Ancient Lordships of Pembrokeshire

By Bob Joyce

The district of Rhos lies to the north of Milford Haven and was colonised in the early 12th century by Flemish settlers under the auspices of King Henry I. Three baronies existed in the 13th century but it is proposed that, initially, there was a fourth lordship, which was subsequently divided and shared. This is reconstructed, based on assumptions of defence and access to resources. Using the supposed baronial boundaries of the 14th century and the parish areas of the late 19th century, the relative sizes of the original four lordships are calculated. Three are found to be similar while the fourth is significantly larger, the latter held, perhaps, by the leader of the settlement, who may have been William de Brabant. Some procedures for the colonisation and the later division are suggested, while changes in the lordships and some of the parishes are considered up to the division of the Marshal earldom in 1247.

COLONISATION
Arnulf de Montgomery was removed from the lordship of Pembroke following his family’s revolt against Henry I in 1102. The fief was retained by the crown, and to improve the security and economy of the region, military, commercial and agricultural settlers were introduced from England and Flanders.1  In 1108 colonisation was extended across the Haven by the transfer of Flemish settlers from Northumbria, possibly by the use of a ‘locatore’ who was a leading military or commercial figure contracted to bring colonists to an area. The Flemings were attracted by the prospect of land, light rents or services and perhaps a temporary exemption of certain tithes. Most of the Welsh communities were ruthlessly evicted and their settlements appropriated. Fertile land belonging to the Bishop of St. Davids in Llanstadwell and St. Ishmael’s was seized, 2  but estates in Burton were unaffected.

The province was divided into various lordships, but there are no early records concerning their number and extent. However, in the 13th century, the region contained three baronies, each consisting of two or more detached portions (see Figure 1 and Appendix 1). It is suggested that this arrangement gave each lord access to the varied resources of land and sea, along with armed support from their nearby associates. Since each baron contributed 1⅓ knights to the sheriff 3  it is possible that originally there were four lordships, each paying suit at Pembroke, and responsible for 1 knight. These are small amounts compared to the quotas of 5 for each of the Carew, Manorbier and Stackpole lordships, indicating, perhaps, a further incentive to relocate. Alternatively, there could have been just one lordship, contributing 4 knights, 4  with three leading vassals holding smaller fiefs. However, due to the shared nature of the disposition, and, since Gerald of Wales claims that his aunt, Gwladus, married a ‘baron’ of Rhos, 5  presumably in the first decades of the settlement, separate lordships are considered more likely.
Forts were established to secure the colony.  Roch lay near the coast and commanded extensive views across the northern district, Haverford controlled the lowest ford of the Western Cleddau River, while Walwyn’s Castle dominated the south western peninsula. These strongholds were possibly held in the early 12th century by Godebert, 6  Tancred  7 and Walwyn or Hai/m/o/n (see Appendix 1), respectively, who each created military fees and tenancies to provide a force suitable for castle ward, personal protection, campaign service and administrative duties, perhaps supplemented by household forces; and other tenures to generate revenue in the form of rent, dues and services. Villages and hamlets were founded or expanded and their populations organised for defence. 8  The fee holders established settlements and possibly military tenancies, thereby increasing the security and prosperity of the region.

The lords created secondary demesnes at Castle Pill (Milford ), St. Ishmaels and Dale respectively, all lying near the Haven to ensure communication with Pembroke. Although each site includes a defensive work, offering a refuge for the surrounding population, their dates of construction are uncertain;  9 they may have been built during the first settlement, or later, in periods of unrest such as the Welsh resurgences or the reigns of Stephen (1135-1154) and Richard I (1189-1199). Only one has been excavated, that of Great Castle Head, which revealed late 12th to 13th century pottery, but the trenches were over a limited area and the site had suffered landslip and erosion. 10  Nevertheless, it is likely that the manors were established in the first years of colonisation since Tancred initially tried to evict St. Caradog from the bishop’s former lands in St. Ishmaels. 11

The extent of the fourth lordship is derived from the assumptions of separate portions, access to resources and support in defence. A potential location for one demesne is the township of Rosemarket which was once commercially important, was held jointly by three barons in the middle of the 12th century, 12  and contains a ring-work fort. 13 In the 14th century the neighbouring parishes of Johnston, Llanstadwell and part of Burton were held by the baronies of Roch, Haverford and Walwyn’s Castle respectively, but it is possible that they were originally associated with Rosemarket, providing military personnel and access to the Haven and Western Cleddau.

