WOMEN WHO HAVE BEEN KNIGHTED.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LX, Issue 17122, 25 October 1917, Page 6

WOMEN WHO HAVE BEEN KNIGHTED.

SOME INTERESTING POINTS ON A

LITTJLE-KNOWN TOPIC

Much satisfaction has been expressed by both the Press -and the Public since the King announced his intention to found a new Order of Knighthood for those women who h d distinguished themselves in various ways, and who are to take the fine old-world title ci"

''Dame" on their being decorated'with the insignia of this Order. But two notable mistakes have been made by many papers and people when commenting on this new foundation. They talk as if such an Order -were quite new; as if the thing had never hee-x done in England before; as though we ln;d never had any lady-knights! These two notions are quite erroneous, as the following instances will show. Indeed, it will be easily seen that our forefathers, before the Hanoverian regime came in with its new (and in many cases reactionary and pernicious) ideas at to the position of women in a nation, were far'more advanced in 1550 than we were in 1900 upon this question of titles and rewards for .worthy women. Thus, our rulers centuries ago created several high-born ladies as Knights" or'"Dames" of the Garter, which, as everyone knows, is the very highest decoration any British subject can be given. The Countess of Salisbury, from whose leg fell the original biue garter which is said to have given rise to the founding of the Order by Kinp; Edward 111., was herself crented a lady-knight of tha new regime, and, unless it be that the Queen, Philippa, had been previously decorated .with the Garter, of which we are not sure, the Countess of Salisbury is certainly the first lady-knight on record in England. In the choir of. Lincoln Cathedral is the tomb of Joan, Countess of Westmorland, wife of Ralph Nevil. The insignia, robes, etc., sculptured on her enigy there leave no doubt whatever that she, too, hud been given the new Order of the Garter. Then, at Ewelme, in tho church, we have the beautifully sculptured figure of Alice Chaucer, grand-daughter of the poet, whose efiigy not only portrays Dame Chaucer m the actual robes of the Garter, but shows her bearing the Garter itself on her left arm, as was the custom in tho?e early days in the case of women adorned with the distinction.

Again, it is known that Isobel, Countess of Bedford, who was born ;n 1332. was amongst the first batch of' notable folk to be decorated with the new Order after ;ts institution by King Edward ill.; also Margaret Byron, wife of Sir Robert Hareourt, of Stanton Hwcourt, was another of tne early "Dames" of the new Order. Still more prominent in the list is Lady Maud ilarcourt, and whose effigy" there shows her attired in the surcoat, mantle, and (at that time) head-dress of the Order Margaret Byron's effigy, by the way, portrays very clearly that lady wearing the garter on her lef j arm. THE LAST LADY KNIGHT OF THE GARTER. In the list of K.G.s appears, too, the name of Countess Beaumont, who died m 1567, and who is believed to oe actually the last created lady-knight of the Garter, apart irom Queen-Consorts of England right down to our own time. Of course all actual Queens are K.G.s in their own rig.it as Sovereigns. It may be interesting to learn that these Ladies of the Garter were generally' known as "Dames de In Fraternitie of St. George." So that the -y title snggpsted to-day for the new lady- | knights of the ccming Order is not only an ancient one in our land, but ono of the very highest women have ever received as a gift from the Sovereign. Apart from the Garter. however, very occasionally -i great lady has geen honoured with knighthood in England, though for over three centuries this sort of decoration appears to have lamed. In 1588 Mary, wife-of Sir Hugh Cholmondley, was actually herself crei ntpcl v knight by Queen Elizabeth. A wit of later times has proclaimed that if recent Sovereigns had created women Kmghts for the snme reason as Elizabeth did Mary Cholmondlev, there w, ..id be now none but titled ladies in the land! This remark may be unkind, but it has some force,'seeing that this knighthood was given because of the valiant verbal deminciation of the Armada so often expressed in public by Sir Hugh's wife ! Records show that from 1588 that lr.dy was always addressed as "Sir," though generally spoken of in her absence as the "Bold Lady of Cheshire.".

Some good judges have expressed the belief that there must have geen at least one or two real female knights Uvmg in Shakespeare's days, since William himself unquestionably alludes jokingly to such females more than once in his well-known play of "The Merry Wives of Windsor." The notion is at least a probable truth, seeing that Elizabeth' had created a "Sir Mary" just before Shakespeare got into hi s full stride with the famous dramas.

And we know that for at least six hundred years women have been peeresses in their own right, often for their own worthy <l*eds. Wo have had such women as the Baronesses Berners. Conyers, and Beaumont, as far back as the fourteenth and fifteenth c.nturies; and we h-ive had such wonren as the Baroness Burdett-Coutts ami Viscountesjj Hambledcn in our own times. These women all were addressed, after receiving their honour, by the title of Lady" in their own right, which title has been ever one of the oldest ana most honourable in all degrees and periods of chiv:vlrv.

One extremely good point there will ge m the revival of that fine old naran or "Lame .''for wimen deoor.ated by the Kino; under this latest Order, it will austintniish nil women adorned In- virtue of their .splendid services to the State from those who enjoy the title -v Lady" merely owing to their husbands being knights or baronets And this is in itself as it should be-/"for every woman who herself earns such a noble honour as knighthood has every risrht to feel proud of her work and title, mid to have it made clear to all that it was her own exeeeedingly good and useful, labour .which won her the great distinction.