ii s. VIIL NOV. 29, 1913.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
431
The difficulties occurring to him are
threefold, and these I propose briefly to
discuss. He says that " the style of dress
is hardly compatible with the assumption
that Queen Charlotte is represented." It
is certainly too archaic, but Lloyd's Evening
Post, 8-10 Feb., 1775, from which I quoted,
gives the reason. The Queen is shown " in
the Coronation Robes, much like Queen
Anne's statue in St. Paul's Church-yard,"
which the sculptor had doubtless studied.
A second difficulty that the features of
the Queen Square statue are unlike those of
Queen Charlotte as represented in portraits
is not one that would have occurred to me.
I see considerable likeness, and though this
may be questioned, they certainly resemble
no other possible royalty, and are quite
different from those of Queen Anne as shown
in her authentic statues, and painted por-
traits. The writer's third objection is that
the pedestal should have on it " Virtutis
Decus et Tutamen," as mentioned in The
Morning Post and Advertiser. But the
statue and its stone pedestal were neglected
for many years, and, if the words ever were
inscribed, that part of the masonry on which
they occurred may have perished and been
" restored," the inscription disappearing in
the process.
In conclusion, apart from the robes the style of work is that in vogue about the year 1775, and towards the end of the eigh- teenth century the making of lead statues practically ceased. It is to my mind most improbable that the " very handsome statue " mentioned by Harrison shortly after its erection can, within a very few years, have been removed and another sub- stituted for it, because such a change would have been expensive and unnecessary, and there is no record of its having taken place. PHILIP NORMAN.
THE IDENTITY OF EMELINE DE REDDES- FORD : " D'EVEREUX " AND SALISBURY (11 S. viii. 66, 171, 253, 371). May I make a small correction in a side issue arising from the interesting genealogical communication of MR. FRANCIS H. RELTON ?
There is really no foundation for ascribing the name D'Evereux to the family of Patrick and William, first and second Earls of Salisbury, and the latter's daughter Ela, wife of William " Longespee," third Earl. The mistake appears to have arisen from an error in transcription, and has been propa- gated by Burke.
So far as any family may be said to have had a surname at the period (twelfth and
early thirteenth centuries) and certainly
the convenience of attaching one for pur-
poses of reference is obvious the name of
the above persons was De Salisbury (or,
as perhaps more often written, Sarisbery).
Patrick before the grant of his earldom (if,
indeed, he was really created an earl ), Walter
his father (ob. 1147), and Edward, "Vice-
comes" of Wilts at Domesday, were, I
think, all so designated, as holding land in
and about the city, and office, apparently
hereditary, in county and city also.
E. B. DE COLEPEPER.
By bringing the valuable pedigrees given at the last reference (pp. 371-5) into evidence, MR. FRANCIS H. RELTON has not only added considerably to the clarification of the general subject, but has made me his debtor for many facts hitherto unknown to me, and for which I tender him my sincere thanks. As he has now established the identity of the lady in question, I will not take up more of your valued space regarding small points, saving one i.e., as to the Earldom of Ulster and Matilda (or Maud) de Laci. Of this Mr. Round has written :
"The old belief that the Earldom of Ulster passed with Matilda, d. of Hugh de Laci, to Walter de Burgh, its next holder, is still found in Burke's ' Peerage,' but was disposed of by Mr. Archer in his Life of the latter."
I may incidentally also remark that see p. 375 if Hugh de Laci did not marry Lesceline, his first wife, until c. 1203, he was then c. 36 years of age, and may have been married to a still earlier w r ife unknown, who may have been the mother of his sons.
ST. CLAIR BADDELEY.
"JONGHEER" (11 S. viii. 309, 353). I think the querist will be pleased to see what Sir Thomas Smith,
" Knight, Doctor of both Lawos, and one of the principall Secretaries unto the two most worthy Princes, King Edward, and Queene Elizabeth," has written on this matter in his treatise ' The Common Wealth of England,' London, 1640. On p. 65 he says :
" Yonker in Low Dutch betokeneth a meane (lent leman, or a gay fellow. Possibly our Yeo- men, not being so bold as to name themselves Gentlemen, when they came home, were content when they had heard by frequentation with Lo\v Dutchmen, of some small Gentleman (but yet that would bee counted so) to bee called .imongst them, Yonkerman, they calling so in warres by mockage or in sport the one another, when they came home, Yonkerman, and sq Yeoman : which word now signifieth among us, a man well at ease, and having honestly to live, vet not a Gentleman : whatsoever that word
