Was there in fact any real ground for the suggestion of Lord Fauconberge's idiocy? This is one of the gravest imputations that can be cast upon a family, and it is a most unpardonable presumption to make it lightly and without justice; but it is somewhat singular that nearly fifty years afterwards, his only daughter and heir, born at the very period when this charge was being refuted, and when he himself was upwards of sixty years of age, became the subject of a commission issued to inquire of her alleged imbecility and idiocy. The commissioners sat at Gisburn in Cleveland in the county of York, on the 28th of March, 1463, and it was then found by the inquest that "Johanna Fauconberge nuper comitissa de Kent, fatua et ydeota est, et a nativitate sua semper fuit, ita quod se terras et tenementa sua neque alia bona sua regere scit, aut aliquo tempore scivit:" the jury also returned that she had not alienated any lands or tenements since the death of William, late Earl of Kent, her late husband. That Joan, the wife of Sir Edward Bethom, Kt., thirty years old and upwards, Elizabeth, the wife of Richard Strangeways, Esq., twenty-eight years old and upwards, and Alice, wife of John Conyers, Esq., twenty-six years old and upwards, were the daughters and heirs, as well of the said William the late earl, as of the said Joan the late countess. (Esc. 3 Edw. IV., No. 33.) Thomas Lord Fauconberge died on the 9th of September, 1407, leaving the above-mentioned Joan, or Johanna, his daughter and heir, an infant of one year old. (Esc. 9 Hen. IV., No. 19.; see also Esc. 9 Hen. V., No. 42.) His widow Joan had assignment of dower after her husband's death on 20th October, 1408, and she herself died in the following year, on the 4th of March, 1409. (Esc. 10 Hen. IV., No. 15.) A later inquisition, however, taken on 1st of April, 1422 (Esc. 10 Hen. V., No. 22ᵃ.), states that the said Joan, widow of Sir Thomas Fauconberge, Chivaler, died on the 23rd of June, 1411. The first date is most probably the correct one, as a fact would be more likely to be accurately stated by a jury impanneled a few months only after the event recorded, than by an inquest taken after an interval of twelve or thirteen years.