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	earl_n	issue_n	3,444	5	8.5222	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A54693	Regale necessarium, or, The legality, reason, and necessity of the rights and priviledges justly claimed by the Kings servants and which ought to be allowed unto them / by Fabian Philipps.	Philipps, Fabian, 1601-1690.	1671 (1671)	Wing P2016; ESTC R26879	366,514	672

Galfridum filium Petri gladio Comitatus Essex qui licet antea vocati essent Comites administrationem suarum Comitatuum habuissent tamen non erant accincti gladio Comitatus ipsa illa die servierunt ad mensam Regis accincti gladiis did upon the day of his Coronation gird William Marshal with the Sword of the Earldome of Striguil or Pembroke and Jeffery Fitz-Peter with the Sword of the Earldome of Essex who although they were before called Earls and had the government of their Earldomes yet until then were not invested or girt with the Sword of their Earldomes and the same day they waited upon the King as he sate at meat with their Swords girt about them and the service of our Earls and Nobility were held to be so necessary about their Soveraign in the Reign of King Edward the second as John de Warrenna Earl of Surrey had in the 14th year of that King a dispensation not to appear before the Justices Itinerant before whom in certain of his affairs he had a concernment in these words viz. Edwardus dei gratia Rex Angliae c. Justitiariis notris Itineratur in Com. Norff. Quia dilectum fidelem nostrum Johannem de Warrenna Comitem Surrey quibusdam de causiis juxta latus nostrum retinemus hiis diebus per quod coram vobis in Itinere vestro in Com. praedicto personaliter comparere non potest ad loquelas ipsum in eodem Itinere tangentes prosequendi defendendi nos ex causa praedicta Indempnitati praefati Comitis provideri cupientes in hac parte vobis mandamus quod omnes praedictas loquelas de die in diem coram vobis continuetis usque ad Octabas Paschae prox futur Ita quod extunc citra finem Itineris vestri praedicti loquelae illae andiantur terminantur prout de jure secundum legem consuetudines regni nostri fuerit faciend Edward by the grace of God King of England c. to his Justices about to go the Circuit in our County of Norfolk sendeth greeting In regard that for certain causes we have commanded the attendance of John of Warren Earl of Surrey upon our person so as he canno● personally appear before you in your Circuit to prosecute and defend certain actions or matters wherein he is concerned we desiring to indempnifie the said Earl therein for the cause aforesaid do command you that you do from day to day adjorn the said Pleas and Actions until eight dayes after Easter next so as you may according to the laws and custome of our Kingdome before the end of your said Circuit hear and determine the said matters or actions In which Writ the said Earl being descended from VVilliam de VVarrenna who marryed a daughter of King VVilliam Rufus was not stiled the Kings Cousin as all the Earls of England have for some ages past been honored either by the stile of Chancery or the Secretaries of State in a Curiality with which the more antient and less Frenchified times were unacquainted for notwithstanding an opinion fathered upon our learned Selden that in regard the antient Earls of England being the Cousins or of the consanguinity or affinity of William the Conqueror or many of the succeeding Kings those Earls that were afterwards created did enjoy that honourable Title of the Kings Cousin it will by our Records and such Memorials as time hath left us be evidenced and clearly proved that all the Earls which William the Conqueror and his Successors have created were not of their Kindred or Alliance and those that were of the consanguinity of our Kings and Princes as Awbrey de Vere the first Earl of Oxford whose Father Awbrey de Vere marryed the Sister by the half blood of William the Conquerour was neither in the grants of the Earldome of Oxford and office of Great Chamberlain of England by Maud the Empress or King Henry the second her Son stiled their Cousin nor William de Albiney formerly Earl of Sussex who marryed Adeliza Widdow of King Henry the first Daughter of Godfrey Duke of Lorrain in the grant of the Earldome Castle and Honour of Arundel by King Henry the second was termed that Kings Cousin neither in the recital in other grants wherein the great Earls of Leicester and Chester are mentioned is there any such intimation for in the first year of the Reign of King John William Marshall Earl of Pembroke William Earl of Salsbury and Ranulph Earl of Chester and Lincoln in the second year of King Henry the third had it not and in the Summons of Parliament Diem clausit extremum and other grants or writs of divers of the succeeding Kings in the former ages until about the Reign of King Edward the fourth where mention was made of some of those and other great Earls of this Kingdom there were none of those honorary Titles and it is not at this day in the ordinary Writs and Process where they are named either as Plaintiffs or Defendants and in France where those graces are in the Royal Letters and Missives frequently allowed to the greater sort of the Nobility howsoever the Queen Mother and Regent of France was about the year 1625. pleased in a Letter to the late George Duke of Buckingham to give him the honour to be called her Cousin very often omitted And those honours of attending their Kings and being near his person or being imployed in his Royal commands were so desirable by as many as could by their virtue antiently the Seminary and cause of all honour obtain it as they thought the service of their Prince not happiness enough unless their Heirs and after Generations as well as themselves might partake of the honour to do service unto him and therefore could be well content to have some of their Lands which some of our Kings of England gave them which they hoped to hold unaliened to them and their Heirs in Fee or in Tayl astrictae obliged and tyed also as their persons to those no inglorious services as the Earls of Oxford holding the Castle of Hedingham in the County of Essex and the Manor of Castle Campes in the Counties of Cambridge and Essex to them and their Heirs in Tayl by the Tenor and Service of being great Chamberlain of England and the Manors of Fingrith in the County of Essex and Hormead or Hornemead in the County of Hertford descended unto them by the Marriage of a Daughter and Heir of the Lord Sanford by the Service and Tenure of being Chamberlain to the Queens of England die Coronationis suae upon the dayes of their Coronation that of great Chamberlain of England being an Office distinct and separate from that of Chamberlain of the Kings House which was as appeareth by many Charters of our antient Kings and their Chamberlains Subscriptions thereunto as witnesses long before the grant of great Chamberlain of England and as then are now only

