Selected quad for the lemma: child_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
child_n	inheritance_n	lord_n	tribe_n	2,145	5	10.5792	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56468	A conference about the next succession to the crown of England divided into two parts : the first containeth the discourse of a civil lawyer, how and in what manner propinquity of bloud is to be preferred : the second containeth the speech of a temporal lawyer about the particular titles of all such as do, or may, pretend (within England or without) to the next succession : whereunto is also added a new and perfect arbor and genealogy of the descents of all the kings and princes of England, from the Conquest to the present day, whereby each mans pretence is made more plain ... / published by R. Doleman.	Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610.; Allen, William, 1532-1594.; Englefield, Francis, Sir, d. 1596?	1681 (1681)	Wing P568; ESTC R36629	283,893	409

places even in those Kingdoms where Succession prevaileth with many Examples of the Kingdoms of Israel and Spain AT the next Meeting the Civilian came in very pensive as though his head had been full of study where being asked the reason he answered that he had revolved many Stories since his departure about the point which he promised to treat of and that he had found such store and great variety of matter as he knew not well where to end For quoth he if I should begin with the Grecian Kings before-mentioned it were infinite that might be alledged and perhaps some man would say they were too too old and far-fetched Examples and cannot be Presidents to us in these ages and if I lay before you the Examples of Roman Kings and Emperours put in and out against the Law and Right of Succession the same men perhaps will answer that it was by force and injury of mutinous Souldiers whereunto that Common-wealth was greatly subject And if I should bring forth any Presidents and Examples of Holy Scriptures some others might chance to reply that this was by particular priviledge wherein God Almighty would deal and dispose of things against the ordinary course of mans saw as best liked himself whose will is more than saw and whose Actions are right it self for that he is Lord of all and to be limited by no Rule or Law of man but yet that this is not properly the Act of a Commonwealth as our Question demandeth Thus I say it may be that some man would reply and therefore having store enough of plain and evident matter which hath no exception for that it hath happened in settled Commonwealths and those nearer home where the Law of Succession is received and established to wit in Spain France and England but yet putting you in mind before I pass any further that it is a matter much to be marked how God dealt is this point with the people of Israel at the beginning after he had granted to them that they should have the same Government of Kings that other Nations round about them had whose Kings did ordinarily reign by Succession as ours do at this day and as all the Kings of the Jews did afterwards and yet this notwithstanding God at the beginning to wit at the very entrance of their first Kings would shew plainly that this Law of Succeeding of the one the other by Birth and propinquity of Bloud though for the most part it should prevail yet that it was not so precisely necessary but that upon just causes it might be altered For proof whereof we are to consider that albeit he made Saul a true and lawful King over the Jewes and consequently also gave him all Kingly Priviledges Benefits and Prerogatives belonging to that Degree and State whereof one Principal as you know is to have his children succeed after him in the Crown Yet after his death God suffered not any one of his generation to succeed him though he left behind him many children and among others Ishbosheth a Prince of 40 years of age whom Abner the General Captain of that Nation with eleven Tribes followed for a time as their Lawful Lord and Master by Succession until God checked them for it and induced them to reject him though Heir apparent by descent and to cleave to David newly elected King who was a stranger by Birth and no Kin at all to the King deceased And if you say here that this was for the sin of Saul whom God hath rejected I do confess it but yet this is nothing against our purpose for that we pretend not that a Prince that is next in Bloud can justly be put back except it be for his own defects or those of his Ancestors And moreover I would have you consider that by this it is evident that the fault of the Father may prejudicate the Sons Right to the Crown albeit the Son have no part in the fault as we may see in this example not only of Ishbosheth that was punished and deprived for the offence of Saul his Father notwithstanding he had been proclaimed King as hath been said but also of Jonathan's Saul's son who was so good a man and so much praised in Holy Scripture and yet he being slain in War and leaving a son named Mephibosheth he was put back also though by nearness of Bloud he had great Interest in the Succession as you see and much before David But David being placed in the Crown by Election free Consent and Admission of the People of Israel as the scripture plainly testifies though by motion and direction of God himself we must confess and no man I think will deny but that he had given unto him therewith all Kingly Priviledges Prehemin●nces and Regalities even in the highest degree as was convenient to such a state and among others the Scripture expressly nameth that in particular it was