INTRODUCTION.

lxxi

instruments, it materially strengthens the doubt of their havingbeen at that time Knights of the Garter.

With respect to Sir Henry Earn, however, it is certain thathe was not Knighted until after June 1346, because in a Recorddated on the 18th of June 1348, he is said to have receivedKnighthood from the Prince’s hands and it was a fundamentalrule, and the invariable practice of Chivalry, that no one couldconfer that distinction unless he had himself received it : 1 2 henceas the Black Prince was not Knighted until July 1346, hecould not have conferred the honour on Sir Henry Earn beforethat time.

Although it is only presumed that six 3 of the original Com-panions were not Knighted before July 1346, such was unques-tionably the fact in the case of the Black Prince and Sir HenryEarn; and two instances are as conclusive on the point whichthey are cited to establish, as any greater number.

The first part of the proofs that the Order was not com-pletely formed in 1344, nor before the middle of 1346, is there-

1 Rot. Patent. 23 Edw. III. p. 2, m. 24. “ Edward eisne filz au noble Roy d’Engle-

terre et de France, Prince de Gales, &c. Sachez que come nostre trescher et bien ameMonsir Henri Earn au temps qil avoit pris de noz meins Vordre de Chivaler, &c.; printed inAshmole, p. 707.

2 Vide p. vii. et seq. antea.

3 It is, moreover, doubtful whether Sir James Audeley and Sir Miles Stapleton, two othersof the first Founders, were Knighted before 1347, because Audeley seems to have beenthe person who is mentioned without the addition of “Chivaler” or “ Miles” in recordsdated 7th July 1346, and 12th and 17th April 1347 (Rot. Franc. 20 Edw. III. p. 1, m. 8 ;and 21 Edw. III. p. 1, m. 13 and m. 16,) and Stapleton (apparently, for there is somequestion of identity) on the 14th March 1347. In the last notice (Rot. Patent 19 Edw. III.p. 2, m. 10.) of Sir Sanchet Dabrichecourt, another of the original Companions, dated 20thOctober 1345, he is not called a Knight.