Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	live_v	time_n	write_v	3,395	5	5.5400	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A51562	A reply to an answer to the Defence of Amicia, daughter of Hugh Cyveliok, Earl of Chester wherein it is proved, that the reasons alleadged by Sir Peter Leicester, in his former book, and also in his said answer, concerning the illegitimacy of the said Amicia, are invalid, and of no weight at all / by Sir Thomas Mainwaring ...	Mainwaring, Thomas, Sir, 1623-1689.	1673 (1673)	Wing M303; ESTC R10002	39,045	108

him with many Bastards both Sons and Daughters although I find no great Reason to suspect that he had any at all unless Paganus de Milton and it is possible in that case you having neither the Deed nor a Copy of the Deed by you that you might take Hugh Cyveliok for Hugh Lupus as well as in another Deed as will anon appear you did take Randle Blundevil for Randle de Gernoniis I am still of the same opinion that I was formerly of viz. That Richard Bacuns Mother was not a Base Daughter of Hugh Gyveliok nor any Daughter of his at all but that she was daughter to Randle Meschines and Sister to Randle de Gernoniis And I think those reasons which I have given in my former Book do fully prove the same And albeit you tell me in the 54 55 and 56 pages of your latter Book that truly I am deceived in it yet I do not doubt but to satisfy all the world that it is you and not I that are deceived therein And whereas you say it is true as I observe that there was no such Archbishop of York called Will. nor Bishop of Chester whose Christian name began with R. both living at one time either in the time of Randle de Blundevill or Randle de Gernoniis I answer I did make no such observation at all but the contrary For I shewed you that in the time of Randle de Gernoniis William Sisters Son to King Stephen was Archbishop of York for a time viz. about 1142 or 1143. though he was afterwards ousted of it again till 1152. or 1153. and Roger Clinton was Bishop of Coventry and Litchfield which then was the same with the Bishop of Chester from the year 1128 until the year 1148 or 1149. And I then also told you that there was no William Archbishop of York at anytime during the life of Randle Blundevill nor any man Bishop of Chester whose Christian name began with R. except Richard Peche who died about the time that Hugh Cyveliok died viz. in 1182 though some say in 1181. and some in 1183. at which time Randle Blundevill could not be of age to Seal any kind of Deed because Bertred the said Randle's Mother was then but about Twenty five years old and this Argument you perceive to be so strong against you in this point that you have no way to avoid it but by giving a strange answer to it which is that you do conceive the Roll from whence the Deed in Monasticon Par. 2. Pa. 267. is written is mistaken in Will and R. and miswrit therein from the Original Chart it self Which liberty if a Man might take he might answer any thing in the world and your reason for so saying is Because Richard Bacun in his said Deed doth say that he had procured the warranty of Randle Earl of Chester his Vncle for the ratifying of that Grant and the very next Deed following in the Roll and transcribed in the Monasticon is the Deed of Randle Earl of Chester with Confirmation and Warranty accordingly whereunto Roger Lacy Constable of Cheshire is a witness who only lived in the time of Randle Blundevill and no other Earl of Chester as I may see cleerly proved among the Barons of Halton in your Book nor is there any other Deed of Confirmation and Warranty to be found by any Earl save this wherefore you say certainly it must be Randle Blundevil whom Richard Bacun calleth Vncle in his own Deed of the Foundation of the said Priory And you also say the Bishop of Chester being also Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry at that time he was not then subject to the jurisdiction of York but Canterbury and you also say That there was no Archbishop of York called Will. nor Bishop of Chester whose Christian name began with R. both living at one time either in the time of Randle Blundevill or Randle de Gernoniis that you can find To which I answer That it is not to be doubted but that Richard Bacun did obtain the Warranty and Confirmation of that Randle Earl of Chester who was his Uncle and then living neither is it to be doubted but that the Deed to which Roger Constable of Cheshire was a witness was the Deed of Randle Blundevil I having proved it to be so in the 56 page of my former Book because Roger Constable of Cheshire was living in the time of no other Randle but Randle Blundevil so that you did not need to send me to see that clearly proved among the Barons of Halton in your Book but the Deed of Confirmation of that Earl who was Uncle of Richard Bacun is not in the Monasticon but was probably lost as many other antient Deeds were and that Deed of Randle Blundevill which is there is but another Deed of Confirmation according to the mode of those times when it was usual to obtain such from several Princes several Generations one after another and for proof hereof I did desire you to read Monasticon Anglicanum Par. 2 Pa. 24 and 25. where you might find King Henry the I. reciting and confirming what had been given to the Priory of Huntendune and pa. 27. how King Henry the III. did the like and yet there was a greater space betwixt King Henry the I. and King Henry the III. than there was betwixt Randle de Gernoniis and Randle de Blundevil and very many others of the like nature may be found by those who will take the pains to make search in the several Monasticons Also it is very strange that you should fancy that the Roll where the said Deed in Monasticon was written should be mistaken both in Will and R. especially since the word Will. was the first word in the said Deed neither is it a badge of any mistake in the said Deed because the Archbishop of York is named in it though the Bishop of Chester being at that time the same with the Bishop of Coventry and Litchfield was not then subject to the Jurisdiction of York but Canterbury For the Archbishop of York was not named upon that account but because some of the places mentioned in the said Deed were within the Province and Diocesse of York as particularly Rosington was it being within the West-riding of Yorkshire but I suppose your principal reason why you suspect the Roll was mistaken is because you say there was no such Archbishop of York called Will. nor Bishop of Chester whose Christian name began with R. both living at one time either in the time of Randle Blundevill or Randle de Gernoniis that you can find Which saying of yours seems very strange to me but I believe all your doubt is about the Will that was Archbishop of York because Dr. Heylin a late Writer in his Catalogue of Bishops doth not mention the said Williams being chosen Archbishop immediately upon the death of Thurstan for I am consident that you are well satisfied that Roger Clinton was

