de Audeley which divorce and marriage is further fetcht then any thing that I ever heard of in all my life For it is not likely that the puting away of the Kings Sister could be a means to procure Peace and none knowes betwixt what parties the marriage there spoken of was But you did well to break off at the words in pace dimissus for if you had added these words of Knighton which immediately follow the other viz. Anno Domini sequenti the Figures 1229. being also put in the margent Lewelinus eundem Willielmum de Braus Baronem nobilem quem ad festa Paschalia invitaverat post epularum copiam super adulterio violatione uxoris suae accusans malitiose eum hostiliter ingressus est eum in carcerem trudens morte turpissima absque omni judicio sententialiter interemit It would from thence have appeared that neither the Divorce or second marriage of the said Joane could thereby be meant unless you would have a Divorce in the year 1228 for an Adultery not committed till the year 1229. And with Knighton agrees the said Mat. Maris p. 365. n. 10. mentioned in the 5 Page of your Addenda who saith that William de Braus was hanged for that supposed Adultery in the moneth of April in the year 1230. And we well know there is but one week betwixt the last day of the year 1229. and the first day of April 1230. Also in the 6 Page of your Addenda where you tell us out of the Welsh History put out by Doctor Powel that Lewellin's wife died in the year 1237. if you would have added what is further said in the same Page it would have given satisfaction that Lhewellins wife was never divorced For Page 293. you may thus read The next Spring 1237. died Joane daughter to King John Princess of Wales and was buried upon the Sea shore within the Isle of Anglesey at Lhanvaes as her pleasure was where the Prince did build an house of barefoot-Friars over her grave Now certainly the Welsh History would not then have called her Princess of Wales nor her husband have built that house over her if she had been divorced from Lhewellin and Married to the said Robert de Audeley If any object That though Joane the wife of Lhewellin was not the base daughter of King John by Agatha yet it is like she was his base daughter by some other woman because of those Authors which you cite to that purpose I answer and say that it is nothing to the case of Amicia whether the said Joane was a Bastard or not as I have before proved But however it doth not yet certainly appear to me that she was so For though Vincent upon Brooke Speed Stow and the Monke of Chester who did write the Poly-Chronicon and some others do say that she was a Bastard yet they are not much to be regarded because the said Author of the Poly-Chronicon as Vossius tells you in his Book de Historicis Latinis p. 487. dyed in the year 1363. which was 159. years after Lhewellin married the said Ioane and yet the said Monke lived long before any other Author which I have taken notice of who doth call her a Bastard Let us therefore examine the matter a little and in order thereto let us observe how many wives the said King Iohn had First he married Alais daughter of the Earl of Moriana in the year 1173. as you may read in Brompton's Chronicon col 1082. n. 35. Hoveden Frankfurt Edition printed 1601. Page 532. n. 5. Matt. Paris put out by Doctor Watts Page 127. n. 5. which Editions of Hoveden and Paris I do all along follow and the like you may find in Vincent upon Brooke Page 133. who also there tells you that by Moriana is not meant Moreton but Savoy with which Matt. Par. p. 751. n. 46. doth also accord But the said Alais being then scarcely seven yeares of age as you may see in Matt. Paris p. 127. n. 6. and dying presently after the said King Iohn could not possibly have any issue by that wife Soon after this viz. in the year 1176. as you may read in Hoveden p. 553. n. 46. and Matt. Paris p. 132. n. 29 there was an Agreement for a marriage to be had between the said Iohn then youngest son of the said King H. 2. and a daughter of William Earl of Glocester son of Robert Earl of Glocester which said daughter is not there named but her name was Hawisia or Avis and the marriage afterwards took effect but he was divorced from her in the year 1200 as will anon appear Thirdly immediately upon his Divorce he married Isabel daughter of the Earl of Engolisme who was his last wife for she survived him and by her he had issue as will be agreed by all Henry afterwards King Henry the Third Richard Earl of Cornwall afterwards King of the Romanes Ioane wife of Alexander the second King of Scots Eleanor first married to William Marshal the younger Earl of Pembroke and afterwards to Simon Mountford Earl of Leicester as also Isabel who was sixth wife to Frederick the second Emperour of Germany But King Iohn marrying the said Isabel in the year 1200. could have no child by her old enough to be married to the said Lhewellin in the year 1204. Neither could Ioane the wife of Alexander King of Scots be the same Ioane who was wife to Robert de Audeley for she was wife to the said Alexander in the year 1221. as appears in your Hist