assured him by God that his Seed should Reign after ●im yea and that for ever but yet we do not find this to be performed to any of 〈◊〉 persons as by Order of Succession it should seem to appertain 〈◊〉 nor to any of their off-spring or descents but only to Solomon which was his younger and tenth son and the fourth only by 〈◊〉 as before hath been touched True it is that the Scripture recounteth how Adonias David's elder son that was of rare beauty and a very Godly young Prince seeing his Father now very old and impotent and to lye on his Death bed and himself Heir apparent by antiquity of Bloud after the death of Absalom his elder brother that was slain before he had determined to have proclaimed himself Heir apparent in Jerusalem before his Father dyed and for that purpose had ordained a great Assembly and Banquet had called unto it both the High-Priest Abiathar and divers of the Clergy as also the General Captain of all the Army of Israel named Joab with others of the Nobility and with them all the rest of his Brethren that were sons to King David saving only Solomon together with many other Princes and great Men both Spiritual and Temporal of that Estate and had prepared for them a great Feast as I have said meaning that very day to proclaim himself Heir apparent to the Crown and to be Crowned as indeed by Succession of bloud it appertained unto him and this he attempted so much the rather by counsil of his Friends for that he saw the King his Father very old and impotent and ready to dye and had taken no order at all for his Successor and moreover Adonias had understood how that Barsabee Solomon's Mother had some hope to have her son reign after David upon a certain promise that David in his youth had made unto her thereof as also she had in the special favour and friendship which Nathan the Prophet and Zadok the Priest who could do much with

in the House of York these men endeavour to shew all the contrary to wit that there was nothing else but suspition hatred and emulations among themselves and extreme cruelty of one against the other and so we see that as soon almost as Edward Duke of York came to be King George Duke of Clarence his younger Brother conspired against him and did help to drive him out again both from the Realm and Crown In recompence whereof his said elder Brother afterward notwithstanding all the reconciliation and many others that passed between them of new love and union caused him upon new grudges to be taken and murthered privily at Calis as all the World knoweth And after both their deaths Richard their third Brother murthered the two Sons of his said elder Brother and kept in prison whiles he lived the Son and H●ir of his second Brother I mean the young Earl of Warwick though he were but a very Child whom King Henry the seventh afterward put to death But King Henry the eighth that succeeded them passed all the rest in cruelty toward his own kindred for he weeded out almost all that ever he could find of the Bloud Royal of York and this either for emulation or causes of meer suspicion only For first of all he beheaded Edmond de la Pole Duke of Suffolk Son of his own Aunt Lady Elizabeth that was Sister to King Edward the fourth which Edward was Grandfather to King Henry as is evident The like destruction King Henry went about to bring to Richard de la Pole Brother to the said Edmond if he had not escaped his hands by flying the Realm whom yet he never ceased to pursue until he was slain in the battel of Pavia in service of the King of France by whose death was extinguished the noble house of the de la Poles Again the said King Henry put to death Edward Duke of Buckingham high Constable of England the Son of his great Aunt Sister to the Queen Elizabeth his Grandmother and thereby overthrew also that worthy House of Buckingham and after again he put to death his Cousen-jerman Henry C●urt●●y Marquess of Excester Son of the Lady Catherine his Aunt that was Daughter of King Edward the fourth and attained joyntly with him his Wife the Lady Gertrude taking from her all her goods lands and inheritance and committed to perpetual prison their only Son and Heir Lord Edward Courtney being then but a Child of seven years old which remained so there until many years after he was set at liberty and restored to his living by Queen Mary Moreover he put to death the Lady Margaret Plantagenet Countess of Salisbury Daughter of George Duke of Clarence that was Brother of his Grandfather King Edward the fourth and with her he put to death also her eldest Son and Heir Thomas Poole Lord Montague and committed to perpetual prison where soon after also he ended his life a little Infant named Henry Poole his Son and Heir and condemned to death by act of Parliament although absent Renald Poole Brother to the said Lord Montague Cardinal in Rome whereby he overthrew also the Noble House of Salisbury and Warwick neither need I to go further in this relation though these men do note also how Edward the sixth put to death two of his own Uncles the Seymers or at least it was done by his authority and how that under her Majesty that now is the Queen of Scotland that was next in kin of any other living and the chief titler of the House of York hath been put to death Lastly they do note and I may not omit it that there is no noble house standing at this day in England in the antient state of calling that it had and in that dignity and degree that it was in when the House of York entered to the Crown if it be above the State of a Barony but only such as defended the right and interest of the Houses of Lancaster and that all