Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	lord_n	richard_n	robert_n	3,887	5	9.7399	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A16941	A discouerie of certaine errours published in print in the much commended Britannia. 1594 Very preiudiciall to the discentes and successions of the auncient nobilitie of this realme. By Yorke Herault.; Discoverie of certaine errours published in print in the much commended Britannia. Part 1.	Brooke, Ralph, 1553-1625.; Leland, John, 1506?-1552. Laboryouse journey and serche of Johan Leylande, for Englaundes antiquitees.	1599 (1599)	STC 3834; ESTC S106718	60,269	98

had issue Richard Earle of Clare which was slaine by the Welshmen This Richard had issue three sonnes Gilbert Earle of Clare that dyed without issue Roger Earle of Clare created Earle of Hertford by Henry the second and Robert his third sonne from whom the familie of Fitz-Walters discended Roger begat Richard Earle of Clare Hertford who marryed Amicia yongest daughter and heire of William Earle of Glocester Pag. 350. YOur historicall reportes are very changeable for in the title of Haresfield Pag. 312. you tell vs that Richard was Earle of Clare in William the Conquerors time and now here you affirme that Gilbert his sonne was the first Earle of Clare of that familie And againe in the title of Dunmowe there haue you set downe this Robert the third sonne of Earle Richard truely to be the sonne of the first Richard that came into this land with William the Conqueror but here will you haue him to be great grand-child to the same Richard Which by no meanes the now Earle of Sussex will consent vnto because thereby he shall loose two of his greattest auncestors with their wiues they being the daughters and heires of Saint-Lyce Earle of Northampton and the Lord Lucy which were both marryed the one to the said Robert and the other to Walter his sonne as more plainely doth appeare by the true discent here following Richard sonne of Gilbert Earle of Angy in Normandye was Lorde of Tunbridge and Clare in England by the gift of William the Conqueror and had issue Gilbert Earle of Clare Roger that dyed without issue 1173. and Robert who was Sewer to king Henry the first and Lord of Dunmow by the said kings gift He maryed Matilda de Sainct-Lice lady of Bradham and had issue Walter Lord and Baron of Woodham that had to wife Matilde the daughter and coheire of Richard Lucy Lord chiefe Iustice of England in Henry the seconds time Of which Walter the honorable familie of Fitz-walters tooke first their surname He dyed 1198. leauing the second Robert his sonne to succeede him who dyed in the 19. yeare of king Henry the third So that by this your mistaking you would cut off the first Robert and Walter his sonne making the second Robert to be the first that came from the maine line of the familie of Clares And for proofe hereof I wish you to examine Gemiticensis who will affirme the same to be true that I haue here said GEffery Magnauill made Walden the seate and head of his honor and Earledome Pag. 342. THe dignitie and Earledome of the Magnauills whilest they were honored with the title of Earles was Essex and not Walden Well that familie might be Lordes and owners thereof but that neuer the head of their honour and Earledome Wherefore if your Author so write hee did it rather like a nouice then an Herauld and your discretion may be suspected in that you played not rather your parte to teach him to speake more Herauld-lyke then to bring in his absurd tearmes for a testimonie amongst Earledomes and Honors THe first Earles of Essex of the Norman race was Geffrey Magnauill commonly called Mandeuill sonne of William by Margaret heire of Eudo the Sewer who was slaine in battell in king Stephens time There succeeded him two sonnes Geffrey and William from whome by a daughter that honour went to Geffrey Fitz-Pieres whose two sonnes Geffrey and William succeeded in that honor Geffrey dyed yong slayne at the Tilte William tooke parte with Lewis of Fraunce against king Iohn and dyed without issue 1227. After whome succeeded Humfrey de Bohun Earle of Hereford and Constable of England who had marryed their sister Pag. 343. YOur vndiscreete wordes vsed in this place may make those noble personages deceased to be called in question for that which nature abhorreth but it were better your penne should prooue a false witnesse then so heynous a matter true Shall we surmise as you write in this page that Humfrey de Bohun sonne of Henry did marrye his owne mother Assuredly we might seeme in so dooing not onely ouer-credulous but also irreligious Yet you say here Humfrey Bohun marryed