1. 1020: The Fief du Bessin in western Guernsey is granted to Anchetel, an early Norman noble linked to the feudal development of Guernsey. This early period marks the start of Norman control over the Channel Islands.
   (Source: Feudal traditions and historical records of the Channel Islands, particularly local Norman land grants of the early 11th century.)

2. Before 1050: The Anneville family emerges in Normandy, with Sampson d'Ansneville being the earliest recorded member. The family is based in Val-de-Saire (Cotentin), a strategically important region in Normandy. By the mid-11th century, the Annevilles held multiple fiefs across the Cotentin, including:

• Anneville-en-Saire: Their primary holding and seat of power.

• Ourville: Another fief located within the Cotentin region.

• Saint-Vaast-la-Hougue: A coastal fief that further solidified their control of the Val-de-Saire.

• Teurthéville-Bocage: An inland fief close to Anneville-en-Saire.

• Crasville: Another inland fief within the Val-de-Saire area.

These landholdings illustrate that the Anneville family was already an established force in the region, with significant territorial control and influence. Their multiple fiefs in the Cotentin demonstrate their stature as minor nobility in mainland Normandy, long before they extended their influence to Guernsey.
(Source: Dictionnaire de la Noblesse, p. 573; Neustria Pia, and Black Book of the Abbey of Lessay.)

1047: After the Battle of Val-ès-Dunes, described in Wace’s Roman de Rou, William the Conqueror defeats rebellious Vicomtes in the Cotentin, including Nèel, Vicomte of Cotentin, who temporarily loses his fiefs. During this period, William seeks the support of loyal nobles, and the Anneville family likely emerges as an important ally. Their loyalty and existing presence in Normandy lead to Sampson d'Anneville gaining favor and responsibility, as he becomes one of the Seigneurs to whom William refers in his grants of land. . (Source: Roman de Rou by Wace, Black Book of the Abbey of Lessay Dictionnaire de la Noblesse, Aubert de La Chesnaye-Desbois, p. 574.) 

1061: Samson d'Ansneville is appointed by Duke William of Normandy to secure Normandy during the Conquest of England. His mission includes overseeing key territories in Normandy, with Normandy entrusted to him while William focuses on the English campaign. As a reward, Samson is granted part of Guernsey, shared with the Abbey of Mont-Saint-Michel, as part of the Duke’s strategy to strengthen control over the Channel Islands.

• This event is recorded in later genealogical sources, particularly the Black Book of the Abbey of Lessay, which highlights Samson d'Anneville's role in defending Normandy and his donation of land to the Abbey. It doesnt refer directly Samson but the Seigneur d'Anneville, noting that he was entrusted with defending Normandy while William conquered England.
  (Source: Black Book of the Abbey of Lessay; Dictionnaire de la Noblesse, Aubert de La Chesnaye-Desbois, p. 574.)

According to tradition, Samson d'Ansneville is commissioned by Duke William of Normandy to expel pirates who had established themselves in Guernsey. After successfully completing this mission, Samson is rewarded with half of the island as a fief, which he shares with the Abbey of Mont-Saint-Michel.

Sources and Context:

• This tradition is referenced in later genealogical records and local Norman histories, including the Black Book of the Abbey of Lessay, which details land donations and the consolidation of power in Guernsey. The grant of half of the island to Samson d'Ansneville and the Abbey underscores the strategic importance of Guernsey in securing the English Channel during the Norman period.

• Although the specific commission by Duke William is not recorded in primary sources from the time, the tradition of Samson's role is preserved in subsequent ecclesiastical records, family genealogies, and Guernsey's local tradition. The story is further supported by the Black Book of the Abbey of Lessay, which details Samson's land donations and the strategic importance of his role in securing Guernsey. 

• Even though this version accommodates Guernsey’s lore with a fully established structure before the Norman Conquest, it is also possible that the grant of half the island in conjunction with the Fief of Mont-Saint-Michel occurred in stages, culminating around 1150 (see the broader redistribution in that year). The year 1061 may represent the beginning of the formal establishment of the Fief of Anneville and the gradual development of a more structured feudal organization on the island. Earlier accounts could be referencing an evolving process, rather than a singular event in 1061, leading to the eventual full establishment of these fiefs by 1150.  

