Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 2.djvu/544

 528 APPENDIX B Shaw (The Knights of England) of prefixing to each name its place in numerical succession. He does not, however, thereby imply or desire it to be understood that such place is definitely established. Sir Harris Nicolas (History of the Orders of Knighthood) writes with perfect truth (vol. ii, p. 54) that " the deficiency of materials for the ancient History of the Order renders it more than probable that many knights may have hetn elected whose names are not recorded, and it is not impossible that a few are erroneously supposed to have received its honours. The precise date of the elections of many of the companions is very doubtful and it is not, by any means, certain that more knights were not removed from, or resigned, the Order than is now known." He goes on to say that in his opinion the only effect of " such extreme accuracy as that of numbering the knights and calling any of them the twentieth or the hundred and second Knight of the Garter is to mislead." Despite this protest of Nicolas, the Editor has adopted Dr. Shaw's system of numeration as a matter of convenience for reference in assigning the vacancies to which the knights succeeded, while at the same time fully admitting and desiring to emphasise the point which Nicolas has so clearly indicated. With regard to the numeration itself Dr. Shaw differs from Beltz by omitting the first Sovereign, Edward III (numbered i in the latter's list), hence his number in the case of each knight is one higher than that of Beltz. The Editor has followed Dr. Shaw in excluding Edward III, the Sovereign being outside the original number (25) of knights (which was not increased until more than four centuries after the institution of the Order). If Edward III is to be included in the numbered list, it is difficult to see why Edward IV and Edward VI, who were not ordinary knights before succeed- ing to the Sovereignty, or the female Sovereigns (Queens Mary I, Elizabeth, Mary II, and Victoria), whom Beltz excludes from his numerical catalogue, should not also have places assigned to them. The date of the Institution of the Order has long been a vexata quastio. Those who desire to see the arguments for and against the various dates suggested (1344, 1347, 1348} ^349) m^y fi^id them in Ashmole, Anstis, Beltz, Nicolas, and Shaw. Beltz is the latest writer who supports Froissart's assertion that it was established in 1344, but the weight of evidence appears to be decidedly in favour of 1348, and Dr. Shaw, who agrees with Nicolas, is almost certainly right in adopting that date and in the explanation which he suggests for that which, on Froissart's authority, was long accepted. The Order originally consisted of the Sovereign (the King of England for the time being) and 25 Knights Companions, of whom the then Prince of Wales was named first, and up to 1786 the heir apparent and all other sons of the Sovereign and foreign princes admitted to the Order were in- cluded in the number of 25. A Statute enacted 31 May 1786 provided that the sons of the Sovereign should not be reckoned in, but be additional to, the number of 25. On 2 June 1786 (on which day four younger sons of the Sovereign were added to the existing knights) the Order consisted of the Sovereign and