9*8. XL APRIL 18, 1903.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
313
earliest accounts in English of this incident
in the chapter of his ' Remaines ' entitled
'Wise Speeches.' His words are these :
" King Canutus, commonly called Knute, walking on the Sea sands neare to Southampton, was ex- tolled by some of his flattering followers, and told that hee was a King of Kings, the mightiest that raigned farre and neare : that both sea and land were at his commaund : But this speachdid put the godly King in mind of the infinite power of God. by whom Kings have and enioy their power, and therevpon he made this demonstration to refell their flatterie : He tooke off his cloake, and wrap- ping it round together, sate downe vpon it neare to the Sea, that then beganne to flowe, saying, Sea, I commaund thee that thou touch not my feete: But he had not so soone spoken the word, but the surging wave dashed him. Hee then rising vp, and going backe, saide: Ye see now my Lordes, what good cause you have to call me a King, that am not able by my commaundement to stay one wave: no mortall man doubtlesse is worthy of such an high name, no man hath such commaund, but one King, which ruleth all : Let vs honour him, let vs call him King of all Kings, and Lord of all nations : Let vs not only confesse, but also professe him to be ruler of the heavens, sea, and land."
Camden gives as his authorities " Polydorus and others." But Poly d ore "Vergil could have only copied the story. The original writer was no doubt one of the early chroniclers. I think I have somewhere read that Florence of Worcester was the first who related the inci- dent. It is not mentioned in 'The Anglo- Saxon Chronicle.'
Since writing what precedes, I find, on referring to Fuller's ' Church History of Britain,' book ii. cent, xi., that the original author of the story was " Hen[ry of] Hunting- don in Vita Canuti." The version of the quaint, but scoffing historian is not worthy of a moment's comparison with good old Camden's, in my humble opinion.
JOHN T. CURRY.
In the National Museum at the Palace of Frederiksborg, some miles from Copenhagen, the Versailles of Denmark, there is a series of mural paintings illustrating the Viking age and the conquest of England by Sweyn and Canute, painted by the artist Lorenz Fr61ich. The subject alluded to is possibly one of the events depicted. W. E. PRIOR.
The story is told by Henrj^ of Huntingdon in his ' Historia Anglorum.' He places the scene of the episode, which came to him by way of oral tradition, at Southampton.
A. R. BAYLEY.
ARMS OF MARRIED WOMEN (9 th S. ix. 28, 113, 195 ; x. 194, 256, 290, 473; xi. 114, 197). The prevalent idea that a woman's condition (i.e , whether married, widowed, or single) should be displayed to all and singular on
her achievement seems to me (notwithstand-
ing high authority to the contrary) to be
erroneous and unheraldic. To go back to first
principles, heraldry was never intended for
such a purpose. The more correct heraldic
rule seems to be that a woman should bear
her arms on a lozenge, because the shield is a
masculine piece of harness unsuitable to a
member of the gentler sex, whether she be
married or not ; the sole exception to this
rule being the queen regnant, who, notwith-
standing her sex, is a military personage
empowered in mediaeval times to summon
the feudal array, and in modern times
is head of the army. It is true there are
numberless examples of the paternal arms of
married women appearing impaled on their
husbands' shields ; but these are only appa-
rent exceptions, the shield being, in fact, the
husband's, and not the wife's, because, in the
ye of the law, the husband and wife are one
person, and because, formerly, the wife's per-
sonal chattels became the husband's property,
and she had nothing on which she could dis-
play her arms independently of his.
If this contention be correct, there can be no consistent reason why a lady of coat armour in these more enlightened days (when a mar- ried woman is considered a separate entity, and is allowed to hold property independently of her husband) should not bear her paternal arms on the feminine lozenge if she pleases, and that whether her husband be armigerous or not. ARTHUR F. KOWE.
Walton-on-Thames.
It would seem that a lady married to a non-armigerous husband should bear her arms on a lozenge, after the analogy of a peeress in her own right who is married.
GEO. WILL. CAMPBELL.
Leamington.
WATCHHOUSES FOR THE PREVENTION OF BODYSNATCHING (9 th S. x. 448 ; xi. 33, 90, 216). When at Crail (Fifeshire) some few years ago, I saw the " watchhouse" in the church- yard, but was informed it had been erected as a place of deposit for corpses until putre- faction was sufficiently advanced to make them useless for the purposes of body- snatchers ; and the size and strength of the building would fully bear out that idea.
K. BARCLAY-ALLARDICE.
Lostwithiel, Cornwall.
ARCHER FAMILY (9 th S. xi. 248). Henry Archer, M.P. for Warwick borough, was born at Tamworth, and baptized there 18 Nov., 1700. He matriculated at Trinity College, Oxford, 1718. He and his brother Thomas (afterwards Lord Archer) were candidates at