1. 1066: Guillaume d'Anneville, Samson's son, participates in the Norman Conquest of England as a knight and is mentioned in the Falaise Roll. He is described by Wace in the Roman de Rou as part of the "sire de Val-de-Saire" during the Battle of Hastings, and he becomes a sub-tenant of Roger de Montgomery in Hampshire.
   (Source: Falaise Roll; Wace, Roman de Rou, l. 13604). Guillaume was accompanied by Honfroi d'Ansleville and their names are inscribed on the walls of the church of Dives. (Source: Bulletin monumental, published by M. de Caumont, tome XXVII, page 641; tome XXVIII, page 474 and 748 referenced at http://le50enlignebis.free.fr/spip.php?article11530).

Additional context: It was from the port of Dives (Calvados) that Duke William's fleet departed, marking the pivotal campaign that led to the conquest of England. The d'Ansleville family is recognized in these historical records as significant contributors to this event

2. 1096: Michel d'Anneville, second son of Guillaume, departs on the First Crusade with Robert Courtheuse, Duke of Normandy, and Godfrey of Bouillon. During the Crusade, Michel d'Anneville is captured but later ransomed with the help of the monks at Abbaye de Lessay. His family donates to the Abbey in gratitude, including the Church of Anneville-en-Saire.
   (Source: Dictionnaire de la Noblesse, Aubert de La Chesnaye-Desbois, p. 574, referencing both the Black Book of the Abbey of Lessay and Neustria Pia, p. 618). 

3. 1106: Guillaume d'Anneville confirms his role as the lord of Anneville-en-Saire by donating to the Abbey of Lessay, specifically acknowledging the ransom of his son Michel from captivity during the Crusades.
   (Source: Dictionnaire de la Noblesse, Aubert de La Chesnaye-Desbois, p. 574; Black Book of the Abbey of Lessay and Neustria Pia, p. 618). 

4. 1126, Henry I of England, through a royal charter, confirmed the donation of the Church of Saint-Léger of Anneville to the Abbey of Lessay. This was significant for solidifying the Anneville family's position in the area.
   (Source: Gall. christ., tome XI; Instrum., col. 237. Mémoires de la Société des Antiquaires de Normandie, tome XI, pag. 45. in http://le50enlignebis.free.fr/spip.php?article11530) 

5. 1130: Jean d'Anneville, knight, confirms his family’s donations and witnesses a sale deed to Empress Matilda.
   (Source: Dictionnaire de la Noblesse, Aubert de La Chesnaye-Desbois, p. 575)

6. 1135-1154: During The Anarchy (1135-1154), Roger, Vicomte of the Cotentin, and Ranulf II, Earl of Chester, both backed Stephen of Blois against Empress Matilda. In 1138, Roger was killed fighting for Stephen, leaving no heir, and his fiefs, including those in Guernsey, were forfeited. Ranulf, who held the other half of Guernsey, also broke allegiance to Normandy by supporting Stephen. In contrast, there evidences that the d'Anneville family, remained loyal to Matilda. Jean d'Anneville witnessed key documents supporting her cause in 1130 and 1153. After Roger's death and Ranulf's rebellion, Geoffrey of Anjou, Matilda's husband, seized control of Guernsey and redistributed the lands, likely rewarding the d'Anneville family for their loyalty and elevating their prominence.  (Source: Dictionnaire de la Noblesse, Aubert de La Chesnaye-Desbois, p. 575)

7. 1144: After years of conflict, Geoffrey of Anjou, husband of Matilda, succeeded in securing control of Normandy, and he was officially crowned as Duke of Normandy in Rouen. In the aftermath, Geoffrey began redistributing lands and fiefs across Normandy and the Channel Islands to reward those nobles who had remained loyal to him and his cause. The Anneville family, having demonstrated unwavering loyalty to Matilda and Geoffrey throughout the civil war, likely benefited from this redistribution. Geoffrey of Anjou is thought to have granted the d'Anneville family significant holdings in Guernsey, rewarding them for their loyalty and strengthening his control over the strategically important Channel Islands.
   (Source: Le Patourel, Mediæval Administration of the Channel Islands, pp. 107-9.)

