Show all data

• Metadata

  Gelling, ECTV. Gelling, M., The Early Charters of the Thames Valley (Leicester, 1979). 324 charters cited.

  • S 65. Comments, authentic, no. 191
  • S 69. Comments, spurious, no. 308
  • S 86. Comments, authentic, no. 195
  • S 88. Comments, authentic, no. 196
  • S 93. Comments, spurious, no. 146
  • S 98. Comments, authentic, no. 199
  • S 100. Comments, authentic, estate need not be in the immediate vicinity of Yeading, no. 198
  • S 103b. Comments, authentic, no. 194
  • S 104. Comments, spurious, perhaps fabricated in 10th or 11th century, no. 260
  • S 106. Comments, original, suggests Wicham may be Wickham in Hurstpierpoint, Sussex, and a district-name Ciltinne may be preserved in nearby East and West Chiltington; discussion of Ciltinne, no. 202 and p. 188
  • S 107. Comments, spurious, evidence shows that the estate was called Readanoran until at least the end of the ninth century (see S 217), no. 261
  • S 112. Comments, spurious, no. 262
  • S 119. Comments, authentic basis, but bounds Middle English and place-name spellings do not suggest pre-Conquest source, no. 203
  • S 124. Comments, spurious, bounds from a pre-Conquest source, no. 161
  • S 127. Comments, spurious, names of Offa's family copied from a pre-Conquest source, no. 315
  • S 132. Comments, spurious, no. 205
  • S 133. Comments, spurious, no. 204
  • S 136. Comments, spurious, although first third of text may be genuine, no. 162 (pp. 80-1, 101)
  • S 138. Comments, spurious, discusses place-names, Scelfdune is not Salden in Mursley, no. 144
  • S 144. Comments, authentic, no. 316
  • S 150. Comments, spurious, no. 145
  • S 151. Comments, spurious, no. 164
  • S 166. Comments, spurious, regnal and incarnation years incompatible, no. 17
  • S 183. Comments, authentic basis, citing Brooks 'more likely to be the work of a pre-Conquest than a 12th-century forger', no. 18 (pp. 26-7, 125)
  • S 184. Comments, spurious, forger used some pre-Conquest material, no. 263
  • S 188. Comments, original, note on bounds, no. 207
  • S 196. Comments, authentic basis, no. 264
  • S 200. Comments, spurious, queries identification of Standon, no. 166
  • S 204. Comments, authentic, may be original, no. 146
  • S 208. Comments, authentic, no. 210
  • S 210. Comments, authentic, no. 265
  • S 217. Comments, authentic, corrects Grundy's interpretation of bounds, no. 266
  • S 220. Comments, authentic basis, presumably St Paul's Walden, no. 167
  • S 225. Comments, authentic basis, texts and witnesses tampered with, no. 32
  • S 235. Comments, authentic, no. 312
  • S 239. Comments, not genuine but incorporates early material, no. 10
  • S 241. Comments, spurious, no. 12
  • S 252. Comments, authentic basis, witness-list interpolated, no. 11
  • S 278. Comments, spurious, no. 19
  • S 285. Comments, spurious, date is too early for King Æthelwulf (unless he was acting only as a sub-king) and for Swithhun as bishop of Winchester among the signatories, no. 318
  • S 288. Comments, authentic, no. 21
  • S 307. Comments, authenticity uncertain, no. 23
  • S 317. Comments, authentic, no. 24
  • S 318. Comments, spurious, no. 211
  • S 335. Comments, authentic basis, no. 25
  • S 338a. Comments, authentic basis, no. 27
  • S 346. Comments, authentic, Addendum pp. 188-9, discusses Dyson's suggestions, no. 212 (pp. 106, 188-9)
  • S 353. Comments, spurious, bounds are probably a Middle English version of an Old English text, no. 322
  • S 354. Comments, authentic, no. 29
  • S 355. Comments, authentic, no. 30
  • S 361. Comments, authentic, bounds describe modern parish of Water Eaton, the 'lost' earlier landbook was evidently S 210, no. 267