Ant. p. 60. and Mat. Paris p. 313. n. 12. and died before her husband say you in the year 1236. and was buried at London But Mat. Paris who lived in the same time with her p. 468. n. 34. tells you the very day of her death and says she died in the year 1238. in England and was buried at Tarente But you in your 60 p. and Mat. Paris p. 770. n. 39. do agree that the said Alexander did survive the said Ioane and that he died in the year 1249. The only question then will be Whether Lhewellins wife was King Iohns legitimate daughter by his wife Hawisia which if she was then some of our Authors taking notice but of two daughters named Ioane which the said King had did thereupon mistake Ioane the wife of Lhewellin for Ioane the wife of Robert de Audeley and so did mislead several of our later Authors into the like error Sure I am that Mat. Paris who was contemporary with the said Ioane p. 231. n. 52. calls her the Kings daughter without the addition of Bastard or any thing tending thereto His words are these Quo facto venit alius Nuncius ex parte filiae ejusdem Regis uxoris videlicet Leolini Regis Walliae c. Also in the raign of King H. 3. her son David is by him p. 537. 569. and in many other places stiled Nepos Regis and p. 695. called Nepos Regis ex
Sorore and p. 570. he is said to be propinquus Regi consanguinitate Also Knighton col 2417. n. 42. thus says of her Rex Johannes dedit filiam suam Leolino Principi Walliae in uxorem cum ea dedit castellum totum territorium de Ellesmere in confinio Walliae And the King himself in the aforesaid Record gives her the title of filiae nostrae Also in Lib. Barlings in which Book besides what concernes the Abby of Barlings in Lincolnshire there are certain Annals beginning An. 1050. and ending An. 1231. she is called the said Kings daughter without the Addition of Bastard For as I am informed by a judicious person who at my request did lately search the said Book in Sir Iohn Cottons Library these words Lewelinus disponsavit filiam Regis I. are the only words fol. 22. b. which concern the said matter And yet you in the 2d Page of your Addenda do say That the said Joane Lib. Barlings Fol. 22. b. is acknowledged and called base daughter of K. John I hope therefore the Reader will take heed how farr he gives credit to what you say Neither have I as yet found any Author who lived in that Age with her who hath said that she was a Bastard Indeed our later Authors as Vincent and others who say that she was illegitimate do many of them say That King Iohn was divorced from his second wife as well for that she was barren as within the degrees of consanguinity which barrenness if it could be made to appear would certainly prove the said Ioane to be a Bastard And this opinion hath so far prevailed in this last age that whereas learned Mr. Cambden as you may see in his Britannia in Latine printed at London 1607. p. 259. speaking of the Divorce of the said Hawisia whose name he mistakes and calls Isabel doth only use these words illam repudiatam Doctor Philemon Holland in the English Translation unjustly renders it thus That King John did repudiate her upon pretences as well that she was barren as that they were within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity But our antient Historians say nothing of her being Barren For this see Hoveden who was living all the time that Hawisia was wife to K. John p. 803. n. 34. in the year 1200. Eodem Anno factum est divortium inter Johannem regem Angliae et Hawisam uxorem ejus filiam Willielmi comitis Gloucestrriae per Heliam Burdegalensem Archiepiscopum per Willielmum Pictavensem per Henricum Sanctonensem episcopos erant enim affines in tertio gradu consanguinitatis Facto itaque Divortio inter Johannem regent Angliae uxorent suam ipse Rex Angliae consilio domini sui Philippi regis Franciae duxit sibi in uxorem Isabel filiam Ailmari comitis de Engolismo c. So also Mat. Paris living in the time of the said Ioane p. 200. n. 23. in the said year 1200. Eodem tempore celebrato Divortio inter Regem Anglorum uxoorem suam Hawisam comitis Gloverniae filiam eo quod affines erant in tertio gradu consanguinitis Duxit idem Rex consilio Regis Francorum Isabel filiam comitis Engolismi So also Mat. Westminster in that Edition printed at London 1570. lib. 2. p. 76. n. 25. Anno gratiae M. CC. Rex Johannes Isabellam filiam comitis Engolismi duxit in uxorem Dominica proxima ante festum sancti Dyonisii consecrata est in reginam ab Huberto Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo quia celebratum fuit divortium inter ipsum Hawisiam comitis Gloverniae filiam eo quod contingebant se in tertio consanguinitatis gradu Now certainly these antient Authors must needs in this point be credited before those that lived so long after them and especially since all those that I have met with who say she was barren or do call her a Bastard do not one of them know her true Christian-name but are either silent therein or else which the most of them do do call her Isabel instead of Hawisia See also the words of Rad. de Diceto who lived in the time of the said King Iohn col 706. n. 