Augustus, Elector of Saxony, the duke had three more sons, only one of whom, Joachim Ernest, left issue, and his male line became extinct in 1761. The descendants in the male line of Christian III., King of Denmark, therefore resolve themselves, first, into the line of Schleswig Holstein Sonderburg Augustenberg, represented by Duke Ernest Gonther, who is the heir male of that monarch and head of the House of Oldenburg; and, secondly, into that of Schleswig Holstein Sonderburg Glücksburg, represented by Duke Frederick Ferdinand. The Kings of Denmark and Greece and our Princess of Wales belong to this branch of the family. King Frederick I. had two wives, viz., Anne, daughter of John, Elector of Brandenburg (she died in 1514, before her husband became king), and Sophia, daughter of Bogislas, Duke of Pomerania. His successor, Christian III., was his only son by his first wife. By Sophia he had three sons, of whom the second, Adolphus, Duke of Holstein Gottorp, alone left issue. Duke Adolphus died Oct. 1, 1586, having married Christina, daughter of Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, and left four sons, viz., (1) Frederick, (2) Philip, (3) John Adolphus, and (4) John Frederick, Bishop of Lubeck, who died s.p. in 1634. The eldest succeeded his father, and died s.p. in 1587. The next brother, Philip, who then became duke, also died s.p. in 1596. The third son, John Adolphus, succeeded him. He died March 31, 1616, having married the Princess Augusta of Denmark, daughter of King Frederick II. (and sister of our Queen Anne, wife of James I.), by whom he left three sons. The eldest, Frederick, succeeded him as Duke of Holstein Gottorp, the second, Adolf, died s.p. in 1631, and the third, John, died in 1655, leaving an only surviving son, John Augustus, who died s.p. in 1686. Duke Frederick died Aug. 10, 1659, leaving by his wife, Mary Elizabeth, daughter of John George I., Elector of Saxony, two sons (the only survivors of eight), viz., Christian Albert and Augustus Frederick, who died s.p. in 1698. The elder of these, Christian Albert, succeeded his father as duke. He died Dec. 27, 1694, having married the Princess Frederica Amelia, second daughter of Frederick III., King of Denmark (and sister of Prince George of Denmark, the Consort of Queen Anne of England). By her he had two sons, viz., Frederick, who succeeded him as Duke of Holstein Gottorp, and Christian Augustus, of whom presently. Frederick (called the Fourth) was killed at the Battle of Klissow, July 19, 1702. By his wife, Hedwig Sophia, eldest daughter of Charles XI., King of Sweden, he left an only son, Charles Frederick, his successor, who married the Grand Duchess Anne of Russia, eldest daughter of Peter the Great, and became the founder of the present imperial house of Russia. His only son was proclaimed czar, by the title of Peter III., in 1672, upon the death of the Empress Elizabeth. The great-great-grandson and representative of Peter III. at the present time, as every one knows, is His Imperial Majesty Alexander III., Czar of all the Russias, and every member of the imperial house (including H.R. and I.H. the Duchess of Edinburgh) is descended from Charles Frederick, Duke of Holstein Gottorp, who died Jan. 18, 1739. Prince Christian Augustus, the second and youngest son of Duke Christian Albert (who died in 1694), was made regent of Holstein upon the death of his brother in 1702. He died April 25, 1726, having married Albertina Frederica, daughter of Frederick Magnus, Margrave of Baden Durlack, by whom he had six sons. The three elder, viz., (1) Charles, (2) Adolphus Frederick, and (3) Frederick Augustus, became successively Bishops of Lubeck. Charles died s.p. in 1772, having resigned the see to his brother Adolphus Frederick in 1727, the latter being then seventeen years of age. This prince was elected King of Sweden in 1751, upon the death of Frederick of Hesse, and was succeeded on the throne in 1771 by his eldest son, Gustavus III., the chivalrous monarch who endeavoured to rescue Louis XVI. and Queen Marie Antoinette from their fate, and who himself fell beneath the hand of the assassin in 1792. He married the Princess Sophia Magdalene of Denmark, the granddaughter of King George II. of England, and by her had an only surviving son, who