Mak. 1. 1851.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



171 



EDWARD III. 12. 19. 92. 94. 120. 121. 139. 140. 



166. 167. 168. 201. 203. 228. 229. 230. 264. 



282. 283. 318. 322. 349. 361. 362. 386. 387. 



388. .389. 402. 403. 

 Richard II. 66. 96. 122. 123. 140. 141. 169. 



203. 268. 284. 323. 325, 826. 327. 362. 390. 



404. 405. 410. 

 Henry IV. 67. 97. 98. 124. 125. 142. 172. 204. 



205. 269. 270. 284. 285. 328. 329. 330. 350. 



391. 405. 407. 

 Henry V. 67. 68. 126. 143. 144. 206.285. 331. 



391. 403. 420. 

 Henry VI. 18. 34. 100. 101. 103. 104. 126. 



127. 145. 147. 148. 206. 207. 208. 233. 270. 



271. 286. 331. 332. 333. 334. 351. 364. 392. 



393. 394. 409. 410. 434. 

 Edward IV. 128. 148.209. 234. 286. 335. 352. 



365. 394. 395. 

 Richard III. 108.209. 212 411. 

 Henry VII. 71. 214. 235. 339. 352. 365. 396. 



412. 438. 

 Henry VIII. 235. 236. 273. 343. .396. 414. 



I believe " post conquestum" was also applied to 

 Edward V. ; but the records and deeds of his short 

 reign are necessarily but few. 



I conjecture that the use of the term " post 

 conquestum " thus originated. 



As we had Kings of England of the name of 

 Edward before the Conquest, Edward the First 

 was distinguished from these nionarchs by being 

 styled " King Edward, the son of King Henry " 

 (his father was called " King Henry, the son of 

 King John "). In like manner, Edward II. was 

 distinguished from his father by being called "King 

 Edward, the son of King Edward ; " but Ed- 

 ward III. could not thus be distinguished from his 

 father ; he was therefore called King Edward III. ; 

 but, as there were Kings Edward be/ore the Con- 

 quest, the third was qualified by the addition of 

 the phrase in question, " post conquestum." To 

 Richard II. generally, and to his successors up to 

 Henry VIII. either generally or occasionally, the 

 same phrase, " post conquestum," was also applied; 

 but, if we except Edward IV. and V., this phrase 

 was not at all required, or applicable in their cases, 

 inasmuch as no King of England be/ore the Con- 

 quest was named either Richard or Henry. 



C. H. Cooper. 



Cambridge, Feb. 4. 1851. 



DESCENT OF HENRY IV. 



(Vol. ii., p. 375. ; Vol. iii., p. 120.) 



Upon tiie deposition of llichard It., 30th Sep- 

 tember, 1399, Henry IV., tlien Duke of Lancas- 

 ter, claimed the crown in the foUowinyr terms : 



" In the name of the Fader, Sonne, and Holy 

 Ghost, I, Henry of Lancastre, chalenge this Rewine of 

 Yiigloiide and the Croune, with all llic Meiiibres and 

 the appurtenances, als 1 that am desceiidit be ryght 

 lyiic of tlie IJIode comyng fro the gude Lord King 



Henry thirde, and thorglie that ryght that God of hi.s 

 grace hath sent me with helpe of my kyn and of my 

 friendes to recover it: the which llewme was in poynt 

 to be ondone for defaut of Governance, and undoying of 

 tlie gude Lawes." 



Rapin observes upon this (vol. i. p. 476.) : — 



" It was not without reason that he affected to inake 

 use of obscure expressions, which left undetermined 

 the foundation upon which he built his pretended right. 

 If he seemed to derive his title from Henry III. 

 rather than from Edward III., his grandfather, it was 

 because there was a rumour that Edmund, Earl of 

 Lancaster, surnamed Crouch-hack, was ekiest son of 

 Henry III. ; but by reason of liis deformity Edward I., 

 his younger brother, was placed on the tiirone. Ac- 

 cording to this supposition, the Duke would have made 

 the ignorant believe lie couki ground his title upon 

 being son of Blanch of Lancaster, granddaughter of 

 Edmund Crouch-back, and heiress of that family. But 

 as he was sensible everybody could not be imposed 

 upon by so gross a forgery, he added certain expres- 

 sions, intimating that he built his right also upon the 

 service he had just done the state. This is the mean- 

 ing of the claim, expressed in such obscure terms. As 

 it was resolved to adjudge the crown to the Duke, the 

 Parliament took care not to examine his claim too 

 closely, hut were very willing to suppose it uncontest- 

 able. Thus, without any regard to the just rights of 

 the Earl of March, it was decreed that Henry should 

 be proclaimed king, which was done that very day," &c. 



It would seem, however, that Henry was to a 

 certain extent compelled to make his claim to the 

 crown in the form he did (Hales, Hist. C. L. c. 5.), 

 notwithstanding his desire to do so as a conqueror. 

 (Seld. Tit. Hon. 1. 3.) J. B. Cojlman. 



SRcpItc^ tn iHtiior ^xitvxei. 



Chaunaj — Entuujsel. — To a dry genealogical 

 Query (Vol. iii., p. 61.), your readers will wish 

 me to reply as briefly as possible. F. R. R. will 

 find that Sir H. Chauncy's statement is borrowed 

 from Weever. The latter founded liis statement, 

 that " Wilfred Entwysel was the last heir of his 

 house," on the authority of Dalton, Norroy ; but 

 this statement, as your correspondent has shown, 

 and as other evidence would prove, is not well- 

 founded. It may be assumed that Sir Bertyne 

 Entwysel did not leave issue, male, by Lucy his 

 wife, the daughter of Sir John Asliton, of Ashton- 

 under-Lyne, as Leland speaks of a daughter only, 

 "of whom Master Bradene, of Northamptonshire, 

 is descended." His connexion with Lancashire is 

 shown by his epitaph, and by our finding his name 

 as a witness to a Lancashire cliarter. The alli- 

 ance which he formed may be urged as a further 

 proof. Leland's expression, that " he came into 

 England," may imply that Sir Bertyne remained 

 in France discharging the duties of liis office, from 

 the period oi' the Battle of Agincourt, where be 



