Page:Notes and Queries - Series 9 - Volume 3.djvu/36

 NOTES AND QUERIES. [9 th s.m. JAN.I

children was jealous of her predecessor in his affec tions, for one would rather attribute his silence tc consideration for the living than to forgetfulness o: the dead."

In a manuscript note by the former owner of my copy it is stated that Catherine Wollaston died 21 July, 1720, aged fifty.

Papworth's ' Ordinary ' gives the arms o: Charlton, London, as Az., on a chevron or between three swans arg., as many cinque- foils gu. And he gives the Wollaston arms, Arg., three mullets sa., pierced of the field, as quartering Charlton.

A long epitaph, in somewhat curious Latin, to William Wollaston and his wife is on the .south wall of the chancel of Finborough Church in Suffolk.

W. E. LAYTON, F.S.A. Cuddington Vicarage, Surrey.

I have not got the portrait of the William Wollaston mentioned in the above query, and therefore cannot say ME. HUTTON is incor- rect ; but I find that the arms of the Charl- ton families of London, Sandacre, co. Derby, and Chilwell, Notts, are Gu., on a chevron or, between three swans arg., as many cinquefoils gu. Nicholas Charlton of Chil- well (d. 1650) had three sons, Thomas, Nicholas, and Michael. Thomas was the eldest, and his descendants still reside there and use the above arms. Nicholas (the second son), of London, had a daughter and heiress who married William Wollaston of Shenton. According to Sloan Evans's 'Gram- mar of British Heraldry,' 1847, p. 171 :

" If the wife be an heiress or co-heiress (that is, become the representative of any branch of her family by the absence of male issue) her arms are not impaled with her husband's, but placed on a small shield, or 'escutcheon of pretence,' on the centre of her husband's shield." If the arms of the wife (in this case) are not duly differenced according to the usual prac- tice, they are, I think, incorrect, and have no right to be placed there.

JOHN KADCLIFFE.

SILHOUETTES OF CHILDREN (9 th S. ii 307 353, 396, 436, 494). At last I think that I have arrived at the method by which these clever and elaborate silhouettes were produced. It is quite obvious that a group representing, say, a donkey at full gallop being chased by children, or a stag in the back garden busily engaged in making a meal of the family wash -suspended from poles and ropes, could not have been cut, as likenesses were cut, direct trom the subject. On closely examining the numerous groups, which are all on one plane unmounted, and not, as suggested by MR. J. J3. MORRIS, separate figures afterwards

stuck together, one is struck by the entire absence of outline marks made by pencil or' pointed tool. The cutting is clean at the edges, without marks or depressions. I think that the subjects were drawn in outline on a piece of white paper which was placed on a piece of black paper of corresponding size, the two being fixed together at the edges to prevent displacement while being cut out. The upper or white group, which would be more or less marked or indented at the edges, would be thrown away, and the lower, on black paper, would be retained as the finished picture. If more than one silhouette were required, the number of black pieces of paper would be increased, all being cut out at the same time. It is probable that the draughtsmanship of the collection referred to was due to Lady Ppulett, and the cutting out to M. A. G., or vice versa.

MR. MORRIS refers to sheets of figures in black relieved with white lines indicating the shape of the limbs, dress, &c. These, however, of which I have examples, were not intended to be cut out in silhouette fashion. ANDREW W. TUER.

The Leadenhall Press, E.G.

SIR THOMAS MUNRO, 1761-1827 (9 th S. ii. 89). The recent publication of Mr. Alex- ander Mackenzie's 'History of the Munros' enables me to answer my own query regard- ing the lineage of this distinguished Governor of Madras. Sir Thomas was the sixth in descent from John Munro, burgess of Edin- burgh, who bought the estate of Culcraggie in Alness. This John was the third son of Andrew Munro I. of Kincraig, who was him- self the second son of Andrew Monro V. of Milntown. The latter's ancestor, John Monro I. of Milntown and Tutor of Fowlis (who in 1454 defeated the Mackintoshes at the sanguinary encounter of Clachnaharry, where he lost an arm), was the son of Hugh Munro, ninth Baron of Fowlis and head of the clan, by his second wife Margaret, grand- daughter of Kenneth, fourth Earl of Suther- land. The Milntown branch spelt their name Monro, but some of the families de- scended from them have reverted to the original form, viz., Munro.

From the Milntown branch (senior cadet of the house of Fowlis) the following families of Munros (in addition to that of Culcraggie) trace their descent: Kilmorack, Allan, Cul- naha, Tarlogie, Pitlundie and Bearcrofts, Auchenbowie, Craiglockhart and Cockburn, ^dmondsham (Dorset), Fearn, Ingsdon, Pit- tonachy, Novar, Khives, Findon, Braemore, and Poyntzfield. A. K. BAYLEY.

St. Margaret's, Malvern.