8. 1144 Redistribution of the Fief du Bessin: The Fief du Bessin, which included key parishes such as Câtel, St. Saviour, and St. Peter-in-the-Wood, was previously held by Ranulf II, Earl of Chester, who supported Stephen of Blois during the civil war. When Geoffrey of Anjou gained control of Normandy in 1144, Ranulf’s defiance and allegiance to Stephen resulted in the forfeiture of his fiefs to the Duke. Geoffrey likely used this opportunity to redistribute the lands, and although the exact timeline is unclear, it is probable that the fiefs—including parts of Fief Le Comte—were either retained by the ducal crown or granted to loyal Norman nobles, such as the d'Anneville family, as a reward for their proven loyalty. Evidence of this loyalty can be seen in records from 1130 (see above), when Jean d'Anneville, a knight, confirmed his family’s donations and witnessed a sale deed to Empress Matilda, and again in 1153 (see below), when Jean signed as a witness during the negotiations that led to peace between Stephen and Matilda. These events suggest that the d'Anneville family played a crucial role during this period of political upheaval. This redistribution marked a key moment when many larger fiefs were broken into smaller sub-fiefs to ensure loyalty and stabilize the Duke’s rule. The likelihood that the Fief d'Anneville benefited from such redistribution is supported by the structure of the Royal Court distribution, which suggests that the land tenure system remained largely unchanged from the original feudal grants of the 12th century. A proof of that is that the Fief Fantome, which had lost most of its productive land by the 14th century, retained its place in the feudal hierarchy. This continuity points to the fact that Fief d'Anneville likely was the prominent fief from the 12th century onward, following its possible elevation during Geoffrey of Anjou’s rule as a reward for the family’s consistent loyalty.

9. 1150: The large-scale redistribution of fiefs in Guernsey takes place, including the creation of the Fief St. Michel, which accounts for one-quarter of the island. The Fief d'Anneville may have gained prominence during this redistribution, aligning with the creation of Fief St. Michel. This redistribution involved reclaiming waste land and dividing existing fiefs to strengthen Geoffrey's control over the region. (Source: Extente of 1248, Papal Bulls, Dictionnaire de la Noblesse, p. 574.). NOTE: The tradition that Samson d'Anneville liberated Guernsey and received half of the island as a reward, shared with the Fief of Mont St. Michel, can be seen in light of the large-scale feudal rearrangements that took place in 1150. This period saw significant changes in fief ownership and boundaries, particularly with the creation of the Fief St. Michel, which comprised one-quarter of the island. 

10. 1150 - Restoration of land to the church (Fief of Saint Michel). Although there is no direct surviving record of how the Fief St. Michel came into being, the papal bulls issued between 1150 and 1178 suggest that Geoffrey of Anjou may have restored lands to the Monastery of Mont St. Michel as a political gesture to gain the Church's support during his consolidation of power in Normandy. The 1155 Papal Bull confirmed the Monastery’s possession of one-quarter of Guernsey, including lands and parish churches. This redistribution likely reflects Geoffrey's need to restore some of the lands to the Church that were previously removed by William the Conqueror in 1042. It’s possible that Samson d'Anneville's traditional role in receiving half of the island ties into this broader redistribution, particularly as the d'Anneville family were loyal supporters of Matilda and Geoffrey. The Fief d'Anneville may have gained prominence at this time, aligning with the creation of the Fief St. Michel in the western parishes. This period of redistribution, around 1150, also saw the division of land in previously unsettled or waste areas, noted in the Extente of 1248, where it was recorded that Raoul de Valmont enfeoffed waste land in the reign of Henry II. The creation of Fief St. Michel and the other fiefs during this period was likely based on reclaiming or assigning waste land rather than seizing land from existing Norman knights, which ensured that loyal landholders, like the Annevilles, were not displaced but potentially elevated. Thus, Samson d'Anneville's traditional grant of land may have been confirmed or formalized during this period of feudal restructuring. In conclusion, the traditional grant to Samson d'Anneville aligns with the broader redistribution of 1150, during which Fief St. Michel was formed. The d'Anneville family likely benefited from this process, gaining recognition for their loyalty and securing their position as prominent landholders on the island.

