NOTES ON THE CORONATION OF KING

WILLIAM AND QUEEN MARY.

P. 3. The text of the Proclamation is given in Appendix II. p. 68. The Council Register of William III. contains several minutes dealing with matters which concern the coronation, of a date earlier than this report, and they are given above at length, in Appendix II. p. 70.

Proclamations and Commissions of like purport may be found in Jac. II. (7-10.) Car. II. (28-42.) and Geo. IV* (1–56.)

The bishop of London spoken of in this minute was Dr. Henry Compton. Dr. Sancroft, though still Archbishop of Canterbury, had not taken th oaths. At King James II.'s coronation Dr. Sancroft had been directed to view the earlier forms and abridge them, keeping to the essentials (Jac. II. 4.) and this doubtless served as the unfortunate precedent to Dr. Compton for the changes made by him.

P. 4. The warrants for the refitting of the Crowns and the preparation of the rest of the royal ornaments may be found in the Public Record Office, Lord Chamberlain's Record, Coronation accounts, 429.

428 of the same accounts contains the charges and description of all the necessaries for this Coronation. (See Appendix VI. p. 78.)

The Warrant for the making of the two Coronation rings is in Appendix V. p. 76.

Queen Mary's ring is now in the possession of the Duke of Portland and is figured in a paper on The Queen's Coronation Ring" in Archæological Journal, 1897, vol. liv. p. 3. What follows is quoted from this paper:

Queen Mary II.'s ring, belonging to the Duke of Portland, is of gold and the hoop is narrow, hardly a millimeter broad; the diameter is 18 millimeters. The stones are: an oblong ruby, ten millimeters long by eight wide, set flush, facetted, eight sided, and not engraved; a diamond at each end of the ruby, oval, five millimeters by three. None of the stones is

à jour.

[Here appears a woodcut of the ring.]

"This ring was exhibited at the Grafton Gallery in the autumn of 1894. Accompanying it was a paper on which was written:

666

In this paper is contained Queen Mary's Ruby Coronation ring ye old setting shews how it was when she had it first; ye paper with ye ring is Queen Mary's hand writing and gives a reason why it was set in ye manner. A. A."

"This must refer to the writing which follows: 'this Ruby so set was given me by the Prince three days after we wear married wch being the first thing he gave me I have ever had a perticular esteem for it when I was to be crowned I had it made big enough for ye finger for ye occasion but by mistake it was put on ye King's finger and I had to put on [his?] Mine was designed for him, but we changed & I have worn it ever since till last thursday ye 17 of Nov. 1689 ye stone dropt out at diner I was extreamly troubled at it upon the account forementioned, therefore having found it lockit up for fear of ye like mischance againe'

COR. ORDERS.

K

of His Majesty King George IIII. in the Abbey Church of S. Peter, Westminster, on Thursday, the 19th of July 1821. London: George Eyre and Andrew Strahan, 1821.

Geo. IV.*: Sir George Nayler, The Coronation of His Most Sacred Majesty King George the Fourth, London, 1839. pp. 120-126.

Jac. I. See above, Car. I. The Manner of the Coronation of King Charles the First, pp. 110-137.

Jac. II. Francis Sandford, The History of the Coronation of... James II. In the Savoy, Thomas Newcomb, 1687. pp. 82-103.

Jac. II.* the manuscript volume in the Heralds' College which also contains W. and M.

Liber Regalis: Missale ad usum Ecclesiae Westmonasteriensis, H.B.S. 1893. fasc. ii. col. 673-col. 725.

Stewart Orders: those of Jac. I. Car. I. and II.

Victoria: The Form and Order of the Service that is to be performed, and of the Ceremonies that are to be observed, in the Coronation of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, in the Abbey Church of St. Peter, Westminster, on Thursday, the 28th of June 1838. London, George Eyre and Andrew Spottiswoode, 1838.

W. and M.: the order of William and Mary printed in this volume.

W. and M.*: An Account of the Ceremonial at the Coronation . . . of King William and Queen Mary, published by order of the Duke of Norfolk. In the Savoy, Edw. Jones, 1689.

Wm. IV. The Form and Order of the Service that is to be performed, and of the Ceremonies that are to be observed, in the Coronation of Their Majesties King William IV. and Queen Adelaide, in the Abbey Church of S. Peter, Westminster, on Thursday the 8th of September, 1831. London, George Eyre and Andrew Strahan, 1831.

:

Wm. IV.* The Ceremonies to be observed at the Royal Coronation of ... King William the Fourth [London] 1831. Bearing imprimatur of the Earl-Marshal.

NOTES ON THE CORONATION OF KING

WILLIAM AND QUEEN MARY.

