A HISTORY OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE 



of Berkhampstead, of Wigod of Wallingford, and of Wulfward 'White' 

 and his wife I have already spoken. 



The name of Wulfward ' White ' reminds us that among those 

 who had clearly held a large interest in the county was Edith the Con- 

 fessor's queen. We know little or nothing of how she came by her 

 lands, but the extent of those possessed by her brothers in this district 

 suggests that some of them at least may have been her father Godwine's. 

 She had, as the text will show, a number of ' men ' in the county, but 

 these, as well as her own estates, were divided, presumably at her death 

 (1075), among several tenants-in-chief. The Bishop of Bayeux suc- 

 ceeded her at Hughenden and Marlow, the Bishop of Coutances, Robert 

 d'Ouilly, Geoffrey de Mandeville, Walter, and ' Godric Cratel ' at other 

 places, but her largest manor was bestowed on ^Elfric the cook. The 

 total assessment of her manors was over 80 hides, 10 of which at Wy- 

 combe were held of her by ' Brictric.' This Brihtric the name is 

 variously spelt in the record was a thegn of some importance who had 

 ' men ' of his own in the county, and some at least of whose lands were 

 divided between Robert d'Ouilly and Milo Crispin. 1 



One more former holder of land in the county may be mentioned. 

 This was Fin the Dane, whose land at Cheddington was divided between 

 Robert d'Ouilly and Suerting. His occurrence is of interest because 

 this outlying estate was far removed from his lands in Essex and Suffolk, 

 which had passed to Richard de Clare. In that district he seems to 

 have retained them for a time after the Conquest, and his wife was 

 still holding two Essex manors at the time of the Survey. 8 



The Buckinghamshire portion of the Survey brings prominently 

 before us the very difficult question of the change of tenure at the Con- 

 quest. It is the tendency of Domesday to assimilate in form the con- 

 ditions prevailing in England before and after the Conquest ; and one of 

 the signs of that tendency is the use of the same word (homo) for the 

 ' man ' of the Norman lord and of his English predecessor. The im- 

 pression is thus conveyed that the former's compact ' fief resembled 

 what was relatively the loose congeries of rights that the great thegn 

 had held. Yet, even while it conveys this impression, the record itself 

 enables us to correct it by the facts which it contains. We should, at 

 first sight, be led to believe that, before as after the Conquest, the county 

 was parcelled out between great lords and their ' men,' of whom the 

 latter held the manors which were not retained in demesne. But the 

 vital difference is this : the 'fief which the Normans introduced was 

 an absolutely integral whole ; whether its manors were held in demesne 

 or by tenants of the lord they all passed together ; but the bond which 

 united the ' man ' of the English thegn to his lord did not involve the 

 passing of their lands as an indivisible whole. 



An excellent case in point is afforded in this county by the devolu- 

 tion of the lands and ' men ' of JElfric son of Coding. Judging from 

 the number of his men his influence was great, but it was local ; outside 



See p. 214 above. J V. C. H. Essex, \. 348-9. 



2X8 