  • S 367. Comments, authentic, 10th-century copy, no. 148
  • S 369. Comments, authentic, no. 31
  • S 382. Comments, spurious, no. 324
  • S 396. Comments, authentic, no. 1
  • S 402. Comments, spurious, same bounds as in S 361, may have been forged as a reaction to S 361, which grants the estate to a lay beneficiary, no. 268
  • S 408. Comments, spurious, nos 34, 35
  • S 409. Comments, authentic basis, no. 36
  • S 410. Comments, spurious, nos 34, 35
  • S 411. Comments, authentic, no. 39
  • S 413. Comments, authentic, no. 33
  • S 420. Comments, spurious, no. 325 (pp. 34, 156-7)
  • S 448. Comments, authentic, no. 40
  • S 452. Comments, spurious, English version is earlier than 13th century and may be pre-Conquest, no. 214
  • S 453. Comments, spurious, no. 326 (pp. 83, 107, 157)
  • S 460. Comments, authentic, no. 269
  • S 461. Comments, authentic, no. 42
  • S 471. Comments, authentic, no. 41
  • S 477. Comments, spurious, no. 215
  • S 480. Comments, authentic, no. 43
  • S 482. Comments, authentic, no. 44
  • S 491. Comments, authentic, no. 45
  • S 494. Comments, authentic, no. 47
  • S 496. Comments, authentic, no. 48
  • S 500. Comments, authentic, no. 49
  • S 503. Comments, authentic, no. 46
  • S 515. Comments, spurious, no. 216
  • S 517. Comments, spurious, no. 50
  • S 523. Comments, authentic, no. 53
  • S 524. Comments, authentic but bounds modernized, no. 52
  • S 528. Comments, original, no. 327
  • S 529. Comments, authentic, no. 54
  • S 536. Comments, pre-Conquest fabrication based on same materials as S 517, no. 55
  • S 537. Comments, MS 1 authentic, nos 217-18
  • S 542. Comments, authentic, no. 56
  • S 544. Comments, authentic, no. 149
  • S 551. Comments, authentic, no. 328
  • S 552. Comments, original, no. 57
  • S 558. Comments, authentic, no. 60
  • S 559. Comments, authentic, no. 61
  • S 560. Comments, authentic, no. 63
  • S 561. Comments, authentic, no. 62
  • S 564. Comments, authentic, no. 65
  • S 567. Comments, spurious, bounds have no connection with charter, nos 64, 142
  • S 575. Comments, authentic basis, no. 85
  • S 577. Comments, authentic basis, no. 87
  • S 578. Comments, authentic, no. 58
  • S 581. Comments, authentic, no. 77
  • S 583. Comments, authentic, bounds are probably 10th-century, no. 79
  • S 584. Comments, authentic, no. 274
  • S 587. Comments, authentic, MS 1 a slightly later copy, no. 270
  • S 590. Comments, authentic, no. 70
  • S 591. Comments, authentic, no. 73
  • S 594. Comments, original, no. 71
  • S 597. Comments, authentic, no. 72
  • S 603. Comments, authentic, no. 78
  • S 605. Comments, authentic, no. 68
  • S 607. Comments, authentic, no. 67
  • S 611. Comments, authentic, bounds describe area in east of modern parish of Tadmarton, no. 273
  • S 614. Comments, authentic, no. 7
  • S 617. Comments, authentic, bounds describe northern part of modern parish of Tadmarton, no. 271
  • S 618. Comments, original, no. 272
  • S 620. Comments, authentic, no. 80
  • S 621. Comments, authentic, no. 330
  • S 622. Comments, authentic, no. 74
  • S 634. Comments, authentic, no. 69
  • S 638. Comments, authentic, no. 84
  • S 639. Comments, authentic, no. 84
  • S 641. Comments, authentic, no. 82
  • S 645. Comments, authentic; see no. 351 on bounds, no. 220
  • S 650. Comments, authentic, no. 89
  • S 651. Comments, authentic, no. 91
  • S 654. Comments, authentic, no. 88
  • S 657. Comments, authentic, same bounds as S 529, no. 90
  • S 658. Comments, authentic, no. 93
  • S 663. Comments, authentic, no. 86
  • S 665. Comments, spurious, no. 92
  • S 670. Comments, authentic, note on bounds, no. 225
