A HISTORY OF SUSSEX 



the Conqueror, producing in support the following charter * : ' W. Rex 

 Angl' W. Epo. Cycestr' et O. hi' Aulg'i et Hoello et aliis ministris 

 suis salm. Concedo eccle Cycestr' terram que fuit Chetelli ex^ portam 

 Cycestr' tenend' libere et honorifice cum soca et saca et infonghenthef. 

 Teste Com. de Moulont apd. Brokehurst.' A point of great impor- 

 tance is that, if this transcript can be relied upon, this charter is ad- 

 dressed to Bishop William whose existence is only known from WilHam 

 of Malmesbury's statement that he succeeded Stigand and from the 

 entry of his name in Bishop William Rede's Cathalogus^ As Stigand 

 died in 1087 and Godfrey was consecrated Bishop of Chichester in 

 1087, William's episcopate has hitherto been ignored,^ but this charter 

 would enable us to restore him to his place amongst our bishops, while 

 at the same time dating itself accurately as having been granted in 

 1087. Unfortunately, however, the version of this charter given by 

 Dugdale,* from a Chichester chartulary which has now disappeared, 

 makes the charter addressed ' R. Epo. Cycestriae,' thus assigning it to 

 William II., Ralph (1091-1125) being the first bishop to whom it 

 could be referred. This chartulary has been shown to be very inaccu- 

 rate and unreUable as regards the Selsey charters,^ so that the question 

 of the date of this charter cannot be finally settled without further 

 evidence than is yet forthcoming. A second charter — said to be ' ejusdem 

 regis,' but possibly in^eality of WilHam II. — ran as follows : — ' W. Rex 

 Ang' Rog' Com' et oibz baronibz suis de Sussex saltm. Sciatis me 

 dedisse eccle de Cycestr' carucatam t're qm. tenuit Ketellus Esterman in 

 Sutsexa et domos q^ ipse Ketellus habebat in civitate Cycestr'. Testibus 

 Rodb. Bisp' et Rico, de Cuceyo'. The names of the witnesses are 

 evidently corrupt ; probably Dugdale's rendering ' Rodeburto Dispen- 

 satore et Rico, de Curceye' is correct. 



When we come to the consideration of the Norman holders of 

 lands we find precedence given, as always, to King William ; but it is 

 to his rank that this is due and not to the extent of his estates, which 

 consisted solely of two manors. This is in striking contrast to what we 

 find in other counties, where William normally retained for himself not 

 only Edward's Crown demesne, but the bulk of Harold's manors as well. 

 The manor of Bosham, originally assessed at 56I hides, but reduced 

 before the Confessor's death to 38 hides — at which it remained rated 

 under William — had been held by Earl Godwin, and had been one of 

 the principal residences probably of himself and certainly of his son, 

 the ill-fated Harold. Its appearance on the Bayeux tapestry has 

 already been alluded to, and it is possible that sentiment may have sug- 

 gested to William the retention of a place which was once the special 

 seat of his fallen rival. Sentiment is a more important historic factor 

 than many will admit, but whether that or some more prosaic reason 

 influenced him, Bosham was the only Sussex manor which the Con- 



' Curia Regis, 151, m. 38. a Suss. Arch. Coll. xiviii. 14 



» By Stephens, See of Chichester, and Stubbs, Reg. Sacr. Angl. amongst others. 

 * Mon. vi. 1165. - Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. (1901), 179. 



372 



