Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	daughter_n	king_n	margaret_n	4,048	5	11.3412	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A52522	Wonderful predictions of Nostredamus, Grebner, David Pareus, and Antonius Torquatus wherein the grandeur of Their present Majesties, the happiness of England, and downfall of France and Rome, are plainly delineated : with a large preface, shewing, that the crown of England has been not obscurely foretold to Their Majesties William III and Mary, late Prince and Princess of Orange, and that the people of this ancient monarchy have duly contributed thereunto, in the present assembly of Lords and Commons, notwithstanding the objections of men and different extremes.	Atwood, William, d. 1705?; Grebner, Ezekiel.; Nostradamus, 1503-1566.; Pareus, David, 1548-1622.; Torquato, Antonio, 15th cent.	1689 (1689)	Wing N1401; ESTC R261	72,982	73

Judgment of two Parliaments the Realm was destitute of a Lawful Governour Indeed according to the Act of Recognition 1 J. 1. the Crown came to him being lineally rightfully and lawfully descended of the Body of the most Excellent Lady Margaret the eldest Daughter of the most Renowned King Henry the Seventh and the High and Noble Princess Queen Elizabeth his Wife eldest Daughter of King Edward the Fourth The said Lady Margaret being eldest Sister of King Henry the Eighth Father of the High and Mighty Princess of Famous Memory Elizabeth late Queen of England Tho' this pompous Pedigree to avoid all Objections goes as high as E. 4. the Derivation of Title as appears above can be no higher than from the Settlement 1 H. 7. Nor does this Act 1 J. make any additional Provision but indeed seems to flatter the King into a Belief that there was no need of any telling him That they made that Recognition as the First-fruits of their Loyalty and Faith to him and his Royal Progeny and Posterity for ever But neither then or ever after till that in this present Parliament did the People make any Settlement of the Crown but it continued upon the same Foot as it did 1 H. 7. when it was entirely an Act of the People under no Obligation but from their own Wills. And if we should use Sir Robert Filmer's Authority Impossible it is in Nature for Men to give a Law unto themselves no more than it is to command a Mans self in a Matter depending of his own Will. There can be no Obligation which taketh State from the meer Will of him that promises the same Wherefore to apply this Rule Since the People that is now in common presumption is the same with that which first settled the Succession and so are bound only by an Act of their own Will they have yet as arbitrary a Power in this Matter as Sir Robert and his Followers contend that the Prince has whatever Promises or Agreements he has entred into But not to lean upon such a broken Reed nor yet to make those many Inferences which this plain State of the Settlements of the Crown might afford Three things I shall observe 1. If the Settlement made 1 H. 7. who was an Usurper according to the Notion of Dr. Brady and his Set of Men was of no force then there being no Remainders since limited by any Act but what are spent of necessity the People must have had Power of Chusing or there could have been no lawful Government since Queen Elizabeth's time when was the last Settlement except what is now made 2. The Declarations of two Parliaments 28 and 35 H. 8. fully ballance the Declaration 1 Jac. 1. if they do not turn the Scales considering that the Judges in the later Times seem to have had less Law or Integrity than they had in H. the Eighth's I will not take upon me to determine which was the Point of Two that they might go upon 1. That a Government shall not pass by Implication or by reason of a dormant Remainder But there having been so many Alterations since the Settlement 1 H. 7. and the whole Fee once disposed of nor ever any express Restitution of the Settlement 1 H. 7. the People were not to think themselves obliged to a Retrospect 'T is evident at least that they did not Or 2. Perhaps they might question whether they were oblig'd to receive for Kings the Issue of Foreign Princes since there was no means of being sufficiently inform'd of the Circumstances of the Birth neither the Common or any Statute-Law affording any Means of proving it as appears by the Statute 25 E. 3. which for the Children of Subjects only born out of the King's Allegiance in Cases wherein the Bishop has Conusance allows of a Certificate from the Bishop of the Place where the Land in question lies if the Mother pass'd the Seas by the King's License But if our Kings or Queens should upon any occasion be in Foreign Parts 't is to be presum'd that they would have with them a Retinue subject to our Laws who might attest the Birth of their Children and be punish'd if they swear flalsly Wherefore 25 E. 3. 't is declar'd to be the Law of the Crown That the Children of the Kings of England ENFANTZ DES ROYS as the Record has it in whatever Parts they be born be able and ought to bear the Inheritance after the Death of their Ancestors Yet this is most likely to be meant of those private Inheritances which any of the Kings had being no part of the Demeasns of the Crown since the Inheritance of the Crown was not mentioned nor as has been shewn was it such as the King's Children were absolutely entitled to in their Order The most common acceptation of Children is of a Man's immediate Issue As where Land is given to a Man and his Children who can think any remote Descendants entitled to it Nor could it extend farther in the Settlement of a Crown 37 E. 3. c. 10. a Sumptuary Law was made providing for the Habits of Men according to their Ranks and of their Wives and Children ENFANTZ as in the former Statute of the same Reign Now altho' this should extend to Childrens Children born in the same House it could never take-in the Children of Daughters forisfamiliated by Marriage nay nor those of such Sons as were educated in a distinct Calling from their Parents Farther the very Statute of which the Question is cuts off the Descendants from Females out of the number of a King's Children when among other Children not of the Royal Family it makes a particular Provision for Henry Son of John Beaumond who had been born beyond Sea and yet Henry was by the Mothers Side in the Fourth Degree from H. 3. for she was Daughter to Henry Earl of Lancaster Son of Edmund Son to H. 3. Had this Henry been counted among the Children of a King 't is certain there had not been a special Clause for him among other Children of Subjects Nor does the Civil Law differ from ours in this Matter for tho' under the name of Children are comprehended not only those who are in our Power but all who are in their own either of the Female Sex or descending from Females yet the Daughter's Children were always look'd on as out of the Grandfather's Family according to the Rule in Civil Law transcribed by our Bracton They who are born of your Daughter are not in your power And Privileges derogating from Publick Vtility were never thought to reach them as a Learned Civilian has it A Daughter is the End of the Family in which she was born because the Name of her Father's Family is not propagated by her And Cujacius makes this difference between Liberi and Liberi sui sui he says is a Legal Name the other Natural The former are only they who are in a Man's