succeeded him as Gustavus IV. The new sovereign was, however, forced to abdicate in 1809 in favour of his uncle Charles, the only surviving brother of King Gustavus III. This prince reigned as Charles XIII. until Feb. 5, 1818, when he died without issue, and the crowns of Sweden and Norway passed to the present reigning house of Bernadotte. H. MURRAY LANE, Chester Herald. (To be continued.) incident, described in a paragraph which appeared TWICE KNIGHTED. The following singular originally in Truth and is now going the round of the daily papers, should be duly recorded in 'N. & Q.': invested Lord Herschell with the Grand Cross of the occasions the Queen is always very rapid in her moveBath in the drawing-room after dinner. On these ments, and Lord Herschell having sunk on his knee to be invested, he received the honour of knighthood' before looked the fact that Lord Herschell was knighted in any one could interfere. The Queen had quite over1880, on his appointment to be Solicitor General, so that there was no necessity whatever for his again going through that ordeal. It is probably the first time during the present reign that a man has been twice knighted." "At Windsor Castle on a recent evening the Queen Not only is this the first time during the pre sent reign that such an incident has occurred, but-forde in Domesday, and all are spelt ford in the I am inclined to think that it is a circumstance Plantagenet documents, though in three cases the altogether unique in the annals of knighthood. In alternative spelling forth has crept in before the end the case of knights promoted to the rank of knightsbannerets, a second accolade "under the banner" probably would be required; but this can hardly be regarded as identical with the foregoing. Moreover, if I mistake not, no bannerets have been made now for nearly, or quite, three centuries. W. D. PINK. Leigh, Lancashire. "EAVESDROPPER."-Here is a good instance of of the way in which error is rapidly propagated. The following passage is taken from Chums, which, I believe, has a large circulation among boys : 66 Eavesdropper......The following account is given of the origin of the term eavesdropper.' At the revival of Masonry in 1717, a curious punishment was inflicted upon a man who listened at the door of a masonic meeting in order to hear its secrets. He was summarily sentenced To be placed under the eaves of an outhouse while it was raining hard, till the water ran in under the collar of his coat and out at his shoes.' The penalty was inflicted on the spot, and the name has continued ever since."-Vol. i. p. 536. Alas for the truth of this assertion! Shakespeare uses the word in 'King Richard III., V. iii. 221 : Under our tents I'll play the eaves-dropper. Probably the N. E. D.' has an earlier quotation for the use of the word. The origin of the term for a listener outside is sufficiently obvious. F. C. BIRKBECK TERRY. [The earliest date given in the 'N. E. D.' is 1487.] of this period. It is only when we come to the Tudor times that the form -forth becomes more usual than ford. The date of the change can sometimes be detected. Thus Spofforth is spelt ford all through the Plantagenet and the early Tudor period, we have -ford in 1535, -forth in 1545, -ford again in 1587, and-forth in 1676. Rufforth, again, is invariably -ford in the Plantagenet time, but the spelling forth occurs in the time of Henry VII., and in the later years of Elizabeth we have "Rufforth alias Rufforde." We have "Ampleforthe alias Ampleforde" in 1591, but before that date I have only found -ford. It is worthy of note that in many cases the corrupt spelling forth, which crept in about the middle of the sixteenth century, has now given way to the more correct Domesday form. Thus, in the case of Aberford, Castleford, Bradford, Fulford, and Milford, we have returned to the earlier forms, though we find Aberforth, Bradforth, Castleforth, Fulfirth and Milforth as late as 1676. I cannot agree with PROF. SKEAT as to the small value of the Domesday forms. We have an instance in the case of Brinsworth, which is called Brinesford in Domesday, a correct form, as I find Brinsford or Brinsforth down to the seventeenth century. Without the aid of Domesday who would have ventured to conjecture that Kippax meant the "market