other great Houses that took part with the House of York and did help to ruine the House of Lancaster are either ceased since or exti●pated and overthrown by the same House of York it self which they assisted to get the Crown and so at this present they are either united to the Crown by confiscation or transferred to other lineages that are strangers to them who possessed them before As for example the ancient Houses of England that remain at this day and were standing when the House of York began their title are the House of Arundel Oxford Northumberland Westmerland and Shrewsbury for all others that are in England at this day above the dignity of Barons have been advanced since that time and all these five houses were these that principally did stick unto the House of Lancaster as is evident by all English Chronicles For that the Earl of Arundel brought in King Henry the fourth first King of the House of Lancaster and did help to place him in the Dignity-Royal coming out of France with him The Earl of Oxford and his Son the Lord Vere were so earnest in the defence of King Henry the sixth as they were both slain by King Edward the fourth and John Earl of Oxford was one of the principal assistants of Henry the seventh to take the Crown from Richard the third The House of Northumberland also was a principal aider to Henry the fourth in getting the Crown and two Earls of that name to wit Henry the second and third were slain in the quarrel of King Henry the sixth one in the battel of St. Albans and the other of Saxton and a third Earl named Henry the fourth fled into Scotland with the said King Henry the sixth The House of Westmerland also was chief advancer of Henry the fourth to the Crown and the second Earl of that House was slain in the party of Henry the sixth in the said battel of Saxton and John Earl of Shrewsbury was likewise slain in defence of the title of Lancaster in the battel of N●rthampton And I omit many other great services and faithful endeavoure which many Princes of these five noble ancient houses did in the defence of the Lancastrian Kings which these men say that God hath rewarded wi●● continuance of their houses unto this day But on the contrary side these men do note that all the old houses that principally assisted The title of York are now extinguished and that chiefly by the Kings themselves of that house as for example the principal Peers that assisted the family of York were M●●●ray Duke of Norfolk de la Poole Duke of Suffolk the Earl of Sa●is●u●y and the Earl of Warwi●k of all which the event was this John Moubray Duke of N●rfolk the first considerate of the House of York died soon after the exaltation of Edward the fourth without Issue and so that name

Darly her Husband which by many was laid against her And the second did handle her Title to the Crown of England and the third did answer the Book of John Knox the Scot entituled Against the Monstrous Government of Women Of all which three Points for that the second that concerneth the Title is that which properly appertaineth to our purpose and for that the same is handled again and more largely in the second Book set out not long after by John Lesley Lord Bishop of Ross in Scotland who at that time was Embassadour for the said Queen of Scots in England and handled the same matter more abundantly which M. Morgan had done before him I shall say no more of this Book of M. Morgan but shall pass over to that of the Bishop which in this Point of Succession containeth also whatsoever the other hath so as by declaring the Contents of the one we shall come to see what is the other The Intent then of this Book of the Bishop of Ross is to refute the other book of Hales and Bacon and that especially in the two Points before mentioned which they alledged for their Principles to wit about Foreign Birth and King Henry's Testament And against the first of these two Points the Bishop alledgeth many Proofs that there is no such Maxim in the common Laws of England to disinherit a Prince born out of the Land from his or her Right of Succession that they have by Blood And this first for that the Statute made for barring of Aliens to inherit in England which was in the 25. Year of the Reign of King Edward III. is only to be understood of particular mens inheritance and no ways to be extended to the Succession of the Crown as by comparison of many other like Cases is declared And secondly for that there is express exception in the same Statute of the Kings Children and Off-spring And thirdly for that the practice hath always been contrary both before and after the Conquest to wit that divers Princes born out of the Realm have succeeded The other Principle also concerning King Henry's Testament the Bishop impugneth first by divers Reasons and Incongruities whereby it may be presumed that King Henry never made any such Testament and if he did yet could it not hold in Law And secondly also by Witness of the Lord Paget that was of the Privy Council in those days and of Sir Edward Montague Lord Chief Justice and of one William Clark that set the Kings Stamp to the Writing all which avowed before the Council and Parliament in Queen Maries time that the said Testament was signed after the King was past sense and memory And finally the said Bishop concludeth that the Line of Scotland is the next every way both in respect of the House of Lancaster and also of York for that they are next Heirs to King Henry VIII who by his Father was Heir to the House of York But after these three Books was written a fourth by one Robert Highinton Secretary in time past to the Earl of