The lord’s exposed desmesne may have been in the village of Camrose, where a motte and bailey fort 14 lies between Roch and Haverford. The parish is the largest in the province and, although land locked, could have gained access to the sea by possessing Lambston and Haroldston West, held in the 14th century by Roch and Walwyn’s Castle respectively. If the entire lordship is described as Camrose, an estimate and comparison of the four portions may be found by totalling the acreages of their respective parishes (see Figure 2 and Appendix 2). The proportions are:

Camrose  34%,   Roch  24%,    Walwyn’s Castle  22%,    Haverford  20%

The value of these shares would depend on the quality of land, availability of resources and exposure to attack, their size on the various assumptions of boundaries and shorelines. With this analysis it appears that three of the lords received similar, if different, amounts while the fourth held significantly more. Considering the shared nature of the dispositions, it is possible that they were partners in the settlement, and one, perhaps a locatore, was the leading member. Since Camrose gained the largest share, the region’s commercial centre, and the bishop’s estates in Llanstadwell, its lord could have been William de Brabant, described as ‘a chief man from Flanders’ by the Welsh. 15

FORMATION
The method of forming the lordships is unknown but it is suggested that a preliminary tour of the province was made in order to evaluate its size, topography and resources, 16  such as Welsh settlements, arable or pastoral farming, meadow, woodland, waste, streams, lakes, marsh and fisheries, etc. The division may have started by allocating stretches of coastline for security and access, and then assigning areas inland holding a variety of assets.
It is supposed that the districts most vulnerable to attack were the northern and eastern borders. The first probably followed the ancient boundary of Pebidiog since no confiscations are recorded for the area. 17 This section was divided between the lordships of Roch and Camrose, while the eastern, running along the Western Cleddau to Llangwm, was split between Camrose and Haverford. The south-western peninsula was open to maritime attack 18 and protected by Walwyn’s Castle. The defence of the coastline from Newgale to St. Ann’s Head and round to Burton was successively shared by the lordships with the garrisons of their forts provided by the adjacent military fees and tenancies, and possibly augmented by household forces, and, in times of crisis, local tenants and their families.

It is possible that the grants in the poorer land of the north were balanced by those in the south where better soils, relief and climate are found. 19 The boundaries of the lordships were fixed by using watercourses, landmarks, tracks, hills, valleys, 20 and perhaps sections of pre-existing Welsh parishes.

DISRUPTION
The colonisation was disrupted in 1110 when Prince Owain ap Cadwgan of Powys rebelled and his forces raided Dyfed, supported by mercenary ships from the Norse towns of Ireland. Some of these attacks probably targeted Rhos, since the Flemings bore Owain a particular hatred in later years. When his forces ambushed and killed William de Brabant, Henry I removed Cadwgan, king of Powys, from the lordship of Ceredigion and awarded it to Gilbert fitz Richard de Clare, who established forts throughout the region. This reduced the danger to the south and immigration continued, with the lordship of Camrose possibly being granted to William’s brother.21
To replace the losses in Rhos, Flemish mercenaries, farmers, traders and artisans travelled from other areas of England, while the neighbouring area of Daugleddau was colonised by a leader called Wizo, who apparently came directly from Flanders. A further increase in security occurred in 1115, following the death of Wilfred, the last Welsh bishop of St. David’s, and the appointment of Bernard, one of the king’s Norman clerks. The stronghold near the cathedral was constructed or refurbished and military fees were established around Pebidiog. 22  The forts of Poinz Castle, Hayscastle and Wolf’s Castle may have been built at this time encouraging settlement in northern Rhos at Wolfdale and Trefgarn.

Spiritual provision had probably started with the use of appropriated Welsh foundations, and services held on the manors of fee-holders, but seigniorial churches or chapels were later established, and new parish boundaries began to form. 23  The province continued to develop over the next decade but by 1130 Camrose was possibly in royal administration, since Godebert the Fleming was paying ‘for the land which Lambert Echeners holds’, 24 perhaps the principal estate in Lambston parish.

REORGANISATION
Following the death of Henry I in 1135, his nephew Stephen was crowned, despite the prior right of the Empress Matilda. A series of Welsh attacks disturbed west Wales during 1136 and towards the end of the year a large army advanced on Cardigan. Flemish and Norman forces from across south Wales assembled outside the town but were heavily defeated at the Battle of Crug Mawr. Dyfed was severely weakened and the following year Rhos was devastated. It is possible that the authorities responded by dividing most of Camrose and its fees between the three lords. Roch may have gained the rest of Lambston, while Walwyn’s Castle received Haroldstone West, next to its Walton West fief. The more fertile parishes around Rosemarket were shared, Roch acquiring Johnston adjacent to Steynton; Walwyn’s Castle, Burton (less the bishop’s estates) and Haverford, Llanstadwell. Rosemarket’s vill, fields, church, market and, presumably, fort were held collectively, but each had a portion of its remaining lands. 25  The fort and parish of Camrose (with Trefgarn) were probably retained by the royal administration to keep a strong and resourced presence in the region.