ash," Burdale the "broad dale," or that Butterwick was "elder tree wood"? In Domesday there are regular transmutations of letters, and when these are once understood it is "FORTH" AND "FORD." (See 8th S. iii. 410.) not so very difficult to restore the old Englisk -There are in the north of England a number of spellings. Thus Churchebi or Cherchebi regularly names in forth, which in Domesday are invariably represents the modern Kirkby or Kirby, and represented by ford or forde. PROF. SKEAT, if Hotun normally represents Hutton, while torp and I understand him aright, considers that the Domes-burg are now thorpe and borough or brough. Of day forms are a very poor guide" to the etymo- course, there are downright blunders; but the logy, as compared with the modern English spell-wonder is that, under the circumstances of the ing, and he assigns as a reason for this conclusion compilation, they are so few. that "th was a sound which the Anglo-French "CROSIER " scribe could not pronounce." In all these cases Fallow has just directed my attention to an OF AN ARCHBISHOP.-Mr. T. M. the Domesday form ford can be proved to be right, example of the wrong use of the word crosier, the present spelling forth being usually quite which, from its extreme rarity and early date, is a modern innovation. Among the names to be con- worth noting. It is in the letterpress accompanysidered we have Ampleforth, Dishforth, Dunsforth, Garforth, Gateforth, Hartforth, Hackforth, Rufing A New General Atlas,' London, 1721, under forth, Spofforth, Stainforth, and Yafforth, all in Dol, in Brittany,Yorkshire, and they also occur in Durham and Lancashire. 66 We can trace the spelling of these names by means of a series of official documents, such as the Inquest of 1284, the Inquisitions of Knights' Fees of 1302, the Poll Tax Returns of 1379, the Nomina Villarum of 1416, the Feet of Fines of the Tudor period, and the Villare Anglicum of 1676. All the fifteen Yorkshire names in -forth are spelt-ford or ISAAC TAYLOR. "The Bishop has the Title of Count, and carries an Archbishop's Crosier because formerly the Metropolis [sic] of the Province." Bp. Hatfield's Hall, Durham. J. T. F. ROMAN BELL.-All of us who are interested in bells and bell-lore must be grateful to 'N. & Q.' for the great treasure of information on these subjects that has been stored within its pages. I would ask of you to find a place for the following notice of a Roman bell. Perhaps some reader of 'N. & Q.' in Rome will send you a full copy of the inscription: "The Osservatore Romano informs its readers that one of the veteran bells of St. Peter's, historically known as 'the Sermon Bell,' having suffered from the severe frosts of the past winters, has cracked, and has been taken down from the belfry and deposited in the vestibule of the sacristy, awaiting its ultimate destination in the Lateran Museum. This bell was cast in 1288 by legacy of a certain Riccardo, a notary in the reign of Pope Nicholas IV., and was at first destined for the Church of S. Thomas in Formis on the Coelian Hill, whence it was transported to St. Peter's. A Latin inscription round the bell records the above, and there is the name of the maker: Guidottus Pisanus me fecit."Tablet, April 1. EDWARD PEACOCK. HERRING PIE.-The revival by the Mayor of Gloucester of the custom of sending a lamprey pie to the sovereign has recently attracted a great amount of attention, and will no doubt be noticed in the columns of 'N. & Q.' At this time, therefore, it may not be amiss to draw attention to the custom which once existed at Norwich of annually sending to the king herring pies. And at the same time I should be glad if any correspondent will inform me when was the last occasion on which the custom was observed. I addressed the question some time ago to a prominent official of the city, but he was unable to give me any information on that portion of the subject. The account of the custom will be found in Blomefield's 'Norfolk,' vol. iii. pp. 375-6. He says: "The rent of herring pies is the ancient fee farm of the city before it was incorporated, when it was a great place of fishing, before the foundation of Yarmouth, and is still [1741] paid by the Sheriffs to the King; the city being now in the possession of the Manor of Cartleton, which