Died at Grantham, Mrs. Lelly, a widow lady of that town. She was twice mother of twenty-two children. (_Gentleman's Magazine_, vol. lii. p. 309.)
Eighty-seven children by two wives: sixty-nine by first, eighteen by second. (_Gentleman's Magazine_, vol. liii. p. 753.)
Seventy-two children by two wives, and a mother of thirty-two children. (_Gentleman's Magazine_, vol. lix. pp. 733-4.) To which is appended the following note by the editor:
"The following epitaph, commemorating an instance of remarkable fecundity, is inserted by Mr. Pennant in his _Journey to Snowdon_: 'Here lyeth the body of Nicholas Hookes, of Conway, Gent., who was the forty-first child of his father, William Hookes, Esq., by Alice his wife, and the father of twenty-seven children, who died the 20th day of March, 1637.'"
It seems there can be no doubt that Richard de Clare, second Earl of Pembroke, surnamed Strongbow, was eldest son of Gilbert de Clare, first Earl of Pembroke: which last was second son of Gilbert de Tonebrugge. That Strongbow's father's name was Gilbert is proved from a charter in which he (the father) made a grant of the church of Everton to the priory of St. Neot, commencing "Gilbertus, filius G. Comes de Penbroc," &c. (See _Dugdale_.) And I find this confirmed by a valuable old pedigree in the possession of a member of my family (date _cir._ 1620), which was admitted as principal evidence, and examined, in a successful suit in the Court of Chancery, in the latter half of the last century; in which pedigree the De Clares are introduced among the "præclarissimæ affinitates." An extract would be needless, and occupy your valuable space to no purpose.
To account for the singularity mentioned by your correspondent in the charter of Strongbow, I can make but these two suggestions: either the reading is correct,--in which case the true name of the first Earl of Pembroke was _Richard Gilbert_, which, I need hardly say, is possible, notwithstanding the existence of his elder brother Richard; or, the reading is incorrect, in which case the mistake probably arose from the writer, notwithstanding he had written "Comes Ric'" previously, by a natural oversight inserting it again after "fil," intending to write, "Comes Ric' fil Gisleb'ti."