Oct. 26. 1850.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



363 



numerous section of the titled aristocracy in the 

 United Kingdom; and it is with these, as beai'ing 

 upon the herahlic and gentilitial rights of the sub- 

 ject, that I am desirous to grapple. ]\Ir. Nichols, 

 and those who pia faith upoa his dicta, hoUl that 

 the Collar of SS. was a livery ensign bestowed 

 by our kings upon certain of their retainers, in 

 much the same sense and fashion as Cedric the 

 Saxon is said to have given a collar to Wamba, the 

 son of Witless. For myself, and all those entitled 

 to carry armorial bearings in the kingdom, I re- 

 pudiate the notion that the knightly golden Collar 

 of SS. was ever so conferred or received. Further, 

 I maintain that there was a distinction between 

 what ]\Ir. Nichols calls " the Livery Collar of j 

 SS.," and the said knightly golden Collar of SS., 

 as marked and broad as is the difference between 

 the Collar of the Garter and the collar of that 

 foui'-footed dignitary which bore the inscription, 

 " I am the Prince's Dog at Kew, 

 Pray whose Dog aie you? " 

 In his last communication Mr. Nichols lays 

 it down that " livery collars were perfectly dis- 

 tinct from collars of knighthood;" adding, they 

 did not exist until a subsequent age. Of course 

 the collars of such royal orders of knighthood 

 as have been established since the days of our 

 Lancastrian kings had necessarily no existence 

 at the period to which he refers. But Gough 

 (not Mr. Gougu Nichols) mentions that the 

 Collar of SS. was upon the monument of Ma- 

 tilda Fitz waiter, of Dunniow, who lived in the 

 reiitn of Kins John : and Ashmole instances a 

 monument in the collegiate church at Warwick, 

 with the portraiture of Margaret, wife of Sir AVil- 

 liani Peito, said to have been sculptured there in 

 the reign of Edward III. What credit then are 

 we to attach to Mr, N.'s averment, that the 

 " Collar of Esses was not a badge of knighthood, 

 nor a badge of personal merit, but was a collar 

 of livery, and the idea typified by livery was 

 feudal dependence, or what we now call party ? " 

 What sort of feudal dependence was typified by 

 the ensign of equestrian nobility upon the necks 

 of tlie two ladies named, or upon the neck of 

 Queen Joan of Navarre ? Mr. Nichols states 

 that in the first Lancastrian reigns the Collar of 

 SS. had no pendant, though, afterwards, it had a 

 pendant called " the king's beast." On the effigy 

 of <iuecn Joan the collar certainly has no pendant, 

 except the jewelled ring of a trefoil form. But on 

 the ceiling and canopy of the tomb of Henry IV., 

 his arms, and those of his queen (Joan of Navarre), 

 are surrounded with Collars of SS., the king's ter- 

 minating in an eagle volant (rather an odd sort of 

 a beast), whilst the pendant of the ([ucen's has been 

 defaced. 



Mr. Nichols, in a postscript, puts this query to 

 the anti([uarics of Scotland: "Can any of them 

 help nie to the authority from which Nich. Upton 



derived his livery collar of the King of Scotland 

 de gormettis fremalibus equorum ? " If Mr. N. 

 puts this query from no otlier data than the cita- 

 tion given in my former paper upon this subject 

 (vide Vol. ii., p. 194.), he need not limit it to the 

 antiquaries o£ Scotland. Upton's words are as 

 follows : — 



" Rex etiam scocie dare solebat pro signo vel titiilo 

 suo, unum collarium de gormettis fremalibus equorum 

 de auro vel argento." 



This passage neither indicates that a King of 

 Scotland is referred to, nor does it establish that 

 the collar was given as a livery sign or title. It 

 merely conveys something to this purport, that the 

 king was accustomed to give to his companions, as 

 a sign or title, a collar of gold or silver shaped 

 like the bit of a horse's bridle. 



Mr. Nichols takes exception to Favine as an 

 heraldic authority. Could that erudite author 

 arise from his grave, I wonder how he would 

 designate Mb. Nichols's lucubrations on livery 

 collars, &c. But hear Matthew Paris : that 

 learned writer says Equites Aurati were known in 

 his day " by a gold ring on their thumbs, by a 

 chain of gold about their necks, and gilt spurs." 

 Let (US look to Scotland : Nesbit says, vol. ii. 

 p. 87. : 



" Our knights were no less anciently known by 

 belts than by their gilt spurs, swords, &c. In tlie last 

 place is the collar, an ensign of knightly dignity among 

 the Germans, Gauls, Britains, Danes, Gotlis, &c. In 

 latter tunes it was the peculiar fashion of knights 

 amongst us to wear golden collars composed of S.S." 



Brydson, too, in his Summary View of He- 

 raldry in reference to the Usages of Chivalry, 

 and the Genercd Economy of the Feudal System, 

 (a work of uncommon ingenuity, deserving to be 

 called the Philosophy of Heraldry), observes, p. 1 86, 

 ch. v., that knights were distinguished by an in- 

 vestiture which imj)lied superior merit and address 

 in arms — by the attendance of one or more 

 esquires — by the title Sir — by wearing a crest — 

 a helmet of peculiar] form — apparel peculiarly 

 splendid — polished armour of a particular con- 

 struction — gilded spurs — and a Golden Collar. 



He states, ch. iv., p. 132. : 



" In the fifth dissertation of Du Cange it is shown that 

 tlie splendid habits which tlie royal household anciently 

 received at the great fchtivals, were called ' Liveries,' 

 being delivered or presented from tlie king." 



But he nowhere coinitcnances for a moment 

 any of the errors entertained by Mr. John Gough 

 Nichols, which these remarks are intended to ex- 

 plode. 



Mr. Nichols has not yet answered B.'s query. 

 Nor can he answer it until he previously admits 

 that he is wrong upon the four points enumerated 

 in my opening article (Vol. ii., p. 194.). 



Armiger. 



