Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	age_n	die_v	year_n	6,258	5	4.9578	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A51538	A defence of Amicia daughter of Hvgh Cyveliok, Earl of Chester wherein it is proved that Sir Peter Leicester Baronet, in his book entituled, Historical antiquities in two books, the first treating in general of Great Britain and Ireland, the second containing particular remarks concerning Cheshire, hath without any just ground declared the said Amicia to be a bastard/ by Sir Thomas Mainwaring ...	Mainwaring, Thomas, Sir, 1623-1689.	1673 (1673)	Wing M300; ESTC R13643	32,519	94

libertatibus Testibus Gilberto Filio Ricardi Adelizâ forore meâ Willielmo Blundo Alexandro de Tresgor Rogero de Bellocampo Willielmo de Sais Roberto de Sais Ricardo Filio Aluredi Hugone Filio Osberti Henrico de Chalder Apud Saintonam Wherein Geva is called Daughter of Earl Hugh Lupus as Amice in that other Deed is termed Daughter of Earl Hugh Cyveliok Now that Geva was a Bastard is very plain out of Ordericus a Man that lived in that very age he tells us Lib. 10. pag. 787. speaking of Hugh Lupus his death Richardus pulcherrimus puer quem solum ex Ermentrude Filia Hugonis de Claromonte genuit c. Richard a brave youth whom onely Hugh Lupus begot on Ermentrude Daughter of Hugh de Claremonte c. Nor can this be restrained to the onely Son for then it must have been otherways expressed and if Hugh Lupus had any other Son or Daughter by Ermentrude then cannot Richard be said onely to be begotten on her by Earl Hugh and so Geva was a Bastard or else Ordericus lies Also the same Author tells us Lib. 4. p. 522. that Hugh Lupus had also many Base Sons and Daughters by several Strumpets who were almost all swept away by sundry misfortunes and very probably if Hugh Lupus had any more Legitimate Children by his Wife besides Earl Richard either Son or Daughter Ordericus would have Recorded them as well as he hath put down others in like Nature being indeed his usual method through the whole course of his History And had Geva been Legitimate then her Issue ought rather to have succeeded into the Earldom of Chester then Randle de Meschines after the Death of Richard Earl of Chester for as much as the Sister and her Heirs ought to inherit before the Aunt and her Heirs and howbeit many Earldoms have descended to the Heirs-males and not to the Heirs General yet in this case were no Heirs-male but two Females an Aunt Legitimate who had it and a Sister not Legitimate And show me a Precedent where ever the Heirs of an Aunt inherited before the Heirs of a Sister both legally born and no Heirs-male left unless in case of Forfeiture by Treason or some other great cause to hinder the same Secondly Add to these the words of Glanvile Cheif Justice of England who lived under Henry the Second in that very age with Amice Lib. 7. cap. 1. Quilibet liber homo quandam partem terrae suae cum Filia sua vel cum aliqua alia qualibet muliere dare potest in Maritagium sive habuerit haeredem sive non velit haeres vel non imò eo contradicente And if a Man might give Land then in Free-marriage with any Woman whatsoever then he might give it to his Bastard and then the Law is now changed for now it must be of the Donors Blood and a Bastard is now said not to be of the Donors Blood Quasi nullius Filius and it seems to me that in those elder ages Bastards were reputed of the Blood by the frequent appellation of them by the names of Vncle Brother Daughter Son and Cosin Besides our Laws were then imperfect dark and obscure in most things till Bracton under King Henry the Third compiled the Body of our Laws and brought them into a method And now I have done concerning this cheif Reason whereupon those worthy Judges grounded their Opinions and we daily see Opinions of Lawyers follow the putting of the Case which many times upon mature deliberation and hearing of the Case well argued may then be of another Opinion Now follow the Arguments of lesser moment which I perswade my self were no Grounds for the Judges aforesaid II. THe disparity of the years between Hugh Cyveliok and Bertred his Wife 〈◊〉 may suppose he had a former Wife for Bertred was but Twenty six years old at the Death of Earl Hugh 1181. as appears by the Inquisition taken 30 H. 2. 