The new proportions (see Appendix 3) are:
Camrose  15%    Roch  30%    Walwyn’s Castle 28%    Haverford   26%

Responding to the anarchy caused by Matilda’s supporters in England, Stephen created earldoms responsible for the defence and order of a territory. In 1138 the king granted one based on Pembroke, to Gilbert fitz Gilbert de Clare, but for several years the colonists remained under pressure from the Welsh princes, with any significant military support from England rendered difficult by the civil war. However, in 1145 Earl Gilbert and his forces came to Dyfed, succeeded in recapturing Carmarthen and made preparations to recover Ceredigion. 26  It may have been around this time that Robert fitz Godebert, Richard fitz Tancred and William fitz Hai/m/o/n, granted the vill of Rosemarket with its church, mill and lands, but not the market, to the Knights Hospitallers, as a Devon lord, Guy de Bryan, later replaced William at Walwyn’s Castle. 27 If the latter can be identified with William fitz Hai, Gerald of Wales’ step-uncle and possibly the son of the sheriff in 1130, then the earl may have promoted him to the barony of St. Clears. 28 However, the fief was soon in a vulnerable situation, following the Welsh re-capture of Carmarthen and the seizure of Llanstephan in 1146.
At this period the Hospitallers possessed a market in Haverford, 29  possibly granted by one of the Tancred family  30 or a custodian. It may have been near St. Martins church or close to site of the future St. Marys. Later, before the accession of Henry II in 1154, Richard obtained the Order’s rights in exchange for two churches and lands in Ceredigion. He apparently still held his share in the market at Rosemarket, but, in a measure suggesting concerns about his commercial ambitions, Richard agreed not to remove the remaining parts belonging to Robert fitz Godebert and Guy de Bryan.

LATER CHANGES
After the Anarchy, Henry recovered many of the crown lands granted away by Stephen, 31  the lordships of Carmarthen, Pembroke and probably the parish of Camrose among them. Following the resumption of normal conditions, Richard appears to have developed the area of St. Marys, while further expansion created the parish of St. Thomas.  32 Eventually, the town’s central location enabled it to eclipse Rosemarket.

Trade further increased towards the end of the century following the colonisation of several Irish kingdoms, and local families such as the Barrys, Roches and Stackpoles gained land and wealth. Philip de Stackpole was able to purchase most of the bishop’s estates in the parish of Burton from Peter de Leia (1176–1198), 33 the value and extent of which may be indicated by an annual grant of £400 from the manors of Burton and Hodgeston made by John de Stackpole to William de Roche in 1336. 34 The property could have stretched as far north as Houghton where the ‘Bishop’s Wells’ were recorded in the early 18th century. 35  The Roche family became affluent enough to found a Tironian priory near Castle Pill around 1200, while Haverford’s prosperity enabled Richard fitz Tancred’s son, Robert, to establish an Augustinian house close to the town.

The lordship of Pembroke continued in royal hands until the accession of King John, when it was granted as an earldom to William Marshal, who came to Pembrokeshire several times in the next decade, sometimes while travelling to his Irish lands in Leinster. In 1213 William was able to buy the barony of Haverford after Robert fitz Richard fell foul of the king a few years previously, and was disinherited and exiled. 36 Camrose and Trefgarn were probably absorbed into the lordship and the role of the fort most likely declined in the latter part of the century. The earl died in 1219 and his son, William Marshal the younger, succeeded to the earldom. Following continued conflict between William’s tenants and the Welsh of Dyfed, 37 Llywelyn the Great assembled a large army, and came south in 1220, destroying the castles of Narberth and Wiston, burning the town of Haverford and devastating Rhos. The losses were enormous but it wasn’t until 1223 that William was able to bring a force from Ireland and regain Cardigan, Cilgerran and Carmarthen.  38 The baronies of Cemais and Daugleddau were also recovered, and the former recognised as dependent on the earldom. 39 It is possible that William removed the parishes of Prendergast and Uzmaston from Daugleddau and attached them to Haverford, perhaps to improve the defence of the town by appropriating or constructing a fort in Prendergast, since an un-located tower, with a gaol underneath, was mentioned in the early fourteenth century. 40 It may have been during the Marshal’s tenure that the Bryan and the Stackpole families were granted Prendergast and Freystrop respectively. 41

Following the death of Walter and Anselm Marshal in 1245, without male heirs, the earldom was partitioned between his sisters or their descendants. The barony of Walwyn’s Castle was granted to Richard de Clare, earl of Gloucester, while that of Haverford was divided into three parts, 42  one third to Maud and her husband Roger Mortimer, another to Eva and William de Cantilupe, and the last to Eleanor and Humphrey de Bohun, with the homage and service of the barony of Roch being included in Eleanor’s share. 43 Between 1252 and 1255 the Cantilupes transferred their portion to the Bohuns who thereafter controlled most of Rhos. Although it was specified that the homage from the baronies and their divisions was still to be performed at Pembroke, the duty became a cause of much disagreement in later years. 44

CONCLUSION
The suggestion of a fourth lordship and its subsequent division offers a reasonable model for the colonisation and development of Rhos.

