A HISTORY OF HEREFORDSHIRE of Ralf de Mortimer. This would account for his style ' de Wigmore,' which Eyton could not explain. Turstin may have been dispossessed for adhering to Earl Roger (1074), but his wife would retain Pencombe and Cowarne, which she held in her own right, and she is accordingly entered as tenant of them in the Great Survey. Her mention of her son as ' lord of Whitney ' is of great importance as enabhng us to trace the heirs of Turstin ' the Fleming,' and to identify their seat. Whitney, from which they derived their name, was a stronghold on the Welsh border, opposite Clifford, on the Wye. We have seen that in 1243 Pencombe was held by the Whitneys, and in 1283 Eustace de Whyteneye had a grant of free warren in Pencombe, Whitney, and ' Caldewell.' '^* Again, in the great inquest on the death of John de Tregoz, in 1300, we find Pencombe and 'Caldewell' held by Eustace de ' Wytheneye ' of the Honour of Ewias as his ancestress had held Pencombe in Domesday. The manor is again entered as held, under Tregoz, by Eustace de Whitney in 1303 and 1 3 1 6, and by Robert Whitney in 1428 and 1431.'^* The importance of thus tracing the heirs of Turstin is th Jt it enables us at once to challenge Eyton's identification of him as the Turstin who held of Lacy at King's Stanford, of WilHam de Scohies at Caerleon, and of Turstin Fitz Rou at Marcle,"* as well as of Ralf de Mortimer at Huntington in Ashford Carbonel, Lingen,^^ and Shirley. Eyton knew that Turstin ' de Wigmore ' had been alleged to be identi- cal with Turstin ' the Fleming,' but he seems to have read Domesday, in error, as showing us Turstin ' de Wigmore' in possession in 1086, while Turstin ' the Fleming ' had ' suffered exile and total forfeiture,' "^ in his opinion, before the Domesday Survey. Having come to this wrong conclu- sion, he naturally could not account for Turstin ' de Wigmore ' being so styled in 1086. He then made the further error of identifying Turstin ' de Wigmore ' with other men of the name, whose lands did not descend to his heirs,"* which affords yet another proof of the danger of identifying, without evidence, men who appear in Domesday with the same Christian name. One can only deal with two or three of the problems of identification raised by the county survey. The two 1 5-hide manors of ' Lene ' entered among the king's lands appear to be now represented by Kingsland and Eardisland, to the west of Leominster, the ' land ' being demonstrably a corruption of ' lane,' but one cannot say which was which. They seem to have descended together through Braose to Mortimer, and there is evidence that the Braoses had a chief seat at Kingsland, from which doubtless William de Braose made his furious raid on Leominster, when he burst into revolt in the reign of John. The adjacent Tosny manor of ' Leine ' became similarly- corrupted in name through Monk ' lane ' into Monkland. The Herefordshire ' Bradeford ' of Domesday is one of the most puzzling of the lost place-names in the Survey. It forms the subject of two entries, and "' Cal. Chart. R. ii, 271. ' Caldewell' is not there identified. "* Feud. Aids, ii. Later still, 'Eustace Whiteney ofWliiteney, Esq.' occurs under Hen. VII {Cal. oflnq.. Hen. VII, i, 254), and Thomas Whitney, at the Restoration, as an ifltended knight of the Royal Oak. '" These identifications are accepted by Prof. Tait ; see V.C.H. Shrops. i, 289. Eyton further identified him with a Turstin holding of Alvred de Marlborough at Stretford and on a Wiltshire manor. '"^ Turstin is claimed as the ancestor of the Lingens of Lingen, whose male line is still extant. "' Hist, of Shrops. iv, 75. "' See his Hist, of Shrops. v, 74-7.
