ii s. XL JAN. 16, 1915.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
would suit my argument very well, for the essence of my suggestion is that the lilies in the English coat came there by virtue of ordinary heraldic usage. Whether the fact intended to be symbolized was descent from Geoffrey of Anjou or Edward's Capetian descent through his mother matters but little.
There are, I venture to think, difficulties other than the placing of the lily coat in the first quarter to be got over by those who support the accepted explanation for Ed- ward's act, viz., a claim to the French crown : e.g., Froissart says that after assuming the arms of France quarterly with England at the suggestion of the Flemings, as related by ME. UDAL, King Edward " thenceforth took on him the name of the King of France, and so continued till he left it again by com- position." This means, I take it, till the Treaty of Bretigny, whereby King Edward and his son renounced " the name and right to the crown of France." If the quartering of the lily coat by Edward was generally understood to be in respect of a claim to the French crown, why did he not cease the practice when he renounced that claim ? But is there any evidence, from seals or similar sources., of cessation, by Edward III. or his successors, of the use of the lily coat in the first and fourth quarters after it had once been assumed ?
The fair inference seems to be that there was some reason other than a claim to the crown of France why Edward III., and English kings after him, placed the lily coat in the first quarter of their shields. What was that reason ? I suggest Angevin de- scent in the male line, or possibly Edward's descent on his mother's side. Of the two I favour the Angevin theory as being the more consistent with the position of the lilies in the first and fourth quarters.
A subject indirectly involved in this dis- cussion, and of extreme historical interest, has been introduced the enamelled slab in the Museum at Le Mans, commonly attri- buted to Geoffrey of Anjou. As, among other heraldic questions, the origin of the lions of England is supposed to be connected with the arms on that slab, it becomes of importance to consider whether we are justified in accepting as correct its attribu- tion to Geoffrey.
On this point reference may be made to an article by the late Mr. J. R. Planche, 'Somerset Herald, in vol. i. p. 29 of the Journal of the British Archaeological Associa- tion, in which he gives strong reasons for
the belief that there were two similar enamel slabs in Le Mans Cathedral one in memory of Geoffrey of Anjou, and the other in memory of an ancestor of William d'Evereux or FitzPatrick, Earl of Salisbury, whose daughter and heiress, Ela, married William Longespee, illegitimate son of Henry II. and that the slab in the Museum at Le Mans is not Geoffrey's, but a D'Evereux's.
The fact that the arms on the shield borne by the figure at Le Mans Museum are the same, both as to charges and tincture, as those on Longespee's monument at Salisbury is certainly a strong point in support of Mr. Blanche's view ; and if the results at which he arrives are correct, it seems clear that con- fusion caused by loss of one of the two enamel slabs originally in Le Mans Cathedral has arisen between the two. It should be men- tioned that Mr. Blanche's theory was that Longespee, on his marriage with the heiress of D'Evereux, assumed, as was not unusual in such cases, his father-in-law's arms.
Mr. Planch6 deals with the subject at considerable length, and to appreciate his arguments one must refer to the article. For my part, its perusal has left me with a strong impression that, on the whole, Mr. Planche made out a good case, and that the slab in the Museum at Le Mans should be ascribed rather to a D'Evereux than Geoffrey of Anjou, while at the same time it must be admitted with Mr. Planche that there are difficulties in the support of either claim.
Whichever view is correct about this enamelled slab, I submit that my argument remains unaffected ; for even if the effigy thereon is that of Geoffrey of Anjou, and if it is to be accepted as evidence that gold lions, eight, six, four, or any other number, in a blue field were borne by him, still, inasmuch as it is common ground that in Geoffrey's time hereditary arms had not come into general use, there was no reason why Ed- ward III., in seeking for an Angevin coat, should have selected that borne by Geoffrey. F. SYDNEY EDEN.
REGENT CIRCUS (11 S. x. 313, 373, 431, 475; xi. 14). In connexion with this subject I may mention that I lived in the Hay- market for ten years in my youth and arly manhood (1866-76), and that I am quite certain that Piccadilly began at the top west corner.
I never heard lower Regent Street called Waterloo Place, and the two were, in fact, divided then, as they are now, by Charles Street. W. A. FROST.