APPENDIX 1

The baronial divisions in the maps are based on those of W. Rees, 45  who derived them from the Inquisitions Post Mortem (IPM) 46 of the fourteenth century, and appears to have assumed that their borders followed the parish boundaries. 47 The latter are taken from an 1887 O.S. Civil Parish diagram,  48 whose areas have been used to calculate working proportions for the lordships. The acreages were obtained from the 1891 Census Report  49 which considers the land and (internal) water as the parish area and excludes the foreshore and tidal (river) water 50  figures. The latter are also omitted in this analysis since each lord had sufficient provision for any fish weirs. Although the shoreline parish areas have changed due to erosion, deposition and sea level change, the alterations are considered small relative to the bulk of the lordships, and therefore the nineteenth century values are deemed to give a reasonable estimate of the proportions. The following assumptions have also been made: the medieval parishes were largely similar to those of the nineteenth century, the limits of the original lordships had been established at the settlement, and the lords initially held all the land within their portions, but subsequently made grants to one another.

Though delineated in Figure 1, some of the internal parishes or detached portions were not formed until later perhaps. The churches of Johnston, Robeston West, Haroldston West, Walton West, Freystrop and Trefgarn were not listed in the Taxatio register of 1291, 51 possibly due to errors 52  or because they were chapels. Rosemarket was not included since the lands of the St. John’s Hospitallers and the Templars were exempt from the tax. Freystrop may have been omitted due to its association with the barony of Stackpole, while Walton West could be the unidentified church of ‘Theoberti’, since the former does not appear in the Bishop’s registers, unlike the latter. 53 The records perhaps retained the original designation, despite its local replacement. 54

Walwyn’s Castle may have been named after an ancient Welsh ‘Gwalchmai’ or a recent settler. 55  If the latter, Walwyn could have been succeeded by the father of the ‘William fitz Hai/m/o/n’ who held the fort in the mid-12th century.  56 His name is variously recorded, in late copies, as filius Haions, Haimonis and Haionis. The first may be an error, since it lacks the genitive ending ‘-is’, the next two are correct forms for Haimon and Haion, or Haimo and Haio with the ending for ‘o’ names of -nis, but there is also a possibility for ‘Hai’, using an unorthodox suffix of ‘-onis’.

APPENDIX 2

The asterisk indicates that some of the figures have been modified from the Census values or that the parish has changed over time. Details are considered below, along with aspects of other parishes.

LORDSHIP OF CAMROSE
Trefgarn 1,213,  Camrose 8,367,  Lambston 1,813,  Haroldston West 1,764  = 13,157 acres
Johnston 1,295,  Rosemarket 1,739,  Llanstadwell 3,308,  Burton 1,735*      =   8,077 acres
TOTAL = 21,234 acres

LORDSHIP OF ROCH
Roch 4,521,  Nolton 1,548                               =   6,069 acres
Steynton 6,961*,  Robeston West 1,111,  Hubberston 1,274               =   9,346 acres
TOTAL = 15,415 acres

LORDSHIP OF WALWYN’S CASTLE
Walton West 1,333,  Walwyn’s Castle  3,297*,  Hasguard 1,478, Herbranston 1,433                              =   7,541 acres
St. Brides 1,700,  Marloes 2,577,  Dale 1,826*, and Skokholm 244*                                                           =   6,347 acres
TOTAL = 13,888 acres

LORDSHIP OF HAVERFORD
Haverford*
St. Martin (H’ford 1) 1,308 and Skomer (1d) 744,  St. Marys (H’ford 2) 32,
St. Thomas (H’ford 3) 296,  Furzy Park and Portfield (FPP) 649           =   3,029 acres
Haroldston St. Issells 1,672*,  Freystrop 1,620,  Llangwm 1,907           =   5,199 acres
Talbenny 1,517,  St. Ishmaels 3,123                                                               =   4,640 acres
TOTAL = 12,868 acres

GRAND TOTAL    = 63,405 acres

The proportions are:
Camrose:                     21,234        0.335   rounding up         0.34    or 34%
Roch:                           15,415        0.243                     down    0.24    or 24%
Walwyn’s Castle:       13,888        0.219                    up          0.22    or 22%
Haverford:                  12,868        0.203                   down    0.20    or 20%