by its tenure is to carry the pasties to the Court." In 1673 the pies were twenty-four in number, and were seasoned in the following manner: half a pound of ginger, half a pound of pepper, a quarter of a pound of cinnamon, one ounce of cloves, an ounce of long pepper, half an ounce of grains of paradise, and half an ounce of galangals. These pies were to be taken to the king's house wherever he was in England, and for his trouble the bearer of them was to receive "six white loaves, six dishes of meat out of the king's kitchen, one flaggon of wine, one flaggon of beer, one truss of hay, one pricket of wax, and six tallow candles." In 1629 the mayor and sheriffs received a letter of complaint on various grounds, and they were requested to give no further cause of complaint, as you would avoid further trouble." The letter continues: "First, you do not send them according to your tenure, of the first new herrings that are taken, Secondly, you do not cause them to be well baked in good and strong pastye, as they ought to be that they may endure the carriage the better. Thirdly, whereas you should by your tenure bake in these pasties six score herrings, at the least, being the great hundreth, which does require five to be put into the pye at the least, we find but fower herrings to be in diverse of them. Fourthly, the number of pyes which you sent at this time, wee finde to be fewer than have be sent heretofore, and diverse of them And lastly, we understand, the also much broken. bringer of them was constrained to make three several journeys to you before he could have them, whereas it seemeth he is bound to come but once." Upon which they promised more caution for the future, and the subject dropped. PAUL BIERLEY. "INKHORNIZE."-This word is not given by any of the glossarists. "Ink-horn terms "9 was a common expression for affected and pedantic language. Thus, Churchyard's 'Choice,' sig. Ee 1: As ynkhorne termes smell of the schoole. But I have never seen the word inkhornize used, except in the old Martin-Marprelate pamphlet ascribed to John Lyly, 'Pappe with an Hatchet,' where we find :— SOLOMON C. EVESKE. -The Close Roll of 43 Hen. III. contains an entry, thus summarized : "Acquittance to William Agoyllun, Constable of the Tower of London, for 50l. paid into the wardrobe, being money which belonged to Solomon, a Jew of London." Solomon C. Eveske, brother of the Chief Rabbi of the period, was continually immured in the Tower. Soon after this date he was again embroiled with the Crown, but fled to France. He thenceforward appears on the rolls as "Utlagatus.' M. D. DAVIS. THE FAMILY OF SIR THOMAS MORE.-Some years ago MR. ALDIS WRIGHT communicated to the public through 'N. & Q.' some curious evidence relating to the family of Judge More, the father of Sir Thomas More, by which the date of the birth of the latter (Feb. 7, 1478) was ascertained, and it was shown that he had two brothers, John, born in 1480, and Edward, in 1481. More's earlier biographers had assumed that he had no brothers, and his latest biographer, Mr. Bridgitt ('Life of Sir Thomas More,' London, 1891, p. 3) infers that John and Edward probably died in infancy. It may be interesting to some of your readers to observe that it appears by the correspondence of Erasmus that one of More's brothers was alive in 1512. In a letter, dated Nov. 18 (1511), and re ceived by Erasmus at Cambridge from Andreas Ammonius (not yet Latin Secretary to Henry VIII.), who was living in London and had lately been staying at More's house, the writer acknowledges the receipt of a letter from Erasmus brought him by John More ('Erasmi Epist.,' viii. 25). And in a letter of Erasmus to Ammonius, dated from Cambridge Nov. 27, 1512, Erasmus encloses a manuscript of which he wishes Ammonius to make a fair copy, or if he cannot conveniently do it, to ask More to give it to his brother to transcribe, complaining that at Cambridge (O Academiam !) no tolerable writers were to be found at any price ('Erasmi Epist.,' viii. 6). I do not remember to have met with any mention of the same person in other letters; but we may fairly infer from these that John More, the second son of Judge More, then more than thirty years of age, was living in 1512, and acting as a sort of clerk or secretary to his more distinguished brother. Not having the edition of Leclerc to refer to, I have given references to the folio volume of Erasmus's letters printed in London in 1642. F. M. NICHOLS. [See 4th S. ii. 365, 422, 449; iii. 266.] Queries. We must request correspondents desiring information on family matters of only private interest to affix their names and addresses to their queries, in order that the answers may be addressed to them direct. SIR BASIL BROOKE.