of the right Line as also the Mainwarings of Peover after they became next Heirs Male have constantly born the two barres for some hundreds of years I might reply and tell you that the Mainwarings of Peover have not constantly given Argent two Barres Gules since they became Heirs Male to the Mainwarings of Warmincham as appears by my Deeds Neither do I think that Mr. Cambden did look upon the Six Barrulets as a Coat most peculiar to us for in his Britannia in his Description of the County of Chester he names the two Barres as the Coat most proper to our Family as appears by these words of his when he writes of Astbury Church viz. Haec enim perpulchra est cujus porticus Occidentalis ipsam Ecclesiam quae sane alta sua altitudine adaequat pyramidem adjunctam habet In caemeterio duae jacent sepulchrales Militum effigies in quorum scutis sunt duae directae areolae sive Barrae Verum cum coloribus suis destituantur non facile quis dixerit fuerintne ex Breretonis Mainwaringis vel de Venables quae clarissimae sunt in vicinia familiae ejusmodi Barras variantibus coloribus gentilitiis in clypeis gestant I rather think that my Great Grandfather having a Fancy to that Coat of Six Barrulets more than to that of the two Barres because the most antient of our Deeds were sealed therewith that Mr. Cambden gave him liberty to bear either the one or the other which I see not but it might be done being our Family had for several generations usually born the one and the other had been born by our Ancestor and had never been used by any other Family and I am sure though you be so captious with us that you your self have of late years given a different Crest from what had for a long time been born by your Predecessors because you found a more antient Crest in some of your Seals And whereas you instance in the great Suit betwixt Scroop and Grosvenour in the Marshals Court under Richard the II. concerning the bearing of a Coat of Arms whereto both challenged a right and propriety by usage but no other way You thence rightly infer that usage makes a right in such cases but when you say that usage only makes a right you are mistaken therein For not to mention the case in hand where a mans Ancestor hath born a Coat which for sometime hath been laid aside but never taken up by any other Family a Man could then have no right to a Coat which was given him by a King of Arms. I am still of opinion that you have branded several persons in your Book with Bastardy without any proof thereof but shall not yet concern my self for any besides my own Ancestor except such as you give me just occasion to take notice of And as for Geva and Richard Bacun's Mother the first of them is not yet by you proved to be a Bastard and I shall certainly hereafter make it appear that the second was no Daughter of Hugh Cyveliok so that Amicia is like to receive no blow at all And if they were both Bastards it would be no prejudice to Amicia because I have in my former Book fully proved that the gift to Geva was not a Gift in Free-Marriage as that to Amicia was and you do not pretend at all that any such gift was made to the Mother of Richard Bacun And whereas you tell me you believe that Geva and the wife of Bacun had never been spoken of nor suspected nor doubted of by me had not the case of Amicia been concerned I can assure you I should have been of the same opinion concerning them if you had never mentioned Amicia but if you had not pretended from their Cases to raise some Arguments against the said Amicia I should never have troubled my self about them and therefore I forbear to tell you of all mistakes except such as the case in hand doth give me just occasion to observe And whereas you say page 12. that you think you shall make good what you have alledged with as much certainty as the nature of the thing and times will admit And also page 27. that Geva was certainly a Bastard by as good proof us can possibly be expected in such a case You do thereby implicitely confess that you do not make those things appear with any certainty at all I have now done with what you have said concerning my Epistle and shall now proceed to consider of your Answer to the Book it self and because you do in several places again say what you have said heretofore I hope the Reader will excuse me if I be constrained sometimes to repeat the same things which I also have formerly said In the 14 and 15 pages you do tell me that I said I would remind you of that which you had formerly been told viz. Who those Heralds were that gave to Mainwaring of Peover the quartering of the Earl of Chester's Coat in Queen Elisabeth's time and withal do say that I never told you till long time after that part of your Book was written which perhaps may be true because that part of your Book was written very long since viz. in the year 1647. but I am sure I have often told you of them and you have also often seen the Pedigree it self under the hands of Mr. Cambden and Mr. Sampson Erdeswick the rest in that place is only the repeating of your former quarrel with them for suffering us to quarter the Earl of Chester's Coat but if we can really prove that we are of the Half Blood whatever you conceive of it I suppose all indifferent persons will think it but meet that we should have the like liberty that all others have in the like case in these last ages of ours What you say in the 16 and 17 pages hath been some of it formerly said in your Historical Antiquities and also in the 15 page of this your Answer and there is nothing there that is new but that you only alledge that as to my note of Dukes and Earls to have been antiently Judges of Chester I should have distinguished the times for that was not till the Reign of Richard the II. who made Deputies to act in their stead before which time there were no such great persons Judges there nor from Henry the Sevenths time downwards But what necessity there was for me particularly to distinguish the times in which those great Dukes and Earls were Judges of Chester I do not know For I only instanced in that to shew that the place of Judge of Chester was antiently a place of great repute and though it was some time after the death of John Scot before any such great persons were made Judges of Chester by the Kings of England and that in all the times of the Earls of Chester before that Earldom was united to the Crown there could not be any Dukes or Earls made