I have been pondering a little more and feel thatHugh de Pincernamay well have just been a nickname which just happens to be the same as the ancestor of the Arundel Butlers, or it was simply noted that the cupbearer, named Hugh, bore witness... There must have been more than one Hugh the Cupbearer, as the Hugh de Pincerna, ancestor of the Butlers and Savilles is clearly not connected at all. However it does seem odd that the name Gitto would change to Hugh? I wonder if the chronicler assumed that the cupbearer was Hugh, when in fact it was Gitto? He might not have known his name, only the details of his sons etc? PS You will see that I have concluded that Cupbearer is a better translation of Pincera than butler.