Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
book_n author_n write_v year_n 2,966 5 4.5239 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A70632 An answer to Sir Peter Leicester's Addenda, or, Some things to be added in his Answer to Sir Thomas Mainwarings book written by the said Sir Thomas Mainwaring. Mainwaring, Thomas, Sir, 1623-1689. 1674 (1674) Wing M298; ESTC R18031 20,134 55

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

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
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.