5. which words are these Celebratum est divortium inter Johannem regem Angliae filiam comitis Glocestriae in Normannia ab episcopis Lisoriensi Baiocensi Abrincensi aliis episcopis qui interfuerant quam ipse tempore patris permissione Romanae ecclesiae duxerat in uxorem cum Comitatibus de Glocestria de Sumersatum de Devenesire de Cornwaille et aliis quamplurimis per Angliam honoribus Set ille sublimioris thori spe raptatus consilio pravorum cam abegit unde magnam summi Pontificis scilicet Innocentii tertii et totius curiae Romanae indignationem incurrit praesumens temere contra leges et canones dissolvere quod eorum fuerat auctoritate colligatum And now let any man judge if she had been barren whether that would not have been alleadged as a cause of King Iohns putting her away as well as his desire of matching into a more sublime family So that I see no reason to conclude the said Ioane to be a Bastard until it be proved that she was so by some Record Deed or good Author who lived in that Age and especially since the said Hawisia's daughter if she had one might very well be old enough in the year 1204. to be married to the said Lhewellin Prince of North-Wales But it is not material to the case in hand whether the said Ioane was a Bastard or not Because all the Gifts you mention in your Addenda were either not gifts in free-marriage or else were not given to the said Lhewellin with the said Ioane As to what you say in your 7 Page I did in my former Book give you several Reasons why the words of Glanvil did not prove what you supposed they did and in the 38 and 39 Pages of my Reply did tell you how you had left them unanswered and did also there nform you that Mr. Glanvil did not say That Lands might be given with any woman in liberum maritagium but only in maritagium and yet after all this you have the confidence again to father upon Mr. Glanvil what he never either meant or said In your 8. Page you say I have charged you with many absolute untruths and gross absurdities and in stead of modest and clear Answers to the very point or hinge of the controversie did burst out into extravagant expressions in things upon the By which gives you occasion to imagine that I think my cause declining But those and several other of your expressions seeming to proceed more from passion then reason I shall at present pass them by and do not doubt but I shall be able to clear my self from any thing which you have or can particularly charge me withal And whereas you pretend that my confidence did arise because you are tied up by your Promise to
AN ANSWER TO Sir PETER LEICESTER'S Addenda OR Some things to be Added in his ANSWER to S ir THOMAS MAINWARINGS BOOK WRITTEN By the said Sir Thomas Mainwarings LONDON Printed for Samuel Lowndes over against Exeter-House in the Strand 1673 4. TO Sir Peter Leicester Baronet SIR I Received your Addenda to the Answer to my former Book on Monday the 12th of January last in writing of which whether you are just to your word or not let the whole World Judge As for that which you say in the first Page thereof I think it was not worth your adding to what you had formerly written unless you could make it to appear that those persons whom you call judicious men be such whose opinions are like to be of equal weight with those Judges and Heralds who are against you which I believe will be very hard for you to do And if you could we should therein be but upon equal termes When you tell me in your 2 Page that you do give me two or three precedents more besides that of Geva to prove that Lands in those elder ages did pass in libero maritagio I cannot but smile to see that you still say that the gift to Geva was such a Precedent considering how in my Defence of Amicia Page 43 44. and so on to the middle of the 50 Page as also in my Reply to your Answer p. 23. and p. 45 46. and so on to the 60. Page I have made it to appear that it is very uncertain that the said Geva was a Bastard but most certain that the Gift to Geva was not a Gift in Frank-marriage And now I shall come to your pretended new precedents which you mention Page 2. and so on to the end of the 6 Page of your Addenda and in my Answer thereto I shall make it very clear that they are not such precedents as you take them to be but are gross mistakes of yours you erring in no less then these five particulars following First in conceiving that Joane wife of the said Lhewellin and daughter to King John was that base daughter named Joane which King John had by Agatha daughter to the second William de Ferrars Earl of Derby Secondly in saying that the said Lhewellin did marry Joane daughter of King John in the year 1206. Thirdly in alledging that King John gave Ellesmere in libero maritagio with his said daughter Joane Fourthly in pretending that the Mannor of Budeford in Warwickshire and the Mannor of Suttehall in Worcestershire were given by King John to the said Lhewellin with any daughter of the said King John And lastly in saying that that Joane who was wife to Robert de Andeley was the same Joane who was wife to the said Lhewellin And first you erre