Selected quad for the lemma: king_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
king_n	earl_n	henry_n	sir_n	22,904	5	6.1717	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A48364	An ansvver to the book of Sir Thomas Manwaringe of Pever in Cheshire baronet, entituled A defence of Amicia, daughter of Hvgh Cyveliok, Earl of Chester wherein is vindicated and proved that the grounds declard in my former book, concerning the illegitimacy of Amicia, are not envinced by any solid answer or reason to the contrary / by Sir Peter Leycester ...	Leycester, Peter, Sir, 1614-1678.	1673 (1673)	Wing L1942; ESTC R10789	28,611	95

You conceive there is no weight at all in it whereof I am so sensible that I conceive it not evincing nor do those Antient Historians take upon them to give an account of all the Children of Earl Hugh but onely of the Heirs of Randle Blundevill and yet you say this Reason is as strong as my first Reason My Reply I do confess I urged it but for a probable Reason and yet you say it is as strong as the first Reason Then you might have done well to have answered the first better whereunto I am sure you have made no substantial Answer as yet wherein I appeal to all indifferent and judicious Readers who shall read this Book And for the probability of this you say That the Historians take not upon them to give an Account of all the Earls Children but the Heirs of Randle but do you find that they have left out any of his legitimate Children except this whom you suppose legitimate And then you tell me Mr. Cambden hath mentioned Amicia though not among the Co-heirs yet without the brand of a Bastard you know well he is but of very late standing and not an Historian Contemporary with Amicia and so you and I do now mention her And then you tell me over again which I have before Answered that those Judges and Heralds that have seen your Deeds of which I have heard but I am sure I yet know not who they be nor ever saw any thing attested under any of their hands nor their Reasons nor grounds for their Opinion and you mention Mr. Dugdale in particular for whom I have ever had a great esteem as a diligent searcher of Antiquities all which you again and again affirm to be of your Opinion that Amicia was legitimate but because I have before spoken of this Supra pag. 10 11. I shall onely ask here what weight can be drawn from this some Persons are of that Opinion Ergo it is so whole Councels have erred unless like the Romanists you will say The Pope cannot err And perhaps those Persons you mention never heard what is to be said against that Opinion whereas it were but equal that in consultation of Opinions both sides should show what could be said Pro and Con both together which hitherto for ought I know onely one Party hath privately put the Case as he pleaseth I have often told you I would have you confute me with Reason not Opinions for one man may be of one Opinion and another man of another Opinion but it is firm Reason which must sway every mans Judgment Page 69.70 71 c. And lastly you put down two Deeds wherein Sir Raufe Manwaringe Justice of Chester is subscribed Witness before the Barons of Cheshire for which you think it will be difficult to give a Reason if Amice were a Bastard To this I say it will not be difficult at all to give a Reason and much more easie then to give a Reason why Amice should be no Bastard because Sir Raufe Manwaringe is sometime Subscribed before the Barons of Cheshire The Reason I give is this that antiently in those Ages the Justice was put sometimes before the Barons and sometimes after and sometimes after the Constable and Dapifer and before the rest of the Barons as it happened for proof see the Deed in my-Book making the Baron of Halton the prime Baron pag. 160. where the Justice comes after all the Barons also in the Deed of Earl Randle to his Barons pag. 162. where the Justice comes next after the Constable and Dapifer and before the other Barons see also in my Book pag. 130 131. two Deeds made by Hugh Cyveliok In the one the Justice is put after the Constable and Dapifer In the other the Justice is put before them many other like examples may be produced else where I will appeal herein to Mr. Dugdale or to any Antiquary in England and considering the great uncertainty of Subscription of Witnesses in old Deeds sometimes putting one before another in one Deed and again putting the same Person after the other in another Deed sometimes putting Domino prefixed before the names of some Persons in one Deed and omitting the word Domino before the names of the same Persons in another Deed whereof I have spoken pag. 5 6. in the beginning of this Book I say had you well considered or observed these things it was not worth your labour to have added those three or four leafs in the close of your Book And now I appeal to all Readers whether those Grounds and Reasons alledged in my former Book against the legitimacy of Amicia as also to prove the Bastardy of those two other Ladies as you call them Geva and the Mother of Richard Bacun be evinced by any solid Answer or Reason given yet to the contrary And so I take my leave for ever of this Trivial Controversie but shall ever remain Mobberley May 15. 