Northumberland a man well read in Stories and especially of our Countrey who is said to be dead some years past in Paris This man impugneth all the three former Books in divers principal Points and draweth the Crown from both their Pretenders I mean as well-from the House of Scotland as from that of Suffolk and first against the Book of Hales and Sir Nicholas Bacon written as hath been said in favour of the House of Suffolk Highington holdeth with the Bishop and Morgan that these two Principles laid by the other of Foreign Birth and of King Henry's Testament against the Scotish Line are of no Validity as neither their reasons for legitimating of the Earl of Hartfords Children which afterwards shall be handled And secondly he is against both Morgan and the Bishop of Ross also in divers important Points and in the very Principal of all for that this man I mean Highinton maketh the King of Spain to be the next and most rightful Pretender by the House of Lancaster for proof whereof he holdeth first that King Henry VII had no Title indeed to the Crown by Lancaster but only by the House of York that is to say by his Marriage of Queen Elizabeth elder Daughter to King Edward IV For that albeit himself were descended by his Mother from John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster yet this was but by his Third Wife Catharin Swinford and that the true Heirs of Blanch his first Wife Dutchess and Heir of Lancaster to whom saith he appertained only the Succession after the death of King Henry the VI. and his Son with whom ended the Line Male of that House remained only in Portugal by the Marriage of Lady Philip Daughter of the foresaid Blanch to King John the I. of Portugal and that for as much as King Philip of Spain saith this man hath now succeeded to all the Right of the Kings of Portugal to him appertaineth also the onely Right of Succession of the House of Lancaster and that all the other Descendents of King Henry VII are to pretend only by the Title of York I mean as well the Line of Scotland as also of Suffolk and Huntington for that in the House of Lancaster King Philip is evidently before them all Thus holdeth Highington alledging divers Stories Arguments and Probabilities for the same and then adjoineth two other Propositions which do import most of all to wit that the Title of the House of Lancaster was far better than that of York not for that Edmond Crookback first Founder of the House of Lancaster who was Son to King Henry the III. and Brother to King Edward the I. was eldest son to the said Edward injuriously put back for his deformity in Body as both the said Bishop of Ross and George Lylly do falsly hold and this man refuteth by many good Arguments but for that John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster being the eldest Son that King Edward the III. had alive when he dyed should in Right have succeeded in the Crown as this man holdeth and should have been preferred before Richard the II. that was the black Princes Son who was a degree further off from King Edward the III. his Grandfather than was John of Gaunt to whom King Edward was Father and by this occasion this man cometh to discuss at large the opinions of the Lawyers whether the Uncle or the Nephew should be preferred in the Succession of a Crown to wit whether the younger Brother or the elder Brothers son if his Father be dead without being seased of the same which is a Point that in the Civil Law hath great Disputation and many great Authors on each side as this man sheweth and the matter also wanteth not examples on both parts in the Succession of divers English Kings as our Friend the Civil Lawyer did signify also in his discourse and we may chance to have occasion

Deprivation by the Pope that soon after ensued as also by another Deprivation made by the Barons of his Realm as after shall be touched Furthermore they say That when Arthur Duke of Britain whom to this effect they do hold to have been the only true Heir at that time to the Kingdom of England was in Prison in the Castle of Roan suspecting that he should be murthered by his said Unkle King John he nominated this Lady Blanch his Cousin-jerman to be his Heir perswading himself that he by the help of her Husband Prince Lewis of France and her Father the King of Spain should be better able to defend and recover his or her right to the Crown of England than Eleanor his own Sister should be who was also in the hands of his said Unkle for that he supposed that she should be made away by himself shortly after as indeed the French Chronicler affirmeth that she was And howsoever this matter of Duke Arthur's Testament was yet certain it is that when he and his Sister were put to death the next in Kin that could succeed them in their right to England was this Lady Blanch and her Mother Queen Eleanor that was Sister to Arthur's Father Geffrey Duke of Britany for that King John their Unkle was presumed by all men to be uncapable of their Inheritance by his putting of them to death and Child he had yet none And this is the second point that these men do deduce for the Lady Infanta of Spain by the title of Queen Eleanor and her Daughter Blanch to whom the Infanta is next Heir A third Interest also the same men do derive to the Infanta by the actual Deposition of King John by the Barons and States of this Realm in the 16 th year of his Reign and by the Election and actual Admission of Lewis Prince of France Husband of Lady Blanch whom they chose with one consent and admitted and swore him Fealty and Obedience in London for him and for his Heirs and Posterity in the year 