558 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 163. 



quan'an Societies, was resident either in Wapping 

 or in the adjoining parish of St. George's in the 

 East, and may have procured the subscription of 

 the Wapping savants to his work. Possibly the 

 memoirs of that eminent historian of Typography 

 by Gough and others may throw some light on this 

 local association. 



In conclusion, let me express my regret that the 

 real names of contributors are not more frequently 

 attached to their communications.* Tlie practice 

 would give additional weight to those statements 

 of which the value must depend on the personal 

 authority of the correspondent. It would tend to 

 improve the tone of some contributions, and would 

 certainly be a check upon rash and ill-considered 

 assertions. Sydney Smibke. 



* [We will take this opportunity of inserting another 

 communication from a valued correspondent upon this 

 point. 



" In a late ' Notice to Correspondents ' you have 

 asked for the address of I. Allow me to suggest to 

 your many contributors, that, unless they are ashamed 

 of their Queries (which, perhaps, none need be, since 

 Johnson himself has said 'that one fool, or child, 

 would ask more questions than twenty wise men can 

 answer'), it would tend very much to increase the use- 

 fulness of your publication, and facilitate a more direct 

 communication between men of similar pursuits, if they 

 would more generally drop all initials and feigned 

 names, and sign their own proper name and habitat, or 

 at least entrust it to the editor. Much trouble too would 

 be saved. To oblige one correspondent, you were led 

 to ask who is another under the initial I. 



"I have been led to make this suggestion, from having 

 just received a very long and interesting letter from 

 Boston, on one of my genealogical contributions : and 

 some time ago I received another from Ireland ; and 

 these are not the only ones. I have every reason to 

 believe that much mutual gratification and additional 

 information has been the result to all of us. 



H. T. Ellacombe. 



Clyst St. George."] 



DISCOVERY AT NUNEHAM REGIS. 



(Vol. vi., pp. 386. 488.) 



On my first reading the account of the interest- 

 ing discovery at Nuneham Regis, the thought 

 occurred to me, as it did to Mr. Hesledon, that 

 the remains might be those of James Duke of 

 Monmouth : but on a little further consideration, 

 I made up my mind that this could not be so. 

 In the first place, the estate of Nuneham Regis 

 does not appear to have belonged to the Duke 

 and Duchess of Monmouth at all, but descended, 

 as stated by L. M. M. R., to the family of Buc- 

 cleugh, from the Dukes of Montague. This settles 

 the point at once ; so that it may seem unnecessary 

 to offer any more proofs. I would, however, re- 

 mark, that the peaked beard, which this corpse is 



described to have had, could not have belonged to 

 Monmouth. In Lodge's Portraits his face is de- 

 lineated perfectly beardless, which probably was 

 its usual appearance ; but at the time of his cap- 

 ture, according to Macaulay, "his beard, prema- 

 turely grey, was of several days' growth." Yet 

 if even he allowed it to continue to grow during 

 the short interval that elapsed between his cap- 

 ture and his execution (exactly a week), it could 

 hardly have become a "peaked beard." More- 

 over, it may be doubted whether his widow would 

 have cared to show much respect to his remains, 

 when it is remembered that, after his last inter- 

 view and parting with her, which some have 

 spoken of as having been very tender, even on the 

 very scaffold, " He went on to speak of his Hen- 

 rietta," and maintained that she, with whom he 

 had been living in adultery, was " a young lady 

 of virtue and honour." The Duchess certainly 

 showed much feeling during their interview ; but 

 she must soon have recovered her composure, if 

 it be true, as is stated by Dalrymple, I think, that 

 she breakfasted with the king the morning after 

 the execution. 



Though Nuneham Regis did not belong to the 

 Duke of Monmouth, it is worthy of remark that 

 it was the property of another illustrious man, who 

 lost his life on the scaffold for an attempt precisely 

 similar to that of Monmouth, viz. John Dudley, 

 Duke of Northumberland. There can be no doubt 

 that he was buried in the chapel of the tower. 

 Holinshed accurately describes the position of his 

 grave as being between the two queens, Catherine 

 Howard and Anne Boleyn, and next to the Duke 

 of Somerset. Do they still repose there ? Could 

 the initials worked on the breast clothes of the 

 discovered body be J. D., not T. B. ? W. H. G. 



Winchester. 



The reply suggesting that the decapitated Duke 

 of Monmouth was the person found buried in the 

 ruins of the chapel of Nuneham Regis in War- 

 wickshire is very well for a guess. But the guesser 

 should not have added as a fact, in proof of the 

 probability of his guess being correct, that which 

 is contrary to the fact, viz., that " the quiet chapel 

 of Nuneham Regis" was " at that time, as now, the 

 property of the Buccleuch family." So contrary 

 is this to the fact, that the property of Nuneham 

 Regis only came into the possession of the Buc- 

 cleuch family in consequence of the marriage of 

 Henry Duke of Buccleuch, the grandfather of the 

 present duke, with Elizabeth, daughter of George, 

 last Duke of Montague, in 1767 ; the property 

 having come to the Montague family by the mar- 

 riage of Ralph, son and heir to Edward Lord 

 Montague of Boughton (who afterwards, in the 

 fourth year of the reign of Queen Anne, became 

 Duke of Montague), with Elizabeth, only sur- 

 viving daughter of Thomas Earl of Southampton, 



