Top of page Name Summary Distribution Map Property List Profile Bottom of page

Ælfheah 74

Name

Summary

Ælheah 74 had two tiny holdings in central Hampshire TRE assessed for a total of 82 acres and of unknown value; both were held under Stigand 1 as bishop of Winchester, of whom Ælfheah was probably a dependent tenant.

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
Shire Hampshire	Phil. ref. 2,5	Vill Easton	DB Spelling Ælfeth	Holder 1066 Ælfheah 'of Easton'	Lord 1066 Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury	Tenant-in-Chief 1086 Walkelin, bishop of Winchester	1086 Subtenant Thurstan Rufus	Fiscal Value 0.43	1066 Value 0.00	1086 Value 0.00	Confidence B	Map
Shire Hampshire	Phil. ref. 3,1	Vill Chilcomb	DB Spelling Ælfec	Holder 1066 Ælfheah 'of Easton'	Lord 1066 Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury	Tenant-in-Chief 1086 Walkelin, bishop of Winchester	1086 Subtenant unnamed monks of Old Minster, Winchester, in 1086	Fiscal Value 0.25	1066 Value 1.08	1086 Value 2.40	Confidence B	Map
Totals								Fiscal Value	1066 Value	1086 Value

Profile

The largest of (Unknown Person)’s two tiny holdings was at Easton on the River Itchen to the north-east of Winchester in central Hampshire, while the smaller was at Chilcomb less than 2½ miles to the south.  Each was held TRE directly or indirectly from Stigand 1 in his role as bishop of Winchester, and in each case the land had passed to an episcopal subtenant called Turstin by 1086.  Given these tenurial and geographical coincidences and the fact that the nearest estate of another TRE landholder called Ælfheah was more than 70 miles away, it is reasonable to suppose that these parts of the Easton and Chilcomb estates were held by the same man TRE.

In the entry for Easton DB specifies that Ælfheah’s land formed part of the demesne and was always in the bishopric while that for Chilcomb specifies that he was one of the landholders who ‘could not withdraw with their land to another lord’.  This implies that both of (Unknown Person)’s holdings were held in dependent tenure under Stigand’s direct or indirect lordship.