1217. and gave him Possession of the said City and Tower of London and of many other chief places of the Realm and albeit afterwards the most part of the Realm changed their minds upon the sudden death of the said King John and chose and admitted his young Son Henry III. a Child of 9 years old yet do the favourers of the Infanta say That there remaineth to her as Heir unto the said Lewis until this day that Interest which by this Election Oath and Admission of the Realm remained unto this Prince Lewis which these men affirm to be the very like case as was that of Hugo Capetus in France who came to be King especially upon a certain Title that one of his Ancestors named Odo Earl of Paris had by being once elected King of France and admitted and sworn though afterwards he was deposed again and young Charles surnamed the Simple was admitted in his place as Henry III. was in England after the Election of Lewis But yet as the other ever continued his Right and Claim till it was restored to Hugo Capetus one of his Race so say these men may this Infanta continue and renew now the Demand of King Lewis her Ancestor for that Titles and Interests to Kingdoms once rightly gotten do never die but remain ever for the Posterity to effectuate when they can And thus much of this matter But after this again these men do shew how that the said Infanta of Spain doth descend also from Henry III. son of King John by the Dukes of Britany as before in the second Chapter hath been declared and in the Arbor and Genealogy following in the end of this Conference shall be seen for that King Henry besides his two Sons Edward and Edmond which were the beginners of the two Houses of York and Lancaster had also a Daughter named Beatrix married to John the second of that Name Duke of Britany and by him she had Arthur II. and so lineally from him have descended the Princes of that House until their Union with the Crown of France and from thence unto this Lady Infanta of Spain that now is who taketh her self for proper Heir of the said House of Britany and Heir general of France as hath been said By this Conjunction then of the House of Britany with the Bloud-Royal of England the Friends of the Infanta do argue in this manner That seeing she descendeth of the Sister of these two Brothers which were the Heads of the two opposite Houses of Lancaster and York and considering that each of these Houses hath often-times been Attainted and Excluded from the Succession by sundry Acts of Parliament and at this present are opposite and at contention among themselves why may not this right of both Houses say these men by way of Composition Peace and Comprize at least be passed over to the Issue of their Sister which resteth in the Infanta Again they say That all these three Branches of the Lines to wit by the Lady Constance Daughter of King William the Conquerour by the Lady Eleanor Daughter of King Henry II. and by the Lady Beatrix Daughter of King Henry III. it is evident that this Lady the Infanta of Spain is of the true ancient Bloud-Royal of England and that divers ways she may have Claim to the same which being granted they infer That seeing matters are so doubtful at this day about the next lawful Succession and that divers of the Pretenders are excluded some for Bastardy some other for Religion some for unaptness to Govern and some for other Causes and seeing the Commonwealth hath such Authority to dispose in this Affair as before the Civil-Lawyer hath declared why may there not Consideration be had among other Pretenders of this noble Princess also say these men especially seeing she is unmarried and may thereby commodate many matters and salve many breaches and satisfie many hopes and give contentment to many desires as the world knoweth And this is in effect as much as I have heard alledged hitherto in favour of the Infanta of Spain but against this Pretence others do produce divers Arguments and Objections As first of all That these her Claims be very old and worn out and are but Collateral by Sisters Secondly That she is a Stranger and Alien born Thirdly That her Religion is contrary to the State Unto all which Objections the favourers aforesaid do make their Answers And to the first they say That Antiquity hurteth not the goodness of a Title when occasion is offered to advance the same especially ●n Titles belonging to Kingdoms which commonly are never presumed to die as hath been said and nullum tempus occurrit Regi saith our Law And as for Collateral Lines they say That they may lawfully be admitted to enter when the direct Lines do either fail or are excluded for other just respects as in our Case they hold that

States of that Crown before his two Sisters that be elder then he and so likewise say these men ought John of Somerset to have done before Philippa his eldest Sister if he had been alive at that time when King Henry the sixth was put down and died and consequently his posterity which are the descendents of King Henry the seventh ought to enjoy the same before the Princes of Portugal that are the descendents of Lady Philippa his Sister Thus say the issue of King Henry the seventh But to this the Princes of the House of Portugal do reply and say first That by this it is evident at least that the Dukedom of Lancaster whereof the Lady Blanch was the only Heir must needs appertain to them alone and this without all doubt or controversie for that they only remain of her Issue after extinguishing of the posterity of her elder Brother King Henry the fourth which was extinguished by the death of King Henry the sixth and of his only son Prince