76
NOTES AND QUERIES.
x. JULY 26, 1902.
largely solves the difficulty mentioned. For
this successful issue I am much indebted to
the kind offices of MR. ALFRED T. EVERITT
and MR. JOHN RADCLIFFE, two of the most
valued contributors to ' N. & Q.'
1. It appears that the 'Dictionary of National Biography ' is wrong in stating that William de la Pole, first Duke of Suffolk (murdered 1450), by his wife Alice Chaucer had only one child, John (i.e., the second duke). For :
a. The ' Catalogue of Honor,' by Robert Glover, 1610, p. 537, says the issue of William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk, and Alice Chaucer was John, afterwards duke, and William de la Pole.
b. Burke speaks of John, second duke, as having been the eldest son of William, first duke.
c. The late Mr. Charles Frost, F.S.A., in his ' Notices relating to the Early History of the Town and Port of Hull,' 1827 a work of much local value says that William, first duke, and his wife Alice Chaucer, had three children : John, second duke, William de la Pole (who married Katharine, third daughter of William, second Lord Stourton), and Anna de la Pole.
2. It appears that Mr. J. Pym Yeatman, in the ' Early Genealogical History of the House of Arundel.' is also incorrect in stating that Elizabeth de la Pole, who married Henry, Lord Morley, was the daughter of William, first duke. For :
a. The inquisition taken on the last day of October, 5 Henry VII., 1489, after the death of Henry, Lord Morley, states
"the said Henry took to wife at Wyngfeld, co. Suffolk, Elizabeth, daughter of John, Duke of Suffolk,
but afterwards died without issue the aai d Hen ry
Lovell, Lord Morley, died 13th June last. Alice, wife of William Parker, Knt., aged 22 and more, is his sister and heir."
b. Banks, in his ' Extinct Baronage,' states that Elizabeth, who married Henry Lovel, Lord Morley, was the youngest daughter of John, second Duke of Suffolk ; also that
" Elizabeth survived her husband many years ; and though a woman of more than common beauty, resisted all temptation of a second marriage, and died in the fifty-second year of her age ; and lies buried in the church of Hallingbury Morley, in Essex."
The husband, Henry Lovel, Lord Morley, who was born in 1465, had died in 1489 without issue.
c. The late Mr. Charles Frost also stated that his researches proved that "Eliza- beth de la Pole, died s.p. aged 51," who " married Henry Lovel, second and last Lord Morley of that surname, died s.p. ," was the
youngest daughter of John, second Duke of
Suffolk. RONALD DIXON.
The writer in the ' D.N.B.' may have strong evidence for his statement that William de la Pole, the first Duke of Suffolk, and Alice Chaucer his wife, had only one child John, but the 'Catalogue of Honor,' by Robert Glover (edited by Thomas Milles), 1610, at p. 537, says their issue was two sons : John, who succeeded his father in the dukedom, ana William de la Pole. Burke, writing on the same person, seems to agree with Glover, and ends thus : "All the duke's honours, &c., de- volved on his eldest son John." There is evidently an error in Mr. Yeatman's work, or it has been misread in perusal, for it was Elizabeth, youngest daughter of John de la Pole, the second Duke of Suffolk, and Lady Elizabeth Plantagenet, daughter of Richard, Duke of York, and sister of King Edward IV., his wife, who married Henry Lovel, Lord Morley. JOHN RADCLIFFE.
"BARRACKED" (9 th S. ix. 63, 196, 232, 355, 514). As to larrakin, it is remarkable that none of your correspondents has referred to Prof. Skeat's ' Concise Dictionary ' (1901), s.v. ' Lark ' (2), wherein 7 th S. vii. 345 is quoted. It appears still questionable whether the Irish rolled r does not account for the form as soundly as the Professor's lavrocklarrick. To the etymological student, however, far greater interest arises in the fact that Prof. Skeat derives " to lark " in the above edition from the note C? or movement) of the bird, and in his 1887 edition from A.-S. ldcan,to
Elay, sport. Here r is treated as intrusive >r the phonetic laak, and referred to are A.-S. lac, sport, play ; Icel. leikr ; Goth, laiks, dance, laikan, to skip for joy, &c. A.-S. Idcan appears very early ('Gnomic Verses') of the soaring of birds, it is true ; but it cannot surely be derived from Idwerce, a lark (bird), the Gothic equivalent of which we do not know. "Laike," "layke," vb. and sb., sport or play, so common in Mid. Eng. and obviously from Idcan, seem to have dis- appeared, to be succeeded by the modern Eng. " lark," as to which we await informa- tion from the ' N.E D.' H. P. L.
[The ' H.E.D.' says of lark, to frolic : " The origin is somewhat uncertain. Possibly it may represent
the northern Lake, v On the other hand, it is
quite as likeljtthat the word may have originated in some allusion to Lark, sb."]
J. QUANT, 23 MAY, 1791 (9 th S. ix. 486). The following is not an answer to A. C. H.'s query, but it may interest him. A search through the Gentleman's Magazine or the ' Annual Register ' of the perioa named in the