in saying that Joane who was the wife of the said Lhewellin was the same Joane which King John had by the said Agatha For as you may see in your Historical Antiquities p. 132. compared with Vincent p. 204. which is the place you bring for proof of what you say the said Agatha was daughter to William Ferrars Earl of Derby by his wife Agnes the third sister and coheir of Randle Blundevil Earl of Chester and Lincolne which Agnes was daughter of Hugh Cyveliok Earl of Chester by his wife Bertred Now the said Hugh Cyveliok dying as appears in your Hist Ant. p. 134. in the year 1181. and the said Bertred his wife as is proved Rot. de Dominabus pueris c. in Scacc. penes Remem R. sub Tit. Linc. Rot. 1. being but Twenty four years of age when her said husband dyed it will from thence appear that Joane daughter of the said Agatha could not possibly be the wife of the said Lhewellin For if we suppose that Randle Blundevil was younger then his third sister Agnes which I am confident you do not believe and that the said Bertred was begotten with Child at thirteen yeares of age and came so nimbly with her children as to have her first daughter when she was fourteen years old her second daughter when she was fifteen years old and her third daughter Agnes when she the said Bertred was sixteen years old then the said Agnes would be eight years of age in the said year 1181. If we also suppose the said Agatha to be the eldest of the six children of the said William Ferrars and Agnes though she might be the youngest and that she the said Agnes had the said Agatha when she the said Agnes was but fourteen years old then she the said Agatha would be born in the year 1187. If we also suppose that the said Agatha had her daughter Joane when she the said Agatha was but fourteen years old then the said Joane would be born in the year 1021. and yet by all this strange way of reckoning Joane the daughter of Agatha would have been but about three years of age when the said Lhewellin was married which as anon will appear was in the year 1204. So that this Joane daughter of Agatha was so far from being wife to the said Lhewellin that there is no likelihood that she was born at the time of the said Lhewellins marriage But the said Lhewellin was 28 years of age in the year 1204 For Sylvester Giraldus Cambrensis in his Itiner Cambr. printed at London 1585. p. 64. and 203. tells us that in the year 1188 at which time the said Silvester was living the said Lhewellin was 12 years old Secondly you run in to another erro in alledging that the said Lhewellin did marry his wife Joan in the year 1206. whereas he was her Husband in the year 1204. in the 6 year of King John as will appear by your own Authors Stow and Speed and by several others as also by this Copy of King John's Precept to the Sheriff of Shropshire to make Livery of the said Lordship of Ellesmere Ex Rot. Clauso de anno Sexto Regis Johannis in arce Lond. membrana 7. Rex Vicecom Salop. Salutem Scias quod dedimus dilecto filio nostro Lewellino manerium de Ellesmere cum omnibus pertinentiis suis in maritagio filiae nostrae Et ideo c. Teste c apud Wigorn. 23. Martii Thirdly You are guilty of a third error in pretending that King John did give the Lordship of Ellesmere in libero maritagio with his Daughter Joan for your own Authors as well as the aforesaid Record do only say that it was given in Maritagio so that your arguing that Ellesmere was given in maritagio and therefore was given in libero maritagio is very irrational For I have shewed in the 39 and 40 pages of my Reply to your Answer that maritagium is twofold and that Lands may be given in maritagio to one that is not of the Blood but as I have often proved Lands cannot be given in free-marriage but with one that is of the whole Blood neither can they be so given unless the word liberum
be used as well as the word maritagium as I have shewed in the 56 and 57 pages of my said Reply But if it were so that you could have proved Joan the wife of the said Lhewellin to have been the base Daughter of King John by the said Agatha and if it had been so that this gift of Ellesmere had been in libero maritagio yet it would have stood you in no stead for as you may see Coke upon Littleton fol. 21. b. if the Donee in a Gift of Frank-marriage that is cause of the gift be not of the blood of the Donor yet there may pass an Estate for life if Livery be made And in this case of Ellesmere as appears before Livery was made And you may find in the Welsh History put out by Doctor Powell p. 306. and Mat. Par. p. 625 and 626. that though Ellesmere was injoyed by the said Lhewellin yet it was not long enjoyed by his Son David but was the next year after the death of Lhewellin in or about the Feast of the Decollation of St. John Baptist in the hands of King Henry the III. and as appears by good Record the custody thereof together with the Hundred of Ellesmere was afterwards committed by the same King to the Trust of Hamonle Strange Fourthly you are also mistaken in thinking that the Mannors of Budeford and Suttehall were given by King John to Lhewellin with his