DETAILS
Figures marked (T) are not in the Census and therefore taken from the table on an 1892 O.S. sheet index map. 57  Figures have been rounded up or down.
Camrose
The Census acreage for Burton parish is 3,470 but the bishop’s lands need to be subtracted. These lay near the village and were apparently extensive (see ‘Later Changes’ above); a working hypothesis of one half is assumed i.e. 1,735.
Roch
The thin strip of land lying to the west of Portfield Gate, called ‘Temperness’, P (d) was held by Haverford Priory 58  and contained 160 acres (T). By the nineteenth century it was attached to the parish of St. Thomas, then in 1934 transferred to Lambston. 59 Originally it could have been part of Lambston, Steynton or St. Martins. However, the last is assumed to be unlikely since it would have given a ‘panhandle’ shape to the parish (sometimes the sign of an added estate). 60  If the Haverfordwest – Haroldston West road was used as the boundary between the first two then the portion may have been a grant by the Roche family from Steynton, and the original parish area could have been the 6,801 acres of the Census plus 160.
Walwyn’s Castle
The area around Capeston was a detached portion of Steynton parish until the end of 1881when it was transferred (or returned) to Walwyn’s Castle. The parcel contained about 307 acres of land, 6 acres of foreshore and 1 acre of tidal water. 61  It is probably the 2½ carucates (300 acres)  62 of ‘Caprichston’ held by the Roches in 1392 63 and possibly granted to them by the de Bryan family in the previous century, as the latter most likely spent more time on their estates in Laugharne and Devon than at Walwyn’s Castle, where there was no habitable house in 1307. 64  When in the area, the family may have preferred staying at Prendergast, close to the urban advantages of Haverford.
The Census figure for Dale includes Skokholm, so the separate values are taken from the table (T). The island was bought by William Marshal from Gilbert de Vale, lord of Dale, in the early 13th century and became part of the lordship of Haverford.  65 However, its tithes remained with Dale, since they were merged by the landowner in 1850, 66  and therefore the island was probably part of Walwyn’s Castle originally.
St. Brides is composed of the mainland 1,697 and the detached 3 acres of Stack Rocks (T).
Haverford.
It is assumed that, initially, the parish of St. Martins (1) contained the lands of the later St. Marys (2), St. Thomas’ (3), the Priory (P), and the common or open fields (FPP), 67  together with Skomer, perhaps to produce a demesne parish of similar area to St. Ishmaels. There may have been some financial compensation for St. Martins when a possibly extensive St. Marys was established, but by the time that St. Thomas’ was formed, the population and revenue of a truncated St. Marys could have grown sufficiently large enough for the church not to need any recompense. The Census figure for St. Martins includes Skomer, so the separate values are taken from the table (T).
The acreage for St. Thomas’ is 1,024 but this includes the detached 160 (T) of ‘Temperness’ P(d), and the detached 568 (T), lying between Merlin’s Brook and Dredgman Hill (3d). Its initial size therefore could have been 296 acres. The priory’s charter boundaries 68  suggest that the house was granted around 165 acres (by estimation), 69  leaving St. Thomas’ with only about 130 acres. The latter may then, or later, have been granted the 568 acres in Haroldston St. Issells, out of the baron’s or the fee holder’s desmesne, since the parish retains a thin strip leading down to the mill. Later, possibly following the Dissolution, the priory lands in the town and the grange of ‘Temperness,’ were transferred to St. Thomas’. The Census figure for Haroldston St. Issells is 1,104 acres but its original area may have been 1,672.
Llangwm and Talbenny were not listed among the 9 and one tenth fees in the Haverford IPM, probably because they were part of the 2½ fees awarded to the Mortimer family in 1247. Geoffrey de Roche (of the Llangwm branch) held two of them, one being Talbenny, which William Marshal had granted to his father, while in 1376 the family held Talbenny and Llangwm from the king, 70 as lord of Haverford. The lordship perhaps re-gained them following the fall of Roger Mortimer in 1330, since it contained 13 fees in 1343. 71

Although the parishes of Prendergast and Uzmaston were not originally part of Rhos, their Census areas were 1,146 and 2,102 acres respectively. Apart from Cartlett, the rest of Prendergast features little in the medieval records of Haverford, perhaps because, in the early fourteenth century, Guy de Brian was granted the privilege for his manor of exemption from the courts of the earl by Aymer de Valence, 72 earl of Pembroke and lord of Haverfordwest. Since Freystrop also rarely appears, the Stackpoles could have been granted a similar freedom. This concession may explain why both parishes are absent from the lordship of Haverford in the muster of 1539, but included in the return for Pembrokeshire, 73 perhaps being considered part of the baronies.

APPENDIX 3

The Camrose lordship was possibly apportioned as:

ROCH:        Johnston 1,295, and the rest of Lambston 1,213      =   2,508 acres

If it is assumed that the land of Lambert Echeners bought by Godebert prior to 1130  74 was in Lambston, then this may have been a military fee and not the whole parish. If it was a half-fee, similar to that in Haroldston West, its size may have been around 5 carucates 75 or about 600 acres  76 and approaching a third of the parish area. At the division it is possible that Roch was awarded the rest, at around 1,213 acres.
WALWYN CASTLE: Haroldstone West 1,764, and one half of Burton 1,735      =   3,499 acres
HAVERFORD:    Llanstadwell                                                                                      =   3,308 acres

Although Roch has gained significantly less, it may have been reimbursed with the cost of the earlier purchase, and technically received the whole parish area. Alternatively, the 2 carucates (240 acres) of Waterston (Walteryston) in Llanstadwell and the 2 ½ carucates (300 acres) of Capeston (Caprichston) near Walwyn’s Castle held by the family in the late 14th century  77 could have been taken from the other lords in order to balance the shares.

In the first case the gain is:        Johnston 1,295 and all of Lambston 1,813            =   3,108 acres
In the second: Johnston 1,295, the rest of Lambston 1,213, and 300 + 240          =   3,048 acres
with Walwyn’s Castle: 3,499 – 300 = 3,199     and  Haverford: 3,308 – 240         =  3,068 acres

The amounts are closer, but the second case involves the loss from Walwyn’s Castle of patrimonial lands and a convenient access to Sandyhaven Pill; the first case is more straightforward, and, since the final proportions are almost the same, it is perhaps more likely that Waterston and Capeston were later grants.