1183. after the death of Hugh Cyveliok and Hugh was Earl of Chester Twenty eight years which was one or two years before Bertred was born besides what years were run up of his age before his Father Randle died which may be supposed to be a competent term of years and then it is probably he had a former Wife and that he staid not unmarried so long as till Bertred was fit for marriage Answ Now let us examine the Matter a little it will give us some light Robert Earl of Glocester married Mabill Daughter and Heir of Robert Fitz-Haimon Anno Dom. 1110. So Stow in his Chronicle See also Seldon 's Tit. Hon. pag. 647. By her he had Issue four Sons and two Daughters Maud the younger Daughter married Randle de Gernoniis Earl of Chester Father to Hugh Cyveliok Vincent upon Brook p. 216. Now suppose we Maud to be the fourth Child probably she was not born till about the year 1117. or thereabout and that about the year 1139. she was married to Earl Randle whereby Robert Earl of Glocester strengthned his party for Maud the Empress at that time she cannot well be supposed to be above Twenty two years old if she were so much Now Earl Randle died 1153. So that Hugh Cyveliok could not possibly be above Twelve years old at his Fathers death he might be much less But suppose we in a middle way that he was six years old at his Fathers death which is more then can be well affirmed then could not Earl Hugh be above Seven or eight years elder then Bertred his Wife And what great matter is this I my self was eight years older then my Wife when I was married but it is much more probable that he never had any other Wife because he had many Bastard Sons and Daughters whose heat of youth might by a very timely marriage have been possibly prevented or at least asswaged in some measure III. Bertred the Wife of Hugh Cyveliok was a witness to the Deed in Frank-marriage with Amice and Amice had a Daughter called Bertred after the name of the Countess Ergo Probably Amice was no Bastard Answ Truly this is of so little weight that it will need no answer for I yet apprehend no reason in it IV. Roger Mainwaring Son of Ralph Mainwaring calls Randle Blundevil Earl of Chester and Lincoln his Vncle in another Deed wherefore it is to be supposed that Amice was no Bastard otherwise Roger durst not have presumed to have called the Earl Vncle Answ Histories Deeds and Records are full of Examples in this nature where we find Bastards frequently called Cosin Brother Vncle Son and Danghter For example Robert Earl of Glocester Base Son of King Henry the First is frequently called in Histories Brother to Maud the Empress Hoveden p. 553. He is also so stiled in a Deed made by Maud the Empress her self Seldon 's Tit. Hon. p. 649. Called also Cosin to King Stephen Ordericus pag. 922. Reginald Earl of

you peruse what my Lord Coke upon Littleton says pag. 21. b. he will there tell you That these words In liberum Maritagium are such words of art and so necessarily required as they cannot be expressed by words equipollent or amounting to as much As if a Man give Lands to another with his Daughter In connubio soluto ab omni servitio c. yet there passeth in this Case but an Estate for Life for seeing that these words In liberum Maritagium create an Estate of Inheritance against the general Rule of Law the Law requireth that they should be legally pursued And in this Deed to Geva the words 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 either to a Bastard or any other person whatsoever And if you look well on the Deed to Geva it is worded as if it intended onely an Estate for Life there being no mention of her Heirs and running also in the singular number Et teneat bene in pace c. Vt melius liberius tenuit c. Also if you observe my Lord Coke upon Littleton a little before on the same Page he will tell you that Four things are incident to a Frank-marriage The first whereof is That it be given for consideration of Marriage either to a Man with a Woman or as some have held to a Woman with a Man and with this Bracton lib. 2. cap. 7. doth accord And the fourth thing is That the Donees shall hold freely of the Donor till the fourth degree be past with which the old Treatise called Fleta lib. 3. cap. 11. doth agree For both which Reasons this Gift cannot be a Gift in Frank-marriage because what is here given is given to Geva alone and not to an Husband with her as also there are here no Donees but one Donee onely and the Estate was not to continue until the fourth degree was