Daughter Joan and for all your boasting demand of what can be clearer yet your Deed is far from proving what you suppose it doth For it neither says that King John gave those Mannors cum filia sua bastarda or that he gave them cum filia sua And whereas you say in the fourth page of your Addenda that the said Prince Lhewellin never married any Daughter of King John but the said Joan I shall thus far agree with you That he married a Daughter of King John's named Joan and but one Daughter of his but not that Joan which you suppose But certainly your conceit that Lhewellin could not have a former Wife unless she was another Daughter of the said K. John is a very wild one For King John might give those Mannors to Lhewellin with any Woman that was of his kindred and it is very apparent that our English Kings about that time were very desirous to have Alliance with the Princes of North-Wales For besides that Match of Lhewellin with the Daughter of King John and this Match of John Scot with Hellen Daughter of the said Lhewellin David ap Owen Uncle to the said Lhewellin did marry a Sister of King Henry the II. as you may see in Sylvester Giraldus p. 203. and the Welsh History p. 235. And King Edward the I. also caused Lhewellin ap Griffith Lhewellin to marry a Daughter of Simon de Mountford Earl of Liecester which Daughter the said Earl had by a Daughter of King John and this although the said Lhewellin ap Griffith Lhewellin would have married elsewhere as you may read in Knighton col 2462. num 26 and num 50. And although we cannot tell the name of her who was the first wife of that Lhewellin who married Joan the Daughter of King John as aforesaid we being ignorant of that as we also are of the Wives of many great persons and of many other things in those elder ages yet the said Lhewellin must necessarily have a former Wife as will appear by these following Reasons First because most Writers as Fabian in the 7 Part of his Chronicle p. 13. a. Stow p. 167. a. Doctor Powell in his Notes on the Welsh History p 259. York p. 20. Speed in his History printed at London 1632. p. 573. Vincent on Brooke p. 204. Cambden in his Britania in Latine Printed at London 1607. p. 453. and Knighton col 2417. num 42. do all tell us of Lands given by the said King John to the said Lhewellin with his Daughter Joan and yet none of them do say that these Mannors of Budeford and Suttehall or either of them were given with the said Joan. Secondly Because our best Authors who tell us what Children the said Lhewellin had by the said Joane do only name one son viz. David and two daughters viz. Marret married to John de Bruse and Gladys married to Sir Baph Mortimer but none of them doth name Hellen so that it seems Hellen was no daughter of his by the said Joane Thirdly Because as before appears the said Lhewellin married the said Joane in the year 1204. Now Randle Earl of Chester coming to the City Damiata in the beginning of the year 1218. as you may see in Matt. Paris p. 303. n. 24. 309. n. 16. compared together and this Match of John Scot and the said Hellen as you may find in Knighton col 2430. n. 9. being agreed on by Randle Earl of Chester and the said Lhewellin before the said Randle went thither and by consequence about the year 1217. What likelihood is there that the said Joane could have any daughter old enough to be married to the said John Scot it being impossible that Lhewellin could at that time have any Child by King John's daughter who could be above the age of twelve years And though you pretend that John Scot did marry the said Hellen about the year 1222 yet you do that because she could not well be marriageable till about that time if her Mother had been married in that year which you fasly supposed she was But there is no likelihood that Randle Blundevil would go to the Holy Land after the said marriage was agreed on before it was Consummated and that he had thereby some assurance that the said Lhewellin would keep that peace which was then made But Lhewellen might very well have a daughter by a former wife who in the year 1217. might be old enough to be married to John Scot for the said Lhewellin as appears by the proofes before was then aged 41 years And it is like that John Scot was then of a good age for if his Grandmother Bertred had his Mother Maude when she the said Bertred was 18 years of age and if his Mother Maude had him the said John Scot when she was also 18 years of age yet John Scot would be born in the year 1193 and would be 24 years old in the year 1217. Fourthly which doth absolutely clear the point the said Lhewellin could not possibly have given the Mannors aforesaid in free marriage with his daughter Hellen unto the said John Scot unless they had been given to the said Lhewellin with a former wife and that the said Hellen was the heir unto his former wife For when lands are given in free marriage the husband hath not the inheritance of the said lands neither hath he so much as an estate for life until he be Tenant by the Curtesie of England And you cannot pretend according to your old subterfuge that the Law in this point was differently
