Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	king_n	son_n	york_n	3,677	5	9.7068	5	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

Bishop of Chester as appears by the Third Part of the Monasticon page 218. as also by Bishop Godwin Jsaackson Doctor Heylin Simeon Dunelmensis Matt. Paris and many other antient Authors from about 1128. until about the year 1148. or 1149. which fell out to be in the time of Randle de Gernoniis for he was Earl as appears in your Book from about the year 1128 till about the year 1153. And I doubt not but to make it as clear that a William was Archbishop of York in the time of the said Randle de Gernoniis and Roger Clinton and though the said William was afterwards ousted yet whilst he enjoyed that Archbishoprick he was and would in Deeds and otherways be owned as Archbishop of York Now that a William was Archbishop of York in the time of the said Earl and the said Bishop I have already shewed you in my former Book out of Isaackson's Chronology and shall thus make it further to appear If you look into Bishop Godwin's Catalogue of the Bishops of England printed at London 1615 page 581. in the life of Heny Murdack Archbishop of York you may find him saying thus King Stephen had a kinsman named William 1142. Stephen 8. that was Son unto Emma his Sister by Earl Herbert a Man no less noble in Mind and Vertue then Stock and Lineage He being Treasurer of York was now elected unto the Archbishoprick and having obtained Consecration also sent to Rome for his Pall. His speed there was not so good as he looked for by some Adversaries many exceptions were taken against him whereby it came to pass not only his Suit was put off and stayed for that time but also Process awarded to admonish him to come thither in Person to answer the accusations laid against him At his coming to Rome he found his Adversaries many and Mighty And among the rest it is remembred that St. Bernard then living was very earnest against him Eugenius the Pope had been brought up in the Abbey of Clareual under St. Bernard together with Henry Murdac whom Williams adversaries had set up to be a Suiter for his Archbishoprick The Pope being thus carried away with the perswasion of his old Acquaintance and some shew of matter was content to deprive William and to place Henry Murdac in his room whom he caused to be Consecrated presently and sent him home into England with his Pall. King Stephen hearing this Newes was much grieved with the disgrace of his Nephew which all Men judged undeserved Therefore He stood upon Termes with the new Arch-bishop and required him to Swear unto Him fealty in some extraordinary manner and when he denyed easily took occasion of displeasure against him The Townsmen of York that loved William exceedingly for his Gentleness and Vertuous behaviour amongst them hearing how the King was affected refused to receive Murdac into their City For this resistance he suspended them which notwithstanding Eustach the King's Son commanded Service to be said as at all other times was accustomed By means hereof as also by reason that the King's Officers were very terrible and heavy enemies unto all that had laboured for the Deprivation of William Seditions and Tumults were daily raised in the City amongst which a certain Archdeacon a Friend of the Archbishop was slain Two or three years these stirs continued till at last the Kings wrath by means being appeased York-men were content to receive their Archbishop peaceably He governed very austerely the space of ten years dyed Octob. 14. 1153. at Sherborne and was buryed in his Cathedral Church And when Bishop Godwin hath thus said he presently after tells you how the said William there called Saint William after the death of Henry Murdac was again restored to the said Archbishoprick Also if you look in John Brompton's Chronicon col 1028. l. 63. in the life of King Stephen you may find him thus saying Dicto autem Thurstino Eboracensi Archiepiscopo Monasterii Fontanensis aliorumque octo fundatore ut dictum est decedente and he dyed sayes the said Brompton col 1028 l. 25. in the year 1140. with which Bishop Godwin doth accord Singuli Ecclesiae Eboracensis Canonici beatum Willielmum ejusdem Ecclesiae Thesaurarium praeferunt tam pro honestate morum quam excellentia meritorum Iste namque Willielmus ex spectabili prosapia Regis Stephani ortus praeclaris natalium titulis fuerat insignitus erat enim silius potentissimi viri Comitis Herberti Qui quamvis post decessum dicti Archiepiscopi Thurstani ad sedem Eboracensem electus fuerat invidia tamen impetuosus amor dominandi quemdam ejusdem Ecclesiae Archilevitam adeo in regionem dissimilitudinis traxerant ut inter eligentes discidium excitavit ipsum Willielmum a saniori parte eïectum impediens licet de ejus electione clerus populus acclamassent laudum praeconia suspenditur igitur causa ad Apostolicae sedis examen provocata See also the said Brompton to the same purpose Col. 1041. l. 10. Also Roger Hoveden who lived in the time of King Henry the Second King Richard the First and King John in the First Part of his Annalls Printed at Frankfort 1601. Page 490. l. 51. writes thus of the Restitution of the said William eodem anno obiit Henricus Eboracensis Archiepiscopus quo defuncto Willielmus Archiepiscopus quem Papa Eugenius suspenderat Romam profectus est invenit gratiam apud Anastasium Papam redditus est ei Archiepiscopatus Eboracensis And I think it is not to be doubted though I have not yet found the place but that the said Hoveden doth speak of his being chosen after the death of Thurstan because Isaakson in his Chronology cites Hoveden for what he there sayes but he names not the Pages Also Thomas Stubbs a Dominican writing of the Archbishops of York col 1721. l. 15. thus sayes Vicessimus nonus successit in Archiepiscopatum Eboracensis ecclesiae Henricus Murdak ●isterciensis ordinis Monachus ae professor probatissimus vir magnae sanctitatis abstinentiae laudabilis Defuncto namque ut praemittitur Thurstino Eboracensi Archiepiscopo convocatisque ad electionem pontificis Canonicis ecclesiae Eboracensis Willielmus ejusdem Ecelesiae Thesaurarius Canonicus exigentibus suis meritis a Majori saniore parte in Archiepiscopum est electus Erat enim strenuissimi Comitis Herberti filius ex Emma sorore Regis Anglorum Stephani progenitus Vir quidem genere nobilis sed morum excellentia vita mundissima incomparabiliter insignis Interea vero Osbertus archidiaconus Eboracensis invidiae stimulo agitatus facta inter eligentes dissentione confirmationem ipsius electi licet ab omnibus dignus haberetur pertinaciter impedivit suspenso igitur negotio partibusque coram Romano pontifice super hujus electionis discussione personditer vocatis idem Willielmus persequentibus illum adversariis suis injuste accusantibus conseerationis gratiam minime potuit optimere Lite ergo in

