Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	daughter_n	earl_n	marry_v	4,628	5	9.3121	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A48629	The buckler of state and justice against the design manifestly discovered of the universal monarchy, under the vain pretext of the Queen of France, her pretensions translated out of French.; Bouclier d'estat et de justice contre le dessein manifestament découvert de la monarchie universelle sous le vain pretexte des pretentions de la reyne de France. English	Lisola, François Paul, baron de, 1613-1674.	1667 (1667)	Wing L2370; ESTC R7431	110,299	334

practice and received in all times and without interruption The Authours of these Libells having consumed their spirits in seeking from all parts materials to make their Volume big could not yet find one single Example which is truely comprehended within the fact in question Let us trie if we shall be more successfull The Sieur Stockmans cites some very convincing to wit Stockm de Jure devol cap. 21. nu 9. the Surrender which Charles the Vth made to his Son Philip the Second of the Estates of the Low-Countries calling thereunto failling of him the Heirs which he should have of his Second Marriage to the exclusion of Charles the Son of Philip and Mary of Portugal of the First Bed to whom nevertheless as well as to his Father because of the Widowhoods of Charles and Philip the right of Succession had belonged if the Devolution could have taken place in the Sovereign Succession As also the Donation that Philip the Second made to his Daughter the Infanta Isabella under Restrictions which were altogether inconsistent with the right of Devolution and which could not have been inserted to the prejudice of the Dutchess of Savoy and her Successors And if the Devolution had taken place in Sovereignties the Pretension of the Queen of France would have been at this day annihilated by that of the Duke of Savoy who would be the true and lawfull Successour to it He cites also other Examples which the Reader may see in the same Chapter but because they are all of Charles the Vth downwards I will resume the business from a higher source that I may be the abler to prove the Antiquity and the Continuation of this Custome William Butkens Troph de Brab fol. 627. Son of Godfrey the III d Duke of Lothier and Brabant by Imaine de Los his second Wife and Brother to Henry the Son of the same Godfrey of a former Marriage by Marguerite of Limbourg had for his share the Lands of Perweys Ruysbroeck and others which Godfrey could not have done if the Devolution had taken place since by the death of Marguerite all the Right must have entirely been devolved to Henry the first and all manner of Alienation prohibited to the Father to the prejudice of the first Son The same Godfrey after the death of his Wife Idem fol. 129 130. the case of the Devolution if it had taken place in the Sovereigntie having of necessitie happened married Henry his eldest son Duke of Brabant to Matilda the Daughter of Matthew of Flanders Earl of Boulogne in the year 1179 and there were inserted into the Contract of Marriage Clauses altogether repugnant to the Devolution viz. That Godfrey who then was a Widower gave to his Son to endow his Spouse Bruxells Vilvorde Vccle and Ruysbroeck upon condition that if Henry deceased before Matilda she should enjoy the use and profit of those Lands during her life whether she had any Children by him or not and in case Matilda came to die before the said Henry without leaving any Issue behind her then the Earl of Boulogne her Uncle should hold Bruxells untill that he was re-imburst of her Portion If the Devolution had taken place the Father could not have disposed of those Lands nor assigned Portions out of them to the Princesses Uncle to the prejudice of his Son and of his Children to whom the Right would have been devolved by the death of Henry unless that in the same Treatie of Marriage they had expresly renounced the Devolution of which notwithstanding no mention is made in the Contract Here we must also observe that in the same Contract the said Godfrey doth appoint his Son Henry to succeed to him as his Heir in the Dutchy and his other Lands and Possessions This appointment would be superfluous and ridiculous if the Right had been already fallen to him by Devolution And which is yet more remarkable he doth appoint him with a Reservation too of the District of Dorten and the County of Arescot and excludes even the Sons which shall be born of this Marriage which destroys from the very foundation the pretended Devolution in the Sovereigntie and is directly repugnant to the Interpretation which the Authours of these Libells do make of this Custom because if the Devolution be a true Succession and do attribute the Right of Proprietie to the Children during the Father's life Godfrey could not have appointed his Son in the Succession as Heir after his decease because he should have already been so during his life And much less could he have cut off from a Succession already acquired and devolved to him two Portions so considerable as the District of Dorten and the Countie of Arescot nor have reserved to himself the disposition of them in favour of others The same Godfrey consented to a Donation which Gerard his Son of the Second Bed had made to the Abby of Everbode Butkens fol. 131. of certain Lands situated in the Parish of Tessenderlo and he himself gave to the Abbot of St. Sepulchers at Cambray certain Lands situated in the Land of Bierbeeck for the founding of a Provostrie which he could not have done to the prejudice of the Prince of the former Bed if the Devolution might have taken place in relation to Sovereigns and if this Right had been a true Succession nevertheless the said Donations have remained inviolable without the intervening Consent of Henry and without being subject to any Recoverie either on his part or his Successors The same Trophies of Butkens will furnish us with other Examples of this nature which by Consequences and necessary Inductions shew that neither Princes nor their Sovereignties were ever subject to this particular Rule nor that in reference to them the pretended Sentence of the Emperour Henry was put in practice But let us come to the Donation of the Low-Countreys made by Philip the Second in favour of the Infanta Isabella All its Clauses and all its Circumstances are directly opposed to the Right of Devolution Philip the Second could not have given what was not his own a Donation supposes the Proprietie to be in him who gives the Consent of the Prince his Son would not have been required nor ought to have been passed as afterwards it was on the 6. of May 1598 if the Right of the Succession and of the Proprietie had been fully devolved to the Infanta's his Sisters This Donation which was contrary to the Devolution and also to the prejudice of a third person would not have been received in that qualitie by all the Estates as it was the 21. of August of the same year Philip could not have assigned them in Portion to his Daughter as it is certain he did by the same Act and that the Archduke Albert accepted and possessed them by this Title To get out of this bad way they have recourse to two Shifts which serve only but to discover their Weakness They acknowledge that Philip gave these