past but was onely an Estate intended for the Life of Geva as appears before whereas what was given by Earl Hugh to Ralph Mainwaring with his Daughter Amicia and by Ralph Mainwaring to Henry de Alditelegh with his Daughter Bertred was given in Free-marriage and their Heirs are mentioned in both the Deeds It remains therefore clear That the Deed to Geva was not a Gift in Frank-marriage and is also very uncertain whether Geva was a Bastard as you suppose The second Reason alledged to prove That Amicia was Legitimate hath also yet its full strength and is not at all weakned by any thing that you have said For I think it will still appear that Earl Hugh was much Elder then his Wife Bertred and therefore probably had a former Wife who dying and leaving him no Issue-male it is no wonder at all if he that had so great an Estate did afterwards marry a Lady that was very much younger than himself And though you do affirm That Earl Hugh could not be above Seven or eight years older then Bertred his Wife I suppose I shall make it appear that there might be many more years betwixt them and that from the Argument upon which you your self do reckon viz. The Marriage of Robert Earl of Glocester with Mabill Daughter and Heir of Robert Fitz-Haimon For whether the said Robert Earl of Glocester according to Selden married the said Mabill in the year 1109. or according to Stow in the year 1110. The said Mabill might possibly have Maud her second Daughter in the year 1112. Which Maud if she was married in the year 1128. when she was Sixteen years of Age to Earl Randle de Gernoniis might have her Son Hugh Cyveliok in the year 1129. Which if true the said Earl Hugh was Fifty two years of age at his death for he died in the year 1181. And if so then he was four years above twice the age of Bertred for she was aged but Twenty four years when the said Earl Hugh died as appears Rot. de Dominabus pueris c. In Scacc. penes Remem R. sub Tit. Linc. Rot. 1. And it is certain That the said Earl Hugh was Earl of Chester about four years before his Wife Bertred was born besides what age he was of when his Father died But I may very well abate you several years of this accompt and yet Earl Hugh be a great deal older then his Wife Bertred And as to the Third and fourth Reasons they were onely urged as concurrent Proof with the Argument brought from the words In libero Maritagio yet I conceive there are many more circumstances than you take notice of And therefore when I have observed them all viz. That in the first Deed Hugh Cyveliok's Countess is a Witness by which the said Earl gives Services to the said Amicia in Free-marriage and calls her his Daughter And in the second That Ralph Mainwarings Daughter is also called Bertred after the Countess and Randle Earl of Chester a Witness to what was given with her in Free-marriage to Henry de Alditelegh who was Great Grand-father to the Famous James Audley that warred in France And in the third How Roger Mainwaring in his Gift to the Monks of Deulacress calls Randle Earl of Chester and Lincoln his Uncle and how as appears in Mr. Dugdale's Antiquities of Warwickshire pag. 88. Ralph Mainwaring was with the said Earl at Coventry and a Witness to his Charter to his Burgesses there as also how Roger de Meinwarin and Henry de Aldithele who married his Sister Monast Angl. Part 1. pag. 891. are Witnesses to the Deed of Randle Earl of Chester and Lincoln concerning his Abbey of Deulacress as also how the said Henry de Audley Monastic Angl. Part 2. pag. 509. was a Witness to the Deed of Robert de Ferraris whose Mother was one of the Sisters and Coheirs to the aforesaid Earl Randle as also how Raph Menilwaringe or Mainwaring as appears by your Book Part 2. pag. 130. 131. 139. 143. and 144. is a Witness to one Deed of Hugh Cyvelioks and to three other Deeds of the said Earl Randle who in some of them is also stiled Duke of Britain and Earl of Richmond I shall leave it without any more words to the Reader to judge whether these Circumstances be not such as do shew more great and constant intimacy betwixt the said Two Families then probably would have been if Amice had been a Bastard and if so they strongly concur to prove her Legitimate which is all the use that is made of those Arguments And although you Object That you frequently find in Histories and Records that Bastards are called Cosin Brother Uncle Son and Daughter I grant it to be true yet that is either done where the persons came to be very great as Robert Earl of Glocester did or else are called so by those that write the Histories of them or else are so termed