1673. SIR Your affectionate Cosin and very humble Servant PETER LEYCESTER Courteous Reader I Have here in the end of this Book an opportunity to Rectifie some Omissions and Errours in my former Book which escaped me through misinformation of others and desire thee to pardon and amend them as followeth Page 206. after the last line but two should have followed this Also another John Brereton son of George Brereton of Ashley Esq was Baptised at Bowdon the 20th day of June 1576. he was afterwards Sir John Brereton Knight the King's Serjeant at Law in Ireland he died without Issue whose-Widow Married the Lord Chief Justice Bramston Sir John left all his Personal Estate which was great to his Widow and Caius-Colledge in Cambridge where he was educated and to Randle brereton his youngest Brother which Randle lived in London and Married and had Issue by his Wife a Daughter Married to Mr. Bourcher of Glocestershire and a Son called also Randle Brereton who hath an Estate in Lincolnshire and is the onely Issue Male or Heir-male of all the Family of the Breretons of Ashley now surviving 1672. Page 210. line 27. Where these words With the little Fields above lying up to Aston Town-field are totally to be expunged Page 214. line 18 19. Where it is said Daughter and sole Heir of Sir Henry Willoughby Read Daughter and sole Heir to her Mother and Daughter and Co-heir to her Father Sir Henry Willoughby for Sir Henry had three Daughters and Co-heirs Anne after the death of Sir Thomas Aston Married Mr. Gray younger Son of the Earl of Stamford she was by the first Wife of Sir Henry he had also two Daughters by his second Wife Ibidem page 214. line 25. Read He was Loyal to his Prince and raised a Regiment of Dragooners for the King at his own cost and charge and was a Gentleman of good Parts but was unfortunately c. Page 223. The 6 7 8. lines are to be expunged totally Page 233. line 4. There it is said Maud Married Sir

Earldoms anciently were might be entailed on the Heirs-Males only and then the Male Line being extinct why might not the King confer it as well upon Randle de Meschines who was a near kinsman as on a stranger which later course is also usual at this day and it is very probable that the Earldom was entailed on the Heirs-Males onely for James York in his union of honour p. 105. says That this Randle was made Earl by grant of King Henry the First and if so it came not to him by Descent and so all that I object you say is fully answered But if it had been so that the Earldom had been to descend to the Heirs general if Geva was Daughter of Hugh Lupus by another Wife besides Ermentrude then the Earldom of Chester would have descended from Earl Richard to Randle de Meschines by his Mother being Aunt of the whole blood to Richard and not his Sister Geva or her Issue they being but of the Half-blood My Answer to the third Reason Let any ingenious Reader observe whether any substantial Answer be here given at all you say it is possible that the Earldom was then entailed on the Heirs Males onely but will you argue upon possibilities to prove a thing de facto but suppose it were so entailed why should not the King have conferred it on the Issue of Geva before Randle de Meschines that being the Issue of a Sister and Randle the Issue but of an Aunt or why may you think that the King though he gave it to Randle did not give the honour and Lands unto him as in whom was the greatest right to have it but to this you give no Answer at all but we find not that the Issue of Geva ever moved for it The true reason being that her Title was not good but had she been Legitimate it is more then probable she would have looked after the obtaining of so great an inheritance yea and obtained it too before Randle Nay had she been but of the Half-blood which is your old and onely Subterfuge she would by all probability have buzled hard for so great an Estate in those Ages before she had lost it but you are now come to an excellent way of arguing by ifs and ands and possibilities by which means Answers may be made to any thing even to eternity but if you would substantially prove Geva to be of the Half-blood then must you prove Hugh Lupus to have another Wife before Ermentrude and Geva to be the Daughter of that very Wife I would fain have you but to prove that ever he had another Wife by any Historian or Record this would be something but what you here say is nothing and then you Instance that the Earldom of Chester probably was entailed on the Heirs Males onely becauses James York saith that Randle Meschines was made Earl by the Kings grant and if so say you it came not to him by descent who must grant it him but the King what doth hinder but the King gave it to him as one who by descent had most right to it although he was not the direct Heir Male of Earl Hugh but of another Family yet a near Kinsman by marriage And therefore must now come in by a Grant yet for all this no necessity that the Earldom was entailed at that time on the Heirs Males onely Fourthly Page 46. And now you come to show me a Precedent which I desired where ever the Heirs of an Aunt inherited before the Heirs of a Sister both legally born c. And now you will shew me where an honour in such a case came to the Heirs of the younger Sister and not to the Heirs of the elder Sister which is full as much say you as if it were done in the case