Assuming that the vill of Rosemarket was held collectively and the remaining parish lands divided, then the effective share of each was 580 acres (rounding up). The portions of Haverford and Walwyn’s Castle may be the lands recorded in the late 13th century,  Westfield was part of the de Bryan manor of Burton and since it is adjacent to the parish it is possible that the Roch share was close to Johnston where the Tithe Map of 1834 shows a field called ‘Roch Park’ lying to the west of Upper Bastleford 79 , and Haverford’s near the Llanstadwell boundary. The tithes of the three portions were probably retained by the church. Therefore the total gains in the first case are:

Roch  3,688 acres          Walwyn’s Castle  4,079 acres        Haverford  3,888 acres

This leaves Camrose lordship with Trefgarn 1,213, and Camrose 8,367  =   9,580 acres

The proportions are:
Camrose:                                                      =  9,580        0.151    0.15     or 15%
Roch:                             15,415 + 3,688    =19,103        0.301    0.30    or 30%
Walwyn’s Castle:        13,888 + 4,079    =17,967        0.283    0.28    or 28%
Haverford:                   12,868 + 3,888    =16,756        0.264    0.26    or 26%
Grand Total   (excluding the rounding up for Rosemarket)    =63,405 acres
The respective proportions in the second case are:    0.151,   0.310,   0.279,   0.260.

