n s. x. SEPT. 12, i9u.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
213
estates." This is identical with the enfeoff-
ment deed, 6 Edward III., from which I
ha.v freely quoted. The deed deals with
a portion only of the estates.
No. 3. An excerpt from the same series, 34 Edw. III. : " the land and heir of John Glamorgan are in the hands of the King." Th's was so by reason of Nicholas, Sir John de Glamorgan's last surviving son, being " fatuus." His estates were taken into th King's hand at an even earlier date than Ar THOMAS supplies, viz., 28 Edward III., and . doubtless for the same reason, Thomas Haket in 1341 had been appointed guardian.
The conclusions drawn by AP THOMAS from the references quoted by him require to be modified :
(a) " that Sir John's first wife was Eleanor " should read was Amy.
(b) " that he [Sir John] married Alice shortly after 26 Jan., 1332," should read prior to 1332, since Denise, a daughter of the second marriage, was married when her mother died in 1340.
(c) " that Nicholas, the idiot third son, was his brother John's heir." There is strong presumptive evidence that John, the eldest son, died vita patris after 1332, and before 1337. According to Harl. MS. 4120, " Peter, son and heir of Sir John de Gla- morgan, took possession of Brympton D'Evercy, co. Somerset," and did fealty for East Standen and La Wode manors, 12 Edw. III. c. 1338-9 (Rot. Orig.).
(d) " that consequently Peter, the second son, predeceased his elder brother," is not in accordance with the statement made in the Plac. Cor. Beg. that Peter died 17 Edw. III., 1344. It is, however, probable that he died c. 1341.
JOHN L. WHITEHEAD, M.D. Ventnor.
EPITAPH : CHRISTCHTTRCH, HAMPSHIRE ( 1 1
S. x. 171). The Rev. Thomas Perkins, in his
account of the Priory contained in " Bell's
Cathedral Series " (1899), p. 90, says :
"It is said by some that Cromwell was at Christchurch, and dug up some lead coffins to make bullets for his soldiers, and flung the bodies put of ten such coffins into one grave ; but this is manifestly incorrect. Oliver Cromwell was never at Christchurch, though Thomas Cromwell probably was, and here, as elsewhere, the two have been confounded. .. .But neither of them h.-id anything to do with this tomb, nor .were the Parliamentary forces guilty of tampering with the coffins of the dead in the parish burying- grouiid at Christchurch. The very date precludes tin idea, for the civil war did not begin till more than fifteen months after the date carved on this e tone ; and we may give the Boundheads credit
for more sense than to be digging up coffins to-
make their bullets with, when there was an
abundance of lead to be had for the stripping on
the roof of the Priory Church. A far more prob-
able explanation is that which states that the
ten bodies here interred were those of ten ship-
wrecked sailors, who were first buried on the
cliffs near the spot where they were washed ashore ;
but the lord of the manor, when he heard thereof,
waxed exceeding wroth, and a strife ensued be-
tween him and Henry Rogers, Mayor of Christ-
church, the former insisting on their removal to
consecrated ground, the latter objecting to the
removal, probably on the ground of expense ;
but in the end the lord of the manor had his way-
But the mayor, to save the cost of ten separate
graves, had them all buried in one, and placed
this inscription over their remains as a protest
against the conduct of the lord of the manor in
moving their remains from their first resting-
place."
A. R. BAYLEY.
This epitaph is given in Pettigrew's ' Chronicles of the Tombs,' with the following note to it :
" There is a tradition that ten men were killed' by the caying-in of a gravel pit in which they were working, but that does not explain ' by men of strife.' "
Others have thought it may allude to the days of the Civil War, when the bodies of ten men may have been exhumed and sxis- pended on trees or gallows ; afterwards being a second time buried, the ten 'would be placed in one grave.
ARCHIBALD SPARKE, F.R.S.L.
Bolton.
MEILER FITZ-HENRY AND ROBERT FITZ- STEPHEN (US. x. 161). The best authority for the name of Girald de Barri's mother should be Girald himself ; and he, in his somewhat glorified autobiography,' De Rebus a se Gestis,' tells us (book i. chap, i.) he was the youngest son of William de Barri by Angharad his wife, daughter of Nesta, the daughter of Prince Rhys ap Tewdwr of South Wales. Information as to himself and his relations he gives in detail in book ii. chap. ix. of the same work, where he relates how, at a feast given at the bishop's house in Hereford by Baldwin, Archbishop of Canterbury, to "Prince Rhys ap Griffith (ap Rhys ap Tewdwr), the Prince spoke of the author " and those called the Giraldines " as descending from his aunt Nesta, amila mea, the sister of his father Griffith. There- upon Giraldus names in a spirit of pride how in castles, towns, and palace the sons of Nesta had prospered in Pembroke, and these sons he names as follows : William fitz Gerald the eldest, Robert fitz Stephen, Henry fitz Roy (Regis), Maurice, William
