The Origin of The Family of Aubigny of Gainhoe

Summary

In the first quarto volume (1922) of the Society's Memoirs, p. 95, Dr. Fowler went at some length into the early history of Aubigny of Cainhoe, and added at p. 112 a chart pedigree of the family. Put shortly, the conclusion at which he arrived was that Nigel d’Aubigny, the Domesday tenant in chief of Cainhoe, was the son of Roger d’Aubigny, a benefactor of the abbey of Lessay in Normandy and the father of three sons, Henry the eldest who succeeded him at Cainhoe, William who became the butler (pincerna) of King Henry I and was the ancestor of the earls of Arundel, and Nigel the ancestor of the later family of Mowbray. Since Dr. Fowler wrote, there has appeared in 1936 the ninth volume of the new edition of “The Complete Peerage,” in which at pages 366-368 under the title ‘Mowbray’ the editors deal with the Aubigny ancestry of the earls of Arundel and of the Mowbrays. The descent which they give is obviously the result of special research and appears to be fully proved, and since it is inconsistent with the previously received pedigree of Aubigny of Cainhoe a reconsideration of the latter seems to be called for. In what follows my indebtedness to the writings of Dr. Fowler will be abundantly apparent, but in addition I have had the great advantage of discussing the problem with him, and I understand him to agree generally with the view here put forward. The points at issue will be most easily apprehended by turning to Pedigrees 1, 2, 3 at the end of this paper, in which I have reproduced that part of the chart pedigree in Quarto Volume I which is relevant to the present question, together with certain additions and corrections enclosed in square brackets, most of which are derived from “The Complete Peerage” and for which I will now state shortly the evidence.

William d’Aubigny, the first, married a sister of Grimald de Plessis who gave Danvou and Bougy (Normandy, dep. Calvados) in marriage with her. Since Grimald suffered forfeiture and lifelong imprisonment as a penalty for his rebellion in 1048, the marriage must have been previous to that date.