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
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