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

Judges there because there were no such persons belonging to the then Earls except John Lacy Constable of Chester who was not made Earl of Lincoln as appears in your Historical Antiquities page 270. till the 23 of November 1232. which was but four years and upwards before the death of John Scot the last of the said Earls yet there were ever antiently persons of good quality that were Judges of Chester and if it had not been always a place of great repute the Kings of England would never have made such very great persons to have succeeded them therein As to what you alledge in the 18 19 20 and 21 pages of your Answer I do not doubt though you affirm it can never be proved but that I have already in my former Book given most persons satisfaction that Amicia was of the Half-Blood to Earl Randle by a former wife of Earl Hugh And whereas you object that it is more rational to imagine that Earl Hugh matching his only Daughter which he had by a former Wife would have married her to as considerable a person as was either provided by himself or his Son for his younger Children by a second venter I do answer and say That I am not certain whether Amicia was the only Daughter that Earl Hugh had by his former Wife because I know some that pretend they can tell of some other Daughter or Daughters which the said Earl Hugh had by his said Wife but I do confess I have never seen just proof of any but her but supposing her to be the only Child by his first Wife I have in my former Book pa. 23 24 and 25. shewed that there is no strength in this Argument of yours And I may here further add that if you will search for examples you may find very many where the elder Sisters sometimes because swayed by their affections and sometimes for other reasons have not been married to so great persons as the younger Sisters have been neither can you tell what portions Earl Hugh gave to Amicia or to any of his other Daughters neither is there any necessity that the elder Sister because by a former wife must have as great a portion as a younger Sister by a latter Wife because many times persons are not able to give so great portions in their younger days as afterwards and because the Children of the living Wife are oftentimes better provided for than those of the dead Wife and of this I could if I pleased instance in some that I know and in case the Father dye and leave onely issue Female by a first and a Son and issue Female by a latter wife as in this case there is great likelihood besides the advantage that the Sisters by the latter wife would have by being Heirs at Law to their Brother he dying without issue that the Brother will naturally be more kind to those Sisters that are of the Whole-Blood and about the same age and bred up with him than he will be to her that is but his Half-Sister and much older then himself And whereas you say pa. 18 and 19. that the expectation of Earl Randle Blundevile's Sisters of the Whole Blood which I conceive added to their fortunes whereby they matched to so great persons could not be much being grounded upon great uncertainties since it could not be foreseen when they married that their Brother should dye without issue who afterwards married two wives successively purposely to have issue of his own Body to inherit his own Lands I do think if you consider it you cannot in good earnest believe that the said Earl Randle Blundevil's four Sisters were married before the said Earl married his first wife whatever they were when he married his second wife For Bertred the Mother of Randle Blundevil being aged but twenty four years when her Husband Earl Hugh died as appears Rot. de Dominabus pueris c. in Scacc. penes remem R. sub Tit. Linc. Rot. 1. and the said Randle as appears in your Historical Antiquities page 146. being married to Constance the Widow of Geffrey fourth Son of King Henry the II. and Daughter and Heir of Conan Duke of little Brittain and Earl of Richmond in the year 1187. at which time the said Bertred was but about Thirty years old Can any one think that all the five Children of the said Bertred were then married And whereas you say that it was I who informed you of the three eminent Judges and four Heralds that were of opinion that Amicia was Legitimate If your meaning be that I was the only person who informed you thereof I must impute it to the weakness of your memory which fails you in this particular For you had many times seen our Pedigree attested by Mr. Cambden and Mr. Sampson Erdeswick who did allow her to be a Legitimate Daughter and several years since two other Heralds who are yet living at Chester did declare to you in my hearing that she could not be a Bastard and the one of them then named to you a Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and a Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England both now deceased who did concur with them therein and you have also seen an opinion of a Third Judge under his Hand together with Reasons for the same and though you speak so slightly of the opinions of Judges and Heralds in comparing them to Hands got to a Petition or Certificate and pretend it was without hearing the Reasons on the other side I very well know though it seems you have forgotten it that that hand which was obtained was procured because you seemed to desire to know his opinion in the case And I also know that those two Heralds who at Chester did declare their judgements against you did then hear all the reasons that you could then alledge As to what you say pa. 22 23 24 25 26 and part of the 27 in all which you would willingly prove that the Common-Law is now altered some other way than by Statute you do but lose your labor and can never prove the same For in that Maxime of the Law where it is said That whatsoever was at the Common-Law and is not ousted or taken away by any Statute remaineth still the words ousted or taken away must needs be taken conjunctively and must necessarily bear this sence that the Common-Law still is the same in all points as it was before except where taken away by Statute and if those words should be taken otherwise then the meaning would be this that that part of the Common-Law which doth remain doth remain which would be a very strange Maxime And whereas you heretofore urged some places to prove that the Common-Law is alter'd at this day from what it was in former ages long after the time of King Henry the II. which you now also urge again in the 24 page of your latter Book I must give you the same answer which I formerly did viz. That