In the year 1061, Guernsey is stated to have been attacked by a new race of pirates, who, according to Berry, issued from the southern parts of France bordering the Bay of Biscay, and committed great ravages on the neighbouring coasts of Britany. Duke William was at Valognes when he received information of this attack, and he immediately dispatched troops under the command of his esquire, Sampson d'Anneville, who landed at the harbour of St. Sampson. Being joined by the inhabitants, who had sought refuge in the castle of the Vale and other places of retreat, he defeated the invaders with much slaughter. Duke William is also said to have made large concessions of land in Guernsey to d'Anneville, as a reward for his valour; and in the thirtyninth year of queen Elizabeth, (1597,) six royal commissioners were appointed to examine the feudal tenures or manors existing in the island, when Thomas Fachion, laid claim to the fief d'Anneville, producing an extract from the Rolls of the Exchequer of Rouen, dated in 1061, which certified that duke William had granted, in fee farm, to the abbot of Mont St. Michel, in Normandy, and to Sampson d'Anneville, one half of the island of Guernsey, to be taken out of the western side of the said island, and to be equally divided among them. 

That such an extract was produced is certain; but it is utterly irreconcileable with the fact, as we have shown, that, during the dukedoms of Robert and his son William, Guernsey was divided (à titre de fief) between the powerful vicomtes of St. Sauveur and Bessin, (the latter better known as vicomte de Bayeux,) who would not quietly have submitted to this spoliation of their manorial rights.
(There are, however, possibilities to justify these claims. Perhaps the excerpt was fabricated "ex post" but to justify a situation that had other origins. One possibility, as some research suggests, is that the lord of Anneville already held a significant position in Normandy before the conquest, given that there are as many as five parishes bearing his name. Another possibility is that the domain of the lords of Bessin and Cotentin was not continuous, and there were various moments of dispute with the central authority. )

The present fief of d'Anneville was doubtless named after Sampson, and may have been conferred upon him: it is situate in the parish of St. Sampson, and is the noblest tenure in Guernsey. The seigneur ranks after the clergy, and is bound, when the king visits the island, to attend him as his esquire. After various changes, the fief appears to have been sold by king Henry III. to William de Cheney, and was inherited by his descendant, Edmond de Cheney, warden of these islands in 1366: it afterwards descended by marriage into the family of Willoughby, and continued in their possession until 1509, in which year it was sold to Nicholas Fachion, gentleman usher to Henry VIII. The fief continued some years in the family of Fachion, long extinct in Guernsey, and then passed into that of Andros, in whose possession it now is.

The fief le Comte also belonged to the Fachions, and in 1630 was sold to Peter Priaulx by George Fachion. subsequently was long the property of the Le Marchants, and now appertains to Mrs. Hutchesson, in right of her father, Charles Le Marchant. A great part of this fief lies in the Câtel parish, and the seigneur is entitled to use a seal, which has the appearance of great antiquity. It represents a knight in armour, on foot, drawing a sword; his head is surrounded by a glory, and above his shoulders are the letters S. G. was probably intended to represent St. George, as it is near the ruined chapel of that name that the court of the fief is held. On a scroll surrounding the figure is the following legend: SIGILL **** CURIE COMIT. The second word is so obliterated, that it cannot be deciphered.

The only other feudal court entitled to a seal is the court of the fief St. Michel. The seal represents the archangel vanquishing the devil, with the legend LANEL. S. SENESCHAL. DU. VALLE.

In an old MS. said to be a copy of an inquest drawn up by Fressingfield and Ditton, who in 1309, during the reign of Edward II., were sent over to the island to hold assizes, it is asserted that in addition to the grants made to the abbot of Mont St. Michel and Sampson d'Anneville, duke William I. also bestowed a tenement in fee farm on John de Jerbourg, who was appointed ducal cupbearer whenever the duke visited Guernsey, and also châtelain, or keeper of Jerbourg. This assertion is, however, disproved not only by Jerbourg forming part of the fief of the vicomte de St. Sauveur, as already mentioned, but by numerous writs to be found among the records of the fourteenth century. The fief of Jerbourg appears to have been conferred upon a remote ancestor of the present, family of De Sausmarez by Henry, tenth duke of Normandy, afterwards Henry II. of England. In the twenty-seventh year of Edward I., at a court of chief pleas held in Guernsey, in the presence of the judges of assize, Matthew de Sausmarez did homage for this fief. When the promontory was fortified in the reigns of Edward II. and III., it belonged to the said Matthew de Sausmarez, or to his successor of the same name, who was appointed hereditary captain, or châtelain of the place. The fief of Jerbourg was subsequently incorporated with, or took the title of, that of Sausmarez, by which latter name it is now known. Among the privileges attached to the fief of Sausmarez, there was one which deserves mention. Whenever the seigneur wished to cross over to Jersey, his tenants were obliged to convey him thither once a year, on receiving three sols in money and their dinner; but it does not appear that they were bound to bring him back. The fief of Sausmarez remained in the family down to the year 1553, when it came into the possession of John Andros, in right of Judith de Sausmarez, his mother; but in 1748 it reverted, by purchase, to the descendants of the original proprietors, whose property it is at this day. The above John Andros was the ancestor of Sir Edmund Andros, who held the fief, as did his father Amias, and both will be noticed in the sequel.

