Aug. 13. 1853.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



155 



land, tlic phrase " old folks," or, to write it accord- 

 ing to our vernacular pronunciation, " auld fo'lc," 

 was also, and continues to be, in general and fa- 

 miliar use ; but nobody in Scotland, I dare say, 

 ever imagined that " the auld fo'k " of his or- 

 dinary acquaintance were just "old fogies," or 

 had anything whatever to do with that peculiar 

 class of men, properly so called, the keepers of the 

 royal castles. It is most remarkable, also, that 

 ■while the corrupt derivative, as Mr. Kkightley 

 says " old fogie " is, has been almost quite foi-- 

 gotten among its, having disappeared with the 

 men that bore the name of fogies, the parent form, 

 as he would have " old folks " or " auld fo'k " to 

 bo, sliould remain in full vigour and common use, 

 as part of our living speech. In a word, from all 

 I can learn it would appear that the word "fogie," 

 in its most general acceptation, means by itself, 

 without the " old," an old soldier ; and that " old 

 fogie " is only a tautological form, arising from ig- 

 norance of its meaning. Be its origin, however, 

 what it may, I have no hesitation now in express- 

 ing my conviction that Mr. Keigutley's etymo- 

 logy of the word is utterly groundless. J. L. 

 City Chambers, Edinburgh. 



DESCENDANTS OF JOHN OF GAUNT. 



(Vol. vii., p. 628.) 



All persons will, I think, agree with Mb. War- 

 den in his very just complaint of the carelessness 

 with which many of the English Peerages are com- 

 piled. It would be a task, little short of a new 

 compilation, to correct the eiTors and inaccuracies 

 with which many of these productions abound, the 

 less pardonable now, because of the facilities 

 afforded for consulting the Public Records, should 

 even our older genealogists, without such aids, be 

 in some degree excused ; but as Mr. Warden in- 

 vites, by a personal appeal, the rectification of a 

 chronological error which has crept into all the 

 Peerages, founded upon the authority of Dugdale, 

 respecting the period of the death of Thomas, 

 sixth Lord Fauconberge, I am induced to send 

 you a few Notes, whicli a recent examination of 

 the Records in the Tower of London has supplied. 



When the facts are made patent, there will be 

 no need to dwell upon the inconsistencies pointed 

 out by Mr. Warden, and the alleged incompati- 

 bility in regard to age for an union between two 

 persons of some note in family history, the son of 

 the first Earl of Westmoreland and his Countess 

 Joan and the daughter and heir of the Lord Fau- 

 conberge, who formed an alliance from which the 

 co-heirs are, it is believed, represented at this 

 day. 



The birth of William Nevill, Lord Faucon- 

 berge, afterwards created Earl of Kent, second 

 son of a marriage which took place early in, or 



just before, the year 1397, may be assigned to in 

 or about the year 1400; and we shall presently 

 see that his future wife was born on the 18th of 

 October, 1406, and married to him before the 1st 

 of May, 1422. 



Walter, fifth Lord Fauconberge, died on the 

 29th of September, 1362 (Esc. 36 Edw. ILL, 1st 

 part, No. 77.), leaving a sou Thomas (issue of his 

 first marriage with Matilda, sister and co-heir of 

 Sir William de Pateshull, Kt., Esc. 33 Edw. IIL, 

 1st part, No. 40., and Hot Orig., 34 Edw. IIL, 

 Ro. 2.), then a minor, under eighteen years of 

 age. 



Thomas, who was born cii'ca 1345, was already 

 in 1362 married to his first wife Constancia, by 

 whom he does not appear to have left any issue 

 surviving. His was rather an eventful life ; some 

 Incidents not noticed by Dugdale will be briefly 

 cited. On the 10th of August, 1372, being then 

 a knight or chivaler, he had letters of protection 

 on going abroad in the king's service, in the com- 

 pany of Thomas de Beauchamp, Earl of \A'arwick 

 {Rot. Franc, 46 Edw. III.). Here it seems he 

 forgot his allegiance, and having gone over to the 

 French side was branded " tanquam proditor 

 domini Regis Angliaj " (Esc. 5 Ric. II., No. 67., 

 6 Ric. II., No. 180., and 11 Ric. IL, No. 59.). 

 Can this have been the origin of the error In as- 

 signing his death to the year 1376? lie was, 

 however, yet living in 1401, as in that year he 

 succeeded to the reversion of the estates which his 

 step-mother Isabella (a sister of Sir John Bygot, 

 Chivaler), the widow of AValter Lord Faucon- 

 berge, held in dower (Esc. 2 Hen. IV., No. 47.).. 

 Not long after this, and apparently a fevr years 

 only vbefore his death, and when somewhat ad- 

 vanced in years, he married a second time. I 

 have not been able to ascertain to what family his 

 wife Joan, or Johanna, belonged, but she survived 

 her husband only a short time. About the period 

 of his marriage, too (9th August, 1405), an oc- 

 currence of some importance to his de.-^cendants 

 is recorded, namely, a grant by the king to Sir 

 Thomas Bromflete and Sir Robert Hilton, of the 

 custody and governance of all his estates In Eng- 

 land, which had come Into the king's hands " ra- 

 tione Ideocia? Thomae Fauconberge, Chivaler," to 

 hold during the life of the said Thomas. This 

 grant, however, was in the following yeai*, on 

 24th December, 1406, revoked and annulled, be- 

 cause the said Thomas had proved before the 

 king and his council in Chancery, " quod Ipse 

 Sanaa discretionis hactenus fuerit et ad tunc ex- 

 istat," and he was thereupon re-admitted to his 

 estates which had descended to him "jure haare- 

 ditario post mortem Walterl Fauconberge patrls 

 sui, cujus haeres ipse est" (Rot. Pat., p. 1., 

 8 Hen. IV., m. 16.). He had only a few months 

 before (15th February, 1406) obtained from the 

 king livery of an estate which had come to him ia 



