Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	daughter_n	die_v	marry_v	2,845	5	8.6902	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39852	A letter from a gentleman of quality in the country, to his friend, upon his being chosen a member to serve in the approaching Parliament, and desiring his advice being an argument relating to the point of succession to the Crown : shewing from Scripture, law, history, and reason, how improbable (if not impossible) it is to bar the next heir in the right line from the succession.	E. F.	1679 (1679)	Wing F14; ESTC R19698	29,065	21

of this Law And by virtue of this extravagant Power in case his three Children died without Issue as afterwards they did he bequeathed the Crown to the House of Suffolk being the younger House and in defiance of all Laws and Brotherly Affection disinherited and totally excluded the elder House of Scotland And therefore all those Niceties and Designs considered it is most plain King Henry was constrain'd to pray in Aid of the People to give some Colour at leastwise to all the Contradictions and Impossiblities And therefore I conceive that no Man of common Reason or that bears true Faith and Allegiance to His Majesty that now is or his Crown will draw Arguments from the three Statutes above mentioned to prove that the Parliament of England may exclude the next Heir of the Blood So that upon the whole matter of this first Objection it appears most plainly That the Princes which submitted and stoop'd to these tumultuous and Statute-Kingships either it was because they invaded and usurp'd the Crown contrary to the Laws Divine Natural and Humane or to give a colour and varnish to Contradictions and Impossibilities and private Intrigues and Designs And yet after all these popular Establishments though munited and fenc'd about with the highest Penalties and Oaths that mortal Men could devise yet could not in reality transfer the Right from the next Heir of the Blood that being a Dowry as I have said which God reserves to his own immediate Donation and hath plac'd above the reach of a mortal Arm. For though an Act of Parliament shall command me to say That an Ethiopian is White and that under the highest Oaths and Penalties or That an Ape is a Man yet notwithstanding the Ethiöpian can never in truth change his Skin or Complexion nor the Ape his Species and commence a Creature rational Ay but saith another Why may not the Crown be transfer'd from the next Heir of the Blood by Parliament as well as all other Inheritances and Possessions whatsoever in the Kingdom may from the Right Heir of the Subject I Answer there is no similitude between the Cases For 1. Private Men derive their Inheritances from their Ancestors but the next Heir of the Blood Royal derives not the Crown from his Predecessor or the People but immediately from God as I have prov'd at large in this Discourse And no Person or Community can give away or transfer a Thing which they never had vested in them either in Possession or so much as Right Secondly The Law of the Crown which yet is a principal part of the Common Law of England differs from the Law of the Subject in Point of Descents and therefore that may be Law in case of the Crown which is not in case of thē Subject of which I shall here give some Instances A Private Man being an Alien Born cannot by our Law inherit Land here But the Crown shall descend upon the next Heir of the Blood though an Alien as it happened many years ago in the case of King Henry the second who was an Alien born and begot of a Father who was also an Alien And the like happened not long since in the case of King James of ever blessed Memory If a King of England have three Daughters and dye the Crown shall descend upon the Eldest alone but in case of a Subject the Inheritance shall go to all three Daughters Co. 1. Inst 165. a 25 H. 8. cap. 22. circa medium If a Subject marry an Heiress and hath Issue by her a Son and the Wife dye the Husband shall enjoy the Wive's Lands during his Life but if a Man marry a Queen Regnant of England and hath Issue by her a Son or a Daughter and then she dyes here the Crown descends immediately upon the Issue which becomes King or Queen presently though the Father be alive as ought to have been in the Case of King Henry the Seventh and his Son Prince Henry as I have before observed and would have been in the Case of Philip that married Queen Mary if she had dyed having Issue Ellesmere's Postnati 36. Lord Bacon's H. 7. fol. 4. 121 217 231. So the half Blood is no Impediment to the Descent of the Lands of the Crown as it happened in the Cases of Edward the Sixth and the two Queens Mary and Elizabeth and yet in the Cases of Subjects it is clearly otherwise Plowd Com. 245. a. Co. 7. Rep. 12. v. Postnati Co. Inst 15. v. So likewise if the Right Heir of the Blood or the Father or Mother of the Right Heir from whom the Crown descends are attainted of High Treason by Parliament these Attainders yet are no Obstructions to the Descent of the Crown as it happened in the Cases of our King Edward the Fourth and his Father Richard Plantagenet Duke of York who were both attainted of High Treason by Act of Parliament As also in the Case of King James as it is related to his Mother Mary Queen of Scots who was attainted of High Treason and executed and yet the Commissioners and Judges that gave Sentence upon her set forth a public Declaration That the Attainder of the Mother did not at all derogate from the Right of her Son to the Crown of England But all Men know 't is otherwise in the Case of Subjects whose Descents are obstructed by the Attainders of their Ancestors I could be infinite in Cases of this Nature but by these few Instances wherein the Law for ought I know is no more alterable by Parliament than the Succession it doth plainly appear That there is no small difference in Point of Law between the Descents of the Crown and Private Inheritances And therefore though an Inheritance may thus be given away from a Subject yet it doth not in any wise follow that the Crown may be dispos'd from the next Heir The third and last Objection is founded upon the Statute of 13 o Eliz. cap. 1. wherein it is enacted That if any Person shall affirm That the Parliament of England hath not full Power to bind and govern the Crown in Point of Succession and Descent that such Person during the Queen's life shall be guilty of High Treason and after her Death shall forfeit his Goods and Chattels c. I Answer First it is to be observed That this Law was made in the time of a Queen whose Title to the Crown depended upon Statute-Law as appears by the very Act recognizing her Title to the Crown and this Act of 13 o was made in affirmance and vindication of such Title to the Crown by Statute and this is plain from the Body of the same Act wherein it is expresly Enacted That if any Person shall affirm That any Statute for recognizing the Right of the Crown of England to be lawful in the Royal Person of the said Queen is not or ought not to be for ever of sufficient force to bind all