Edward and for this they make no question or controversie assuring themselves that all Law right and equity is on their side Secondly Touching the Succession and right to the Kingdom they say that John Earl of Somerset being born out of Wedlock and in Adultery for that his Father had an other Wife alive when he begot him and he continuing a Bastard so many years could not be made Legitimate afterward by Parliament to that effect of Succession to the Crown and to deprive Queen Philippa of Portugal and her Children born before the other Legitimation from their right and Succession without their consents for that John King of Portugal did Marry the said Lady Philippa with condition to enjoy all Prerogatives that at that day were due unto her and that at the time when John of Gaunt did Marry the said Lady Catherine Swinford and made her Children Legitimate by Act of Parliament which was in the year of Christ 1396. and 1397. the said Lady Philippa Queen of Portugal had now two Sons living named Don Alonso and Don Edwardo which were born in the years 1390. and 1391 that is six years before the Legitimation of John Earl of Somerset and his Brethren and thereby had jus acquisitum as the Law saith which right once acquired and gotten could not be taken away by any Posterior Act of Parliament afterward without consent of the parties Interessed for which they do alledge divers places of the Canon Law which for that they hold not in England I do not cite but one example they put to shew the inconvenience of the thing if it should be otherwise determined then they affirm which is that if King Henry the eighth that had a Bastard Son by the Lady Elizabeth Blunt whom he named Henry Fitz-roy and made him both Earl of Nottingham and Duke of Richmond and Somerset in the 18 th year of his Reign at what time the said King had a lawful Daughter alive named the Princess Mary by Queen Catherine of Spain if I say the King should have offered to make this Son Legitimate by Parliament with intent to have him succeeded after him in the Crown to the prejudice and open injury of the said lawful Daughter these Men do say that he could not have done it and if he should have done it by violence it would not have held and much less could John of Gaunt do the like being no King Nor was the Act of Parliament sufficient for this point it being a matter that depended especially say these men of the Spiritual Court and of the Canon Law which Law alloweth this Legitimation no further but only as a Dispensation and this so far forth only as it doth not prejudice the right of any other Neither helpeth it any thing in this matter the Marriage of John of Gaunt with Lady Catherine for to make better this Legitimation for that as hath been said their Children were not only naturales but Spurij that is to say begotten in plain Adultry and not in simple Fornication only for that the one party had a Wife alive and consequently the priveledge that the Law giveth to the Subsequent Marriage of the Parties for legitimating such Children as are born in simple Fornication that is to say between parties that were single and none of them married cannot take place here So as these men conclude that albeit this Legitimation of Parliament might serve them to other purposes yet not to deprive the Princes of Portugal of their Prerogative to succeed in their Mothers Right which she had when she was married to their Father And this they affirm to have been Law and Right at that time if the said Queen Philippa and Earl John had been alive together when Henry the sixth and his Son were put to death and that this Question had been then moved at the death of King Henry the sixth Whether of the two to wit either the said Queen Philippa or her younger Brother John Earl of Somerset by the Fathers side only should have succeeded in the Inheritance of King Henry the sixth In which case these men presume for certain that the said Queen Philippa legitimately born and not John made legitimate by Parliament should have succeeded for that by common course of ●aw the Children legitimated by favour albeit their legitimation were good and lawful as this of these Children is denied to be yet can they never be made equal and much less be preferred before the lawful and legitimate by Birth But now say these men the case standeth at this present somewhat otherwise and more for the advantage of Queen Philippa and her Off-spring For when King Henry the sixth and his Son were extinguished and Edward Duke of York thrust himself in to the Crown which was about the year of Christ 1471. the foresaid Princess and Prince Lady Philippa and Earl John were both dead as also their Children and only their Nephews were alive that is to say there lived in Portugal King Alfonsus the fifth of that name Son to King Edward which King Edward was Child to Queen Philippa and the death of King Henry the sixth of England happened in the 38 th year of the Reign of the said Alfonsus And in England lived at the same time Lady Margaret Countess of Richmond Mother of King Henry the seventh and Neece of the foresaid John Earl of Somerset to wit the Daughter of his Son John Duke of Somerset So as these two Competitors of the House of Lancaster that is to say King Alfonsus and Lady Margaret were in equal degree from John of Gaunt as also from King Henry the sixth saving that King Alfonsus was of the whole Bloud as hath been said and by Queen Philippa that was legitimate and the Countess of Richmond was but of the half bloud as by John Earl of Somerset that was a Bastard legitimated The Question then is Which of these two should have