224 THE ANCESTOR The gold rod was put away after 1689 and only brought to light in 1 8 14. The title of 'Queen's Sceptre with the Dove ' misleads the public, as it gives the impression that it is one of the queen-consort*s regalia^ whereas it is really that used by a queen-regnant when crowned with a king-regnant. This is a contingency that is not likely to arise again, and it would be less confusing if this gold rod were put in a less prominent position among the regalia at the Tower. Another misconception, for which Mr. Macleane is not re- sponsible in the first place, is the remark on p. 44 that the ampulla and spoon escaped destruction in 1649. Among the regalia destroyed in 1 649 were those at Westminster, and these include ' a dove of gold set with stones and pearl ' and * one silver spoon gilt.* These with the other ornaments were
- totally broken and defaced.' Among the jewels ordered to be
provided in 1661 was 'an ampuU for the oil and a spoon.' The ampulla then provided is that now at the Tower, and which cannot be the old ampulla, for it scarcely corresponds to the description of being ' set with stones and pearl ' and does not bear any trace of this ornamentation. The spoon however is old : but it is not the spoon used for the anointing before 1649. spoon which, since 1661, has been used for the unction of the kings and queens of England. The other regalia date, without exception, the king's from 1661, and the queen-consort's from 1685. Mr. Macleane has very wisely put the coronation processions into appendices ; for, as we have hinted, the only part of the coronation in June which may possibly be historical, is the cere- mony in the Abbey. He says, with great truth, that ' corona- tions seem to have fallen upon evil days.' It is interesting to read of the outcry in 1838 against the 'Penny Crowning,' as it was then called, which was raised by the decision not to revive the ceremonies in Westminster Hall and the procession. We hear (p. 239) of a meeting of citizens which offered 1 00,000 towards the cost of reviving the abandoned pageants and banquet. The precedent continued in 1838 has been fol- lowed now ; but there is this difference, that whereas in 1838 there was a strong agitation in favour of retaining our national customs, which are of great antiquity, in this age of revived archaeological interest nobody seems to care anything about them. If national customs are to be considered ' out of date ' and are to be mauled at the will of Philistine officials, then this
