Jan. 25. 1851.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



53 



smaller and much broader than the first, and is 

 perhaps a hundred years older; it is also more 

 ornamented. Otherwise its fashion is the same, 

 tlie only difference being in the arrangement of 

 the inside figures, which are as follows : — 



6 7 8 9 10 11 j2 

 8 i 9 ? t- S 5 1 



The ring recovered by Mr. Knight evidently 

 agrees with the above. I hope Mr. K. will, 

 sooner or later, present the curiosity to our na- 

 tional museum, — which will be driven at last, if 

 not by higher motives, by the mere force of public 

 opinion and public indignation, to form a regularly 

 arranged and grand collection of our own British 

 antiquities in every branch, secular and religious, 

 from the earliest times, down through the middle 

 ages, to nearly our own days. Such an archa3- 

 ological department could count not only upon the 

 assistance of the state, but upon rich and generous 

 contributions from British sources, individuals and 

 private societies, at home and abroad, as well as 

 foreign help, at least in the way of exchange. 

 But any such plan must be speedily and well or- 

 ganised and well announced ! 



I give the above details, not only because they 

 relate to a passage in our immortal bard, who has 

 ennobled and perpetuated every word and fact in 

 his writings, but because they illustrate the astro- 

 nomical antiquities of our own country and our 

 kindred tribes during many centuries. These 

 sun-dials are now very scarce, even in the high 

 Scandinavian North, driven out as they have been 

 by the watch, in the same manner as the ancient 

 clog * or Rune-staff (the carved wooden perpetual 

 almanac) has been extirpated by the printed 

 calendar, and now only exists in the cabinets of 

 the curious. In fifty years more sun-rings will 

 probably be quite extinct throughout Europe. I 

 hope this will cause you to excuse my prolixity. 

 Will no astronomer among your readers direct his 

 attention to this subject? Does anything of the 

 kind still linger in the East ? 



Stockholm. Geokge Stephens. 



DISCREPANCIES IN DUGDAr.E S ACCOUNT OP SIE 

 KALFH DE COBUAM. 



There are some difficulties in Dugdale's account 

 of the Cobham family which it may be well to 

 bring before your readers; especially as several 

 oilier historians and genealogists have repeated 

 Dugdale's account without remarking on its in- 

 consistencies. In speaking of a junior branch of 

 the family, he says, in vol. ii. p. 69., " There was 



* The Scandinavian Ilune-staff is well known. An 

 engraving of iin ancient English clop; (but with Roman 

 characters, instead of Hiinic) is in Hone's Evcry-Day 

 Book, vol. ii. 



also Ralphe de Cobham, brother of the first-men- 

 tioned Stephen." lie oidy mentions one Stephen, 

 but names him twice, first at page 66., and again 

 at 69. Perhaps he meant the aiooe-mentioned 

 Stephen. He continues : — 



" This Ralphe took to wife Mary Countess of Nor- 

 folk, widdow of Thomas of Brotherton. Which Mary 

 was Daughter to William Lord Ros, and Krst married 

 to William Lord Braose of Brenibre; and by her had 

 Issue John, who 20 E. III., making proof of his age, 

 and doing his Fealty, had Livery of his lands." 



At page 64. of the same volume he states that 

 Thomas de Brotherton died in 12 Edward III., 

 which would be only eight years before his widow's 

 son, by a subsequent husband, is said to have be- 

 come of age. That he did become of age in this 

 year we have unquestionable evidence. In Cal. 

 Ing. P. Mortem, vol. iv. p. 444., we find this 

 entry : — 



" Anno 20 Edw. III. Johannes de Cobham, Filius 

 et HEEres Radulphi de Cobeham defuncti. Probatio 

 aetatis." 



There is also abundant proof that Thomas de 

 Brotherton died in 12 Edward III. The most 

 natural way of removing this difficulty would be 

 to conclude that John de Cobham was the son of 

 Ralph by a ]>revious marriage. But here we have 

 another difficulty to encounter. He is not only 

 called the son of Mary, Countess of Norfolk, or 

 Marishall, by Dugdale, but in all contemporaneous 

 records. See Rymer's Feed., vol. vi. p. 136. ; Rot. 

 Orig., vol. ii. p. 277.; Cal. Rot. Pat., p. 178., again 

 at p. 179. ; Cal. Ing. P. Mortem, vol. iii. pp. 7. 10. 

 Being the son-in-law of the Countess, he was pro- 

 bably called her sou to distinguish him from a 

 kinsman of the same name, or because of her 

 superior rank. She is frequently styled the 

 widow, and sometimes the wifp of Thomas de 

 Brotherton, even after the death of her subsequent 

 husband. Sir Ralph de Cobham. In the escheat 

 at her death she is thus described : — 



" Maria Coniitissa Norfolc', uxor Thome de Brother- 

 ton, Comitis Norfolc', Kelicta Radi de Cobeham, 

 Militis." 



It is remarkable that this discrepancy in Sir 

 John Cobham's age, an<l the time of his supposed 

 mother's marriage with his father, has never before, 

 as far as my knowledge extends, been noticed by 

 any of the numerous writers who have repeated 

 Dugdale's account of this family. 



Betin-e concluding I will mention another mis- 

 take respecting the Countess which runs through 

 most of our county histories where she is named. 

 For a short period she became an inmate of the 

 Abbey of Langley, and is generally stated to have 

 entercil it (jreviously to her marriage with Sir 

 lval|>li de Cobham. Cluttcrbuck, in ids History oj' 

 Hertfordshire (vul. ii. p. 512.), for instance, relatea 

 the circumstance in these words : — 