holden in those elder times from what it is now For as you may see in my Lord Coke on Littleton fol. 22. a. the husband in the time of King Edward the Third was so far from having the inheritance of Lands given to him in Frankmarriage that if he and his wife were divorced the woman should enjoy the whole land And for this he cites in the Margent 13 Edw. 3. tit Ass 19 Edw. 3. Ass 83. with several other proofes of the like nature Also in the time of King Edw. 1. as you may see in the Antient Treatise called Fleta the inheritance in these cases was in the wife and not in the husband For in the 3 Book and 11th Chapter de donationibus in maritagiis it is thus said Et quamvis fiat mentio in donatione quod terra data sit in maritagium tali viro cum tali uxore res data tamen est liberum tenementum uxoris non viri cum non habeat nisi custodiam cum uxore donec liberum tenementum sibi accrescat per legem Angliae Secus si pro homagio servitio viri in Maritagium facta fuerit donatio And so also Bracton who lived in the time of King Henry the Third and also in the time of the said Lhewellin lib. 2. cap. 11. says Si autem fiat mentio quod terra data sit in maritagium cum uxore eorum haeredibus communes haeredes de corpore utriusque admittantur qui si defecerint revertitur terra data alii remotiores excluduntur quia res data est liberum tenementum uxoris non viri cum non habeat nisi custodiam cum uxore Si autem sic terra detur in Maritagium viro cum uxore eorum haeredibus pro homagio servitio viri quod fit aliquando licet detur in liberum maritagium quae sunt sibi ad invicem adversantia sive repugnantia tunc prefertur homagium erit acsifieret donatio tam viro quam uxori And so also my Lord Coke on Littleton fol. 21. b. tells us That if the King give Land to a man with a woman of his kindred in frank-marriage and the woman dyeth without issue the Man in the Kings case shall not hold it for his life because the woman was the cause of the gift but otherwayes it is in the case of a common person and for this in the Margent he cites 9 H. 3. Dower 202. So also Mr. Glanvile who lâ—ved in the time of King Henry the Second and before the time of the said Lhewellin lib. 7. cap. 18. to the same purpose sayes Cum quis itaque terram aliquam cum uxore sua in maritagium ceperit si ex eadem uxore sua haeredem habuerit filium vel filiam clamantem auditum infra quatuor parietes si idem vir uxorem suam supervixerit sive vixerit haeres sive non illi in vita sua remanet maritagium illud post mortem vero ipsius ad donatorem vel ejus haeredes est reversurum Sin autem ex uxore suae nunquam habuerit haeredem tunc statim post mortem â—xeris ad donatorem vel haeredes ejus revertetur maritagium so that it is clear that the lands which were given with the said Hellen to the said John Scot were given to the said Lhewellin with a former wife who was Kinswoman to the said King John and Mother to the said Hellen for otherwise the said Gift to John Scot could not be good But if they were given to the said Lhewellin with a wife who was Mother to the said Hellen but dead at the time of the gift to the said John Scot then the said Lhewellin being Tenant by the Curtesie of England and the inheritance being in the said Hellen he might pass away his Estate to the said John Scot with the said Hellen and they might lawfully hold the said Mannors in libero maritagio according to the Agreement made betwixt the said Randle Earl of Chester and Lincolne and the said Lhewellin Prince of North-Wales Lastly You erre a fifth time in saying that Joane the wife of Robert de Audeley was the same Joane who was wife to the said Lhewellin For that cannot possibly be because Robert de Audeley married Joane the base daughter of King John by Agatha who might well be marriageable in the 14 year of King Henry the Third which fell out to be in the years 1229. and 1230. But I have before shewed that there is no possibility that the said Joane daughter of Agatha could be wife to Lhewellin in the year 1204. nor any likelihood that she then was born And this mistake of yours doth further appear because as before is shewed Prince Lhewellin was husband to the said Joane in the year 1204. and as you well know and confess he dyed not till the 24th year of King Henry the 3d. How then can that Ioane who was wife to Robert de Audeley in the 14th year of King H. 3. be the same Joane who was wife to Lhewellin unless she had two husbands living at one time Or How can what your Author Vincent sayes be true That she was re-married to Robert de Audley 14 H. 3. after the death of Lhewellin seeing the said Lhewellin died not till the 24th year of Henry 3d and did also outlive his wife Joane three yeares Certainly if Vincent had known as well as you how long the said Lhewellin lived he would never have said that Joane the wife of Robert de Audley was the same Joane who was wife of Lhewellin But though you do acknowledge that Vincent did erre in saying Lhewellin was dead when Joane was married to Robert de Audeley yet you would willingly justifie the other part of his error in making Audeleys wife Joane to be the same woman with Lhewellins wife Joane and to do this you fancy that Lhewellin was divorced from his wife Joane though there be no Author who doth alleadge any such thing And Can we think that a Prince of North-Wales and a daughter of King John could be divorced and one or both of them marry again in the life-time of each other and no writer take notice thereof Or can it be that Mat. Paris who lived at that very time should in his 365. Page speak of William de Braus his being taken in Adultery with the said Joane with an ut dicebatur only Or the Welch History p. 286. with an as it was reported if the Adultery was so notorious as that she was divorced for it Indeed you tell us out of Knighton col 2439. that Anno Domini 1228. 