11. 1153: Jean d'Anneville signs as a witness during the negotiations that lead to peace between Stephen and Matilda.
    (Source: Dictionnaire de la Noblesse, Aubert de La Chesnaye-Desbois, p. 575). 

12. 1168: Hugh Wake controls parts of Fief le Comte and Fief de Longues, but he holds no direct tenure from the king. Hugh Wake’s involvement in the civil war and his shifting allegiances between Stephen of Blois and Henry II likely influenced his status. Initially, Hugh was aligned with Ranulf II, Earl of Chester, a supporter of Stephen. After Ranulf's death and the rise of Henry II, Hugh likely shifted his loyalty to the Angevins to secure his holdings. However, his earlier support for Stephen may have prevented him from receiving direct tenure from the king, even after changing sides. Henry II may have kept Hugh as a sub-vassal rather than granting him the more autonomous position of tenant-in-chief. Tradition suggests that Hugh's fief may have been under the Anneville family, who had remained loyal to Empress Matilda during the civil war, further explaining why he did not hold direct tenure from the crown.  (Source: Historical context of the Channel Islands and local feudal documents)

13. 1180: Sampson d'Anneville continues to maintain the family's prominence, making donations to Montebourg Abbey.
    (Source: Dictionnaire de la Noblesse, Aubert de La Chesnaye-Desbois, p. 575)

14. 1186, Henry II of England confirmed the donation of the Church of Saint-Léger of Anneville to the Abbey of Lessay of 1126 (see above). His charter specifies: "ex dono Willelmi de Ansnevilla ecclesiam de Ansnevilla apud Sarnes et totum mariscum e cimiterio usque ad aquam Sares." This means that William of Ansneville had donated the church near Sarnes and all the marshland from the cemetery to the watercourse of Sares. 

15. 1204: Normandy is conquered by Philip II Augustus. Guillaume d'Anneville, who had pledged allegiance to the French king, loses his insular fiefs (like Fief of Anneville) but keeps part of his holdings on the mainland.  (Source: Dictionnaire de la Noblesse, Aubert de La Chesnaye-Desbois, p. 576)

16. 15 May 1248: King Henry III grants the Fief d'Anneville to Sir William de Chesney, marking the end of the Anneville family’s ownership in the Channel Islands.
    (Source: Dictionnaire de la Noblesse, Aubert de La Chesnaye-Desbois, p. 576; English Crown documents)

17. 1253: Sir William de Chesney purchases Fief le Comte from Baldwin de Vere, becoming the largest landowner in Guernsey.
    (Source: Dictionnaire de la Noblesse, Aubert de La Chesnaye-Desbois, p. 576)

18. In 1253, Sir William de Chesney strengthened his influence in Guernsey by securing Fief le Comte from Baldwin de Vere. However, rather than purchasing the fief outright, de Chesney leased it from Hugh Bigot, who managed it during Baldwin de Vere’s minority. During this period, the Abbot of Mont St. Michel attempted to take control of Fief le Comte by leasing it from de Chesney. This lease was in place until 1257, when Baldwin de Vere came of age and reclaimed his inheritance, ending the Abbot's temporary control. This lease structure suggests a feudal hierarchy, where Fief le Comte was not an independent entity but likely operated under the authority of a superior fief, possibly Fief d'Anneville. This aligns with La Coutume de Normandie, which dictated that the superior fief would manage a dependent fief during periods of minority. The customary law states, "En Normandie, si le possesseur d’un fief est mineur, la gestion de ce fief pendant sa minorité revient au seigneur du fief dominant," meaning that the superior lord temporarily controls the fief until the heir reaches adulthood. The fact that Hugh Bigot managed Baldwin de Vere’s fief during his minority, while also acting as guardian to Hugh Wake's son, indicates interconnected feudal responsibilities among these noble families. This structure points to the possibility that Fief d'Anneville functioned as the superior fief overseeing the management of Fief le Comte.

