Page:Notes and Queries - Series 11 - Volume 5.djvu/311

 n s. v. MAB. 30. i9i2.] NOTES AND QUERIES.

URBAN V.'s FAMILY NAME (11 S. iv. 204, 256, 316, 456, 499, 518). The berceau of the family of Grimaldi, Princes of Monaco, is generally believed to have been Grimaud anciently known as ' : Castrum Grimaldi " a picturesque old village in the Depart- ment of the Var, containing about 1,200 inhabitants, and situated a few miles in- land from the seaside resort of St. Tropez. In the neighbouring village of Cogolin there still exists a tower, dating from the twelfth century, which formed part of an old castle of the Grimaldi.

It must not be hastily assumed that every family bearing the name of Grimaldi de- scended from a common ancestor. The Lombard name Grimbald containing two themes which are frequently found in Germanic names, e.g., Ethelbald, Baldwin, and Gerbald or Garbald, whence Garibaldi was gradually converted in Provence and Italy into Grimwald, Grimoald, Grimoard, Grimaud, &c., all of which, in addition to the better-known Grimaldi, are still in existence. There may have been many Grimbalds in former days, who may have founded different families in France, Spain, and Italy. Evidenca of direct, descent is necessary in every case. The Monaco family is of course extinct in the male line.

W. F. PRIDEATJX.

Hyeres.

SIR FRANCIS DRAKE AND THE TEMPLE (11 S.iv. 347, 414, 490 ; v. 10, 134). I have to thank my old friend and " censors " (if I may use that word in one of its pleasantest senses) MR. PICKERING of the Inner Temple for his kindly attempt to remove my diffi- culty in finding a satisfactory answer to the question I ventured to propound in my previous communication to 'X. & Q.' on the above subject ; but I regret to say that his reply, so far from removing my difficulty, seems rather to accentuate it.

My question was this : Why, if Sir F. Drake was a member of the Inner Temple at the time of the famous admiral's return from his triumphs in 1585, was it left to the Middle Temple and not to " his own Inn " to celebrate that return in the following year ?

MR. PICKERING'S reply is that the answer is simple. It was because Drake, being a member, was, for that very reason, precluded (as I understand him) by etiquette from being honoured and feted as a guest, as he could be if a non-member. Now this answer is undoubtedly simple, but, if I may say so, it strikes me as at the same time odd in the case of a member who had achieved

greatness in another sphere than the law, who had, in fact, become the national hero, the Nelson, so to speak, of his time.

But, granting that this was so, and granting also a very big concession that there was no way of getting over this difficulty as a matter of etiquette, there is another difficulty which, in my opinion, MR. PICKERING'S explanation fails to remove a difficulty hinging, like the other, on a point of eti- quette. For if there was one social regulation (if it may be so called) more stringent than another more stringent even than that which prevented a member of an Inn being treated as the guest of his own Inn it was this, that no non-member of an Inn should have the entree to it, and be feted and entertained there without the special invitation of its "Masters."

Now, as I have stated in my account of Drake and his visit to the Middle Temple, there is nothing to show that he came there by invitation. On the contrary, as I have pointed out, he seems to have come of his own motion " dropped in " (as a member having a right) is my expression, and I add that the term " accessit " (used in the memorandum or record of the event) seemed to imply as much. Then, on the top of this, comes the fact that he was received with acclamation by all present his " consortes " acclamations due, no doubt, partly to his popularity as a national hero, but, as I venture to think, chiefly because he was " one of themselves " (censors).

For these reasons I still cannot but think it a matter of surprise that Drake, if a member of the Inner Temple at the time of his triumphant return in 1585, was not " specially honoured," as MR. PICKERING says, " by his own Inn " ; also, that my reading of the " memorandum " of the famous Admiral's apparently chance visit to the sister Inn sufficiently justifies my inclusion of him in my ' Catalogue of Notable Middle Templars.' JOHN HUTCHINSON.

Dullalur House, Hereford.

"PICCADILLY GATES" (11 S. v. 150). I believe the term " Piccadilly gates " arose from the following circumstance. A London tradesman made the greater portion of his money by selling the collars known as " pickadils," and built a tavern near St. James's, and named it " Picca- dilly." I therefore think that there were gates to this tavern, and that Nelson, when writing about " new Piccadilly gates," alluded to gates of the pattern that had become known by that name from being