A HISTORY OF WARWICKSHIRE 



to genealogists, and affords an exceptional instance of the early adoption 

 of a surname. That their forefather was also known as Turchil ' de 

 Warwic ' was due, in my opinion, to his association with the shrievalty, 

 as in the cases of those houses which took their surnames from Salis- 

 bury and from Gloucester. For Turchil's father ^Elfwine had un- 

 doubtedly been sheriff, 1 though Turchil was not, when we meet with 

 him, which is doubtless why the surname of Warwick was not adopted 

 by his heirs. One has to insist that there is nothing either in the 

 chronicles or in Domesday to connect him with Warwick Castle or 

 with the earldom of the shire. If he succeeded his father as its sheriff 

 he was soon supplanted by Robert d'Oily, who was his under-tenant 

 in certain manors, two of which he held of him * in pledge.' 



The predecessors of Turchil in his many estates had been several 

 different persons, among whom a Hereward appears as the holder of a 

 small estate at Ladbroke. Mr. Freeman, we gather, was unable to make 

 up his mind whether this was the famous Hereward or not a ; for my 

 part I can find no reason to suppose that it was. 3 In the case of only 

 four of Turchil's manors is it definitely stated that his father had been 

 his predecessor ; a goodly number were held of him by his own fellow- 

 countrymen who had held them 'freely ' themselves before the Conquest. 

 One of his under-tenants, Gudmund, is of interest as having been his 

 own brother, and an incidental allusion to ' Chetelbert ' under his manor 

 of Radford is explained by Mr. Eyton's proof that he also was a brother 

 of Turchil. 4 



Dugdale, rightly I think, suspected that Turchil's was not the only 

 fief subordinated, after Domesday, to that of the Earl of Warwick. 8 The 

 fief, for instance, of William Fitz Corbucion must have been represented 

 by the ten knights' fees that his heir, Peter de Studley, held of the Earl 

 of Warwick in ii66. 8 I am not sure, however, that Dugdale was also 

 right in thinking that Salford Priors, which appears in Domesday as held 

 in almoin by Leveve (or Luith), the nun was similarly given to the 



i See Ellis' Introduction to Domesday, ii. 496-7, and Freeman's Norman Conquest (1871), iv. 780. 



1 'Thurkill kept his lands, which were largely increased by royal grants out of the confiscated estates 

 of less lucky Englishmen . . . among whom we discern . . . the greater name of Hereward ' (Norm. 

 Conj.iv. 189). 'Legend also has forgotten the fact which the document [Domesday] has preserved, 

 namely, that the hero of the fenland did not belong wholly to Lincolnshire, but that he was also a land- 

 holder in the distant shire of Warwick ' (ibid. pp. 455-6). Elsewhere, however, he admitted of the War- 

 wickshire entries that 'the Hereward of these entries may have been some other person' (ibid. p. 805), 

 though he urged that 'the mention of Warwick' (which he had not mentioned) in the legend draws 

 ' incidental confirmation from Domesday ' (ibid. p. 809). 



' Turchil's predecessor, however, may have been identical with the Hereward who held under the 

 Count of Meulan in 1086 three manors in the north of the county which he himself had held freely 

 before the Conquest. 



4 The proof is an old translation in the College of Arms of a charter of 1072, which was printed 

 with annotations by Mr. Eyton in Staffordshire Collections, ii. 178, and which he rightly styled 'a priceless 

 document which in turn fortifies history and helps chronology.' It is a grant by Robert de Stafford, 

 and among the witnesses are ' Agelwinus Viscount,' 'Turkil, the sonne of Agelwinus,' ' Ketelbearne his 

 brother.' From this it would appear that the right name of Turchil's father was ^Ethelwine (' Agel- 

 winus'), and that he was still sheriff (vicecomei) of Warwickshire in 1072. 



I have touched upon this practice in my Geoffrey de M andevllle (pp. 103-4). The charters 

 obtained by Geoffrey in Stephen's reign contain several instances of such subordination. 



Rid Book of the Exchequer, p. 325. 



2 7 8 