the 17th year of her Reign by her Writ under the Great Seal of England directed to that learned and judicious Lawyer Sir Nicholas Bacon Knight Lord Keeper of it who allowed and sealed it and the Lord Treasurer of England and her Justices Barons of the Exchequer Sheriffs Mayors Bayliffs c. signifie that she had taken into her Protection for three years Martin Frobisher Gent. probably the eminent Sea-Captain and his ordinary Servants whom she had imployed in her affairs beyond the Seas and therefore by vertue of her Royal Prerogative which she would not have disputed commanded every of them that during the saie Martin Frobishers absence and before his departure and after his return during the said three years they should not suffer him or his Servants in ordinary to be arrested attached or outlawed or to be molested or disquieted in their Persons Goods Chattels Lands or Estates and that the Justices in their several Courts should supersede and discharge all Actions Plaints and Suits tending thereunto and not proceed thereupon and may give us to understand that howsoever in Warhams Case in the 20th year of her Reign before her Judges of her Bench her Protection signifying that she would not have her Prerogative disputed was without debating as the Writ commanded not allowed but silently laid by possibly by reason of variance or incertainty of time or upon some defect of form or words in the Writ or in regard that it mentioned not whether the party desiring to be protected was profecturus or moraturus to go or abide in the Queens service or because the Writ of Protection came too late or the nature of the Action or some matter in the Pleading or the Issue which was omitted by the Reporter would not admit it yet the disallowance of one Protection is no argument or enough to conclude that no Protection was or ought to be allowed when so many do appear in the Records and Year-Books of our Laws to have been allowed For certainly if that great Queen had the year before 1588. and that almost unavoidable ruining storm of the Spanish Armado which threatned the destruction of her and this Nation given her Protection Royal to Sir Thomas Gresham Knight that Prince of Merchants for the securing of his person and Estate from arrest or troubles when for her service and the safeguard and defence of the Nation he had stretched that grand and all the Credit which he had in Foreign parts to dreyn the Banks thereof and to borrow and take up at Interest so great a part of the moneys thereof as he prevented the King of Spain therein and so disappointed him of money as he could no sooner send that formidable Navy against England which he designed to have sent the year before whereby she was not suddenly attaqued but had time to provide a gallant resistance and whether the clause of commanding her Prerogative therein not to be disputed had been inserted or not which in such a secret and important affair ought not to have been made publick either in such a Writ or in a Court of Justice every man that had not sued a Bill of Divorce against his reason common sense and understanding might have believed such a Protection in such an exigent to have been as legal as it would have been for publique good and necessary And although the Reverend Judge Fitzherbert was of opinion that a Protection of the King quia in servitio Regis because the party to whom it was granted was in the service of the King or the like is not to be allowed for a longer time than a year and a day being supposed to be a competent time for the dispatch of such an emergent or extraordinary imployment of the Kings as was pretended which no Act of Parliament hath yet limited there being a possibility of a longer time of the imployment either as profecturus or moraturus in the going or tarrying when the time of the dispatch of business cannot be circumscribed especially in Foreign parts whither and whence in longer or shorter Voyages the winds as well as other occasions and accidents are to be a●●ended and that in the 39th year of the Reign of King Henry the 6th a Protection was not allowed because the Defendant having obtained it in regard that he was in servitio Regis and sent to Rome Pleas of Dower and Quare Impedit were not as they used to be and ought by Law to be excepted in the Writ of Protection yet Mayle one of the Justices of the Court of Common Pleas then said that in a Voyage Royal or in business concerning the Realm or in an Embassage or the like a man should be protected and a Voyage Royal saith Fitzherbert is where the King goeth to War or his Lieutenant or Deputy Lieutenant and that a man is to be protected when he is in the Kings service for guard of the West Marches of England towards Scotland and in the 21th year of the Reign of King Henry the 6th a Protection was allowed after the Nisi prius or Issue tryed and sometimes for the Plaintiff as well as the Tenant or Defendant as in the 14th year of the Reign of King Edward the 4th Essoines of the Kings service being likewise ordinarily allowed by the Judges upon allegation or proof of the Kings service at the time of casting or praying for them there being an ordinary course of Essoining allowed communi jure of common right to such as are not in servitio Regis or the Kings Servants as de malo lecti for sickness c. and are now in many Actions allowed of course without any proof or question made thereof And those kind of Protections were so effectual and respected in the 21th year of the Reign of King Edward the 3d. as in an Action where the Queen who was to enjoy some greater Priviledges then others of the Subjects was Plaintiff such a Protection was allowed and it is not without some warrant or reason of Law observable that the Protections and Essoines which were quia in servitio Regis in regard that the person to be protected was in the Kings service were most commonly quia profecturus because he was to go or abide upon some imployment for the King do mention per praeceptum or in obsequio Domini Regis that they were sent by the Kings command or upon his service which in case of ordinary or domestick service needs not to be so much mentioned by the words per praeceptum or in obsequio Regis the word obsequium being by the Civil Law only understood to be reverentia honoris exhibitio erga parentes patronos an honour and reverence of Freemen to their Parents and Patrons contradistinct to the duty of work or labour in Servants that such men were commonly Strangers and none of the Kings Houshold Servants and that in those early dayes and times of Popery when there was