13 H. 3. Leolinus Princeps Walliae rebllare cepit Tandem vero post concursus varios discrimina multa per quoddam maritagium cum Rege concordatus est in pace dimissus and from these words per quoddam maritagium you would insinuate a Divorce and a new Marriage of the said Joane with Robert
time of Randle Blundevil nor any man Bishop of Chester whose name began with R after the said Randle Blundevil could be old enough to seal a Deed as also because Bacuns witnesses were contemporary with Randle de Gernoniis You in the 54 and 55 Pages of your Answer do not only say that you conceive the Roll from whence the Deed in Monasticon was written is mistaken in Will and R. which was a strange Answer but you also say There was no such Archbishop of York called William nor Bishop of Chester whose Christian name began with R. both living at one time either in the time of Randle Blundevil or Randle de Gernoniis that you can find But when you perceived that I had clearly proved by several Authors that a William was Archbishop of York and that Roger Clinton was Bishop of Chester in the time of Randle de Gernoniis so that you could no longer deny the same You now in your Addenda would willingly avoid the Argument because the said William upon his first Election had not the Pall which all that know any thing will easily perceive to be a very weak Answer For he was consecrated Archbishop and had possession of the Archbishoprick till after the deaths of Pope Innocent the Second Pope Celestine the Second and Pope Lucius the Second And if he was reputed Archbishop he would be called so as well in Deeds as otherwayes And it is no wonder since he was looked upon by many to be the right Archbishop and to be wrongfully suspended by Pope Engenius as you may see in my Reply Page 77. and so on to the 87. Page if some persons do name him according to the time of Election and others according to the time of his Restauration which doth reconcile those different placings which you mention in your 22 p. And whereas you again object That Chester was then within the Province of Canterbury not York I answered that in my last Book where I told you that the Archbishop was not named upon that accompt but because some of the places mentioned in the said Deed were within the Province and Diocess of York as particularly Rosington was it being within the Westriding of York shire And if that Deed was not directed to an Archbishop of York How came the word Eboracensi there But if you had foreseen I would have asked you this question I doubt not but you would have said That the word Eboracensi was miswrit as well as the word VVill and the letter R. In your 23 24 and 25 Pages you are disingenious and do not recite my Argument aright For you pretend it only to lie in this That Hugh VVac and Richard Pincerna two of the Witnesses to Bacuns Deeds were also Witnesses to a Deed made Anno 1152. which falls in the latter end of the life of Randle de Gernoniis whereas vvhoever vvill read the 88 and 89 Pages of my Reply vvill find that I named five Witnesses of Richard Bacuns viz. Hugh Wac Richard Pineerna VVilliam Colevile Thurstan Benaster and VVilliam the Chaplain and also did instance in five Deeds to vvhich Randle de Gernoniis vvas a party to each of vvhich one tvvo or three of the said Bacuns said witnesses were also witnesses and if you please you may also find a sixth Deed in Monast Angl. Part 1. p. 987. b. and a seventh Deed in Monast Angl. Part 2. p. 260. b. That which you did alleadg concerning two Deeds made at a great distance is nothing like this Case Neither is there any weight in William Bacun's being a witness to a single Deed of Randle Blundevils for he might be a young Man when he was witness to Richard Bacuns Deed and living to be old might be a witness to one of Randle Blundevils Deeds But it is probable he was Son Grandson or other Kinsman of the other VVilliam Bacun But you deal a little fallaciously with your Reader when you say it was but Twenty nine years betwixt the death of Randle de Gernoniis and the time that Randle Blundevil was Earl For though that be true yet it would be a longer time before Randle Blundevil could be old enough to seal a Deed for his Mother was but Twenty four years old when he came to be Earl VVhat you object p. 26 and 27 concerning the deed of VVarranty of Randle de Gernoniis or