THE ORIGIN OF THE SHIRLEYS AND OF THE GRESLEYS. 173 



For what is his own version of that baronial pedigree? 

 " For a full account of the Albinis," we read, " the learned 

 reader is referred to the author's history of the House of 

 Arundel."* To make the point at issue clear, I must give 

 the pedigree of the Cainhoe Albinis as it appears in that work 

 (p. 81)+:— 



Niel, Viscount 



of the Cotentin 



d. at Cardiff 1074 



Henry 



of Cainhoe 



Nigel 



William 



Robert 



of Cainhoe 



d. 1 190 



Robert 

 of Cainhoe 

 ob. s. p. 13 Hen. III. 



Nigel 



.1. 

 William 



Adelina+ = Ralf 



at. Amand 



Now, Catton in Croxall descended, as Mr. Yeatman rightly 

 contends, with Cainhoe itself from Nigel, the Domesday 

 tenant, § to the St. Amands, and consequently presents no 

 difficulty. But the Gresley territory, which, according to him, 

 was held by Nigel de Albini in 1086, and should, therefore, 

 have descended in the same line, did not, as he is forced to 

 admit. For it was held, in the days of Henry I., not by 

 Henry, son of Nigel, but by William, son of Nigel. Here 

 are the two pedigrees, as to which there is no dispute : — 



* Sec. ii., p. 282. 



t It would seem that I know more even of the Albinis than Mr. Yeat- 

 man does, for I have supplied the name of Henry de Albini's wife and 

 traced the heirs of their younger son " Nigel," whose fate, he admits, is 

 "unknown" to him (p. 150), in my paper on "A D'Aubeney cadet." 

 {Ancestor, No. 12.) 



+ The true name of Ralf's wife, who was only the younger co-heiress, 

 was not Adelina, but Ascelina, as given by my critic himself on p. 174 

 of Sec. vii. 



§ In the above pedigree the first Nigel (" Niel ") is made to die in 

 1074, but on the opposite page (p. 80) we read that " Cainhoe was held 

 by Nigel de Albini at the date of Domesday," i.e., 1086 (which is correct). 