The documents in this "Cartulaire" shed light on the feudal structure in Guernsey and the succession of overlordship over Fief Le Comte after the Chester forfeiture (c. 1138-1153)

After the comital fief of the earls of Chester was confiscated in the mid-twelfth century, the Angevin Crown did not restore the estate to its previous lay holders. Instead it allowed the long-standing ecclesiastical lord—the abbey of Mont-Saint-Michel—to remain chef seigneur in title, while sub-enfeoffing day-to-day control to a new sequence of lay vassals:

Feudal tier (post-1138)

Holder

Principal evidence

Chef seigneur (relief, escheat, garde noble)

Abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel

Cyrograph 22 Apr 1253 (Cart. Mt-St-M., no. 130); Mont-St-Michel v. de Chesney plea, 1260-68

Mesne / working overlord

Wake family (c. 1153-1240) → Baldwin de Vere (1240-1253) → Sir William de Chesney, seigneur of Anneville (from 1253)

A. H. Ewen, “The Fiefs of the Island of Guernsey” (1961) pp. 198-199; Assize rolls 1299, 1309

Local possession & manorial court

Same line of lay holders (Wake → de Vere → de Chesney)

Extente of 1274; Anneville cartulary charters
c. 1168 — Hugh Wake holds Le Comte from the abbot for ½ knight’s fee; he alienates part of it (Le Fief de Longues) to the Abbey of Longues (Ewen 1961, pp. 198-199).
1220-1240 — During the minority of Baldwin de Vere the abbot exercises garde noble, but delegates day-to-day management to Sir William de Chesney—evidence that Mont-Saint-Michel still regarded itself as superior lord (Cart. Mt-St-M., no. 130).
1253 — De Chesney purchases the fee simple from Baldwin de Vere; the abbot sues, but in 1268 loses the case. The royal judgement confirms the de Chesney/Anneville line as effective seigneurs.

Summary – After the Anarchy the vice-comital powers of the earls of Chester were not handed to another lay magnate; they nominally reverted to Mont-Saint-Michel, which in practice sub-let the fief to successive lay families (Wake, de Vere, de Chesney/Anneville). The 1268 judgement finally fixed this arrangement: the abbey retained merely a ceremonial title, while Anneville exercised the real manorial authority.

1. Further evidence supporting the dependent status of Fief le Comte includes the absence of a manor house and its lack of representation in the Royal Court. In the feudal system, fiefs that did not have their own court representation or independent infrastructure (like a manor house) often operated under the authority of a larger, more prominent fief. This reinforces the idea that Fief le Comte was not a tenant-in-chief, but rather subordinate to a superior fief, likely Fief d'Anneville. The superior fief, in this case, would have managed the legal and administrative responsibilities of Fief le Comte, as dictated by La Coutume de Normandie. The relationship between the de Vere, Bigot, and Wake families further emphasizes the feudal network, in which Fief d'Anneville could have played a dominant role in managing Fief le Comte as part of a broader landholding structure. This arrangement indicates that Fief d'Anneville may have exercised authority over Fief le Comte during periods of instability or minority, consolidating its influence over the island's feudal hierarchy.
   (Source: Dictionnaire de la Noblesse, Aubert de La Chesnaye-Desbois, p. 576; La Coutume de Normandie; Basnage Vol02_Part1)

Point

Argument for abbatial authority

“Sceptical” objection

Critical assessment

1. Ducal title (1028–1032)

1. The abbey based its claim on a grant by Duke Robert II of Normandy that allegedly included the lands later called Le Comte.

2. Only late copies of the charter survive, so the title is viewed by some as a weak cartulary claim.

3. No contemporary challenge is known; the Crown allowed the plea to be heard, implying the title was at least arguable.

2. 22 April 1253 cyrograph

4. The abbot’s deed gives custodiam totius terrae “until the heirs of Robert de Vere come of age” and fixes a £25 quit-rent recoverable before royal justices (Cart. Mt-St-M., no 130).

5. Critics note the deed grants custody, not outright lordship: perhaps only a private guardianship, not haut-justice.

6. Under the Coutume de Normandie (tit. IV, art. 6) the right of garde noble belongs only to the direct overlord. If the abbot lacked that quality, the grant would be void ab initio.

