Agemund 16

Agemund ‘of Eckington’ (Suss.), fl. 1066
Male
CPL
4 of 5

Name

Agemund
Agemund 15
Agemund 17

Summary

Agemund 16 was a minor thegn with a single manor in east Sussex. With its Wealden outliers it was assessed at 5 hides and worth £5.

Distribution map of property and lordships associated with this name in DB

List of property and lordships associated with this name in DB

Holder 1066

Shire Phil. ref. Vill DB Spelling Holder 1066 Lord 1066 Tenant-in-Chief 1086 1086 Subtenant Fiscal Value 1066 Value 1086 Value Conf. Show on Map
Sussex 10,89 Eckington Agemund Agemund 'of Eckington' Edward, king Robert, count of Mortain William de Cahagnes 5.00 5.00 3.00 B Map
Sussex 9,41 Hawksborough Agemund Agemund 'of Eckington' - Robert, count of Eu - 0.25 0.20 0.20 B Map
Sussex 9,55 Hawksborough Agemund Agemund 'of Eckington' Edward, king Robert, count of Eu Osbern fitzGeoffrey 1.00 0.70 0.70 B Map
Sussex 9,76 Shoyswell Agemund Agemund 'of Eckington' - Robert, count of Eu Walter fitzLambert 0.75 1.00 1.00 B Map
Totals

Profile

The Agemund who appears as a landowner in east Sussex was located too far from any of the other Agemunds to have been the same person. In particular, the Sussex manor stood nearly 60 miles from the nearest of the Hampshire manors which can be assigned to one or other of Agemund 14 and Agemund 15.

The Sussex property of Agemund 16 formed a single manor of 5 hides divided between a core at Eckington, in the claylands below the north-facing escarpment of the South Downs, and three small outliers in the High Weald up to 20 miles away to the north-east. In 1086 Eckington lay in the count of Mortain’s rape of Pevensey, and the outliers had been separated because they lay locally in the count of Eu’s rape of Hastings. DB identifies the outliers as ‘belonging to’ or ‘in’ Eckington, but also shows that they lay on the ground variously in the hundreds of Hawksborough (separate holdings of 1 virgate and 1 hide) and Shoyswell (a single holding of ½ hide and 1 virgate). The precise location of the outliers within their hundreds cannot be determined in the present state of research. The total of the three outliers (1½ hides + 2 virgates = 2 hides) matches what DB says of the parent manor, where the assessment had been reduced since the Conquest from 5 hides to 3 hides ‘because 2 hides lie in the rape of Hastings’. In 1086 the parent manor of Eckington had a home farm and bordars as tenants, the outliers only a handful of villans each, probably reflecting the structure of the composite manor in Agemund’s time.

The count of Eu’s tenant in Shoyswell hundred was a Walter who can be identified from other evidence as Walter fitzLambert (Round and Salzmann 1905: 381; James and Seal 1990: 21). The duplication of the byname fitzLambert here with that of Agemund 7 of Lincolnshire’s successor Jocelin fitzLambert is merely coincidence. Jocelin’s father Lambert was Agemund 7’s antecessorial successor at (in principle) all his extensive holdings; Walter fitzLambert acquired only a fragment of Agemund 16’s manor (along with other estates which had belonged to different Englishmen) as the count of Eu’s man. There is nothing else to suggest that Walter fitzLambert and Jocelin fitzLambert were brothers.

Bibliography


James and Seal 1990: Sue James and D. A. Seal, ‘An introduction to the Sussex Domesday’, The Sussex Domesday, ed. Ann Williams and R. W. H. Erskine (London: Alecto Historical Editions, 1990), 1–25

Round and Salzmann 1905: J. H. Round and L. F. Salzmann, ‘Introduction to the Sussex Domesday’, The Victoria History of the Counties of England: A History of the County of Sussex, I, ed. William Page (Westminster: Archibald Constable, 1905), 351–86