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	life_n	time_n	4,078	5	3.5594	3	false

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

the words liberum conjugium to create an Estate of Inheritance as well as the words liberum maritagium which no man before you ever said Whereas no words that are equipollent or amounting to as much can do it it being impossible to make an Estate in Free-marriage if there be wanting either the word liberum or the word Maritagium Also as the words in libero conjugio can make but an Estate for life so it is also clear that in your Deed of Earl Randle to Ceva there was no more intended than an Estate for life it running all along in the singular number Et teneat bene in pace c. ut melius liberius tenuit And it is likely the Deed of Earl Hugh did run after the same manner by that expression sicuti Comes Hughes ei in libero conjugio dedit But I believe the Bassets did afterwards enjoy the said lands though how or by vertue of what Deed I am not able to declare For in Monasticon Anglicanum Part 1. p. 439 and in your Historical Antiquities p. 113. but misprinted 121. I find Geffrey Ridell and Ralph Basset called the heires of the said Geva Now if those persons were the heires of her body and the aforesaid Deed a Gift in Frank-marriage Why did not Earl Randle confirm or grant those lands to her heires as well as to her And if they were not the heirs of her body she could not be a bastard For as my Lord Coke on Littleton fol. 3. b. tells you A Bastard can have no heir but of his own body And whereas I brought another Argument to prove that this Gift of Geva could not be a Gift in Frank-marriage Because my Lord Coke says that one of the things incident to a Frank-marriage is that the Donees shall hold freely of the Donour till the fourth degree be past which cannot be in Geva's case Because there was no Donees but one Donee only and the Estate could not continue until the Fourth degree was past because it was onely for Geva's life You tell me that my Lord Coke upon Littleton fol. 21. b. citeth Peter Saltmarch's Case and Fitz-Herbert de natura brevium fol. 172. that lands may be given by a Man to his Son in Free-marriage and why not to his Daughter alone in Free-marriage But I pray you How can there be a Gift in Free-marriage if there be no Marriage at all and How can there be a Marriage if the Man or Woman be alone But you misunderstand this place as you do many others For my Lord Coke if you observe him well doth not there say that such a Gift can be made with a Man alone or with a Woman alone But there tells you that a gift in free-marriage may be either to a Man with a woman or as some have held to a Woman with a Man and for proof thereof cites Peter Saltmarsh his case and Fitz-Herbert And this is no more than what I said in the 49 Page of my former Book where I also shewed you how Bracton did therewith accord But there is none of them that saith as you do That land may be given in Frank-marriage to a Man without a Woman or to a VVoman without a Man In your 48 49 Pages you would willingly perswade the Reader that Earl Randle de Gernoniis Father to Earl Hugh Cyveliok was Marryed by Robert Earl of Gloucester unto Maude his Daughter thereby to draw him to the part of Queen Maude his Sister about the very year 1139. before which time we find no mention in our antient Historians of Randle's acting against King Stephen but in that very year we do and then by some of them stiled Son-in-law to the Earl of Gloucester But I pray you VVhy is it not full as likely that before that time Randle de Gernoniis was Marryed to the Daughter of the said Earl of Gloucester and thereby was the more easily drawn to that party to which he stood so near related as that that match should be made purposely to draw him to that party And how could you hear much of that Earl Randle's actings against King Stephen before the year 1139 seeing Gervasius a Benedictine Monke of Canterbury who lived in the Reign of King John tells us in his Chronicles or Annalls col 1345. l. 60. that it was in the year 1138 when Robert Earl of Gloucester did begin to quarrel with the said King Stephen And whereas you yet seem unsatisfied that Earl Hugh was of such an age as probably to have had another Wife before Bertred and do now say p. 49. if we reckon by utmost possibilities that Earl Hugh could not possibly be above sixteen or seventeen years older than Bertred I do very much wonder thereat seeing I have formerly from the Argument which you used to prove it to be otherwayes made it manifest that he might possibly be several years above double her age and that so clearly that I am confident no man besides your self will offer to deny the same For I then told you that whether the Marriage of Robert Earl of Gloucester with Mabill Daughter and heir of Robert Fitz-Hamon was according to Selden in the year 1109. or according to Stow in the year 1110. the said Mabill might have Maude her second Daughter in the year 1112 which Maude if she was Marryed to Earl Randle de Gernoniis in the year 1128 when she was sixteen years of age might have her Son Hugh Cyvelick in the year 1129. which if true the said Earl Hugh was fifty two years old 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 but Twenty four years old 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 VVife Bertred was born besides what age he was of when his Father died and his Daughter Amicia was Married in his life time and none knows how many years before his death And if the Marriage of the said Robert Earl of Gloucester with the said Mabill was in the year 1109. then he might possibly be Five years above double the age of his VVife Bertred And this is the more likely to be true Because though Mr. Selden be a later VVriter than Mr. Stow is yet Mr. Selden cites one that lived long before Mr. Stow as will appear by the old English Rithmical Story attributed to one Robert of Glocester and recited in the 647. Page of Mr. Seldens Titles of Honour In your Answer pag. 50 51 52 53. you endeavor to weaken the Third and Fourth reasons which were brought as concurrent proof on the behalf of Amicia by saying that Hugh Cyveliok 's Wife was a witness to her Husbands Deed which a Wife cannot now be she being not

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