In the year 1051, duke William passed over from Normandy to England on a visit to Edward the Confessor, and returned after a short sojourn. In 1065, Harold, son of earl Godwin, proceeded to Normandy, but with what object is doubtful: the Norman chroniclers affirm that he was ordered by Edward to inform William that he had named him, the duke, as his successor to the throne of England. However improbable this may be, Harold was wrecked on the coast of Ponthieu, and seized by Guy, count of that province, who incarcerated him in a fortress. When William heard of his detention, he ordered Guy, who was his vassal, to release Harold, which he did, and delivered him to the duke. At this time William was engaged in a war with Britany, to serve in which Harold cheerfully volunteered, in the chivalrous spirit of that age in command of a detachment of Normans, the English prince attacked the besiegers of Dol, and compelled them to retire. He then laid siege to Dinan, which soon surrendered. For these services, William conferred the honor of knighthood on Harold.

In January, 1066, Edward the Confessor died, and Harold lost not a moment in seizing on the throne, notwithstanding his promise to do all in his power to secure the sceptre for William, after the demise of the king. When the duke heard of the accession of Harold, he dispatched a messenger to him to require the observance of the promise he had made while in Normandy; but Harold not only refused to do so, but forthwith expelled from England all the Normans who had enjoyed the protection of Edward. He further desired the messenger to tell William that he acknowledged having sworn to deliver up the English throne to him at the death of Edward, but that such oath was not binding, having been extorted by compulsion; and moreover, that having been chosen by the people, he could not transfer the sceptre to a foreigner, without treason to his country.

William now undertook the memorable invasion, to which his barons were at first greatly opposed, as they disliked crossing the sea, of which element they appear to have been much afraid; but they were won over, and, with the clergy, contributed largely to the outfit. By a papal bull, the duke was invested with the title of king of England! It was read in all the churches throughout the duchy, and the enthusiasm of the Normans was soon raised to the highest pitch. William published his declaration of war in all the neighbouring countries, and offered pay and pillage to every man who would serve him with lance, sword, or cross bow. Numbers flocked to his standard from near and far, from Maine and Anjou, from Poitou and Britany,' from France and Flanders, from Aquitaine and Burgundy, from Piedmont and the banks of the Rhine; so that, in fact, the invading army was composed of many nations. The rendezvous of the fleet and the troops was at the mouth of the Dive, whence, after a detention of a month, a southerly breeze carried the Norman navy to St. Valery, near Dieppe. The number of vessels composing this armament is variously stated, some writers declaring that there were 3,000, while the Chronicle of Normandy gives 907 large vessels, besides small craft. Thierry says that there were 400 large vessels and above 1,000 boats of transport. Wace, on the authority of his father, who served in the expedition, reduces the number to 609; but this is evidently too low, as the detailed list of the vessels, furnished by the different barons, gives 781. Supposing each vessel to carry fifty men, and this is a high estimate, there must have been at least 1,000 vessels. That the ships were of no great burthen may be inferred from the Bayeux tapestry, on which the process of ship building is represented; the vessels all appear very low in the hull, and the men are seen drawing them to the sea by ropes. This very curious relic of that age, which is still preserved at Bayeux, is supposed to have been the work of William's queen, Mathilda, and her female attendants. The fleet put to sea on the 29th of September, 1066, the day of the festival of St. Michael. The vessel of William took the lead, the white consecrated banner, given him by the pope, at its mast-head, and bearing a cross on its ensign: she outsailed all the others, and on the following morning dropped anchor off the coast of Sussex, to await the arrival of her consorts. This vessel had been presented to William by his queen; its vanes were gilded crimson sails were painted three lions,' says Thierry, the arms of the Normans-and at its head was the figure of a child, armed with a bow and arrow, and ready to let fly. In the day it was distinguished by its splendid decorations, and in the night by the light at its topmast. The debarkation was effected at Pevensey, near to Hastings, without any opposition. The archers landed first-then the knights, with their horses—and, lastly, the mechanics and other followers of the army, which consisted of 60,000 (?) combatants. A camp was immediately formed and fortified with timber. Before the battle, William exhorted his men to take vengeance for the massacre in England of the Danes, their kinsmen, which had occurred more than three score years before, and for which other Danes had speedily and signally revenged themselves. The Danes, moreover, had subsequently become one people with the Anglo-Saxons, by compact, or intermarriage and language, whereas the Normans had abandoned the speech of their ancestors, the North-men. But pretexts never fail those whose end is conquest. The result of this invasion is so well known, that it will suffice to add that Harold and his two brothers nobly fell on the battle field; and at nine o'clock on the evening of the 14th of October, 1066, the victory of Hastings was achieved. "The Normans," says Raleigh, grew better shipwrights than either the Danes or Saxons, and made the last conquest of this land- a land which can never be conquered whilst the kings thereof keep the dominion of the seas.'

Of the vast Norman fleet, only two vessels were lost, in one of which was the astrologer; (astrologue ;) and in consequence, says Du Moulin, the duke took occasion to blame the men of that profession, as predicting the good fortune of others, and not foreseeing the evil which pursues themselves. The carnage at the battle of Hastings has been variously estimated. The MS. chronicle of De Thou states that 67,654 of the English were slain; but this is a miscopy or a wilful untruth, as it appears that their numbers in the field did not exceed 25,000 combatants. According to De Thou, of the invaders 6,013 men were killed, while Ordericus Vitalis raises the number to 15,000 men. Du Moulin gives the loss as mentioned by these two authorities, but, evidently unable to account for their manifest improbability as regards the English, offers no computation of his own. Another Norman historian, Goube, boldly says, "that 67,000 English and 6,000 Normans perished in this memorable combat, which lasted above twelve hours"! Thierry, more discreet, is silent on the subject of the losses of either army.

William introduced the Norman feudal tenure into England, and divided such part of it as did not belong to the church, and was not reserved for himself, into 700 baronies or great fiefs, which he bestowed on his friends and those who had distinguished themselves in his service: these baronies were sub-divided into 60,215 knights' fees, or smaller fiefs. No Englishmen had any of the first, and few only were fortunate enough to receive any of the second.