-Were there two, or three, contemporary knights of this name in the seventeenth century? Metcalfe's 'Book of Knights' seems to name three, knighted respectively at Belvoir Castle on April 23, 1603; in Cornwall on May 1, 1604; and at Dublin on Feb. 2, 1616/17. So far, however, I have been able to trace but two only, namely, (1) Sir Basil Brooke, of Madeley, Shropshire, the representative of one of the leading Roman Catholic families of that county; (2) Sir Basil Brooke, of Brooke Manor, Donegal, one of the Commissioners for the settlement of Ulster. This last was clearly the Dublin knight of 1617. He died in 1633, and was ancestor of Sir Henry Brooke, of Colebrooke, Fermanagh, created a baronet in 1822. In what way, if at all, the two Sir Basils were related does not appear. An article upon Sir Basil Brooke, of Madeley, in the 'Dict. of Nat. Biog.,' states that he was knighted "at Highgate" on May 1, 1604. Unless the knights of 1603 and 1604 were identical, this date appears to be an error, the Sir Basil Brooke who was knighted at Belvoir Castle in April, 1603, being expressly described as of Salop." Who, then, was the knight dubbed in May, 1604, "at Highgate " according to the 'Dict. of Nat. Biog.,' "in Cornwall" says Metcalfe s' Book of Knights'? Sir Basil Brooke, of Madeley, is a somewhat historical personage. He was son of John Brooke, of Madeley, and Anne, eldest daughter of Francis Shirley, of Staunton Harold, Esq., and was grandson of Sir Robert Brooke, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas to Queen Mary. He was also, there is little doubt, the Sir Basil Brooke, of Lubbenham, in Leicestershire, who served as sheriff of that county 3 Jac. I., and was M.P. for Leicestershire 1607-11. In the reign of Charles I. he was very active in supporting the cause of the king against the Parliament, being treasurer of the contributions made by Roman Catholics towards defraying the king's charges in the war against Scotland. In consequence of his active exertions for the king, he and other Royalists were, on Jan. 27, 1640/1, summoned to attend the bar of the House. Not obeying, an order was issued on Jan. 11, 1641/2, for his arrest, and he was captured at York shortly afterwards, "at George Dickenson's inne, the sign of the Three Cuppes, at Fosse Bridge." On Jan. 25, 1641/2, he was ordered to be brought from York, and imprisoned in the King's Bench, where he seems to have continued until 1645 or 1646. In the propositions for "a safe and well grounded Peace," submitted to the king in July, 1646, Sir Basil Brooke is named as one of the Popish recusants who, having been in arms against the Parliament, were to be proceeded against, their estates disposed of by Parliament, and themselves to be incapable of pardon without the consent of both Houses. From the Calendar of the Committee for Compounding' (iii. 2232) we gather that he was still alive in 1650. The editor of the Visitations of Shropshire' (Harleian vol.) is thus mistaken in supposing his death to have occurred in 1640. ་ Leigh, Lancashire. W. D. PINK. ARMERIA. Botanists have given this name to a species of Dianthus, or pink, and also to a genus of plants of which the common English name is thrift. The French call the latter Armérie, but the Germans call it Grasnelke, or grass pink, as the flower has some resemblance to the nelke, or pink. The Armeria vulgaris is found commonly in pastures by the seaside, and grows luxuriantly in the Isle of Thanet; the Armeria plantaginea (a stouter species) appears to have a special regard for similar north than that island. But what is the derivaplaces in Jersey, and is not found further to the tion of the word Armeria or Armérie? Blackheath, W. T. LYNN. H.M.S. FOUDROYANT.-I should like to know where she is now. The agitation last autumn (when she was sold to a German firm of contractors, resulted, if I mistake not, in her repurchase by a Mansion House fund; but where she was brought POCOCK.