of a Sister and an Aunt and you Instance out of Birds Treatise of Nobility p. 96. in the Case of Raufe Lord Cromwell being a Baron-by Writ died without Issue leaving two Sisters and Co-heirs Elizabeth the eldest Married Sir Thomas Nevill Joane the younger Married Sir Hunt Bourcher Bourcher was called to Parliament as Lord Cromwell and not sir Thomas Nevill My Answer to the fourth Reason Bird indeed alledgeth this Precedent in the place cited where he tells us before That the Question or point that is whether a Barony by Writ may descend to the Heirs Females or no is somewhat perplexed by means of difficult Presidents and now in this place he saith comming to compound the Controversy that it is observed that some Precedents do prove that Baronies by Writs have descended unto Heirs Females whose Husbands have been called to Parliament whether in regard of themselves or in regard of their Wifes it matters not and secondly out of the Precedents it is to be observed That the King is nevertheless at liberty to call to Parliament whom he shall think most meet in his Princely Wisdom as his Majesties Progenitors in former Ages have observed and then he brings in the Case of the Lord Cromwell before mentioned thirdly it is observed that if a Baron by Writ dye without Heir Male having Daughter or Sister or other who can challenge the Lands of such Baron deceased the Title of such Heir Female hath been heretofore allowed c. Now the Case comes as near to the Case of Geva as an Apple to an Oyster for let any rational man be Judge whether the King by his Pretogative Summoning by his Writ to Parliament the Husband of the younger Sister and Co-heir before the Husband of the elder Sister and Co-heir both of them sharing the Lands equally be any thing to the Point of Geva or to satisfie why she should not have had both the Earldom of Chester and all the Lands thereof had she been legitimate and by consequence sole Sister and Heir to her Brother Richard Earl of Chester And in this Case of the Kings Writ proposed yet you see the Sisters shared the Lands as by right they ought to do and so I shall pass to your next Reason Fifthly Page 48. But now you come and ask me what I will say if this Deed which I alledge to be made to Geva will not at all concern Amicia because Cook upon Littleton fol. 21. b. which in your Book you have miscited also by putting the Page for the Folio tells us that these words in liberum maritagium are words of Art and so are necessarily required As if a man give Lands to another with his Daughter in Connubio soluto ab omni Servitio yet here passeth but an Estate for Life And the words in the Deed to Geva are not in liberum maritagium but in libero conjugio and so are but like the words in Connubio soluto ab omni Servitio which make but an Estate for Life and so might be passed to a Bastard or any other and then after you say the Deed to Geva is worded as if it intended onely an Estate for Life there being

no mention of her Heirs and secondly it is given to Geva alone and not unto a Husband with her whereas that given to Manwaringe with Amicia in free Marriage mentioneth their Heirs My Answer to the fifth Reason Though the Lord Cook say That by these words in Connubio soluto ab omni Servitio there passeth but an Estate for life yet he saith not That by these words in libero conjugio passeth onely an Estate for Life nor in Case the words had been in libero Connubio he saith nothing of them although you are pleased to say That the words in libero Conjugio are but like the words in Connubio soluto ab omni Servitio which make but an Estate for Life I think Sir you and I being no professed Lawyers had best to leave these things to the Sages of the Law and notwithstanding the Criticism I beg both your Pardon and my Lord Cooke's too if he should have said it which I do not find that he doth in this Case of Geva for the Lands in the Deed mentioned did descend to her Heirs by Basset and even at this day it is called Drayton-Basset in distinction of other Towns called also Drayton because the Bassets were anciently Lords thereof and this very Deed was taken out of a Manuscript in Arundel-house wherein the old Deeds belonging to the Bassets of Drayton-Basset in Staffordshire were enrolled about the Reign of Richard the Second as you may see it mentioned in my Book Again you say The Deed to Geva is worded as if it intended onely an Estate for Life and is made to Geva her self without the words her Heirs mentioned therein where you are to take notice that this Deed of the first Randle Earl of Chester is but a Confirmation to his Cosin Geva of a former Deed Sicuti Comes Hughes ei in libero Conjugio dedit which Deed may be had the Land passed to her and her Heirs or to her Husband with her and to their Heirs But for certain she and her Heirs by Basset had the same Land however Earl Hugh's Deed did run I add further to your Objection that it was intended but for Life because given to her onely without the word Heirs Cooke upon Littleton fol. 21. b citeth Peter Saltmarsh Case and Fitz Herbert de Natura Brevium fol. 172. that Lands may be given by a Man to his Son in Free-marriage and why not as well to his Daughter alone in Free-marriage which words of Frank-marriage do of themselves create an Estate of inheritance