before Ralph the Steward of Cheshire But if Amicia was a Legitimate Daughter the reason thereof will be apparent For though it be true that the Husband cannot be Ennobled by the Marriage of his Wife yet the Earl of Chester being a Count Palatine and one that is confessed by you Page 152 159. to have Royal Authority within himself and not unfitly to bestiled a Petty King having under him his Constable of Cheshire in Fee in imitation of the Lord High Constable of England and his Steward of Cheshire in Fee after the example of the Lord High Steward of England and his Noblemen about him in imitation of the Barons of the Kingdom as also his Chamberlaine who supplieth the place of Chancellor and his Justices of Chester who have like power to the Judges of the Courts of Kings Bench and Common Pleas as also a Baron of the Exchequer a Sheriff and other Officers proportionable to those of the Crown It is no wonder at all if these great persons did voluntarily give Precedence to Sir Ralph Mainwaring during his life in regard he had married a lawful Daughter to one of their said Earls Add hereunto that when Earl Hugh Cyvelioke did by his Charter mentioned by you Page 131. acquit the Abbot and Monks of Stanlaw of some Toll in Chester which could be but a little before the said Earl's death because the said Earl died in the year 1181. And the Abbey of Stanlaw as is confessed by you Page 267. was Founded but in the year 1178. The said Earl in his said Charter contrary to all former Precedents which I have seen doth name the Justice of Chester before both the Constable of Cheshire and Steward of Cheshire and the Reason thereof I suppose to be because the said Ralph Mainwaring who was Son in Law to the said Earl was then Justice of Chester as he also was some years in the life time of Randle Blundevill though the said Ralph as appears by his aforesaid Deed made to Henry de Alditelegh did afterwards part with the said Office Philip de Orreby being Justice of Chester when the said Philip was a Witness to the said Deed. Now this preeminence could not be given to the said Ralph because he was Justice of Chester that being below the Offices of Constable and Steward as appears before but because of the Relation of the said Ralph to the said Earl But as this respect was too great to have been shewed him if he had onely married one that was a Bastard so it doth not consist with your conceits that the said Amice was Illegitimate and that the said Ralph had nothing else with her but the aforesaid Services For indeed they were not of sufficient value to be a Portion suitable to the Estate of a very mean Gentleman I Have at present done with this Discourse concerning the aforesaid Amicia but being desirous to rectifie all Mistakes which do concern my Family in all the Particulars that I can I think it not inconvenient to inform the Reader of one of yours in the 334 Page of your Book wherein speaking of Margery the Wife of Randle Mainwaring you say This Randle Manwaring of Over Peover stiled commonly Honkyn Manwaring in the Language of those times died 35 H. 6. 1456. Lib. B. page 21. E. Buried at Over Peover in the Stone Chappel on the South-side of the Church Which Chappel Margery his Wife surviveing erected with the two Monuments therein for her self and husband Anno Dom. 1456. For albeit it be very true that the said Randle Mainwaring did marry Margery the Daughter of Hugh Venables Baron of Kinderton and Widow of Richard Bulkeley of Chedle in Cheshire yet the said Margery did not survive the said Randle and after his death Erect the said Chappel and Monuments therein For although on the Eighth day of August in the Year of our Lord God One thousand six hundred and forty the Pictures of the said Randle Mainwaring and Margery were tricked out by a very good hand as they were then remaining in a Glass Window of the said Chappel Kneeling with this Inscription viz. Orate pro animabus Ranulphi Maynwaryng Margeriae Vxoris ejus qui istam Capellam Anno Dom. Mcccclvj ............ And although the Year when the said Chappel was built is still to be seen in the said Window yet that doth not prove that the said Margery survived her Husband Randle and erected the said Chappel and Monuments For the word qui cannot possibly relate to Margery alone but doth as I conceive in the true meaning thereof relate onely to the said Randle For it appears by an Inquisition taken after the Death of the said Margery that the said Margery held in Dower at the time of her Death Ex dotatione Richardi Bulkeley quondam viri sui the third part of the Moity of the Mannor of Chedle as also Five Messuages in Middlewich One Messuage and Sixty Acres of Land and Wood in Newton near Middlewich Ten Acres of Land in Ashley and Hale Eight Acres of Land in Occleston Six Messuages and Two hundred Acres of Land Meadow and Wood in Whatcroft Six Messuages and One hundred and twenty Acres of Land Meadow and Wood in Holme juxta Davenport the Moity of the Scite of one Water-Mill and Four Acres of Wood in Little Stanthorne and the Moity of the Mannor of Timperley And it is also found by the said Inquisition that William de Bulkeley was the next Heir of the said Margery Now this Inquisition being taken in the Twenty seventh year of King Henry the Sixth and the said Randle Mainwaring together with his Three Sons Sir John William and Randle for the said John was Knighted in the life time of his Father being all Three mentioned as then living in a Deed of mine dated the Saturday next after the Feast of Saint Hillary in the Thirtieth year of King Henry the Sixth and I having also in my custody another Deed dated the Sunday next before the Feast of Corpus Christi in the said Thirtieth year of the said King made betwixt the said Randle Mainwaring the Elder and Sir John Mainwaring Knight his Son on the one party and John of Ashley of the other party concerning a Marriage to be had betwixt Hamnet Son and Heir Apparent of the said John Ashley and Margaret Daughter of the said Sir John Mainwaring which Deed is also mentioned by you Page 334. It is from hence very clear that the said Margery did not survive her said Husband Randle Mainwaring and erect the said Chappel and Monuments therein after the said Randles death There is also omitted by you in your Historical Antiquities Agnes the Daughter of John Mainwaring of Over Peover Esquire who was Sister to Sir John Mainwaring and Wife of Sir Robert Nedham Knight And of this Match there is very good Proof which you have been informed of I having by me the Pictures of the said Sir Robert and Dame Agnes as they were

by their Relations who out of their Humility did condescend so to stile them upon ordinary occasions though it were not their due But I believe you can hardly find one that you can certainly prove to be a Bastard or the Son of a Bastard who doth presume in a Deed to call so great a person as the Earl of Chester was his Brother or Uncle unless he came to be a very great person himself Also I do verily believe that Richard Bacun's Mother was not a Base Daughter of Hugh Cyvelioks nor any Daughter of his at all because as you may see Monast Angl. Part 2. pag. 267. When Richard Bacun did found the Priory of Roucester in Staffordshire his Uncle Randle Earl of Chester was then living and a William was then Archbishop of York and one whose name did begin with R. was then Bishop of Chester but if the Catalogue of Archbishops and Bishops at the end of Isaackson's Chronology be right there was no William Archbishop of York during the life of Randle Blundevile nor any Man Bishop of Chester whose Christian name began with R. except Richard Peche who died in the year 1182. At which time Randle Blundevile 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 of age I rather think that Bacun's Uncle mentioned Monastic Angl. Part 2. pag. 267. was Randle de Gernoniis for he was Earl from the year 1128. to about the year 1152. And in the year 1143. as Isaackson says William Sisters Son to King Stephen was Archbishop of York but was ousted of it again till about 1152. or 1153. And Roger Clinton from the year 1128. until the year 1149. was Bishop of Leichfield and Coventry which Bishop in elder ages was the same with the Bishop of Chester But that Randle Earl of Chester who is mentioned Monast Angl. Part 2. pag. 268. was indeed Randle Blundevile who was Earl from about the year 1180. till about the year 1232. Roger Constable of Chester who lived in the time of no other Earl Randle being a Witness to the said Deed But what the said Randle Blundevile did was but by way of