-Charles Montagu Pocock (born 1792) served as a Lieutenant of Dragoons in the Peninsula and at Waterloo. I shall be grateful for further particulars of his career in the army, such as dates of commissions, &c. He died in 1870. BEAULIEU. MURDER OF A SHERIFF OF MIDDLESEX.Norden and Thorpe, in their 'Survey of the Manor of Kirton-in-Lindsey,' made in 1616, writing of Somerby, an estate in the parish of Corringham, near Gainsburgh, say that the owner, Topcliffe, had 'a sonne and heir apparent who comitted a felonie, and was thereof convicted, and in the life time of his father, had his pardon, and after comitted a seconde felonie, his father lyvinge, by killing the Sherife of Midd. in Westminster hall, and after that his father dyed, and the son procured a second pardon, and so entred into the lande as heir." As this atrocity must have been of recent date when Norden and Thorpe drew up this survey, there cannot be any reasonable doubt that their statement is true. I have, however, failed to find any confirmatory evidence for it. Can any one tell me what was the name of any sheriff of Middlesex who was murdered in the latter years of Elizabeth? I shall be glad to know the Christian names of these two Topcliffes, father and son. I believe the elder to have been Richard and the younger Charles, but require confirmation of this. Any facts bearing on this tragedy will be of use to me for a work which I am now preparing for the press. EDWARD PEACOCK. Dunstan House, Kirton-in-Lindsey. FRANK WHISTLER, THE PAINTER.-Any information will oblige. W. W. ALDGATE OR ALDERSGATE.-In the Kalendar of an English Missal, in the Bateman sale, there is an entry that will interest some of your readers, and perhaps help to fix the name of one of the London gates: "3 Non. Octob. Dedicatio Ecclesiæ Sancti Botulphi extra Aldrichgate." There is a church dedicated to St. Botulf just outside Aldgate. Was there one also outside Aldersgate? If not, Aldrichgate would seem to be the right name for Aldgate in the fifteenth century, the date of the MS. J. C. J. "LET US WALK DOWN FLEET STEET.""I had leisure to think of a thousand things as I ran; but most I thought of the great and god-like man who held a sitting in the north gallery of St. Clement Danes a hundred years ago. I know that he at least would have felt for me. So occupied was I with these considerations, that when the other policeman hugged me to his bosom, and said, 'What are you tryin' to do?' I answered with exquisite politeness, Sir, let us take a walk down, Fleet Street.'"-Rudyard Kipling, 'Many Inventions,' 1893, p. 235. Did Dr. Johnson ever say anything of the kind? The saying is now as familiar as "Son of St. Louis, ascend to heaven!" but is it any more authentic? Do I sleep, do I dream, or are visions about, if I imagine that Mr. G. A. Sala confessed some time ago that when a motto was wanted for Temple Bar Magazine he invented the admirable Johnsonian sentiment? If I am wrong, G. A. S. will surely forgive me, and tell 'N. & Q.' where the saying came from. Some day an annotated Kipling will be required, and 'N. & Q.' will be consulted by the New Zealander editor. 66 Glasgow. WILLIAM GEORGE BLACK. PEPYS. "My name, sir, is Peppis," I once had the advantage of hearing a member of the existing Pepys family correct an unadvised interlocutor who had called him "Peps." Mr. Wheatley has recently decided that the diarist's name was pronounced neither "Peppis," nor "Peps," nor Peeps," but Papes." I thought this pronunciation had been fixed some time ago. Lord Braybrooke cites the register of St. Olave's, Hart Street: "June 4, 1703. Sam Peyps, Esq., buried in a vault, by ye com'union table"; and adds: "This is decisive as to the proper pronunciation of the name." But was Samuel called "Payps" or "Peeps"? When he was a young man, in 1656, there was published a little book called 'The Scoller's Practicall Cards,' by F. Jackson, M.A. The author incidentally refers to the "tinker that can but tell his peeps at cards." "Peeps," of course, pips. If Pepys were pronounced as the M.A. seems to have pronounced "pips," then Punch's "Mr. Pips' Diary" had a better title than was perhaps imagined. W. F. WALLER. |