P. 3. The text of the Proclamation is given in Appendix II. p. 68. The Council Register of William III. contains several minutes dealing with matters which concern the coronation, of a date earlier than this report, and they are given above at length, in Appendix II. p. 70.

Proclamations and Commissions of like purport may be found in Jac. II. (7-10.) Car. II. (28-42.) and Geo. IV* (1-56.)

The bishop of London spoken of in this minute was Dr. Henry Compton. Dr. Sancroft, though still Archbishop of Canterbury, had not taken th oaths. At King James II.'s coronation Dr. Sancroft had been directed to view the earlier forms and abridge them, keeping to the essentials (Jac. II. 4.) and this doubtless served as the unfortunate precedent to Dr. Compton for the changes made by him.

P. 4. The warrants for the refitting of the Crowns and the preparation of the rest of the royal_ornaments may be found in the Public Record Office, Lord Chamberlain's Record, Coronation accounts, 429.

428 of the same accounts contains the charges and description of all the necessaries for this Coronation. (See Appendix VI. p. 78.)

The Warrant for the making of the two Coronation rings is in Appendix V. p. 76.

Queen Mary's ring is now in the possession of the Duke of Portland and is figured in a paper on The Queen's Coronation Ring" in Archæological Journal, 1897, vol. liv. p. 3. What follows is quoted from this paper:

66

Queen Mary II.'s ring, belonging to the Duke of Portland, is of gold and the hoop is narrow, hardly a millimeter broad; the diameter is 18 millimeters, The stones are an oblong ruby, ten millimeters long by eight wide, set flush, facetted, eight sided, and not engraved; a diamond at each end of the ruby, oval, five millimeters by three. None of the stones is à jour.

[Here appears a woodcut of the ring.]

"This ring was exhibited at the Grafton Gallery in the autumn of 1894. Accompanying it was a paper on which was written:

"In this paper is contained Queen Mary's Ruby Coronation ring ye old setting shews how it was when she had it first; ye paper with ye ring is Queen Mary's hand writing and gives a reason why it was set in ye manner. A. A.'"

"This must refer to the writing which follows: 'this Ruby so set was given me by the Prince three days after we wear married wch being the first thing he gave me I have ever had a perticular esteem for it when I was to be crowned I had it made big enough for ye finger for ye occasion but by mistake it was put on ye King's finger and I had to put on [his?] Mine was designed for him, but we changed & I have worn it ever since till last thursday ye 17 of Nov. 1689 ye stone dropt out at diner I was extreamly troubled at it upon the account forementioned, therefore having found it lockit up for fear of ye like mischance againe'

COR. ORDERS.

K

"The writing that follows has been added later and in some parts is hard to make out, the paper having been folded through the second line.

"Oct. ye [date illegible] 1694 I gave it at [? to] Beauvoir to set fast' [here the writing is almost illegible]."

Beauvoir was the court jeweller. (See Jac. II. 42 margin.)

Set flush is an expression used by jewellers to signify that the stone is closed at the back with gold; à jour means that the stone is open at the back.

In the paper in the Archæological Journal there are also woodcuts of the coronation rings of King William IV. and Queen Adelaide, and of the Queen.

Other particulars seem to be almost copied from Jac. II. Indeed in the robes, jewels, and other details, excepting the Church service, there seems to be a great wish to follow the precedent of "the last Coronation." See also Car. II. (30.) and Geo. IV.* (35.)

For the King.

P. 5. In W. and M. the royal ornaments themselves do not seem to have differed much from those of Liber regalis, or of the Stewart orders. The charges for their making are to be found in Appendix VI. p. 78.

The first ornament named is "the colobium sindonis of fine linen or sarsenet in fashion of a surplice without sleeves." The permission to use silk or linen for a vestment identical with the alb or rochet may be noticed. The rochets of Edward III. were of white silk. As a matter of fact superfine cambric holland" was used, and it was laced with "fine Flanders lace with wings to it of the same holland." (See Appendix VI. p. 79.) Holland, not silk, was also used for the colobium sindonis of Queen Anne, George I. and II., and it was to have been of holland in George III.'s oronation. (See Appendix VII. p. 88.) There is evidence that in Germany and elsewhere the surplice of canons had been made of silk in the sixteenth entury; but it is an abuse, just as making the corporas of silk is an abuse, and it is well so far as we can tell, that in modern times this vestment of our sovereigns should have been of linen, as its very name indicates.