  • S 672. Comments, authentic basis, no. 81
  • S 673. Comments, fabrication, no. 94
  • S 675. Comments, authentic, bounds describe only small portion of modern parish, no. 276
  • S 678. Comments, authentic, no. 275
  • S 682. Comments, authentic basis, bounds as in S 650, with one extra boundary mark, no. 96
  • S 687. Comments, original, no. 95
  • S 691. Comments, authentic, questions identification, no. 97
  • S 700. Comments, authentic, no. 98
  • S 702. Comments, original, discusses bounds, no. 222
  • S 713. Comments, authentic, no. 99
  • S 724. Comments, authentic, no. 100
  • S 725. Comments, authentic, no. 101
  • S 732. Comments, authentic, no. 103
  • S 733. Comments, authentic, no. 104
  • S 734. Comments, authentic, no. 102
  • S 737. Comments, authentic, no. 150
  • S 738. Comments, original, bounds describe modern parish of Crowmarsh, which includes Newnham Murren, corrects details of Grundy's interpretation, no. 277
  • S 747. Comments, authentic basis, bounds modernized, no. 332
  • S 750. Comments, authentic, charter seems to refer to a specific settlement rather than an indeterminate area, but specific identification impossible, no. 151
  • S 752. Comments, spurious, some information probably derived from pre-Conquest records, cf. no. 337, no. 331 (pp. 56, 159)
  • S 757. Comments, authentic, no. 107
  • S 758. Comments, authentic, no. 106
  • S 759. Comments, authentic, no. 108
  • S 760. Comments, authentic, no. 109
  • S 761. Comments, authentic basis, no. 111
  • S 769. Comments, authentic, no. 110
  • S 771. Comments, authentic, no. 278
  • S 772. Comments, original, bounds include Holcote as well as modern parish of Apsley Guise, no. 3
  • S 774. Comments, spurious, no. 224 (pp. 84, 110-11, 160)
  • S 778. Comments, authentic, queries identification with Kingston Bagpuize and suggests Kingston Lisle, no. 112
  • S 790. Comments, authentic, no. 114
  • S 805. Comments, authentic, dates ? 974, no. 226
  • S 815. Comments, authentic, no. 334
  • S 818. Comments, authentic, Fermesham is likely to be Farnham, although the spelling is erratic, no. 335
  • S 823. Comments, authentic, no. 333
  • S 828. Comments, authentic basis, perhaps error for 976, no. 115
  • S 829. Comments, spurious, no. 116
  • S 834. Comments, authentic, no. 153
  • S 839. Comments, authentic, no. 117
  • S 843. Comments, authentic, no. 281
  • S 847. Comments, authentic, no. 340
  • S 851. Comments, authentic, no. 118
  • S 853. Comments, authentic, original unlikely to have contained boundaries, no. 282
  • S 855. Comments, authentic, no. 119
  • S 856. Comments, authentic, no. 120
  • S 858. Comments, authentic, no. 121
  • S 876. Comments, original, no. 124
  • S 882. Comments, authentic, no. 155
  • S 883. Comments, authentic, bounds probably describe modern parish of Ardley, no. 284
  • S 887. Comments, authentic, no. 286
  • S 888. Comments, authentic, no. 173
  • S 894. Comments, spurious but incorporates some early information, no. 231 (pp. 87, 113-14)
  • S 897. Comments, spurious, no. 125
  • S 900. Comments, authentic basis, section recording Ælfhelm's grant to St Albans probably an interpolation, no. 174
  • S 902. Comments, authentic, bounds describe the south-western part of the parish of Great Haseley, no. 288
  • S 903. Comments, authentic, no. 232
  • S 908. Comments, spurious, no. 175
  • S 909. Comments, may be interpolated, no. 289 (pp. 78, 137-8)
  • S 911. Comments, authentic, no. 290 (pp. 138-9, 162-3)
  • S 912. Comments, authentic basis, for immunity clause cf. S 1031, no. 176
  • S 914. Comments, spurious, no. 157 (pp. 77-8, 162)
