See appendix 1.
183 See appendix 2.
184 See appendix 2.
185 See appendix 2.
186 For later oaths in recognition of royal heirs taken by the magnates or broader groups, see Maddicott, “Oath of Marlborough,” 297–99, but with reservations expressed at 298. Against the idea that an oath was sworn to Henry at Salisbury is the absence of any reference to this in the context of the events of 1100–01, when Henry seized the crown and was challenged by Curthose.
187 For knighthood, see, for example, Crouch, David, The Image of Aristocracy in Britain, 1000–1300 (London, 1992), 137Google Scholar; Aird, Robert Curthose, 54–55; Strickland, Matthew, Henry the Young King, 1155–1183 (New Haven, 2016), 82CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For late twelfth-century evidence, see Lieberman, Max, “Knighthood and Chivalry in the Histories of the Norman Dukes: Dudo and Benoît,” Anglo-Norman Studies, no. 32 (2010): 129–83, at 172–76Google Scholar.
188 Bates, William the Conqueror, 476.
189 Irvine, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 7: 94; Whitelock, Douglas, and Tucker, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 162. See also McGurk, John of Worcester, 3:44–45.
190 For Edgar's career, see Hooper, N., “Edgar the Ætheling: Anglo-Saxon Prince, Rebel and Crusader,” Anglo-Saxon England, no. 14 (1985): 197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar. But for an important reappraisal of the sources, and the lack of a true reconciliation between Edgar and the Norman regime (reflected in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle) in 1074 and thereafter, see Winkler, Emily A., “1074 in the Twelfth Century,” Anglo-Norman Studies, no. 36 (2014): 241–58Google Scholar, esp. 244–45, 256–57, who argues that several twelfth-century chroniclers rewrote the events of 1074 in ways intended to portray it as a final resolution between Edgar and William and to support thereby William's legitimacy as king.
191 Harvey, Domesday, 236. For Margaret's sons, see A. A. M. Duncan, “Edgar (Late 1070s?–1107), King of Scots,” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/8464.
192 Holt, “1086,” 56.
193 Harvey, Domesday, 318.
194 Bates, William the Conqueror, at 470.
195 Bates, 476–77, at 477.
196 I intend to undertake such an exploration on another occasion.
197 Bates, “Prosopographical Study,” 89–90.
198 Bates, 90.
199 Bates, 90.
200 Bates, 90.
201 Bates, 90–92, at 92; Acta William I, 10–11, 22–35.
202 Acta William I, 19.
203 Bates, “Prosopographical Study,” 93–94, at 94. For discussion of the rationale for choosing the attesters of Norman diplomas, see also Acta William I, 19–20.
204 Acta William I, 20. On the problems associated with the evidence of witness lists, see also Hagger, Norman Rule, 371–78.
205 Bates, “Prosoprographical Study,” 101.
206 Dauvit Broun, “The Presence of Witnesses and the Writing of Charters,” in The Reality Behind Charter Diplomatic in Anglo-Norman Britain, ed. Broun (Glasgow, 2011), 235–90, at 238. For pertinent comments on royal charters, see Broun, “Presence of Witnesses,” 237. For the problems of charters inscribed with signa, see Broun, “Presence of Witnesses,” 236n5, citing Bates, “Prosopographical Study,” 91–95.
207 Acta William I, 34, 482.
208 See appendix 2.
209 Bates, “Prosopographical Study,” 94–95.
210 Bates, 101, 101n70, citing Bates, Acta William I, nos. 39, 60, 146, 153.
211 Acta William I, 482–83.
212 Bates, William the Conqueror, 474.
213 Bates, 561.
214 Bates, 560.
215 Acta William I, 24, 30, at 30.
216 Acta William I, 560.
217 Acta William I, 559–60.
218 See appendix 2.
219 Acta William I, 586.
220 See appendix 2.
221 Bates, “Prosopographical Study,” 100–1.