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.
Immediately after the battle, (the events of which must be known to every person who has read the English history) the earl of Leicester created Peter de Montford, one of his chief accomplices, governor of Whittington castle. Leicester also obliged the captive king to deliver Whittington with several other bordering castles, into the hands of Llewelyn ap Gryffydd, king of Wales, by a writ dated from Hereford, June 22, 1265. That cruel earl likewise, in Henry’s name, gave Llewelyn the entire sovereignity of Wales, and homage of all the barons under him. Henry, after he regained his liberty, confirmed those grants, but for what reason I have not been able to make apparent, unless money was his object, as it was done in consideration of Llewelyn giving him 30,000 marks as a recompense.
A.D. 1281.
Fulk the fourth having arrived at years of maturity, made proof of his age to Edward I. who invested him with all his patrimonial estates except Whittington, which he also obtained upon his accompanying the English monarch on his expedition against the Welsh. He behaved with such intrepid bravery, that Edward, in reward for his meritorious conduct, allowed him the liberty of a Free Warren on his lands in this manor, and likewise forgave him two hundred pounds that Fulk owed to the exchequer.
A.D. 1300.
This year the king used his influence in reconciling Fitz-Gwarine and Richard, earl of Arundel, in consequence of a quarrel prevailing at that time between these two powerful and predominant barons; but the breach was amicably adjusted by the interposition of Edward’s good offices.