3. Royal reaction

7. Neither the king nor the de Vere ward protested in 1253, suggesting tacit royal recognition.

8. In 1260–68 Henry III rejected the abbey’s suit to recover the whole fief, confirming de Chesney instead.

9. The later judgment shows royal policy favoured a loyal lay lord; it does not retro-invalidate the 1253 cyrograph, which the court treated as valid but subordinate to Crown discretion.

4. Norman practice

10. Other Channel fiefs (e.g. Mautalent) show dual lordship: an abbey as chef seigneur and a lay mesne lord.

11. After 1204 many continental abbeys lost practical control; the abbot’s claim was “de jure” but not “de facto”.

12. In Norman law an overlordship can persist “at a distance” unless the king expressly confiscates it; Mont-Saint-Michel had a theoretical right that the king later chose to sleep on.

Balanced conclusion
Legally, the abbot could claim garde noble in 1253 because he traced his right to an early ducal donation, and Norman custom reserves such guardianship to an overlord. Politically, Henry III preferred to consolidate power in the hands of a resident lay magnate; in 1268 the Crown confirmed William de Chesney (Anneville) as seigneur and left the abbey only an honorific superiority. Thus the abbot’s authority was real in historic-legal terms but was ultimately curtailed by royal policy.

Key sources: Cartulaire du Mont-Saint-Michel, cyrographum 22 IV 1253 (vol. 2, 202-203); Coutume de Normandie (tit. IV); A. H. Ewen, “The Fiefs of the Island of Guernsey” (Report & Transactions SGS, 1961, 198-199); F. B. Tupper, History of Guernsey (1854, 72-74); T. W. M. de Guérin, “Feudalism in Guernsey” (1909, 18-19).

in 1260, the Abbot of Mont St. Michel claimed the whole fief of Le Comte as overlord, pleading the original gift of Duke Robert II., 1028-1032. William de Cheney died shortly afterwards, leaving his widow, Felicia, to continue the lawsuit. In 1268 the Abbot promised the governor, Hugh de Trubleville, “his dear friend,” for his counsel and advice, half the revenue of the market of “Les Landes du Marché” which he also claimed, and should he win his cause, half of the Fief du Comte to hold off him by homage. In other words, the Abbot tried to bribe the judge to rob the widow (k). He was, however, unsuccessful, and the king confirmed the de Chesneys in the possession of their lands. The abbot lost the case. Legally, the abbot could claim garde noble in 1253 because he traced his right to an early ducal donation, and Norman custom reserves such guardianship to an overlord. Politically, Henry III preferred to consolidate power in the hands of a resident lay magnate; in 1268 the Crown confirmed the de Chesney (Anneville) as seigneur. Thus the abbot’s authority was probably real in historic-legal terms but was ultimately curtailed by royal policy.  

Again we see that  at the Assizes of 1299 and 1309 the de Chesney seigneurs were asked to justify extensive privileges—one-quarter of all wreck, rights of chase on the King’s Fief and a private court for their tenants. Their counsel produced a pedigree that began with Robert, Count of Mortain, passed to Baldwin de Vere and ended with Sir William de Chesney, entirely omitting the earlier Wake tenure. Some ancient historians said "In face of documentary evidence still in existence, it is incomprehensible that such a statement could have been made.(De Guerin)". Modern historians explain this omission as a calculated legal tactic. First, anchoring the title in a grant from William the Conqueror’s half-brother supplied an unimpeachable “ducal” origin and avoided the politically awkward Angevin Wakes, whose lands had been vulnerable to confiscation after 1204. Second, by 1299 no Wake charters survived in the island archives; court clerks relied on documents then in de Chesney hands, so the Wakes simply “fell out of the record.” Third, Norman procedure required a litigant to cite only the latest grant made by the highest lord; because the Wakes had held Le Comte as under-tenants of Mont-Saint-Michel, their deeds were irrelevant to a plea about haut-justice. The result was what contemporaries called a “usable fiction,” tidy enough for the Court and left unchallenged by both Crown and Abbey, which had already lost earlier suits over the fief’s status (Tupper 1854, pp. 72-74; de Guérin 1909, pp. 18-19; Ewen 1961, pp. 198-199).  