  • S 915. Comments, authentic, no. 127
  • S 916. Comments, MS 1 original, no. 177
  • S 927. Comments, authentic, no. 292
  • S 934. Comments, authentic, no. 128
  • S 937. Comments, authentic, no. 287
  • S 940. Comments, may be genuine with minor interpolations, no. 233
  • S 941. Comments, spurious, no. 230
  • S 943. Comments, authentic, bounds probably describe the two modern parishes of Beckley and Stowood, and Horton cum Studley, no. 291
  • S 945. Comments, probably spurious, no. 234
  • S 964. Comments, authentic, no. 129 (pp. 65, 140)
  • S 978. Comments, spurious, no. 235
  • S 992. Comments, authentic basis, no. 236
  • S 993. Comments, authentic, no. 130
  • S 1001. Comments, authentic, cf. S 771, no. 294
  • S 1002. Comments, spurious, no. 238
  • S 1011. Comments, spurious, no. 239
  • S 1020. Comments, authentic, no. 132
  • S 1022. Comments, authentic, no. 296
  • S 1023. Comments, spurious, no. 133
  • S 1025. Comments, spurious, no. 298
  • S 1028. Comments, authentic basis, perhaps interpolated or edited, discusses some details of bounds, no. 300
  • S 1030. Comments, spurious, no. 8 (pp. 21, 92)
  • S 1031. Comments, original, no. 185
  • S 1035. Comments, spurious, no. 343 (pp. 67, 117, 163-4)
  • S 1036. Comments, spurious, no. 186 (pp. 21, 68, 91-2, 164)
  • S 1039. Comments, spurious, no. 241
  • S 1040. Comments, spurious, no. 243 (pp. 68-9, 118, 144-5, 164)
  • S 1041. Comments, spurious, no. 244
  • S 1043. Comments, spurious, no. 242 (pp. 68, 79, 92-3, 117, 144, 165)
  • S 1047. Comments, spurious, nos 301, 344
  • S 1051. Comments, authentic, no. 184
  • S 1062. Comments, spurious, no. 135
  • S 1066. Comments, interpolated, no. 134
  • S 1093. Comments, spurious, no. 345
  • S 1094. Comments, spurious, no. 346
  • S 1095. Comments, spurious, no. 348
  • S 1096. Comments, authentic, no. 245
  • S 1104. Comments, citing Harmer, some tampering, but authentic, no. 253
  • S 1105. Comments, original, no. 299
  • S 1119. Comments, probably authentic., no. 237
  • S 1121. Comments, citing Harmer, may be genuine with later additions, no. 240
  • S 1122. Comments, spurious, no. 181
  • S 1123. Comments, citing Harmer, may be interpolated, Wendelbury in Oxon. is equally likely, no. 182
  • S 1125. Comments, slightly later copy of original writ., no. 248
  • S 1126. Comments, citing Harmer, probably genuine., no. 249
  • S 1127. Comments, citing Harmer, probably authentic., no. 250
  • S 1130. Comments, citing Harmer, authenticity uncertain, reference to Dunstan perhaps an addition, no. 246
  • S 1131. Comments, citing Harmer, authentic, no. 247
  • S 1132. Comments, authentic, no. 251
  • S 1133. Comments, spurious., no. 252
  • S 1134. Comments, citing Bishop and Chaplais, spurious but transaction may have an authentic basis, no. 188
  • S 1135. Comments, spurious, no. 189
  • S 1136. Comments, citing Harmer, no conclusive evidence against authenticity., no. 347
  • S 1137. Comments, spurious, but place-name spellings suggest that the forger used Old English sources, no. 349
  • S 1139. Comments, authentic, no. 302
  • S 1141. Comments, following Harmer, late copy of authentic writ, no. 137
  • S 1142. Comments, citing Harmer, possibly based on an authentic writ, no. 255
  • S 1147. Comments, authentic, no. 303
  • S 1148. Comments, citing Harmer, interpolated, no. 304
  • S 1149. Comments, spurious, no. 254
  • S 1150. Comments, spurious, no. 256
  • S 1165. Comments, charter is authentic; bounds, nos. 309, 352-4
  • S 1167. Comments, authentic, no. 259
  • S 1168. Comments, perhaps some authentic basis, Slæpi is Islip, no. 258
  • S 1179. Comments, spurious, no. 13