as Cooke saith in the same Page And now we have done with Geva and I appeal to the indifferent Reader whether my Reasons alledged for her Bastardy in my other Book be by you in the least taken off by any solid Answers or Reason to the contrary although in your Book you brand me with an aspersion of her Page 50 51. And now you come to the second Reason alledged To prove that Amicia is legitimate which you say hath its full strength yet and is not at all weakened by any thing I have said For in my computation according to reasonable suppositions it cannot be well affirmed that Hugh Cyveliok was above seven or eight years or thereabout older then his Wife Bertred But by your computation you say possibly he may be 26. or 27. years older whosoever will take pains to scan both our computations will see which is more moderate and reasonable in yours you suppose Maud Earl Hugh's Mother to be born the second year after her Mothers Marriage and Maud Married in the 16th year of her Age and Earl Hugh born in the 17th year of Maud's Age which falls in Anno 1129. and so all in the utmost possibility and if we may compute by possibilities as you do I say Earl Hugh might be but four years older then Bertred but if you will go by strong probabilities that Earl Randle Father of Earl Hugh was Married by Robert Earl of Glocester unto Maude his Daughter thereby to draw him to the Part of Queen Maud his Sister about the very year 1139. before which time we find no mention in our ancient Historians of Randle's actings against King Stephen but in that very year we do and then by some of them stiled Son in Law to the Earl of Glocester but not before that year that I remember I say if we reckon by utmost possibilities Earl Hugh could not possibly be above 16 or 17 years older then Bertred but rationally we may imagine he was not so old by many years and though your ghesses may be a little in the dark yet I think I am about the very time of his Marriage so that if your Argument carry its full strength it is certainly but a little strength if any at all it is but this Earl Hugh was older then Bertred Ergo he had a former Wife and of your account you say you may abate me several years and yet Earl Hugh be a great deal older then his Wife wherein you say true but I can gather no such quantity of years in respect of his Age reasonably to suppose him to have had any former Wife Page 52. The third and fourth Reasons you say are onely urged as concurrent Proof with the Argument brought from the words in libero maritagio So then your Achillean Argument failing all the other fall to the ground to which hath been spoken before Page 52 53. But yet you muster up all your forces to strengthen the third and fourth Reasons for Amicia as Hugh Cyveliok's Countess being witness to the Deed of Amicia in libero maritagio and yet you that take no notice of the Law in ancient times from the Law of later Ages and insist so much upon Law cannot but know a Wife is no good Witness either for or against her Husband and yet both here and in sundry other Deeds we find them put as Witnesses to their Husbands Deeds also Raufe Manwaringe calling his Daughter Bertrede after the name of the Countess methinks he should rather have called her after the name of his former Countess Mother of Amice if Earl Hugh had had any such Wife also Roger Manwaringe in another Deed calling Randle of Chester and Lincolne his Vncle Raufe Manwaringe being with the Earl at Coventry and a Witness to his Charler to his Burgesses there also Roger Manwaringe and Henry de Audley who Married his Sister being Witnesses to the Deed of Randle Earl of Chester and Lincolne concerning the Abby of Deulacres Henry de Audley's being a Witness to the Deed of Robert de Fernans this is far fetcht whose Mother was one of the Sisters and Coheirs to the aforesaid Earl Randle as also Rafe Manwaringe being a Witness to one Deed of Hugh Cyvelioks and to three other Deeds of the said Earl Randle These say you are such circumstances as shew a more great and constant intimacy between the said two families then probably would have been if Amicia had been a

death of the Donour what is this to the point why a man cannot give his Lands to any in libero maritagio or that it was not usual in those dayes to pass Lands in free marriage with a Bastard calling her only his Daughter without the addition of Bastard and thereby owning her to be of his bloud and kindred The sum is this The Lawyers of latter ages do expound the Law That Lands cannot pass in free marriage with Bastards ergo it was so taken in Glanvil's time and his words must be so understood though he say no such thing This is a great Non sequitur And yet our Lawyers say now Bastards are capable of receiving Lands after they have gained a Name by reputation which Amicia had gained as we see in the Deed where she is called and owned by the Earl for his Daughter But you tell me in the Close pag. 41. That the Common Law hath alwaies been the same because Cooke on Littleton saith That the Comon Law hath no Controller but an Act of Parliament which I have told you must be understood whilst it remains the Common Law which yet may alter and hath altered in sundry Particulars without any Act of Parliament as I have before proved But here I must turn you back to