"The first Earl of Arundel was never called Earl of Sussex, nor did he bear that title.... His son was the first Earl of Sussex, and he would certainly have given his father the higher title if he ever bore it. Yet in confirming his charter to Wymondham, William, Earl of Sussex, confirms the grants of his ... father, William, the venerable Earl of Arundel.... An earl could not call himself the earl of a county unless he had a grant of it, and of this, with respect to the husband of Queen Adeliza, there is no evidence" (p. 282). "That his son was called Earl of Sussex, and that he was the first earl, is equally clear" (p. 282). "The chartulary of the Abbey of Buckenham, which the first Earl of Arundel founded, preserves the distinction in the titles of himself and his son and successor already insisted upon. It was founded _tempe_ Stephen, and the founder is styled William, Count of Chichester. William, Count of Sussex, confirms the charter" (p. 284). But on the very next page he demolishes his own argument by quoting Hoveden to the effect that "Willielmus (_sic_) de Albineio filio Willielmi Comitis de _Arundel_ [Rex] dedit comitatum de _Southsex_." For here his own rule would require that if the late earl was, as he admits, Earl of _Sussex_, he would not be described as Earl of _Arundel_.[928] But, in any case, the still existing charter to Geoffrey de Mandeville (1141), which the earl attests as "Earl of Sussex" (evidence which does not stand alone), is absolutely conclusive on the subject, and simply annihilates Mr. Yeatman's attempts to deny to the husband of Queen Adeliza the possession of that title. With this there falls to the ground the argument based on that denial, viz.:— "There is another argument which appears to have been lost sight of, which proves distinctly that there was (_sic_) at least five earls, and probably six, of the name of William de Albini. The record of the 12 Henry III. which was made after the last earl of that name was dead three years proves that there were four Earls of Sussex.... Now, the first Earl of Arundel was never called Earl of Sussex, nor did he bear that title," etc. (p. 282). The above argument that the record in question proves the existence of _five_, not of four, earls thus falls to the ground. But this is by no means all. Mr. Yeatman first asserts (p. 281 _a_) that there were five Albini Earls of Arundel in all, "if indeed there were not six of them." Deducting the last earl, Hugh de Albini, this leaves us _four_ or _five_ Earl Williams in succession. Yet on the very next page he urges it (in the above passage) as "distinctly proved" that "there was (_sic_) at least _five_ earls, and probably _six_, of the name of William de Albini." And, lastly, on p. 284, he announces that "there must have been _six_"!