What the 1350 “partage” deed tells us about Anneville’s continuing overlordship

• Venue: the deed of partition of Sir Edmund de Chesney’s Guernsey estates is expressly stated to be “passed at Anneville before the Royal Court.” Because a partage had to be executed in the manor-house (caput) of the chief fief, this wording shows that in the mid-fourteenth-century the Royal Court still regarded Anneville—not Le Comte—as the legal centre of the whole seigneurie.
  
  

• Separate listing of fiefs: the instrument itemises the properties one by one—“le fuy d’Anneville, le fuy de Cartret, le fuy des Burneaux, le fuy Dapemare….”—instead of describing them as “parts of Le Comte”. The Court therefore treated each of these units as an independent fief requiring an explicit assignment, not as automatic appurtenances of Le Comte.
  
  

• Reversion clause: the deed stipulates that if Nicholas de Chesney (one of the co-heirs) should die without issue, “la reversion doit retourner devers ledit Sire Edmond” (i.e. to Edmond de Chesney, seigneur of Anneville) and his heirs. The ultimate escheat thus flows back to Anneville, not to the holder of Le Comte, confirming that Anneville remains the apex of the local feudal pyramid.
  
  

Operational takeaway:

1. The manor-house of Anneville is acknowledged as the chef-seigneur caput.
   
   

2. Individually named fiefs are not presumed to lie under Le Comte.
   
   

3. Reversion to Anneville demonstrates an active overlordship that extends even to collateral lines.
   
   

Together these clauses corroborate the view that, long after Mont-Saint-Michel’s claims had faded, Anneville still exercised superior feudal authority over Le Comte and its satellite fiefs.

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. Although some historians have argued that it is difficult to reconcile this claim with the fact that, during the dukedoms of Robert and his son William, Guernsey was already divided (à titre de fief) between the powerful Vicomtes of St. Sauveur and Bessin (the latter better known as the Vicomte de Bayeux), who would not have easily accepted the loss of their manorial rights, it is nonetheless clear that the Anneville family held the Conqueror’s trust. According to the Black Book of the Abbey of Lessay, the Anneville family was entrusted with significant responsibilities in Normandy during the Conquest of England. An Anneville took part directly in the Norman Conquest, while notably, neither the Vicomte of Bayeux nor the Vicomte of Saint-Sauveur appears to have participated in such a momentous campaign.

It is evident that William the Conqueror needed support to consolidate his power in the face of internal rebellion and challenges to his legitimacy, especially after the Battle of Val-ès-Dunes in 1047. This battle, described in Wace’s Roman du Rou, marked the suppression of rebellious Vicomtes in the Cotentin region, many of whom, such as Nèel, the Vicomte of Cotentin, lost their fiefs temporarily.

During this period of political instability, William required the backing of loyal nobles. The Anneville family likely emerged as important allies, especially as they already had a presence in Normandy. According to Guernsey's tradition and historical sources, including the Black Book of the Abbey of Lessay, the Annevilles were entrusted with important responsibilities in securing Normandy and Guernsey. They played a significant role in these turbulent times, helping to solidify William’s rule. In particular, Sampson d'Anneville, whose family already held substantial holdings in the Cotentin, was rewarded with land in Guernsey for his loyal service, including the successful defense against pirate incursions.

The division of land in Guernsey into the Bessin and Cotentin fiefs aligns with the broader pattern of utilizing pre-existing administrative divisions. While the Vicomtes of Bayeux and St. Sauveur held much of the land, it is notable that they did not directly participate in the Norman Conquest of England, unlike the Annevilles, who played a direct role in this significant historical event. This may explain why the Anneville family was entrusted with lands and responsibilities in Normandy and the Channel Islands, while other families’ roles diminished.

It is possible that the Exchequer Roll excerpt was created later to justify the reality of land distribution that had other, earlier origins. One theory is that the Lord of Anneville already held a prominent position in Normandy, evidenced by the five parishes named after the family, making them a natural choice to be granted further lands in Guernsey. Another possibility is that disputes between the central authority and local lords like the Lords of Bessin and Cotentin led to moments where territorial rights were contested, such as in Guernsey, where William favored loyal families like the Annevilles.

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.