NOTES

1. The development of the region can be found in the various chapters of
   B. Howells and R. F. Walker (eds.), Pembrokeshire County History Vol. II, Medieval
   Pembrokeshire (Haverfordwest, 2002):
   I. W. Rowlands, ‘Conquest and Survival’, I, 8-16;
   R. F. Walker, ‘The Earls of Pembroke 1138-1389’, II, 20-22;
   R. F. Walker, ‘The Lordships of Pembrokeshire in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth
   Centuries’, III, 171-173;
   R. K. Turvey, ‘The Gentry’, IX, 363-365;
   J. Howells, ‘The Countryside’, X, 401-409;
   B. E. Howells, ‘The Boroughs of Medieval Pembrokeshire’, XI, 426-427;
   T. A. James, ‘Haverfordwest’, XI, 431-439.
2. J. Conway-Davies (ed.), Episcopal Acts and Cognate Documents relating to Welsh Dioceses, 1066-1272 (2 vols., Cardiff, 1946-8), I, 269-270 (D153).
3. H. Owen (ed.), ‘A Calendar of the Public Records relating to Pembrokeshire’, Cymmrodorion Record Series, No.7 (3 vols., London, 1911-18), I, 1, 121; III, 79.
4. F. Green, ‘Wills, Notes and the Floyd Manuscript’, F. Green Collection, VIII, 341, 343. Manuscript, typescript, and index held at Haverfordwest Reference and Local Studies
   Library; a similar typescript, without an index, is held at the National Library of Wales.
5. H. E. Butler (ed. and trans.), The Autobiography of Gerald of Wales (Woodbridge, 2005), 83
6. H. Owen, Old Pembroke Families (London, 1902), 68-69.
7. T. A. James, op. cit., 431-434.
8. M. Prestwich, Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience (Newhaven, U.S.A., 1996), 119-123.
9. L. Hull, ‘The Castles and Bishop’s Palaces of Pembrokeshire’, Monuments in the Landscape, Vol. X (Little Logaston, Herefordshire, 2005), Pill: 76, St. Ishmaels: 204;
   The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales, RCAHM
   (Wales), in Aberystwyth; and The Dyfed Archaeological Trust in Llandeilo holds various site reports.
10. N. Ludlow, ‘Great Castle Head during the Medieval Period – A medieval castle?’ in  P. Crane, ‘Iron Age Promontory Fort to Medieval Castle? Excavations at Great CastleHead,
    Dale, Pembrokeshire 1999’, Archaeologia Cambrensis, CXLVIII (1999), 133-9.
11. C. Horstman (ed.), Capgrave’s Nova Legenda Anglie (2 vols., Oxford, 1901), I, 175; L. Thorpe (trans.), Gerald of Wales: The Journey through Wales / The Description of
    Wales (London, 1978), 144.
12. B. G. Charles, ‘The Records of Slebech’, National Library of Wales Journal, V, part 3,
    (Summer 1948), 180
13. RCAHM, Inventory of Ancient Monuments in Wales and Monmouthshire, Vol. VII,
    County of Pembroke (H.M.S.O., London, 1925), 313;
    RCAHM(Wales), Coflein.gov.uk website.
14. RCAHM, Inventory, op. cit., 46; RCAHM(Wales), Coflein.gov.uk website; L. Hull, op. cit., 52-53.
15. T. Jones (trans. & ed.), Brut Y Tywysogyon or the Chronicle of the Princes, Peniarth MS. 20 version (Cardiff, 1952), 34, 164 (n.34).
16. R. Bartlett, The Making of Europe, Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change 950-1350 (London, 1994), 139-144. For the surveying techniques of the period, see R. A. Skelton and P. D. A. Harvey (eds.), Local Maps and Plans from Medieval England (Oxford, 1986), 11-15.
    E. G. R. Taylor, ‘The Surveyor’, Economic History Review, XVII, No. 2 (1947), 125-
    127.
17. J. Conway-Davies, op. cit., 269-270 (D153).
18. T. Jones, op. cit., 17 and 155, 33.
19. B. John, Pembrokeshire (Newton Abbot, 1976), 20-24, 63-64, 144-147;
    M. F. Davies, ‘Pembrokeshire’, in L. Dudley Stamp, (ed.), The Land of Britain, The Report of The Land Utilisation Survey of Britain (London, 1939), Part 32, 148, 154-155,
    158-160;
    C. C. Rudeforth and R. I. Bradley, ‘Soils, Land Classification and Land Use of West and Central Pembrokeshire’, The Soil Survey: Special Survey, No. 6 (Harpenden, 1972), for
    information on a 1 kilometre grid.
20. A. Winchester, Discovering Parish Boundaries (Princes Risborough, 1990), 45-47.
21. T. Jones, op. cit., 33-34.
22. J. E. Lloyd, History of Wales (2 vols., London, 3rd ed., 1939), II, 454.
23. A. Winchester, op. cit., 23-24, 38-41.
24. J. A. Green (trans.), ‘The Great Roll of the Pipe for the Thirty First year of the reign of King Henry I (Michaelmas 1130)’, Pipe Roll Society, XCV (New Series- LVII) (2012), 107-108.
25. B. G. Charles, ‘Slebech’, op. cit., 180, and n.14;
    G. Nicolle, Beyond Wales: The Story of the Pembrokeshire Village of Rosemarket,
    Pembrokeshire Archives, HDX/1027/1, 208 for the village and fields plan.
26. R. F. Walker, ‘Earls’, op. cit., 21-22.
27. B. G. Charles, ‘Slebech’, op. cit., 180, 190, n.13, n.14.
28. H. E. Butler, op. cit., 83; T. Jones, op. cit., 54, 176.
29. B. G. Charles, ‘Slebech’, op. cit., 180-181, 190.
30. L. Thorpe, op. cit., 143-144.
31. R. F. Walker, ‘Earls’, op. cit., 22-23.
32. T. A. James, op. cit., 435-436;
    K. D. Lilley, ‘The Norman Town in Dyfed’, Urban Morphology Research Monograph 1 (Birmingham, 1995), 23-36, for a plan analysis.
33. H. Owen, ‘Old Pembroke Families’, op. cit., 26.
    J. W. W. Willis-Bund (ed.), ‘The Black Book of St. David’s, 1326’, Cymmrodorion Record Series, No.5 (London, 1902), 56-57, 180-1.
34. H. Owen, ‘Old Pembroke Families’ op. cit., 27;
    H. Owen, (ed.), George Owen: The Description of Pembrokeshire (4 vols., London, 1892-1936), I, 183-184.
35. B. G. Charles, Place-Names of Pembrokeshire (2 vols., Aberystwyth, 1992), II, 574;
    RCAHM, ‘Inventory’, op. cit., 35.
