the earliest ever performed in England, was in 785; there can be no ground therefore for the assertion that it " GREW to be a custom" that queens should not be crowned: indeed upon reference to the accounts which early historians give of this matter, we shall find that no allusion is made to coro. nation; and that the deprivement extended only to the title, and the right of sitting on the seat of state. Enough would perhaps have been said for the correction of this verbal inaccuracy of Sir John Spelman, did it not appear to be further sanctioned by the authority of Mr Turner in his excellent History of the Anglo-Saxons. The learned author, assuming probably from such expressions as those we have quoted, that coronation was one amongst the privileges at this time withheld from the West Saxon queens, begins his chapter on the family and officers of the king with this assertion: "The Anglo-Saxon queen WAS CROWNED as well as the king until the reign of Egbert, when this honour was taken from her. The crimes of the preceding queen, Eadburga, occasioned the Anglo-Saxons to depart awhile in this respect from the custom of all the German nations. But it was soon restored; for Ethelwulph, on his second marriage, suffered his queen Judith to be crowned." He adds, "the custom was not immediately reas sumed in England, because the expressions of Asser imply that in Alfred's time the disuse of the coronation continued. But by the time of the second Ethelred it was restored, for after the account of his coronation the ceremonial of her coronation follows." The reader will bear in mind that ? I may now add also of Mr Sergeant Heywood, in his work on the Distinction of Ranks among the Anglo-Saxons, the objcet of the present note is merely to examine into the antiquity of coronation as applied to Queens; it has no connection with the other particulars respecting their title and place in the court. Referring then to Mr Turner's authority Asser, we find, as I have before intimated, no allusion whatever to coronation. His words are "Gens namque Occidentalium Saxonum reginam juxta regem sedere non patitur, nec etiam reginam appellare, sed regis conjugem, permittit." And again, "accolæ illius terræ conju raverunt ut nullum unquam regem super se in vitá suá regnare permitterent qui reginam in reginali solio juxta se sedere imperare vellet3." The former of these passages is copied by Florence of Worcester, verbatim. Matthew of Westminster has the following, of Æthelwulph: "Prœterea, audierunt conspiratores prædicti quod, contra morem et statuta regum West-Saxonum, Judetham, &c. reginam appellabat, et in mensa ad latus suum convivari faciebat. Gens vero West-Saxonum non permittit reginam juxta regem sedere; nec etiam reginam, sed regis conjugem nominari." Malmsbury writes to the same effect. It is probable that Spelman's authority (although his editor does not supply the reference) was Higden: "ab eo tempore," saith he, "inolevit apud Anglos uxorem regis neque. reginam vocari neque in regiâ sede juxta regem collocari:" here, however, we have nothing of coronation. Selden, whose section on the titles and honours of queens is largely quoted by the editor of Alfred's life, 3 Asser, 8vo. 1722. p. 10. 4 Fl. Hist. sub an. 854. says, "It appears clearly that the Saxon queens were in the later times of that kingdom crowned, anointed, and set with the kings in their seats of state, as other queens, and so that law or custom which proceeded from queen Æthelburgh was soon abrogated:" there is nothing however in the passage which sanctions the error we have noticed. Milton writes "The West Saxon had decreed ever since the time of Eadburga the infamous wife of Birthric, that no queen should sit in state with the king or be dignified with the title of queen. But Ethelwolf permitted not that Judith his queen should loose any point of regal state by that law." The accounts of Strutt and of Rapin are the same with those of Milton and the antients. With regard to the real period when the inaugurative ceremonies were applied to the consorts of our kings we have nothing more determinate than the "later times" of Mr Selden, but certainly they had no coronations in 955 if Elgiva were really the wife of Edwy: nor is it likely that the bard who recorded the hallowing of Edgar in 973 would have omitted to notice the honours paid to the royal consort had she partaken of the sacred unction. With the ritual assigned to the age of Æthelred II. begins our actual knowlege of feminine consecration: he was elected in 978, and all before this period is at best uncertain. 6 Titles of Honor, Part I. cap. 6. vii. 7 Hist. of England, p. 197, 4to. P. 94.-History of the Regalia. In order to illustrate the history of our antient Regalia I shall here transcribe the several lists which were referred to in treating on this subject: and first one of the reign of James I.' "NECESSARIES to be prouided by the Mr of the Jewell House the daye of the king and queen's coronacion 1. "A circle of gold for the queen to weare when shee goeth to her coronacon. "The king's ringe. The queene's ringe. "St Edward's crowne, if it be in his custodye. "Two other wearing crownes for the king and queen, to be sett readye vpon St Edward's altar, for the king and queen to put on after theire coronacõn. "Two pointed swords. "The sworde called Curtana. "The orbe, the scepter, the armill. "And suche other regalls as hee hath in his custodye. "Theis are all the particular necessaries which for the present I fynd to be prouided by the M1 of the Jewelhouse. "Willm. Segar, Garter." The following are extracts of such articles as relate to the Regalia, from the general inventories of appraisement MS. Cott. Vesp. C xiv. p. 121. ↑ Sir William Segar appears to have been created Garter in 1603, the year in which James I. was crowned. which comprise the whole of the royal plate and jewels as taken by order of the parliament on the depósition of Charles I. ❝A TRUE and perfect Inventory of all the Plate and Jewells now being in the upper Jewell Honse of the Tower, in the charge of Sir Henry Mildmay, together with an Appraisemt of them made and taken the 13th, 14th, and 15th daies of August, 16493.” "The imperiall crowne of massy gold, weighing 7 b 6 " &c. valued at £1110 0 10 338 3 4 formerly in the ounces," "The queene's crowne of massy gold, weighing 3 ounces," &c. "A small crownea found in an iron chest, lord Cottington's charge," &c. the gold "The diamonds, rubies, sapphires, &c. "The globe, weighing 1 b 51 oz. 73 16 8 355 0 0 57 10 0 "2 coronation bracelets weighing 7 oz." (with three rubies and twelve pearls) "Two scepters, weighing 18 oz.' "A long rodd of silver gilt, 1 b 5 oz. 36 0 0 60 0 0 4 10 8 "The foremencion'd crownes, since ye inventorie was taken, are accordinge to ord of parlamt totallie broken and defaced." 3 Archæologia, vol. xv. art. 24, p. 285, from the original manuscript. 4 From other accounts this appears to have been the crown of Edward VI. See Antiquarian Repertory, vol. i. p. 79, and the Gentleman's Magazine for June 1798, p. 470. 5 There is every reason to believe that the national ornaments here described were the genuine productions of a very early age. Their correspondency with the antient catalogue in Sporley's Book is so remarkable that I shall notice it in some of the subsequent items. The catalogue will be found entire in our Appendix. |