424 



NOTES AND QI^ERIES. 



[No. 131. 



Synopsis of the Peerage, speaking of the dukedom, 



says : 



" 1399. Henry Plantagenet, son and heir, ascended 

 the throne 29th Sept. 1399; when this title, with all 

 his other honours, became merged in the crown, in 

 which it has ever since remained vested." 



Your correspondent may be referred to Black- 

 stone (Introd. § 4.), where is a very interesting 

 account of the Palatinate and Duchy of Lancaster. 

 We are there told that on his succession to the 

 crown, Henry IV. was too prudent to suffer his 

 Duchy of Lancaster to be united to the crown, 

 and therefore he procured an act of parliament 

 ordaining that this duchy and his other hereditary 

 estates — 



" Should remain to him and his heirs for ever, and 

 should remain, descend, be administered, and governed, 

 in like manner as if he had never attained the regal 

 dignity." 



In the first of Edward IV., Henry VI. was 

 attainted, and the Duchy of Lancaster declared 

 forfeited to the crown. At the same time an act 

 was passed to continue the county palatine, and 

 to make the same part of the duchy ; and to vest 

 the whole in King Edward IV. and his heirs, 

 kings of England, for ever. Blackstone then 

 mentions that in the first Henry VII. au act was 

 passed vesting the Duchy of Lancaster in that 

 king and his heirs ; and in a note examines the 

 question whether the duchy vested in the natural 

 or political person of the king. He then says : 



" It seems to have been understood very early after 

 the statute of Henry VII., that the Duchy of Lancas- 

 ter was by no means thereby made a separate inherit- 

 ance from the royal patrimony, since it descended, with 

 the crown, to the half-blood in the instances of Queens 

 Mary and Elizabeth ; which it could not have done as 

 the estate of a mere Duke of Lancaster in the common 

 course of legal descent." 



If, in saying that "William HI. never created 

 himself Duke of Lancaster, your correspondent 

 means that he caused no patent to issue granting 

 himself that dignity, he is, I doubt not, correct. 

 But if, after the above quotations, any doubt could 

 remain on the subject, possibly the following ex- 

 tract from the act 1 Will. & Mar. sess. 2. cap. 2. 

 (" An Act declaring the Rights and Liberties of 

 the Subject, and settling the Succession of the 

 Crown ") will sufficiently dispel it : — 



" And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and 

 Commons seriously considering, &c., do hereby recog- 

 nise, acknowledge, and declare, that King James II. 

 having abdicated the Government, and their Majesties 

 having accepted the Crown and Royal dignity as afore- 

 said, their said Majesties did become, were, and are, 

 and of right ought to be, by the laws of this realm, 

 our sovereign liege lord and lady the King and Queen 

 of England, France, and Ireland, and the dominions 

 thereunto belonging, in and to whose princely persons 



the Royal state, crown, and dignity of the said realms, 

 with all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, 

 powers, jurisdictions, and authorities to the same be- 

 longing and appertaining, are most rightfully and en- 

 tirely invested and incorporated, united and annexed." 



In conclusion, will you allow me to ask some 

 correspondent to set forth at length the titles of 

 our Sovereign Lady the Queen ? In confessing 

 that I do not know, I fancy that I state the case 

 as regards the majority of the lieges of her Majesty. 

 Indeed, a tale sometime ago went "the round of 

 the papers," to the effect that the " Duke of Roth- 

 say" was one day announced to his Royal High- 

 ness Prince Albert. The prince, who was not 

 aware of the existence of such a personage, at 

 length ordered him to be admitted, and was not a 

 little astonished at beholding his eldest son ! This, 

 though doubtless the coinage of some ingenious 

 but hungry penny-a-liner, pre-supposes so large 

 an amount of general ignorance on the subject, 

 that I hope some well-informed individual will, 

 through your columns, enlighten the world on the 

 point. Tee Bee. 



SURNAMES. 



' (Vol. v., pp. 290. 326.) 



Variations of surnames occur much later than 

 the close of the fourteenth century, the period 

 cited by your correspondent Cowgill. I have 

 seen a document of the date of Charles I., which 

 names one Agnes Wilson, otherwise Randalson, 

 widow of John, son of Randal Wilson ; thus show- 

 ing that the patronymic was liable to vary in every 

 generation, even in the seventeenth century. 



This is still the practice in the hill country 

 of Lancashire, bordering tipon Yorkshire, where 

 people are seldom known by a family name. The 

 individual is distinguished by the addition of the 

 father's or mother's Christian name, and sometimes 

 by the further addition of those of forefathers 

 for a generation or two, as in the designation of 

 Welshmen in times past. The abode sometimes 

 varies the style. 



As an example, I may mention that a few years 

 ago I sought an heir-at-law in a town on the 

 borders. I was referred to a man called " Dick 

 o' Jenny's ;" he being the son of a second marriage, 

 the mother's name was used to distinguish him 

 rather than his father's. Pursuing the inquiry, I 

 found the first wife had been a "sister of ould 

 Tommy at top of th' huttock ;" her daughter had 

 married " John o' Bobby," and " John o' Bobby's 

 lad" was the man I wanted. When I had made 

 him out, it was with some difficulty that I ascer- 

 tained (though amongst his kindred) that he bore 

 the family name of " Shepherd." W. L. 



I perceive that your correspondents Cowgili. 

 and J. H. (p. 290.), and Ma. Mark Antont 



