MONTHLY MIRROR,

FOR

FEBRUARY, 1809.

Embellished with

A PORTRAIT OF MISS GAYTON, ENGRAVED BY FREEMAN, FROM A

PRINTED FOR THE PROPRIETORS,

By Harding and Wright, No. 38, St. John's Square, Clerkenwell ;
And published by Vernor, Hood, and Sharpe, in the Poultry;

RAJ. Murray, Fleet-Street; A. Constable and Co.

Edinburgh; and sold by all the Booksellers

in the United Kingdom.

An exquisite dr awing by LAWRENCE, of Campbell, the author the Pleasures of Hope; and paintings of TRESHAM, the artist, and Sigr. NALDI, the singer, by OPIE and DEMARIA, are in the hands of our engraver.

CORRESPONDENCE.

The MIRROR is open to any remarks, which Sir JOHN CARR may chuse to make on the article, (p. 81) with which we have been favoured by the author of "MY POCKET BOOK."

Through Mr. D'EGVILLE's neglect, the particulars of his and Miss GAYTON'S life, have not yet been received.

T.S.'s letter; Perez's; T.'s; and one from Mr. Hint on Mrs. H. Johnston's summer dress in the Exile; Mr. Hatt's Epigram, Fragment, and Song; G. P. C.'s Sonnet; Protheus's Verses; Apocryphas; and Scrutator; are received.

We thank Mr. Lewis of Newbury, for the friendly interest he takes in our success.

S. P. S.'s Dream is not his happiest effort.

William Holloway's lines on the death of Sir John Moore, are very spirited, and if we can give them a place in time, they shall appear.

A friend informs us that Jaques is wrong with respect to Mr. Kenny's Matrimony. Mr. K. owns that it is taken from the French.

Mr. Wells' Epithalamium will not do. Tell and able is a bad rhyme, though not without authority. When he borrows again from Cowley, we advise him to make a better choice.

"There's no danger I should tell

The joys which are unspeakable."

Jaques, on Music, or the explanation of an ancient paradox, and a Young Amateur, next month.

To receive such praise from our Norwich friend, is the reward we covet. After stating that we have now unquestionably some of the most able correspondents that any periodical work can boast of," and paying a just tribute to the great and various merits of the author of Endymion and Theobaldus Secundus, he says, "I enjoy your theatrical criticisms, they give me the most lively picture of the state of the London theatres, that I ever read. It is indeed the only accurate one that I know of." His excellent remarks on Detector came, as he will see, too late.

The annus mirabilis of our Nottingham friend, it would be dangerous to our faces to publish. We shall only give a taste-" Then will all women at forty years of age be stifled, as being no longer either useful or ornamental."

P. G. will excuse a little liberty taken with his title.

ERRATA.-P. 22, for Horsley read Hoadley; p. 40, Hos for Hoc; and was after "Fanny," at p. 56.

MONTHLY MIRROR,

FOR

FEBRUARY, 1809.

ON THE REGALIA OF ENGLAND.

BY THE REV. MARK NOBLE, F. A. S. OF L. AND E.

TO THE EDITOR.

duions

SIR,
As I have ne

never seen any relation of the Regalia of England, except what is told by the person who shews us what is now in the Tower, I will attempt to give an historical account of it. The subject is curious.

That Sovereigns have ever worn some ornament upon the head, to distinguish them from their subjects, is undoubted. We see, in the Sacred Writings in the remotest antiquity, crowns men. tioned. They were of gold, and seem to be estimated by their weight.

Of the forms of these crowns we can never know. If there ever were statues of the monarchs, they have long since disappeared; if they had money with their effigies, it is long since a single specimen remained.

In Persia, and other Asiatic kingdoms of great antiquity, the diadem was a fillet of fine linen. The Macedonian monarchs had the laurel, but I believe more frequently the helmet is seen upon their coins; however, all the nations that we know of in the East, as well as of Egypt, who were refined, after the death of Alexander, had, what we should think very preposterous, horns represented as growing near the ears, to shew their sovereign' power; hence the expression in the Scripture, "His horn shall be exalted;" alluding to animals who have horns, placing their dependence upon them for their protection. These horns are, I' believe, invariably those of rams.