36. T. A. James, op. cit., 435-436.
37. J. E. Lloyd, op. cit., II, 658-660.
38. T. Jones, op. cit., 97-100.
39. R. F. Walker, Lordships’, op. cit., 152.
40. H. Owen, ‘Haverford Records’, West Wales Historical Records, II (1913), 139.
41. Ibid., 137-143, for Prendergast;
    H. Owen, ‘Old Pembroke Families’, op. cit., 77; Calendar of Inquistions Post Mortem, XIV, 48-51 Edward III (London, 1952), 278, for Freystrop.
42. R. F. Walker, op. cit., ‘Earls’: 71-73; ‘Lordships’: 161-167, 176-179, 179-182; T. A. James, op. cit., 439.
43. Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III, VII (1251-1253) (London, 1927), 223.
44. R. K. Turvey, ‘The Jurisdiction and Comital Authority of the Earls palatine of Medieval Pembrokeshire’, Pembrokeshire Historical Society Journal, IV (1990-1991), 95-102.
45. W. Rees, Map of South Wales and the Border in the early 14th century (Ordnance Survey, 1932), South West sheet.
46. Roch IPM (1392): Glamorgan Record Office CL/DEEDS1/3687. Transcripts in F. Green Collection, Vol. XXV, 424-431, at the National Library of Wales and Haverfordwest
    Reference and Local Studies Library. Another copy, mentioned by H. Owen, ‘Old Pembroke Families’, op. cit., 78, is held at Somerset Archives and Local Studies:
    DD/AH/65/11/2. Transcript at the National Library of Wales: NLW MS 1445.
    Walwyn’s Castle IPM (1307): H. Owen, ‘A Calendar of the Public Records’, op. cit., III, 78-81.
    Haverford IPM (1324): Calendar of Inquistions Post Mortem, Edward II, Vol. VI (Hereford 1910), 336-337.
    H. Owen, ‘A Calendar of the Public Records’, op. cit., I, 5, 112-113; 7, 43: for the Mortimer, Mullock and Bicton fees.
47. R. F. Walker, ‘Lordships’, op. cit., 193 (n.12).
48. B. G. Charles, ‘Place Names’, op. cit., II, end-piece.
49. Census of England and Wales, 1891 (H.M.S.O., 1893), Vol. II, Division XI: Table 2, 1081-1082, for combined land and water; Table 11, 1138-1139, for the separate figures
    of land, water, foreshore and tidal (river) water. Online at: histpop.org website (scanned) by OHPR / University of Essex and the visionofbritain.org.uk website (extracted details) by GB Historical GIS / University of Portsmouth and others.
50. R. Oliver, Ordnance Survey Maps, a concise guide for Historians (London, reprint April 1994), 47-49, 53, 72.
51. Record Commission, Taxatio Ecclesiastica Angliae et Wallie auctoritate P. Nicholai IV circa A.D. 1291 (London, 1802), 275.
52. F. G. Cowley, ‘The Regular Clergy, 1093-1540’, in B. Howells and R. F. Walker (eds.), op. cit., 344-345.
53. R. F. Isaacson (trans.), ‘The Episcopal Register of the Diocese of St. David’s, 1397 to 1518’, Cymmrodorion Record Series No. 6 (3 vols., London, 1917), II, 792-793, 820- 821.
54. B. G. Charles, ‘Place Names’, op. cit., II, 663-664.
55. Ibid., 666-667.
56. B. G. Charles, ‘Slebech’, op. cit., 180, and n.13, n.14.
57. British Library: Ordnance Survey, 6 inch sheets, Pembrokeshire, 1st edition, Vol. 227 (Southampton, 1868-91).
58. Record Commission, Valor Ecclesiasticus Hen. VIII (6 vols., London, 1810-1834), IV, 389-390.
59. Census of England and Wales, 1931, Counties of Cardiganshire and Pembrokeshire, Part II (H.M.S.O. 1936), Table B, 24.
60. A. Winchester, op. cit., 59-60; W. Rees, ‘Map of South Wales’, op.cit.
61. Census of England and Wales, 1881 (H.M.S.O., 1883), Vol. II, Division XI, Table 4, 639 and note (a); Census of England and Wales, 1891, op. cit.,Table 14, 1162; Ordnance
    Survey, 6 inch map of 1887.
62. W. Rees, South Wales and the March, 1284-1415 (Bath, 1967, re-issue 1974), 285, 140.
63. Roch IPM, in ‘F. Green Collection’, op. cit., 429.
64. H. Owen, ‘A Calendar of the Public Records’, op. cit., III, 78-81;
    J. J. Alexander, ‘Early Owners of Tor Brian Manor’, Transactions of the Devonshire Association, LXVIII (1936), 197-207.
65. E. J. L. Scott, ‘Some Original Documents Relating To The South Part of Pembrokeshire’, Journal of the British Archaeological Association, XLI (1885), 158
    (no.14), 170.
66. R. Davies, The Tithe Maps of Wales (Aberystwyth, 1999), 323.
67. D. Miles (ed.), A History of the Town and County Of Haverfordwest (Llandysul 1999), 29, 229-231.
68. W. Dugdale (ed.), Monasticon Anglicanum, revised edition, J. Cayley et al., 6 vols. in 8 parts (1817-80), VI, 444-445.
69. Ordnance Survey, 1:25 000 map, Sheet SM 81/91, Pathfinder 1079.
70. H. Owen, ‘Old Pembroke Families’, op. cit., 75-77.
71. R. F. Walker, ‘Lordships’, op. cit., 162-164, 167-168; H. Owen, ‘A Calendar of the Public Records’, op. cit., I, 118 (10).
72. H. Owen, ‘Haverford Records’, op. cit., 137-143.
73. H. Owen, ‘A Calendar of the Public Records’, op. cit., I, 57-58; III, 72-73, respectively.
74. J. A. Green (trans.), ‘The Great Roll of the Pipe’, op. cit., 107-108.
75. J. Conway-Davies (ed.), op. cit., 269 (D153); H. Owen, ‘A Calendar of the Public Records’, op. cit., III, 78-80.
76. W. Rees, ‘South Wales and the March’, op. cit., 285, 140.
77. Roch  IPM in ‘F. Green Collection’, op. cit., 428, 429.
78. H. Owen, ‘A Calendar of the Public Records’, op. cit., I, 42; H. Owen, ‘George Owen’, op. cit., I, 180.
79. G. Nicolle, ‘Beyond Wales’, op. cit., 206.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks are due to Ruth Willats who read earlier drafts and offered suggestions, some of which were incorporated; and, of course, to the staff of the various libraries, record offices and archives.