Page:Archaeologia volume 38 part 1.djvu/172

148 Italy; but eventually returned to his own country, and died in 1397. It seems to me far more likely that this Richard, who was living and of full age in 1442, should have been the son of John Duke of Bedford who was born in 1390, than of Ingelram de Coucy, who does not, I believe, appear to have been in England after 1369, which was 73 years before the date of the conveyance to Coburley and Burghille. The fact of John Duke of Bedford not having married till 1423, when he was 33 years of age, makes the supposition of an illicit connexion of which Richard may have been the issue by no means improbable. So much reason is there, in my opinion, for adopting this view of the name, Richard Bastard of Bedford, that, had the deed exhibited been in other respects of an ordinary kind, I should have thought the occurrence of this name in it rendered it worthy of being brought to the notice of the Society, as a contribution to the genealogy of the House of Lancaster.

In conclusion, I have to acknowledge my obligations to Mr. J. J. Howard for all the information that I have derived from the archives of the Armourers' Company, specially for the opportunity of inspecting the various deeds to which I have referred. The inrolment of the charter of the guild in the original language I examined at the Record Office.