His grandfather, a Lorrainer, by fame was much befriended, Who Peverley’s daughter took to wife, from whom this Fulk descended; His ancient acts of chivalry in annals are recorded, Our king of England afterwards him baron made and lorded.” Fulk Fitz-Gwarine had the misfortune to be stricken with blindness in his old age. Upon his death, he was buried in the porch of Whittington church; and his remains were found there in an oak coffin three inches thick, by digging a grave in the year, 1796. He had a daughter named Eva, who was second wife to Llewelyn, king of Wales; and it was through her that Fitz-Gwarine came to know of John’s private message to Llewelyn, which I omitted to mention in its right place. I state from very good authority, that this Fulk, or to avoid confusion Fulk the second, was married to Clarice of Abbourville, but of what family she was, or when they were married, I have not been able to discover. Fitz-Gwarine, it is stated, went generally by the appellation of Proudhome, as a mark of respect to his nobility. He left behind him a son, who enjoyed his father’s estates and titles, but for no considerable time. He followed king Henry III. through all that prince’s adverse fortune, and righting in his behalf at the battle of Lewes, had the irreparable misfortune of being drowned in the act of crossing a river; leaving behind him a young son, the fourth Fitz-Gwarine. Dugdale states, that it was Fitz-Gwarine the second who was drowned at Lewes; but though, a most excellent historian, he is certainly wrong in this particular, for the following reasons: When Fitz-Gwarine the second was appointed Lieutenant of the Marches in the first year of Richard I. he at least must have been of age; and from that time to the battle of Lewes was 75 years, consequently he must have been near 100 years old; an age, at which it is highly improbable he could have been found in the field of battle. Besides, we are informed, that the Fulk who fell at Lewes, left a son in his minority, which is very unlikely to have been the case with Fulk the second at such an advanced age. Another, though not so strong as the two preceding proofs, is the certainty of Fitz-Gwarine the second being buried at Whittington; a circumstance that could hardly have taken place, if Dugdale’s statement had been correct. Though this might have happened, yet the other two are sufficient arguments to prove that the son is the person whom that author has mistaken for the father.