Exploring the Fief d'Anneville involves unraveling its dimensions through both historical narratives and legal documentation. An enduring legend suggests that the Fief Le Comte was originally a segment of the Fief d'Anneville, a tale frequently recounted even in the last century. Our investigation into this matter reveals a complex tapestry of history and legalities, particularly hampered by the absence of records predating 1204.

Legally, the Seigneurie d'Anneville's boundaries are explicitly delineated. A pivotal 15th-century document, the "Enquiry on the rights of the Seigneurs d'Anneville" conducted by the Court of Fief le Comte, recognized several fiefs, including Le Comte and numerous bordages, as under the suzerainty of Seigneur d'Anneville. 

This was further supported by an assessment from the King of England's commissioners. Although this latter examination lacked the detailed precision of the earlier enquiry in mapping out territories, it affirmed the expansive reach of the Fief d'Anneville, extending its influence beyond Saint Sampson into other parochial regions of the island.

This expansive interpretation is reinforced by the historical transactions involving various fiefs, notably the sale of the Fief le Comte, initially divested of its seigneurial rights. The exact nature of these rights remains ambiguous, challenging historical claims that the Fief le Comte, once held by a Norman lord and earl with extensive dominion in Bessin, maintained similar authority in Guernsey. There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that the Guernsey fief mirrored its Norman counterpart's status, nor that it had undergone multiple subdivisions before 1204, leading to the autonomy and potentially enhanced status of its subfiefs.

A significant legal verdict on 09 February 1668/69 by the Royal Court, led by Judge Pierre Careye and mandated by the Privy Council, sided with Charles Andros, the Fief d'Anneville's proprietor, in a dispute against Pierre Priaulx, the then-holder of the Fief Le Comte, over the Fief Longues title. This decision, reaffirming a prior judgment from 23 October 1666, along with analogous decisions, underscores the lack of evidence supporting the Fief Le Comte's alleged preeminence following Normandy's annexation by France. For instance, in Jersey, it was observed that lesser fiefs rose in prominence, some of which came under the ownership of the King at various times, challenging the historical significance attributed to the Fief Le Comte.

The historical account, however, remains murky due to gaps in the archival records, leaving certain periods, such as the transition of the Fief Le Comte to an individual named Wake, undocumented and shrouded in mystery. While these historical narratives may hold an element of plausibility, their legal validity is compromised by these uncertainties and the absence of irrefutable evidence for specific intervals.

The discussion surrounding the Fief d'Anneville's historical rights and privileges, especially those affirmed by judicial decisions, unveils marked contradictions with certain historical accounts. The Assizes of 1299 and 1309 notably put the de Chesneys, Seigneurs d'Anneville, under scrutiny regarding their entitlement to a quarter of all sea wrecks across the island, the authority to adjudicate matters for their tenants, and the privilege to hunt on the King's Fief. They attributed their rights to a lineage beginning with Robert, Count of Mortain, who allegedly granted these privileges to Baldwin de Vere, whose heirs then transferred them to Sir William de Chesney.

This narrative, however, is viewed with skepticism by historians who question the legitimacy of these claims based on conflicting documentary evidence they believe exists. Yet, the fact that a court recognized these rights implies there may be aspects of the situation that are not fully understood or accessible to contemporary historians. The skepticism surrounding the claims not only challenges the perspective that the Fief Le Comte maintained its original rights but also raises the possibility that it might have been deprived of some, if not all, of its initial entitlements. The claim by the Seigneur d'Anneville to rights over sea wrecks, purportedly extending across the whole island, adds a layer of complexity, suggesting a convoluted history of grants, transactions, and events that have become obscured over time.

Despite the historical uncertainties, the judicial endorsement of the de Chesneys' stance carries legal weight. This practical approach to resolving disputes over historical claims and legal rights provides a legally sound framework for understanding the situation. It highlights the stark contrast between the definitive nature of legal decisions and the often fragmented and conjectural character of historical documentation, underscoring the fact that sometimes there are difficulties in harmonizing these two realms.

Consequently, the only dependable and legally valid sources delineating the Fief d'Anneville's boundaries and extent remain the legal decisions from the Court of Fief le Comte, the reports by the King of England's commissioners and the decisions of the Royal Court. These documents offer a tangible framework for comprehending the scope of the fief, grounding the historical and legendary accounts in the realm of verifiable legal context.

Back to the Enquiry