p. 12 13. where this hath been sufficiently answered before Pag. 42. Your Fourth Reply You say There is not any weight in what I say viz. That it seems to me in those elder ages Bastards were reputed of the Bloud by the frequent Appellation of them by the names of Unkle Brother Daughter Cosin c. for by the same reason I should repute them of the bloud now this Age being as Civil to them in their expressions as any Age could possibly be My Answer But where do you find almost in any Deeds of these last Ages where such are not now called Bastard-sons Bastard-daughters Bastard-brothers c. in all Settlements and Conveyances of Annuities or Portions which in the very ancient Ages was never used Nay what say you if I affirm they be of the Bloud both now and in former Ages though the Law will not allow them so because they now are esteemed in the eye of the Law quasi nullius filius for if A. have a Bastard son or daughter which is really his they must needs be of his bloud For no Law can extinguish Nature though by the Common Law they are not now esteemed so And what if I say that the reason why in the Deeds of those elder Ages they were called Daughters without any addition of Bastard whereby the Party owned them to be of their Kindred and Bloud was that the Inheritance of the Lands passed in libero Maritagio with such might descend to their heirs For our Lawyers now tell us that Bastards are capable of receiving Lands after they have gained a Name by Reputation why may not then Bastards having gained the Names of Daughters receive a Grant from their owned Fathers either in Frank-marriage or otherwise And now you come to Geva and my Precedent Pag. 43. For the Precedent I have given wherein I say Lands were given in libero maritagio you conceive it will not hold 1. Because it doth not certainly appear that Geva was a Bastard for in all the Records that I cite she is called Earl Hugh 's Daughter and in one of them she calls Randle Earl of Chester her Cosin which makes it probable that she was legitimate especially since you do not find by any Deed Record or Author whatsoever that she is at any time called a Bastard My Answer to the first Reason Though we find her not called Bastard in express terms yet we find it implied in an Author contemporary by certain and sure consequence which I believe can never be fully answered Secondly These words of Ordericus p. 787. Richardus pulcherrimus puer quem solum ex Ermentrude filia Hugonis de Claro monte genuit consulatum tenuit c. by which words you are not satisfied but he might as well mean that Richard was the only Son as well as the only Child begot on Ermentrude for there is no necessity to take the word solum adverbially neither is it marked as an Adverb in Ordericus his Book though it be so in mine And though he tells us p. 522. that E pellicibus plurimam sobolem utriusque sexus genuit yet be saith not that Geva was one of them My Answer to the Second Reason But you will not perhaps be satisfied of his meaning for he saith not Quem solum filium as you interpret him but indefinitely Quem solum ex Ermentrude genuit So that whether solum be understood adverbially which certainly to most men will here seem more proper or whether you take it for a Noun you can make no more of it in English than thus Richard a beautiful youth whom only Earl Hugh begot on Exmentrude c. For whether we English it whom only he begot or whom he only begot it retains the same sense for if any other person either Son or Daughter were begotten on Ermentrude by Earl Hugh then could it not be said that Richard was only begot on Ermentrude and can any man now imagine from this testimony of Ordericus that Earl Hugh had any other Issue by Ermentrude but only Richard So that if we believe Ordericus who living in that Age knew the truth better than we can now Geva was no Daughter by Ermentrude and by certain consequence must be one of the base Issue mentioned by Ordericus though he names none in particular and she cannot be by any former Wife your old Subterfuge because Earl Hugh had never any other Wife which ought either to be proved by you or else no good reason appears to the contrary and then sure the Deed proving Geva had Lands given in free Marriage the precedent holds and proves that Lands in those elder Ages passed with Bastards in free Marriage whom they owned for their own Children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod erat demonstrandum I add further that if Hugh Lupus had a Daughter by Ermentrude for you your self confess and expound the words of Ordericus to be that Earl Hugh had no other Son what advantage is it for your purpose unless Geva was that Daughter and so she be legitimate See now then Geva must needs be Sister of the Whole-blood to Earl Richard and by consequence sole Heir to her Brother of all the Earldom as you interpret Ordericus and so I leave it to every Readers Judgement and then by your own Argument she should have had the Earldom Thirdly Page 45. Then you proceed to my Objection That if Geva had been Legitimate her Issue ought rather to have succeeded into the Earldom of Chester then Randle de Meschines after the death of Richard Earl of Chester That doth not at all follow say you because it is possible the Earldom of Chester at that time as most times