that it was precisely because the allegations do not appear in these or any
other writers or authorities that I considered them not unworthy of the
attention of the readers of the "NOTES AND QUERIES". I am at a loss to
reconcile MR. GIBSON'S expression "startling," as applied to the assertions
of Messrs. Wren and Chamberlayne (and I need not add, that had they not
been startling to myself as to him, they would never have found their way
to your paper), with the following paragraph:

"In this sense, the sovereign and every knight became a sworn defender
of the faith. Can this duty have come to be popularly attributed as
part of the royal style and title?"

I do not allude to this statement in a critical point of view, but simply,
as, from the general tenor of his communication, MR. GIBSON appears to
labour under an impression, that, from ignorance of historical authorities,
I have merely given utterance to a _popular_ fallacy, unheard of by him and
other learned men; and, like the "curfew," to be found in no
contemporaneous writer. I beg, however, to assure him, that before
forwarding the note and question to your paper, I had examined not only the
Bulls, and our best historians, but also the works of such writers as
Prynne, Lord Herbert, Spelman, Camdem, and others, who have in any way
treated of regal titles and prerogatives.

I have only to add, that beyond the investigation of the truth of the
assertions of Messrs. Wren and Chamberlayne, I am not in any way
interested. I care not for the result. I only seek for the elucidation of
that which is at once "startling" and a "popular fallacy".

ROBERT ANSTRUTHER.