Confirmation which in former times was very usual to be obtained from Princes several Generations after as to instance in one Case instead of many If you read Monastic Angl. Part 2. pag. 24 25. you will find King Henry the First Reciting and Confirming what had been given to the Priory of Huntendune and Pag. 27. you may find King Henry the Third doing the like and yet there was a greater space betwixt King Henry the First and King Henry the Third than there was betwixt Randle de Gernoniis and Randle Blundevile So that you may see such great persons as these may have some Children which our Historians take no notice of And you may also discover upon what slender Grounds you have charged Richard Bacun's Mother with Bastardy she being so far from being a Base Daughter to Hugh Cyveliok that she was no Daughter of his at all but she was Sister to Randle de Gernoniis and Daughter to Randle Meschines But I shall now come to Answer the Reasons that you bring to prove That Amice was a Bastard And your first is this If Hugh Cyveliok had no other Wife but Bertred then Amice must be certainly a Bastard for she was not a Daughter by Bertred as is granted on all fides But Hugh Cyveliok never had any other Wife but Bertred Ergo Amice was a Bastard And you say the Minor is to be proved by the Affirmer For Oportet Affirmantem probare To this I say First That by this Rule you your self are as much bound to prove her a Bastard as I am bound to prove that Hugh Cyveliok had a former Wife for you as clearly affirm that as I affirm the other and there is no reason why Suppositions should pass for Proofs any more in your Case then they should do in mine Secondly That less Proof by many degrees will serve to prove a thing that was done long since then will be required to prove that which was done lately To instance in one Case which may serve instead of many If you be to prove a Deed that was lately Sealed it will be expected you produce the Witnesses who were present at the Sealing and Delivery thereof If your Deed was sealed a good while ago the proving of the Hands will be required But if the Deed be so old that none alive could know the Hand-writing of the Witnesses then the Deed carries its own Proof with it And the like reason there is in all Cases of Antiquity and especially in those that are so very ancient as this is For if I did onely prove her called a Daughter being it is so long since she ought to be presumed Legitimate unless the contrary do appear For the proving she was not by Bertred does not prove that she was a Bastard but onely proves that she was either a Bastard or else by a former Wife And our Law at this day is That a Bastard cannot be proved a Bastard but in his life time and so it anciently was also as appears by the Old Treatise called Fleta lib. 6. cap. 39. sect 14. where it is thus said Si autem post mortem alicujus apponatur Bastardia non allocabitur cum defunctus ad talem exceptionem respondere non poterit Now if a Person cannot be proved a Bastard immediately after his death because he cannot answer for himself What reason is there to charge Amice with Bastardy so many hundred years after her decease Thirdly I do conceive that the Passing of Services In libero Maritagio with Amice doth absolutely prove that she was a lawful Child and by consequence by a former Wife Also if you take notice of what Sir Henry Spelman writes in his Glossary on the word Bastardus you will find him quoting Coustum du Normand Artic. 77. in Annot. thus Quoties enim agitur de honore vel commodo Filiorum appellatione Filiorum non comprehenduntur Bastardi I suppose therefore in this Case Amice would not have been stiled as she is in the said Deed unless she had been a Legitimate Daughter Fourthly If this Argument of yours would hold as you have framed it we should have almost nothing but Bastards in the Ancient times For if all must be Bastards if we could not tell who their Mothers were nor directly prove their Fathers married we might then conclude most persons to be Bastards that lived in the First and second Centuries after the Conquest I shall not offer to put the Case upon any other Family but my own though it doth reach a multitude of others But as to my own if I mistake not I find Eight persons whose Wives we are altogether ignorant of and Six of those persons left Issue all which Issue by your Argument would be Bastards which I am