The 1086 Domesday survey records the settlement of Brynhedydd, entered under the hundred of Ati’s Cross in Cheshire.
The origin of the name Brynhedydd is not securely established from its modern form alone; like many settlement names in the North it likely combines an Old English or Old Norse personal name with a landscape term.
The settlement of Bubnell is recorded in William I’s Domesday survey of 1086, entered under the hundred of Blackwell in Derbyshire. The survey assessed Bubnell at 43 carucates of taxable land.
At the time of the survey, Bubnell supported a recorded population of 18 villagers, 21 smallholders, 1 freeman, working 17 ploughs between them.
The origin of the name Bubnell is not securely established from its modern form alone; like many settlement names in the North it likely combines an Old English or Old Norse personal name with a landscape term.
The 1086 Domesday survey records the settlement of Bubwith, entered under the hundred of Hessle in Yorkshire.
The name Bubwith is of Scandinavian origin. Its final element derives from the Old Norse word viðr, a wood. The first element is most likely a personal name or an early descriptive term, now difficult to recover with certainty. Taken together the name probably meant something close to ‘a wood’.
The 1086 Domesday survey records the settlement of Buckton Holms, entered under the hundred of Scard in Yorkshire. The survey assessed Buckton Holms at 0.2 carucates of taxable land.
At the time of the survey, Buckton Holms supported a recorded population of 3 smallholders, 3 slaves.
The survey records Buckton Holms’s value at 10d in 1086. No pre-Conquest figure survives – not unusual in the North, where records were disrupted by the Harrying and by the patchy coverage of the survey.
Buckton appears in the Domesday Book of 1086, entered under the hundred of Hunthow in Yorkshire.
The name Buckton is of Anglo-Saxon origin. Its final element derives from the Old English word tūn, a farmstead or village. The first element is most likely a personal name or an early descriptive term, now difficult to recover with certainty. Taken together the name probably meant something close to ‘a farmstead’.
Buerton appears in the Domesday Book of 1086, entered under the hundred of Warmundestrou in Cheshire. The survey assessed Buerton at 6 carucates of taxable land.
At the time of the survey, Buerton supported a recorded population of 41 villagers, 8 smallholders, 8 slaves, working 23 ploughs between them.
By 1086 Buerton was worth 40 shillings, up from 30 shillings before the Conquest – one of the few settlements in the area to hold its value through the upheaval.
The settlement of Bugthorpe is recorded in William I’s Domesday survey of 1086, entered under the hundred of Acklam in Yorkshire. The survey assessed Bugthorpe at 2.6 carucates of taxable land.
At the time of the survey, Bugthorpe supported a recorded population of 10 villagers, 4 smallholders, 3 slaves, working 3 ploughs between them.
The survey puts Bugthorpe’s value at 2.1 shillings, the same as before the Conquest. Unchanged valuations are relatively rare in the North, where disruption was widespread.
Bulmer is named in the Domesday Book, compiled by Norman commissioners in 1086, entered under the hundred of Bulford in Yorkshire. The survey assessed Bulmer at 6.5 carucates of taxable land.
At the time of the survey, Bulmer supported a recorded population of 2 villagers, 12 smallholders, working 6 ploughs between them.
Something went badly wrong here between the two surveys. Before 1066, Bulmer was worth 10 shillings; by 1086 that had dropped to 8 shillings – a fall of 19%. Most Yorkshire villages that lost value on this scale were swept up in the Harrying of the North – William’s scorched-earth campaign of 1069–70.
The 1086 Domesday survey records the settlement of Bunbury and Lower Bunbury, entered under the hundred of Rushton in Cheshire. The survey assessed Bunbury and Lower Bunbury at 5 carucates of taxable land.
At the time of the survey, Bunbury and Lower Bunbury supported a recorded population of 11 villagers, 7 smallholders, 2 slaves, working 8 ploughs between them.
By 1086 Bunbury and Lower Bunbury was worth 5 shillings, up from 4 shillings before the Conquest – which sets it apart from the many nearby villages left waste or devalued.