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

Padda 3

Name

Summary

Padda 3 had two manors in north Suffolk assessed at 2½ carucates and worth £3.

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 Suffolk	Phil. ref. 1,111	Vill Bungay	DB Spelling Pat	Holder 1066 Padda 'of Brampton'	Lord 1066 -	Tenant-in-Chief 1086 William, king	1086 Subtenant Wulfsige 'of Bungay'	Fiscal Value 0.25	1066 Value 0.50	1086 Value 0.40	Confidence -	Map
Shire Suffolk	Phil. ref. 1,111	Vill Bungay	DB Spelling Pat	Holder 1066 Padda 'of Brampton'	Lord 1066 -	Tenant-in-Chief 1086 William, king	1086 Subtenant Howard de Vernon	Fiscal Value 0.25	1066 Value 0.50	1086 Value 0.40	Confidence -	Map
Shire Suffolk	Phil. ref. 7,7	Vill Brampton	DB Spelling Padda	Holder 1066 Padda 'of Brampton'	Lord 1066 -	Tenant-in-Chief 1086 Roger Bigod	1086 Subtenant Robert de Courson	Fiscal Value 2.00	1066 Value 2.00	1086 Value 2.00	Confidence -	Map
Totals								Fiscal Value	1066 Value	1086 Value

Profile

The Suffolk properties attributed to Padda and Pat were only 8 miles apart, inviting the conclusion that they are more likely than not to have belonged to the same man TRE. It is not likely that two landowners with very similar and unusual names held manors of a similar size so close to one another. It is easy to understand why the name may have been spelled in two different ways, since the two Domesday entries came from different sources: Padda’s from the geld lists which provided the framework for the survey of non-royal manors, and Pat’s from the separate inquiry into royal lands.

Brampton passed to Roger Bigod, a major landowner in this part of Suffolk and indeed throughout East Anglia; but Padda 3’s half carucate at Bungay was gathered into the larger estate constructed there after 1066 by merging the largest manor (once Archbishop Stigand’s) with most of the lesser holdings (Suff. 1: 110–111). Bungay was administered in 1086 with the rest of Stigand’s property in Suffolk by William de Noyers. There does not seem to have been a connection between Padda’s manor in Bungay and the archbishop TRE, but that was not enough to keep it out of the king’s hands. The different destinations after 1066 of Padda’s two manors are underlined by the fact that another holding at Brampton also fell into royal hands and the administration of William de Noyers because it had been part of Bungay and its holder had been commended to Stigand.

Padda’s manor at Brampton was more highly assessed and worth more than the one at Bungay, but Bungay was more heavily populated and included a church, one of four mentioned in the Domesday vill.