The jealousy of the Romans in the first ages of the imperial government, made their monarchs take only the laurel-branch to bind their brows. It is said, Cæsar first adopted it to hide his

baldness. In future ages they took the pointed crown, the pearl fillet, and other forms, just as fancy led.

As to the Eastern nations now, wherever Mahometanism has made its approach, the turban has been worn, which seems inimical, or rather incompatible with a diadem. The Turkish Emperors are invested with the sword, not crowned.

When the Roman empire was broken, the different monarchies which did compose Christian Europe arose; when these became Christians, they were solemnly crowned, and, I believe, usually anointed. The crowns they assumed were diadems, without any particular form, as now; for, whilst Europe remained unbroken by the French, each nation had its peculiar formed diadem; from the greater kingdoms, down to the smaller sovereign dukedoms.

During the Heptarchy, we find that our kings had diadems, and those of Mercia were distinguished by having the crescent in front, but why, I know not. The tributary kings of that and the other kingdoms, when obliged to acknowledge the superiority of the West Saxon monarchs, still retained the crown upon their money.

The Anglo-Saxon monarchs have diadems so various, that it is scarce possible to enumerate all their varieties, from the plain golden fillet, to the closed crown, not much unlike what now we have; rows of pearls are often seen; the radiated crown is sometimes observable, and we have the radiated one with pearls, set on higher points, something like our earl's coronets. On others we have the open crown fleury; the cap with jewellery; and the diademed helmets: some are of a form indescribable. The sceptre and the orb are also seen, the former ending in a cross pearl, or fleur-de-lis; the sceptre, like those of the ancients, seems a regal staff, longer than the prince who holds it, and the orb is surmounted with a cross.

The Anglo-Danish, and the Anglo-Norman sovereigns, adopted our English diadems, and we see them continued in the same manner by the Angeveian, or Plantagenet monarchs, until the reign of Edward I. when the royal mask, crowned with an open diadem fleury, appeared for three centuries upon our money, with a sameness which tires, and bids defiance to all information of what can be learnt from our money.

We are well informed that our monarchs had great treasures in jewels, and in vessels made of the precious metal. They were wont to deliver out rings and gems to prelates, abbots, and

priors, in the same manner as the insignia of the Order of the Garter, which at the death of the dignified ecclesiastic, was returned to the sovereign. The Wardrobe-office kept all these valuables, and they were very great. Our kings now seldom wear their crowns but at the coronation, and when they sit in parliament; anciently they appeared in all their regal state at the great festivals, interviews with princes, and on other signal occasions. They wore them in the field of battle, either over their helmet, or otherwise. Henry V. had a diadem in the former way, Richard III. in the latter; the one at Agincourt, the other at Bosworth. So low as Edward III. we learn, that the monarch appeared in public, sometimes with only a string of pearls round his head.

King John, just preceding his death, lost his crown and scep tre, with much riches and valuables, in the Washes between the Cross-Keys in Norfolk, and Troros-dyke in Sutland, in Lincolnshire. These, with his baggage, were never to be regained.

Henry III. his son and successor, in his 46th, fearing the event of those civil wars he perceived were inevitable, prudently sent his regalia, and various costly ornaments, to Margaret, Queen of France, who deposited them in the Temple at Paris, under her seal. The keys of the coffer in which they were lodged, were returned to the king by his messengers, to whom he had confided this treasure, William de Latymer, and Henry de Gandaoo. The articles were, one great crown of gold; a buckle, with rubies; three gold combs; fifty-two buckles; ten sceptres, containing 208 rings, with rubies, and balasses; two sceptres, containing sixty-six rings with pearls; one sceptre, with twenty rings of saphires; one, with thirteen rings of topazes; one, with seventeen rings of various stones; these rings were circles set with gems or pearls; sixty-six girdles; two golden peacocks; one buckle, with twelve diamonds; fourteen other buckles, and five gold garlands.

We very much wonder to see so many staves, or long sceptres, in this collection; and, indeed, so many valuables, because, a few years before, Henry was obliged to borrow from his tutelary saint, Edward the Confessor's shrine, much treasure and jewels, These he promised to restore to the saint, and I believe he repaid with interest, after he had overthrown his potent enemy, Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester.

(To be continued.)