DOMESDAY SURVEY 



another 4 hides which passed with it into the hands of the Abhot of 

 Battle, but it is not safe to assert that he is the ' Alnod ' to whom another 

 37 hides are assigned, as the name was not uncommon. Ulmar 

 ' cild ' occurs at ' Sidenore,' and Brixi, who held at Itford, Stoke and 

 Thakeham, was probably the Kentish noble Brixi ' cild ' who also held 

 at Stoke in Surrey/ To argue from similarity of names is dangerous, 

 but as Mr. Round has shown that Carle who held Send in Surrey 

 held also in Hampshire, Wiltshire and Somerset, it is allowable to 

 suggest his identity with the Carle who appears at Hartfield, Fletching 

 and Wappingthorn. 



Norman, who had held Frankwell, Dallington, Wannock and 

 Annington, and was possibly the Norman who held Camberwell and 

 two manors in Kent,^ was allowed to retain, as undertenant, half a hide 

 of his manor of Frankwell ; the same quantity of land at Cortesley was 

 granted to Golduin the pre-Conquest lord of that manor. Other 

 Englishmen were more fortunate ; three nameless men were left in un- 

 disturbed possession of ' Glesham,' Bricmaer retained his land in ' Weles- 

 mere,' Alward at Heene, and Turchil in Stopham ; Levenot lost several 

 estates but kept Peathorne ; Osward managed to save Portslade and 

 Perching, and Alwin Wickham and ' Stoechestone.' Most fortunate of 

 all, however, was Haiminc, who must have rendered active help to the 

 invaders to have saved undiminished his manors of Sherrington, Exceat, 

 Frog-Firle and Cholington, leaving them at his death to his son with 

 the Norman name of Richard, who appears as a benefactor of Lewes 

 Priory, and seems to have taken the name of ' de Essete ' from his chief 

 manor.^ But all these now held under the Norman lords of their 

 respective rapes instead of directly of the king. 



Of the natives who held lands after the Conquest other than they 

 had held of King Edward the most notable were Ode of Winchester and 

 Eldred his brother, who held of the king in chief at Woolbeding and 

 Iping. Of these two brothers and their possessions in Hampshire and 

 elsewhere Mr. Round has given an account in his introduction to the 

 Hampshire survey.* Amongst the subtenants occur such names as 

 Alward, Alwin, Ednod, Alvric, Osward, Godwin, Siward and Wine- 

 man, but with one exception they are but names and merely serve to 

 indicate that some few English were less unfortunate than the majority 

 of their brethren. The exception referred to is Chetel, who held by the 

 gift of King William in Stockbridge Hundred a ploughland which had 

 never been assessed in hides (fo. 24), To the fortunate circumstance 

 that this land subsequently passed into the . hands of the Bishop of 

 Chichester we are indebted for the preservation of two early charters of 

 much interest. In 1254 the king laid claim to certain land in the 

 suburbs of Chichester which was then held by the bishop, who claimed 

 that it and three messuages in the city had been granted to the see by 



• V.C.H. Surr. i. 283. 



" Ibid. p. 281. The name, however, was not sufficiently uncommon to make this identification sure. 



3 See Mr. Round's paper in Suss. Arch. Coll. xl. 77. * V.C.H. Hants, i. 427. 



371 



