8* An Elizabethan Sttrvey and Domesday Book. [ch. 



The lands of each of these manors did not, of course, lie together, 

 but were interwoven with the lands of other manors \ The inter- 

 weaving of the lands of different manors in the fields of the vill 

 would naturally result from the multiplication of lordships within the 

 vill. As a rule the lands of each tenant were scattered, and when 

 within a vill some held of one lord and some of another the different 

 manors of which they held would be interwoven. 



Bringing together the entries in Domesday Book pertaining to 

 Forncett vill 2, we find that manorial relations within the vill under- 

 went considerable alteration between 1066 and 1086, and were very 

 different in 1086 from what they were in 1565. Thus, the two 

 manors^, Olfs and Colman's, that existed in 'Fornesseta' in 1066, were 

 evidently united by 1086. Oslac's and Hardekinc's — later Walter's — 

 manors cannot be identified with any of the manors that extended into 

 the vill in 1 565. There seems to be no reason for believing that many 

 of the holdings of freemen and sokemen formed part of any manor 

 until, as is probable, they were united by Bigod to Forncett. In 

 1086 part of the manor of Tasburgh, later Uphall's (Terrae 

 Osberni Episcopi) lay in this vill^ and Earl Alan of Richmond 

 had tenants there. But of the fourteen manors that extended into 

 the vill in 1565 only Forncett and Richmond clearly lay there in 

 1086. In 1565 Uphall's manor apparently did not extend thither. 



2. The territorial development of Forncett manor. 



In the Survey of 1565 some 2700 acres^ are recorded as belonging 

 to Forncett manor, of which about 1700 lay within the vill of Forn- 

 cett, and the remaining 1000 in seventeen neighbouring vills : 

 Moulton, 242 a., Tacolneston, 216 a., Aslacton, 195 a., Wacton, 92 a., 

 Stratton, 74 a., Carleton, 51 a., and smaller areas in Tivetshall, 

 Tasburgh, Flordon, Saxlingham, Tharston, Tibenham, Bunwell, 

 Wymondham, Hapton, Fundenhall, and Hethel. 



The attempt to determine what lands belonged to the manor 

 of Forncett in 1086 is attended with difficulties ; but our knowledge 

 of the extent of the manor at a later time throws light on the 

 Domesday Record. 



The principal entries in Domesday Book relating to the lands 

 that in 1086, or soon after, seem to have belonged to the manor 

 of Forncett are in three groups. In the first group the nucleus 



^ See Appendix II. 2 Appendix III. ^ Holdings with demesne teams are here 



reckoned as manors. ^ Blomefield, op. cit. v. 214. ^ Not including commons. 