The colobium sindonis was to be without sleeves, thus precisely reproducing the episcopal rochet, as in Edward III.'s case. But sleeves are very plainly shown in the Corpus picture (see Plate I.) and Liber regalis says that the colobium sindonis is to be ad modum dalmaticae, which involves the addition of sleeves, and the same direction appears in King Charles I., and the drawing accompanying King Charles II.'s order plainly shows sleeves, thus exhibiting a vestment not to be distinguished from the alb. But the drawing in Sandford of James II.'s colobium sindonis shows no sleeves and the order for providing it says it is to be without sleeves. Jac. II. Plate I. p. 19.) Dr. Sancroft says the same, describing the colobium sindonis as a white fine Linen or silken vest, Tabert, or Surplice, doun to the Foot, in the Form of a Dalmatica, save it is without sleeves." (St.. John's College, Cambridge, L. 14, p. 36.) Apparently William and Mary have but followed James II., and the later orders have followed these.

The Supertunica, or Close pall, must early in its history have been closed in front, but in the representations of Charles II. and James II.'s Supertunica it is already open, a change most likely made for the convenience of putting on, just as the Surplice in the early nineteenth century opened in front. The upertunica is the same ornament as the tunicle or dalmatic, a pair of which was worn by the bishop under the chasuble. In the Corpus picture of a prince's coronation (see Plate I.) two tunicles are plainly being worn;

and in Edward III.'s coronation robes two tunicles are spoken of, though on the other hand two rochets are also given. (Sir Francis Palgrave, Antient Kalendars, &c., Public Records, 1836. vol. iii. p. 225.)

Sporley gives both tunica and supertunica, and the tunica may be only the colobium sindonis. (Brit. Mus. Cotton MS. Claud. A. viii. fo. 376.) In Liber regalis (699) the supertunica is described as tunica longa et talaris intexta magnis imaginibus aureis ante et retro.

The supertunica is to be put on next after the colobium sindonis, and it is then to be girt with a broad girdle of cloth of gold to support the sword. This girdle is very plainly seen in the Corpus picture (see Plate I.)

The armilla in fashion of a Stole was not worn precisely as a stole is worn, either by bishop or priest. It was placed around the king's neck, but it did not hang pendant but by the ribands with which it was supplied at its ends, it was tied to the elbows above and below that joint. This may be the origin of the name armilla, which signifies a bracelet.

The royal stole does not seem to have been always worn in this way. In the account of the opening of King Edward I.'s coffin it is said that the stole, nade of white tissue, was crossed over the breast (Archæologia, 1786, vol. iii. p. 382) thus resembling the way in which the imperial stole was ordered to be worn at certain coronations. (M. Goldast, Collectio Constitutionum Imperialium, Francofurti ad Moenum, 1713, t. iii. p. 402.) The idea that this crossing was made like that of a priest's stole, is confirmed by the picture of Albert Dürer's at Nuremberg, representing Charles the Great in coronation robes; which has evidently inspired the frontispiece to Fr. Bock, Die Kleinodien des heiligen römischen Reiches, Wien, 1864, and travellers may remember the same feature in the imperial figures around the tomb of Maximilian in the church at Innsbruck. But Maximilian's immediate successor, Charles V. is said to have worn the stole like a deacon's, at his coronation at Bologna. "Stola broccati auri riceii ab humero sinistro in transversum sub dextro, Manipulum de eodem broccato ad sinistrum brachium," &c. (J. B. Gatticus, Acta Selecta Caeremonialia, Romae, 1753, t. ii. p. 108.) And to this may be added an earlier instance in the coronation of William, Count of Holland, as King of the Romans in 1248. "Vestitum ornamentis Leviticis in modum Diaconi" (I. de Beca, Historia Veterum Episcoporum Ultraiectinae Sedis, &c., Franequerae, 1612, p. 67.)

At the last coronation, as far as can be made out so long after the event, the Queen wore her stole pendant, not tied to the elbows.

The armilla is not visible in the Corpus picture, but it is spoken of very distinctly in Liber regalis (700) and the Stewart orders. In Car. II. the ends are adorned with crosses like a modern continental stole; and to the ends are attached the strings or ribands by which it was tied to the elbows. So also in Jac. II. but there are no crosses at the end. There were crosses on the Victorian armilla.

"The pall of cloth of gold in fashion of a cope" is ordered in Liber regalis (701) to be square and woven throughout with golden eagles. These golden eagles may be a token of the claim of the King of England to be Emperor of Britain. They do not appear in the Corpus picture (see Plate I.) though double-headed eagles within circlets are clearly seen in the chasuble of the prelate below the King on his right. The pall in this picture 15 arranged with a sexfoil pectoral fastening it in front. One angle is seen below the right knee. It is lined with ermine, the word which seems to be wanting in the text (p. 24) but which appears in Anne and all the later orders. The Victorian pall was not lined with ermine, however, and taffeta was used for Jac. II., W. and M., Geo. I., and Geo. II. (see Appendices VI. and VII.) In Geo. IV.* the pall is said to have been lined with ermine.