^{page 349 note *} Figured in Surrey Archæological Collections, iv. 237.

^{pate 350 note *} The legend is scarcely to be read in either impression of the seal. It is a posy; but I can read no more than …… LOSE YET LELE.

^{page 351 note *} Variously spelled Isily, Isli, Isle, from, which last form it has been Latinised De Insula.

page 351 note † As to these families of Isly and Freningham, see Topographer and Genealogist, i. 516, iii. 179, seqq. See also Hasted, vol. i., under Chevening, and Sundridge.

page 351 note ‡ The tincture of the fess it will be noticed differs from that on the coat of John the grandfather, which is vairy. This looks like a mark of cadency. Yet from the circumstance of the family estate of Sundridge having gone to this Roger, he would appear to be of the elder branch. It is observable that the pedigree in Top. and Genealogist, i. 516, differs from that in vol. iii. pp. 182, 196. The former gives a brother John to this Roger, whose son, another John, is identified as the heir to William son of Roger and to John de Freningham, while the latter makes John the heir to be son of John, a brother of William. This last statement is probably more correct.