The issue with trying to talk about "Feudalism" is that there really aren't any set models or definite hierarchies: Feudalism is really an umbrella term that we've projected retroactively to encompass a wide array of different power structures, often distinctly personal relationships, and patterns of land tenure. There are, of course, broad similarities and commonalities which are used to define a basic "Feudal system" (e.g. the king leases land to a tenant-in-chief in return for service, who in turn divides it between tenants, who then distribute their land between tenant peasantry) but it was far from uncommon to find different hierarchies in place at the same time, immediately neighbouring each other, or even involving the same people.

A good example of this is Robert de Tilleul, also known as Robert of Rhuddlan. Robert was a cousin of Hugh d'Avranche, Earl of Chester, and served as his chief lieutenant in the wake of the 1066 Conquest, establishing himself as lord of Rhuddlan in around 1071-2. Robert held villages such as Boddington as a tenant of Hugh, a situation with a clear tenure hierarchy: the 11 peasant households of Boddington held their land from Robert, who in turn held it from Earl Hugh, who ultimately held it from King William. At the same time, however, Robert spent most of the 1070s and 80s ekeing out a personal empire in North Wales, and by the time of Domesday Book in 1086, was listed as tenant-in-chief of 49 separate settlements across North Wales, which he held directly from King William.

Of course, it was entirely possible for the peasantry to hold land directly; around 14% of households listed in Domesday were Freemen who, in essence, were their own tenants-in-chief. One of only two extant charters of William I is a writ re-establishling the land tenure of one of his London moneyers over a hide of land at Gyddesdune which he had been deprived of in the wake of the Conquest.