concerning Richard Bacuns being contemporary with Randle Blundevil is sufficiently answered For VVhy might not the said Deed of Warranty be lost as well as many thousands of other Deeds are And that Richard Bacun was contemporary with Randle de Gernoniis I have abundantly proved And though in your 27 Page you would have Bacuns Mother to be Hugh Cyvelioks daughter yet in the 25 Page you confess that it is probable she was a Bastard of Randle de Meschines but finding that to contradict what you afterwards said you have since the Printing thereof blotted it out of those Books which you have disposed of in these parts And although I do not see but that Bacuns Mother might be a lawful daughter of the said Randle de Meschines yet I will not further engage in her defence but pass by that and the course language which you repeat at the latter end of your Book I have now done with your Addenda but since you have so abounded in that particular I hope you will give me leave to add a word or two to what I have formerly said I have heretofore proved that the aforesaid Bertred was but Twenty four years of age in the year 1181 when her Husband died by which it appears that she was born in the year 1157. I do also find in the Third Part of Mr. Dugdales Monasticon Anglicanum p. 226. that Hugh Cyveliok and his Mother Maude did give Stivinghale with a Mill next the Park and some other Grounds to VValter Durdent Bishop of Chester and his successors to which Deed Eustace the Constable was witness Now the said Earl Hugh being not in a capacity to seal a Deed until he was One and twenty years of age and the said Eustace being slain as appears by your Hist Ant. p. 266. in a Battel against the VVelsh in the said year 1157. If the said Deed was made immediately before the said Eustace was slain the said Hugh must needs be at the least One and twenty years older then his Wife Bertred But it is very likely that Deed was made some years before viz. immediately upon the death of Randle de Gernoniis For the said Randle died Excommunicate and Stivinghale and those other Lands were given for his Absolution and the health of his Soul But besides what is here proved if you look at the latter end of the VVelsh History put out by Dr. Powel 1584 immediately before the Table you will see that the 16 line of the 197 page of the said VVelsh History is misprinted and that in the said Page it should have been Printed thus About the same time Hugh son to the Earl of Chester sprtified his Castell of Cymaron and wan Melienyth to himself And you may also there find that the time when the said Hugh wan Mclienith was in the year 1142. Now that this Welsh History is of good credit I hope you will not deny For in the 44 Page of your Historical Antiquities you acknowledge that in these Welsh matters you chiefly follow the same And Dr. Powel in his Epistle as also in his Notes on the said History p. 206. tells us That Caradocus Lhanearuan is reputed and taken of all learned men to be the Author of what is therein written until the year 1156. And as you may find in Vossius his Book de Historicis Latinis p. 389. and in Isaacksons Chronologie p. 323. the said Caradocus was living when the said Hugh wan Melienith The only Question therefore is Of what age the said Hugh then was And because that is uncertain and that I am willing to reckon so as may be most advantageous to you I will suppose him to be then but Twelve years old which is the same age that Silvester Giraldus p. 203. sayes Prince Lhewellin ap Jorweth was of when he began to infest his Unckles and is indeed as young as I have observed any to appear in such Martial Affaires Now if we should believe that Hugh Cyveliok did Marry the said Berired so soon as she was fourteen years of age then the said Marriage would happen in the year 1171. at which time if Hugh Cyveliok was born in the year 1130 and was but 12 years old when he was Melienith in the year 1142 yet he would be 41 years of Age when he Married the said Bertred It cannot therefore be imagined that so great a person should continue unmarryed till he was above Fourty yeares old or that he should Marry to his first Wife one so much different from him in yeares But when he had Marryed a former Wife who dyed leaving him only a daughter or daughters it is no wonder if in his age he Marryed a young Lady to the intent he might have Issue-male to succeed him in so great an Estate I hope therefore though you told me in the 49 Page of your Reply That you can gather no such quantity of years in respect of Hugh Cyvelioks age reasonably to suppose him to have had a former Wife that these proofes will shew that there were very many years betwixt them and that thereupon you will be so reasonable as to believe he had a Wife before he Marryed Bertred And if he had a former Wife there would be no cause to suspect Amicia to be illegitimate if your pretended Precedents had been such as you did untruly suppose them to be with which I will conclude what I have now to say when I have subscribed my self Your Affectionate Cosin and Servant Thomas Mainwaring Baddeley Feb. 13. 1673 4.