[Footnote 1: See my paper 'An early reference to Domesday' (_Domesday Studies_, pp. 542-4).]
[Footnote 2: _Domesday Studies_, p. 513; _Domesday Book_ (S.P.C.K.), p. 305.]
[Footnote 3: _Introduction to Domesday_, i. 19.]
[Footnote 4: _Domesday Studies_, p. 547.]
[Footnote 5: _Domesday Book_ (S.P.C.K.), pp. 78, 305.]
[Footnote 6: There was a similar dispute about the same time in the case of Abingdon Abbey and its possessions in Berkshire (_Abingdon Cart._, ii. 1600).]
[Footnote 7: This, however, as I have elsewhere shown must remain a presumption, as it is possible that, owing to the youth of his heir, he may have been entered as nominal tenant for some time after his death (see p. 155).]
[Footnote 11: _Infra_, pp. 149 _et seq._]
[Footnote 12: We are enabled by this Survey, and by the division it records, to carry up the history of Elmley, the original seat of the Beauchamps, to Domesday itself. The great Manor of Cropthorne, by Evesham, was held by the Church of Worcester. In Bengeworth, one of its 'members', Urse d'Abetot, had seized an estate of five hides (_Heming's Cartulary_ fo. 125_b_). His brother, Robert Despencer, had seized two other 'members', Charlton ('Ceorlatuna') and Elmley (_ibid._). In Domesday we are merely told that Robert held eleven hides in Cropthorne. But the present Survey fortunately mentions that the portion which fell to Marmion's share was seven hides in 'Charlton'. This leaves four hides for Elmley, which, added to the five hides of Urse d'Abetot in Bengeworth, makes exactly the nine hides here entered to Walter de Beauchamp. We thus learn how the Beauchamps became possessed of Elmley. And this calculation is confirmed by the entry in the _Testa_ (p. 41): 'Willelmus de Bello Campo ... in Elmeleg in dominico iiij. hidas.']
[Footnote 13: It is worth noting that we find, in Domesday, both a Robert and a Walter holding of Urse in Worcestershire.]
[Footnote 15: _Harl. MS._, 3,763, fo. 80.]
[Footnote 16: _Cott. MS. Vesp._, B. xxiv. fo. 8.]
This 'invaluable Survey', as Mr Stevenson has termed it,[1] might be described as a miniature Domesday for each of the Wapentakes in the three trithings into which Lindsey was divided. For although drawn up, Wapentake by Wapentake, as is the Leicestershire Survey, Hundred by Hundred, the lands within each Wapentake described are grouped under the names of the holders of fiefs, instead of being entered Vill by Vill. It was doubtless compiled, like other surveys, in connection with the assessment of the 'geld'.[2]