Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	crown_n	king_n	son_n	5,450	5	5.2450	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61547	A discourse concerning the unreasonableness of a new separation, on account of the oaths with an answer to the History of passive obedience, so far as relates to them.	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1689 (1689)	Wing S5584; ESTC R16935	31,376	50

and made her Queen against their Laws for which Reasons he was excluded his Kingdom His eldest Son and Alstan Bishop of Shireburn being at the Top of this Act of Exclusion and he came back only upon the Terms of receiving his Son into a Share of the Kingdom Which shews That they looked on the Laws as the Measure of their Allegiance and where those were openly broken that it was in their Power to transfer it If our Allegiance cannot be transferred by the States of the Realm it must be because as some think by the fundamental Constitution of this Kingdom we are bound in Allegiance to the next right Heir in a Lineal Succession but I find no such thing in the Saxon Times for although generally they kept to the Royal Line yet not so but that when it appeared to be much more for the Publick Good they did not stick upon the Point of Proximity I shall not meddle with the Kingdom of the Northumbers which alone was originally Elective as appears by Matt. Westminster wherein there happened so great Disorders and Confusions that at last William of Malmsbury saith None could be perswaded to accept of the Kingdom and so it continued thirty three Years till at last Egbert took it into his Hands and so it became a Part of the English Monarchy which was established in him But if by the fundamental Constitution Allegiance were indispensably due to the next Rightful Heir in this Monarchy how came Athelstan to be crowned magno consensu Optimatum saith Malmsbury when he was not the Rightful Heir Some say from an old Monk in Malmsbury That his Father left him the Crown by his Testament which doth not clear the Difficulty as to the inviolable Right of Succession by the Constitution But this cannot be true for his elder Brother Elwardus died after his Father and none pretend that his Father disinherited him And if Athelstan were lawful Heir what made him to dispatch his Brother Edwin out of the way and to build two Monasteries for Expiation of that Guilt How came Alfred to oppose his Election as being illegitimate as Malmsbury confesses But Matt. Westminster gives the Reason The Times were then difficult and Edward's other Sons were too young to manage the Government and therefore they set up Athelstan as one fit for Business How came Edred to succeed Edmond and not his Sons Edwin and Edgar Matt. Westminster and Bromton give the same Reason They were uncapable by reason of their Age Repugnante illegitimâ aetate Patri succedere non valebant Florence of Worcester saith The Northumbers sware Allegiance to Edred and he saith He was next Heir and yet there were two Sons of Edmond before him for he confesses That they were the Sons of Edmond and Algiva his Queen After the Death of Edred the eldest Son of Edmond succeeded but being found under a Moral Incapacity for in Florentius his Words and Matt. Westminster In commisso Regimine insipienter egit he was set aside as to all the Government beyond Thames and Edgar put into it And not long after into the whole Kingdom by general Consent How came a Dispute to happen about the Election after the Death of Edgar between his eldest Son Edward and Etheldred his youngest I lay no Force on his Mother's Endeavours to advance him but if there had been such an unalterable Right of Succession there had not been any Colour or Pretence for it especially since it is said That his Father declared his Mind That the elder should succeed But saith Florentius Wigorn. There was a great Contention among the great Men about the Choice of the King How could there be any Dispute if they knew the Constitution of the Kingdom to be That the next Heir must inherit the Crown and that those are perjured who transfer their Allegiance After the Death of Ethelred the Nobility and People were divided some chusing Canutus the Dane and swearing Allegiance to him others to Edmund the Son of Ethelred The former pleaded for themselves That Ethelred had broken his Faith with them and therefore they deserted him so as he was fain to fly into Normandy and that Edmond was not his legitimate Son. Matt. Westminster saith That the greatest part of the Nation Clergy as well as Laity did swear Allegiance to Canutus without any Discharge from Ethelred while living or his Son after him After the death of Canutus a new difference arose about the Succession some were for Harold his supposed Son by Algiva others for Hardecnute his Son by Emma If the lineal Succession were a part of our Constitution How come such perpetual Disputes to be concerning it For if it had been owned as a Fundamental Law the Right of Succession must have been clear beyond Dispute But Reason of State and the Publick Interest still over-ruled this matter and so Ethelred's Sons by Emma who were the true Heirs by Legal Succession were set aside and Harold being upon the Place and so best able to manage the Affairs of the Kingdom carried it Hardecnute being dead how came the banisht Sons of Edmund Ironside if he were lawful Heir not to be sent for to succeed If Edmund had no good Title how was the Right of Succession then preserved How could Allegiance on these Principles be sworn to him If he had a good Title How could the Oaths be taken to Edward the Confessor when the Heirs of Edmond Ironside were living I perceive some to salve the Succession make the Mother of Edmond to have been Ethelred's first Wife and call her Elgiva Duke Thored's Daughter but William Malmsbury saith She was so obscure a person that she was not known and that Edmond Ironside made up what was wanting in the management of his Father and the Quality of his Mother And the same is said by Matt. Westminster Florentius Wigorn shews the reason of the mistake for he saith That Emma Ethelrede's Queen was in the Saxon Language called Algiva and so out of two Names they have made two Queens Bromton leaves the matter in Dispute and saith some affirm The Mother of Edmond was betrothed to King Ethelred and was the Daughter of Count Egbert Others That she was a Stranger and a Concubine Now if a Man's Conscience be strictly hid in such Oaths of Allegiance to the Right Heir in a lineal Succession what satisfaction can he have as to the taking them since he is then bound to satisfie himself in the strict Justice of a Title For if Edmond's Mother was not married he had no Title and no Oath of Allegiance could be taken to him and whether he was married or not for all that we can perceive there was a great doubt at that time and so continued And it is not easie to determine what is to be taken for Marriage in a Prince unless the Law be the Rule And if the Law determines the nature

