10 s. XIL JULY si, i9oa] NOTES AND QUERIES.
97
Coleman of Tottenham. Part vi. p. 90 also
refers to a deed of 1612 relating to land in
Hoxton in the occupation of Edmond
Shorediche and others.
I have frequently noticed the name in the Calendars of the P.C.C.
CHAS. HALL CROUCH.
ARMS OF MARRIED WOMEN : MARSHAL- LING OF INSIGNIA OF ORDERS (10 S. x. 429 ; xi. 296). The use of two shields where the husband is knight of an order is probably not much older than Edmondson's book (1780). In the 1724 edition of Guillim there is no allusion to it. In a short treatise on heraldry appended to ' The British Compendium, or Rudiments of Honour,' 1723, I find it suggested, on the authority of Sandford, that in the case of Knights of the Garter, if the shield shows the wife's arms impaled, the Garter should not surround, as usual, the whole shield, but only the husband's dexter half (see p. 539) : " The husband may give the equal share of the Escutcheon and hereditary Honour, yet cannot share his temporary order of Knighthood with her."
According to Edmondson, the second shield bore the lady's arms alone. In this he was followed by Hugh Clark, whose manual was first published in 1810. A nineteenth edition was issued so late as 1891, edited by J. R. Planche, the well-known member of the Heralds' College, and gives the same rule. Boutell, however, says the second shield should bear the conjoint arms of husband and wife. Mr. Fox- Davies, whose 'Art of Heraldry' (1905) is the most recent and comprehensive work on the subject, says the same. Their view seems more in accordance with the general principle that a married lady, unless a peeress, cannot bear a shield (or lozenge), but can only show her arms on her husband's shield or the second of his two shields. MR. UDAL would infer that if she has an order, she, bj- parity of reasoning, may bear a separate shield with her own arms only, surrounded by the insignia of her order, and that this shield, or perhaps lozenge, may even precede the shield showing the conjoint arms.
1 see no parity of reasoning between the case of a peeress and a lady with a merely personal distinction ; even the peeress is not entitled to precedence for her lozenge. It is borne after the husband's shield, or the two shields if he is a knight. Again, there are no insignia to surround her shield. Neither the Victoria and Albert Order nor the Crown of India has a collar, nor can they
have a circlet, for the knight's circlet with
motto is derived from the roundel of his
star and badge.
Married ladies who are not peeresses in their own right or peeresses married to commoners cannot display their badges on a lozenge during their husbands' lifetime. As a matter of practice I find Mr. Fox- Davies at p. 317 gives the arms of the Marquis of Dufferin. There the dexter shield shows his collars and badges ; the sinister, in a laurel wreath with his wife's arms impaled, shows her badges. But at
E. 380 we ? find the arms of Sir Richard trachey, 'with the two shields accole. There the second shield does not show the badge of the Crown of India, to which Lady Strachey was entitled. The arms of the Duke and Duchess of Fife (p. 115) show the V.A. badge on the second shield, but not on the lozenge. These both bear her arms alone, royal arms not being impaled by an inferior in rank. The royal achievement (pi. xxvi.) shows the Queen's badges both on her shield and her lozenge.
Mr. G. W. Eve in his ' Decorative Heraldry ' says the practice varies. Probably it does artistically, if not according to strict rule.
J. W. MUIR. Moorlynch, Bournemouth.
SNEEZING SUPERSTITION (10 S. xi. 7, 117, 173). In this part there prevails an old saying which tells us : " One sneeze betokens somebody praising you ; two sneezes signify somebody spiting you ; three sneezes mean you are being loved by some one unknown ; but four sneezes point out that you have just caught a deadly cold." Compare with this the following :
"In Herman's 'Vulgaria,' 1519, we read: 'Two or three neses be holsom ; one is a shrewd token.' Howell records a proverb : * He has sneezed thrice ; turn him out of the hospital.'" Hazlitt, 'Faiths and Folk-lore,' 1905, vol. ii. p. 554.
In his ' Kiyu Shdran,' written c. 1800, ed. Tokyo, 1882, torn. viii. fol. 11, Kitamura Shinsetsu argues that both the Japanese and the Chinese primordially regarded sneezing as a sign that some one is affection- ately calling the sneezer to mind ; but the people of India found in it an evil prognostic even as early as in the Buddha's lifetime. That later the Chinese viewed sneezing as sometimes auspicious, sometimes ominous, is to be gathered from the ' Bibliography of the Han Dynasty ' (the dynasty continued from 202 B.C. to 7 A.D.), wherein mention is made of the sixteen ' Books of Fortune- telling from Sneezing, Tingling in the Ear, &c.,' all now lost. The ' Ti-kuig-king-wuh-
