SOVEREIGN.

OUR Sovereigns have laid aside the title of King of France, and I think as things stand, becomingly and properly; though I doubt about the propriety of omitting to quarter the arms, for it was the Salic Law alone I apprehend which excluded our Edward the Third from the inheritance; and if that should ever come to be set aside, and the subjects of the French Crown should have to find an heir of the female line, I know not but the descendants of Edward the Third would be able to make out a very fair title to it. Queen Elizabeth was resolved that even the Salic Law itself should not stand in her way, but that if she could not be Queen, she would be KING of France, for she neither altered the arms or titles appertaining to her regalities. The Salic Law has always been very questionable; as Montaigne observes, it was never seen by any one," cette loy, que nul ne vit, onques,' and if it ever existed, appears not to have been pleaded or acted upon till almost nine whole

centuries after it was first enacted.

For my own part, I think Edward the Third's claim to the crown was a very fair one, nor can I much blame Archbishop Chicheley for advising Henry the Fifth to revive it. I confess, I do not see why the arms should not still have been quartered, according to our own laws of heraldry, as well as the laws of the kingdom, which would have made Edward heir to his mother's patrimonial inheritance.

It is odd enough that our heirs apparent should bear a title which in French as regularly expresses Prince of France as their English title does that of Wales; "Prince des Galles ;" and which is moreover said by antiquaries, to be the most original title of the two, and to point out the close connection between the two countries; Britain having been peopled from Gaul, and Wales being the true seat of the most ancient Britons; so that Wales and Walish, or Welsh, are no other than Galles and Gallish, by a change of G into W, according to the custom of the Saxons. After the dreadful transactions at Paris, on the 10th of August, 1792, when the word was given to efface every mark of royalty to be found in the streets and squares of that city, the Prince

de Galles was immediately taken down from the hotel of that name.

If our Kings continue the title of Defender of the Faith, (not first granted, but confirmed to them by Papal authority, as well as afterwards by Act of Parliament,) I see no reason for their having given up the title of " Most Christian," which Henry VII. bore, and which was also confirmed to Henry VIII. by the Lateran Council under Julius II.-I look upon the title "Christianissimus," to belong quite as much to the King of England as to the King of France. As a superlative, we may reasonably say it cannot belong to both; but if it be so, it only makes the case the stronger. I believe few people know in fact, that it did ever belong to the Kings of this country. But it certainly did, and I do not see why it should have been so readily abandoned to a rival. I have been the more particular upon this, perhaps, from a slight feeling of jealousy; for it must be acknowledged that while our Sovereigns were members of the Church of Rome, they were placed below the Kings of France. The Emperor, for instance, was accounted the eldest son of the Church," Filius major Ecclesia;" the King of France the second son,

66

or Filius minor," and the King of England Filius tertius, or indeed no son at all, but "adoptivus," the third or adopted son. Surely our Protestant Kings, when they renounced this parentage and brotherhood, had no occasion to continue the rank so arbitrarily assigned to them. They never meant to acknowledge that after the Reformation they became less than true Sons of the Church, setting aside however the Popish gradations of first, second, and third. And this being so in all reason, and "Christianissimus, or "Most Christian," having once been a legitimate title of the Kings of England, I think it should rather have been studiously retained, than carelessly abandoned. Not that I would have it so resumed as to pick a quarrel with France, or to appear a mere act of pride and arrogance; but I do not see, why, according to the principles of Protestantism, and of our Church, which we publicly avow to be a pure and apostolical branch of the Church Universal, we should suffer that title to pass from us to a Prince, not only a member of the Church of Rome, but according to the dictates of the latter, having a priority assigned to him, to which we have no longer any reason to submit. Old Doc

tor Peter Heylyn, in his Help to English History, refers us upon these points, to two works, which not being within my reach, I will thank any of my readers to consult for me, (if the titles tempt them) and transmit whatever they may find there, conducive to the improvement of this passage in future editions, if the public should choose to call for them. The reference runs thus. “For which and other proofs hereof, consult the Epistle Dedicatory before Dr. Cracanthorp against the arch-Bishop of Spalato, and Sir Isaac Wake, in his Rex Platonicus."

The titles of our Sovereigns have undergone many changes. Henry IV. was His Grace; Henry VI. His Excellent Grace; Edward IV. High and mighty Prince; Henry VII. sometimes Grace and sometimes Highness; Henry VIII. first Highness, then Majesty. Now sacred Majesty, and most excellent Majesty. James the First, it has been said, was the first "Sacred Majesty." Miss Aikin calls it an inappropriate title; in some senses it may be so, but not in all.

When the King is called Sir, I think it is generally done with too little ceremony and distinction. It is the appellation indeed of all the Royal Family; but in the case of the King