Garbrod can be seen to be the name for what is now Crown Hill. This is not only because it fits in the correct position in the sequence, between Ston and Holow, but because the name has the topographical meaning of ‘a triangular plot of land, land in a gore of a common arable field’.²⁸ Just such a furlong still survives as ridge and furrow on the north-western facing crest of Crown Hill, thus securely fixing the name. This furlong undoubtedly gave its name to the great field it overlooks because the distinctive pattern of strips will have been clearly visible from much of that great field. When the name of the hill was changed, so too was the name of the great field, from Garbrod field to Crown Hill field. This hill was, according to local traditional, the site where Henry Tudor was crowned after the battle.²⁹ Although we so far lack a document specifying the name of the hill as Crown Hill in the early sixteenth century, there seems little doubt that this is the same hill that Saxton mapped in 1576, which was confirmed by Smith in 1602 as lying south of the Sence brook (see Chapter 1). Now that the location of the battlefield is known, such identification is given further support from Vergil’s reference to Henry going from the battlefield to a nearby hill where he was crowned. Crown Hill is the only prominent hill close to the battlefield. This combined evidence makes it highly likely that the tradition represents a genuine folk memory of the events of 22 August 1485.

Several other significant names can also be approximately located using the terrier. Fen furlong appears to abut what is later recorded as Fen Hole – another change in name which, as we shall see, may have a relevance to the way in which the wetland landscape has changed. Unfortunately Brown Heath cannot be securely placed, but its location in the sequence suggests it should lie close to Hollow Meadow, probably on its west side. This is another important name we will return to, as Brown Heath is one of the names of the battle, although the issue is complicated because another Brown Heath name has been located 1.5 km to the southwest in Higham township.

Unfortunately, Stoke Golding appears to be the exception within the five townships. Various pre-enclosure names have also been identified in written sources. The largest number have been recovered for Dadlington, from the extensive run of court rolls, but rarely does the source provide sufficient topographical detail to enable them to be accurately located. In the absence of a terrier or survey like that for Stoke, only a small number of these names can be accurately located, mainly by reference to later field names. Thus the next task was the mapping of field names from the eighteenth and nineteenth century estate, tithe and related maps to provide an initial framework of place names. This was then supplemented by reference to the written sources, including various early modern deeds, which proved most useful in the area in Dadlington called the Fen.

Unfortunately, as we have seen, even with the late fifteenth century terrier of Stoke Golding there are problems securely linking specific furlongs names to the furlongs mapped by Hall. This is most common where the name has been lost before the date of the first surviving map. Some of the names may have disappeared due to land use change, such as the draining of the fen, but the greatest loss appears to have occurred as a result of enclosure itself. This can be seen in Stoke Golding by comparing the later fifteenth century furlong names in Garbrod field with the names for the same area in the 1605 document and then, after further subdivision and change, on the tithe map of the 1840s, which is the first comprehensive mapping of Stoke’s field names (Figures 4.9–4.11). In this context the loss of names like Redemore and Sandeford, which are so important to our study, is perhaps not surprising.