(Vol. ix., p. 198.)
A SUBSCRIBER having challenged me by name to assist him in resolving his
"historic doubts," I hasten to afford him what information I possess,
conscious at the same time that I can add little or nothing that will
materially aid him in his investigation.
First, then, as to Owen Gam. This name savours strongly of the leek, both
Christian and surname being unequivocally British. _Gam_, in Welsh,
signifies the "one-eyed;" we may conclude, therefore, that this gentleman,
or one of his progenitors, had lost an eye in one of the frays common in
bygone days, and so acquired the appellation of _Gam_. A SUBSCRIBER has
omitted to give dates with his Queries, and thus leaves us in the dark as
to the precise period he refers to; still, it may interest him to know that
David Gam, a landed proprietor of some importance in Herefordshire, temp.
Henry IV. and V., who had married the sister of Owen Glyndwr, was
discovered in an attempt to assassinate his brother-in-law, the royal
chieftain; and was, in consequence, arrested {354} and confined ten years
in Owen's prison at Llansaintffraid. He was afterwards released; and
distinguished himself, together with some near relatives, as Pennant
relates, at the battle of Agincourt, where he fell, pierced with wounds,
while assisting in the rescue of his royal master King Henry. Possibly,
Owen Gam may have been a descendant of this half-hero, half-assassin.
Llewellyn Clifford, again, is a name strongly suggestive of its owner's
connexion with Cambria. If A SUBSCRIBER has exhausted the resources of the
Clifford pedigrees, it were, I suppose, useless to refer him to the
ancestry of the defunct Earls of Cumberland; and especially to that part of
it represented by Sir Roger de Clifford, of Clifford, co. Hereford, a
famous soldier in the days of Henry III. and Edward I. He accompanied the
latter monarch in his inroads into Wales, and fell in battle there, not far
from Bangor, circa 1282-3, leaving several children; one of the younger of
whom I conjecture to have been the father of the before-named Llewellyn
Clifford. After having subjugated the country, we can easily fancy the
conquerors perpetuating the event by naming certain of their posterity
after the fallen prince Llewellyn.
As for Sir William de Roas (or Ros), A SUBSCRIBER is wrong in supposing his
name to have been Ingman; for although he resided at Ingmanthorpe, co.
York, his surname, in common with that of a long line of ancestry and
descendants, was De Ros only. He was the grandson of Robert de Ros, the
founder of the two castles, Werke and Hamlake, and one of the leaders of
the baronial forces in their armed opposition to the tyrant King John.
Before closing this communication, I would suggest to A SUBSCRIBER, and to
all others propounding genealogical Queries, the absolute necessity of
affixing _dates_ to their inquiries in every possible instance; as nothing
is easier than to go astray, sometimes for half-a-dozen generations, in
fixing the identity of a solitary individual.