ABWDEL. 141 Abbey of Barking under that name. He was influential in arranging the treaty of 1153 whereby the Crown continued with King Stephen for life, though the inheritance thereof was secured to Henry If. To this instrument he subscribed as " Earl of Chichester." Henry II, by a grant undated, but supposed to have been in 1155 (the year after his accession), ton/inns to him as " William, Earl of Arundel, the Castle of Arundel, with the whole honour of Arundel and all its appurtenances," and, by the same instranient, bestows on him the third penny of the pleas of the county of Sossex "wide Cornea est."( m )~ No doubt however he was more generally known as " Earl op Arundel," and as such {only) he is spoken of by his s. and h. [who styles himself Earl of Sussex] in a charter to the Priory of Bromhale; and as Earl of Arundel (only) he is described in the record at the said Priory of Bromhale of his death. He was justly held in great esteem by Henry II, and was one of the embassy to Rome in 1164, and to Saxony (on the espousal of the Princess Matilda to the Duke of Saxony) in 1168. He was also in command of the Royal army in Aug. 1173, in Normandy, against the King's rebellious sons, where he distinguished himself for his "swiftness and velocity,"( n ) and, on 29 Sep. following he assisted at the defeat of the Earl of Leicester near Buiy St. Edmunds, who, with his Flemings, had invaded Suffolk. His wife, the Queen Dowager, retired in 1150 to a nunnery at AfUigam, near Alost, in Flanders, where she d. and was bur. 9 April 1151 aged about 48. He survived her 25 years and d. at Waverley Abbey, Surrey, 12 Oct. (1176) 22 Hen. II,(°) and was bur., with his father, at Wymondham Priory, Norfolk. (">) This was apparently but a confirmation to him of the Earldom op Sossex and its third penny (as well as of the Honour and Castle of Arundel) which he had enjoyed before, unless (indeed) the deed signed by him as Earl of Sussex, temp. Stephen (see p. 1 10, note " 1 "), is a forgery. Dugdale, speaking of this Earl (vol. i, p. 119) says : — "After the death of King Stephen he did not only obtain [from King Henry_II] the castle and honour of Arundel to himself and his heirs, but a confirmation of the Earldom of Sussex (for though the title of Earl was most known by Arundel and Chichester, at which places his chief residence used to be, yet it was of the county of Sussex that he was really Earl) by the krtium denariitm of the Pleas of Sussex granted to him, which was the usual way of investing such great men (in ancient, times) with the possession of any Earldom, after those ceremonies of girding with the sword and putting on the robes performed, which have ever, till of late, been thought essential to their creation." See also p. 139 of this work, note " d." (") Mr. Pym Yeatman in his "House of Arundel" argues, (p. 288,) that this activity would not be likely to belong to the husband of Queen Adelicia (who would then be at least 70) and so is confirmatory of his theory that this Earl d. before that date. (°) The Editor has adopted the usually received 'Version of this date (1176) being that of the death of the first Earl of the line of de Albini, a date, which, (judging by the age of his wife), would make hirn at that time some 73 years old or upwards. Mr. Yeatman, on the other hand, states that this (first) Earl d. 20 years previously, viz. w 1156, and that his son William, the second Earl, was the Earl who d. 1176, and that this 2nd Earl left by his wife (whom he could not have m. before 1173) an infant s. (omitted by all previous writers) William, the 3rd Earl. This theory certainly 'Imposes of a very puzzling fact, viz. that in 1176, the lands of Arundel reverted to the Lrown, when the successor, if & son of Queen Adelicia, must have been 25 years and upwards. There is however considerable difficulty in tracing Mr. Pym Yeatman 's argument, and especially in discovering on what evidence he relies for the asserted death of the first Earl in 1156. It is remarkable that Dugdale allows of only four (WBtead oifi^ Ear i 3 o{ the house of AIbmii om i ttmg the 2nd Earl William (as given in the text) and stating that the Earl who d. 1221 was s. (not grandson) of the 1st Earl. , djs account (which is clearly wrong) was followed by the Committee of the House of N H «. tllcir Re P ort on the Peerage, and consequently, though under protest, by Sir ih ' as ' On the other hand Mr. Yeatman introduces (as above stated) yet "!"* h " ) William de Albini, as Earl of Arundel, making six Earls in all of that house. tabular pedigree of these Earls (shewing the three different accounts) is annexed. 1
