the form of tenure in January 1066 (TRE) is frequently given. Although a variety of wording is used. Ann Williams equates land held "freely" (libere) with bookland. The laws regarding land tenure continued to evolve after the conquest, and there was no return to pre-Norman law and custom. Thus, the distinction between folkland and bookland is of historical interest, but without a substantive modern impact. However, the legacy of the pre-Norman Anglo-Saxon kingdoms is certainly of interest to those of Anglo-Saxon heritage, and to scholars attempting to construct histories and attempting to provide a full legal provenance for modern English law. As few ancient records have survived, constructed histories are necessarily conjectural, with much room for disagreement. This accounts for the tautological definition: it represents an effort to be accurate while sidestepping any and all ongoing disputes regarding ancient Anglo-Saxon law and custom. Controversies over folkland The exact meaning of the term folkland has been the subject of considerable controversy. However, the definition of bookland has suffered from less uncertainty, as its inception is within recorded history, with numerous examples available in the records. Ignoring any prior conjectures, the idea that folkland was land owned by the entire folk was introduced by John Allen in his 1830 Inquiry into the Rise and Growth of the Royal Prerogative in England. He asserted that the land was the property of the people as a whole, to be let out at will, and returned to the people's control when the grant had expired. This became the accepted view of mainstream historians, who then developed arguments and theories based on the correctness of the proposition. In a short article in The English Historical Review of 1893, Paul Vinogradoff asserted that folkland referred to land governed by folklaw or custom. It was this law that kept land within a family or kinship group, and folkland was not land collectively owned by the folk. He said that such land was held by a single representative of a kinship group, and that such land could not be alienated from (i.e., transferred from) the kinship group without special permission. Vinogradoff then proceeded to show that his assertion was everywhere consistent with the historical record and nowhere inconsistent, pointing out along the way that neither the "accepted view" nor its derivatives satisfied the criterion of historical consistency. While the idea of folkland as the common land of the folk