  • S 1181. Comments, spurious, no. 314 (pp. 24, 151-2)
  • S 1186a. Comments, original, no. 202
  • S 1194. Comments, authentic, no. 209
  • S 1201. Comments, authentic, no. 26
  • S 1202. Comments, authentic, no. 320
  • S 1208. Comments, authentic basis, no. 37
  • S 1216. Comments, authentic, no. 113
  • S 1218a. Comments, authentic, no. 4
  • S 1222. Comments, authentic, no. 342
  • S 1228. Comments, authentic basis, no. 180 (pp. 79, 89)
  • S 1229. Comments, authentic, no. 297
  • S 1234. Comments, authentic, no. 257
  • S 1235. Comments, authentic, no. 9
  • S 1246. Comments, spurious, no. 310 (pp. 95, 149)
  • S 1247. Comments, probably early forgery, no. 311
  • S 1248. Comments, authentic basis; bounds, nos. 313, 350
  • S 1258. Comments, authentic, no. 16
  • S 1263. Comments, authentic, no. 317
  • S 1271. Comments, authentic, no. 22
  • S 1274. Comments, authentic, no. 319
  • S 1292. Comments, authentic, no. 76
  • S 1293. Comments, spurious, no. 221 (pp. 84, 109-10)
  • S 1295. Comments, spurious, no. 227
  • S 1328. Comments, authentic, no. 279
  • S 1354. Comments, authentic, no. 283
  • S 1378. Comments, spurious, no. 156
  • S 1379. Comments, original, bounds probably cover only southern half of modern parish of Cuxham, i.e. Cuxham itself, no. 285
  • S 1391. Comments, authentic, no. 293
  • S 1404. Comments, authentic, no. 131
  • S 1414. Comments, authentic basis, no. 208
  • S 1425. Comments, on identification, p. 189
  • S 1436. Comments, original, no. 206
  • S 1444. Comments, authentic, no. 323
  • S 1447. Comments, original, no. 223 (pp. 110, 160)
  • S 1450. Comments, spurious, nos 228-9
  • S 1454. Comments, original, no. 123 (pp. 62-3, 76)
  • S 1464. Comments, original, no. 158
  • S 1466. Comments, authentic, no. 159
  • S 1477. Comments, citing Harmer, spurious but authentic basis possible, no. 136
  • S 1484. Comments, authentic, no. 152 (pp. 75, 84, 133)
  • S 1485. Comments, authentic, no. 105
  • S 1487. Comments, original, no. 172 (pp. 20, 86)
  • S 1488. Comments, authentic, no. 126 (pp. 64, 78, 114, 137)
  • S 1494. Comments, authentic, with addendum p. 188, no. 122 (pp. 62, 84), p. 188
  • S 1495. Comments, citing Whitelock, spurious, no. 178
  • S 1496. Comments, authentic, no. 83
  • S 1497. Comments, original, no. 171 (pp. 18-19, 85-6, 113)
  • S 1498. Comments, authentic; on identifications, no. 280, p. 189
  • S 1503. Comments, authentic, queries Pegsdon identification, notes that Ludgershall, Bucks., or Lurgarshall, Sussex, as as likely as Ludgershall, Wilts, no. 179 (pp. 21, 78, 89, 140)
  • S 1503a. Comments, authentic, no. 5
  • S 1504. Comments, authentic, no. 51
  • S 1507. Comments, authentic, no. 28 (pp. 30, 155)
  • S 1508. Comments, original, no. 321
  • S 1511. Comments, authentic, no. 339
  • S 1515. Comments, authentic, no. 66 (pp. 43, 158)
  • S 1517. Comments, authentic, no. 183 (pp. 21, 90-1)
  • S 1526. Comments, authentic, no. 329 (pp. 108-9, 158)
  • S 1532. Comments, authentic, no. 187
  • S 1533. Comments, original, no. 38
  • S 1539. Comments, authentic, no. 59 (pp. 41, 129)
  • S 1540. Comments, no. 141 (p. 70)
  • S 1542. Comments, associates with S 411, no 39
  • S 1544. Comments, no. 143 and p. 60
  • S 1545. Comments, associates with S 1201, no. 26
  • S 1546. Comments, associates with S 409, p. 33
  • S 1567. Comments, survey describes modern parish, may derive from S 460, no. 305
  • S 1568. Comments, bounds relate to modern parish of Pyrton and an area of detached woodland at Pishill with Stonor, no. 306
  • S 1569. Comments, no. 307
  • S 119. Printed, pp. 99-100 (no. 203)
  • S 1247. Printed, pp. 149-50