of threescore Years against him surely Matters of Fact which were necessary to the disproving his Title were then so far out of Memory that it was impossible to make clear Evidence about them and others were not examin'd as whether the Duke of Clarence were absent so long from his Wife abroad when Philippa was born Whether one Sir Iames Awdely suffer'd about it Whether he was divorced from her upon it Whether E. 3. after the Death of the Duke of Clarence did entail the Crown on his Heirs male Whether upon the Deposition of R. 2. the Claim of Right on behalf of the Duke of Clarence's Heir ought not to have been made How far Edmond Mortimer's owning the Title of H. 5. and the Duke of Cambridge's Attainder did affect him Whether he had not renounced his own Pretentions by owning H. 6. to be his Supream and Soveraign Lord as he had often done in a most solemn manner particularly in his Oaths at the Altar at St. Pauls which is to be seen in the Book of Oaths p. 146. and elsewhere But at that time H. 6. was under the Power of the Duke of York and that was a very unfit time to clear a sinking Title But however the Lords in Parliament were concerned for their Oaths to H. 6. and proposed the former Expedient not only for the publick Welfare but in regard to their Oaths notwithstanding that they allow'd the Duke's Title to be good Their Words are It was concluded and agreed by all the said Lords that since it was so that the Title of the said Duke of York cannot be defeated and in eschewing the great Inconvenience that might ensue to take the Mein above rehearsed the Oaths that the said Lords had made unto the King's Highness at Coventry and other places saved From whence it is plain that they look'd on their Oaths to Hen. 6. as consistent with owning the Right to be in the Duke of York and that Possession was a sufficient Ground for continuing their Oaths 3. In 1 E. 4. where the Right and Title of the D. of York is most amply set forth yet there this Agreement 39 H. 6. is recited and the Proceedings against H. 6. are grounded upon his Breach of it Which shews farther that those Parliaments which did assert the Right of Succession highest among which this of E. 4. ought to be reckon'd yet it was never disputed whether those who had taken the Oaths to H. 6. were perjured for they look on the Possession of the Crown as a sufficient Ground for the Allegiance required But it may be said That from hence we see that he was look'd on as having the best Title who had the best Right by lineal Succession I answer that we are not enquiring into Titles but searching into the Reasons and Measures of Oaths of Allegiance and whether those do require full Satisfaction about the best Title Or supposing one unsatisfied about that he may not yet be satisfied in taking such an Oath as the D. of York and his Sons did But such Precedents prove nothing unless they be agreeable to our Laws and Constitution Yes a great deal while we are enquiring into our Legal Constitution and we find such things allowed in Parliaments and not only so but in such Parliaments which allow'd not the Title of the King to whom those Oaths were made Our Law owns no King meerly as in Possession but the Right Heir is the legal King whether in Possession or not Our Law does own a King in Possession if Treason may be committed against Him and for this we have not only the Authority of Sir E. C. but of the Year-Books 9 E. 4. Where it is deliver'd for Law at that time and with a particular Respect to H. 6. Et home sera arraigne de Treason fait a dit Roy. H. and therefore Sir E. C. had good Authority for what he said and that not in the Reign of a King de facto but when a King thrust out another for want of Right and derived his whole Right from a lineal Succession Bagot's Case goes farther than Grants and judicial Proceedings of a King de facto for therein it is declared Treason to compass the Death of a King de facto and it is very absurd to imagine Treason against one whom the Law doth not own for Treason is a high Violation of the Law and how can the Law be violated against one whom the Law doth not own Besides in Bagot's Case there is a distinction made between a meer Vsurper and one on whom the Crown is setled by Parliament and so H. 6. is denied to be a meer Usurper Et six le dit Roy H. de fait Merement come Vsurper Car le Corone fuit taille a luy per Parliament So that by our Constitution a great Deference is to be shew'd to the Judgment of the three Estates in matters that concern the Right of the Crown Or else an Entail made by them could make no difference but the whole Resolution must be into the lineal Desent And thus I look on the Statute 11 H. 7. as agreeable to our Constitution for if it be Treason to compass the Death of a King de facto there is great Reason there should be Indemnity for those who act for Him. But what doth this signify to the Consciences of Men Very much if they are to be satisfied by our Constitution I grant meer Indemnity doth not clear a Man's Mind but its agreeableness to former Proceedings and Judgments shews how far our Constitution allows us to go and that there is no Argument from thence which can hinder the Satisfaction of Conscience so far But suppose a King de jure be in Possession of this Act and another comes and dispossesses Him and so is King de facto Doth this Law indemnify those who Fight against the King de jure for the King de facto Whosoever is in actual and quiet Possession of the Crown by Consent of Parliament hath the Right to challenge the Benefits of this Act for those who serve Him. But I do not say that this Act gives any Man Right to oppose a Rightful King but it only provides for the Indemnity of those who assist the present Possessor although another had the Right by Descent For after the D. of York's challenging the Crown by Right of Succession against the Possessor there were two Parties in the Nation the one was for the Right of Succession and the other for the Right of Possession by a National Consent And the Disputes between these two continued as long as the Differences between the Houses of York and Lancaster lasted When H. 7. was setled in the Throne without regard to the Right of Succession although there was a general Submission yet there was still a great Dissatisfaction in the York Party which occasion'd all the Disturbances of H. 7th's Reign from setting up an Heir of the House of York And Sir William