Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	king_n	lord_n	person_n	2,832	5	4.9191	4	true

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

holden in those elder times from what it is now For as you may see in my Lord Coke on Littleton fol. 22. a. the husband in the time of King Edward the Third was so far from having the inheritance of Lands given to him in Frankmarriage that if he and his wife were divorced the woman should enjoy the whole land And for this he cites in the Margent 13 Edw. 3. tit Ass 19 Edw. 3. Ass 83. with several other proofes of the like nature Also in the time of King Edw. 1. as you may see in the Antient Treatise called Fleta the inheritance in these cases was in the wife and not in the husband For in the 3 Book and 11th Chapter de donationibus in maritagiis it is thus said Et quamvis fiat mentio in donatione quod terra data sit in maritagium tali viro cum tali uxore res data tamen est liberum tenementum uxoris non viri cum non habeat nisi custodiam cum uxore donec liberum tenementum sibi accrescat per legem Angliae Secus si pro homagio servitio viri in Maritagium facta fuerit donatio And so also Bracton who lived in the time of King Henry the Third and also in the time of the said Lhewellin lib. 2. cap. 11. says Si autem fiat mentio quod terra data sit in maritagium cum uxore eorum haeredibus communes haeredes de corpore utriusque admittantur qui si defecerint revertitur terra data alii remotiores excluduntur quia res data est liberum tenementum uxoris non viri cum non habeat nisi custodiam cum uxore Si autem sic terra detur in Maritagium viro cum uxore eorum haeredibus pro homagio servitio viri quod fit aliquando licet detur in liberum maritagium quae sunt sibi ad invicem adversantia sive repugnantia tunc prefertur homagium erit acsifieret donatio tam viro quam uxori And so also my Lord Coke on Littleton fol. 21. b. tells us That if the King give Land to a man with a woman of his kindred in frank-marriage and the woman dyeth without issue the Man in the Kings case shall not hold it for his life because the woman was the cause of the gift but otherwayes it is in the case of a common person and for this in the Margent he cites 9 H. 3. Dower 202. So also Mr. Glanvile who l●ved in the time of King Henry the Second and before the time of the said Lhewellin lib. 7. cap. 18. to the same purpose sayes Cum quis itaque terram aliquam cum uxore sua in maritagium ceperit si ex eadem uxore sua haeredem habuerit filium vel filiam clamantem auditum infra quatuor parietes si idem vir uxorem suam supervixerit sive vixerit haeres sive non illi in vita sua remanet maritagium illud post mortem vero ipsius ad donatorem vel ejus haeredes est reversurum Sin autem ex uxore suae nunquam habuerit haeredem tunc statim post mortem ●xeris ad donatorem vel haeredes ejus revertetur maritagium so that it is clear that the lands which were given with the said Hellen to the said John Scot were given to the said Lhewellin with a former wife who was Kinswoman to the said King John and Mother to the said Hellen for otherwise the said Gift to John Scot could not be good But if they were given to the said Lhewellin with a wife who was Mother to the said Hellen but dead at the time of the gift to the said John Scot then the said Lhewellin being Tenant by the Curtesie of England and the inheritance being in the said Hellen he might pass away his Estate to the said John Scot with the said Hellen and they might lawfully hold the said Mannors in libero maritagio according to the Agreement made betwixt the said Randle Earl of Chester and Lincolne and the said Lhewellin Prince of North-Wales Lastly You erre a fifth time in saying that Joane the wife of Robert de Audeley was the same Joane who was wife to the said Lhewellin For that cannot possibly be because Robert de Audeley married Joane the base daughter of King John by Agatha who might well be marriageable in the 14 year of King Henry the Third which fell out to be in the years 1229. and 1230. But I have before shewed that there is no possibility that the said Joane daughter of Agatha could be wife to Lhewellin in the year 1204. nor any likelihood that she then was born And this mistake of yours doth further appear because as before is shewed Prince Lhewellin was husband to the said Joane in the year 1204. and as you well know and confess he dyed not till the 24th year of King Henry the 3d. How then can that Ioane who was wife to Robert de Audeley in the 14th year of King H. 3. be the same Joane who was wife to Lhewellin unless she had two husbands living at one time Or How can what your Author Vincent sayes be true That she was re-married to Robert de Audley 14 H. 3. after the death of Lhewellin seeing the said Lhewellin died not till the 24th year of Henry 3d and did also outlive his wife Joane three yeares Certainly if Vincent had known as well as you how long the said Lhewellin lived he would never have said that Joane the wife of Robert de Audley was the same Joane who was wife of Lhewellin But though you do acknowledge that Vincent did erre in saying Lhewellin was dead when Joane was married to Robert de Audeley yet you would willingly justifie the other part of his error in making Audeleys wife Joane to be the same woman with Lhewellins wife Joane and to do this you fancy that Lhewellin was divorced from his wife Joane though there be no Author who doth alleadge any such thing And Can we think that a Prince of North-Wales and a daughter of King John could be divorced and one or both of them marry again in the life-time of each other and no writer take notice thereof Or can it be that Mat. Paris who lived at that very time should in his 365. Page speak of William de Braus his being taken in Adultery with the said Joane with an ut dicebatur only Or the Welch History p. 286. with an as it was reported if the Adultery was so notorious as that she was divorced for it Indeed you tell us out of Knighton col 2439. that Anno Domini 1228. 13 H. 3. Leolinus Princeps Walliae rebllare cepit Tandem vero post concursus varios discrimina multa per quoddam maritagium cum Rege concordatus est in pace dimissus and from these words per quoddam maritagium you would insinuate a Divorce and a new Marriage of the said Joane with Robert