the sister and heire of William Magnauill Earle of Essex who dyed without issue 1227. Which by no meanes we may beleeue because the match were against nature if it be true that Henry Bohun marryed with that sister and heire of William Magnauill aforesaid which is so vndoubted a trueth that voluntarily it drops out of your owne penne Pag. 479. of your booke in the title of the Earles of Hereford Besides that it is most euident that the saide Henrie in the right of his wife aboue mencioned was the first Earle of Essex of that familie as appeareth by a Charter of king Henrie the thirde in the 25. yeare of his reigne concerning lands that he gaue to the Abbay of Westminster whereunto the said Henrie was a witnesse by the name of Henrie de Bohun Earle of Hereford and Essex and Constable of England And further to manifest that it was not Humfrey the sonne of this Henrie that married with Matilda Know you that she died 1236. in the one and twentie yeare of king Henrie the third which was during the life of the said Henry her husband and foure years before he was a witnesse to the kings Charter aforesaide AFter the death of the familie of Bigots and Vffords Richard the second aduanced Michael De-la-Poole from a Marchant to the Honour and dignitie of Earle of Suffolke and Lorde Chauncellor of England King Henrie the sixt created William his sonne first Marques and after Duke of Suffolke He was beheaded on the Seas and left issue Iohn who married the sister of king Edward the fourth Pag. 357. VVHat is it that you will not vndertake to write and publish of a meane person when you verie vniustly haue wrōged that honorable familie of De-la-Pooles reporting Michael De-la-Poole the first Earle of that name to haue beene aduaunced by Richard the second from a Merchant of Hull Pag. 549. to the dignitie of Earle of Suffolke he being a knight of the noble order of the Garter by the Satutes whereof none can bee elected vnlesse hee be borne gentle three discents both of father and mother Also it doth appeare by an inquisition taken the 9. of Edwarde the third that sir William De-la-Poole knight Banneret father of this Michael was sonne and heire of sir William De-la-Poole knight All which testimonies might haue satisfied you or any other reasonable person both to haue thought and written more reuerentlie of him But not herewith contented you after depriue him the saide Michaell both of his sonne and eldest grandchild which succeeded him in the said dignitie the one after the other by the names of Michaell the second and Michaell the thirde placing in their rowmes as immediate successor and son to the foresaid first Michaell William De-la-Poole duke of Suffolke his second grandchilde In both which points howe much you haue

Earle of Kent dyed without issue as you here report hee did then doth the now Lord de La-ware wrong to quarter the said Huberts Coate of Armes pretending thereby to bee his heire But whether the said honourable person doth wrong therein or you wrong him in so saying Let vs examine this matter a little better First it doth appeare in a summons of the Nobilitie of this realme for the leuying of an army against Llewellin Prince of Wales in the fift yeare of king Edward the first that Iohn de Burgo Baron of Lammale grandchilde to Hubert by his sonne Iohn was by the name of Iohn sonne of Iohn de Burgo called thereunto Also by an inquisition taken after the death of the said Iohn in the same kings reign it was found that Deruergulda the wife of of Robert Fitz-Walter Lord of Woodham and Hawise the wife of Robert Greylie of Manchester were the daughters and heires of the said Iohn de Burgo and that the foresaide Hawise did holde of the inheritance of Hubert de Burgo her great grandfather the Mannor of Werkerley in Northamptonshire and the Mannor of Portland in Essex Which discent being thus farre prooued to Greyley I doubt not but you will confesse that Ioan the onelie daughter of the saide Robert Lord Greyley was married to Iohn Lord de La-ware Which done I hope you will yeeld your selfe to haue erred herein and acknowledge the said noble person now to be right heire and that the said Hubert died not without issue as you very daungerously haue affirmed he did HErbert married the sister of William Earle of Hereford and in her right was Lord of Deane from whom is discended the noble familie of the Herberts From hence also if we shall credite the heraulds and Escucheons of Armes Anthonie Fitz-Herbert that great lawier and Lord chiefe iustice of England tooke his originall But I thinke he rather descended from the worshipfull familie of the Fitz-Herberts in Derbishire Pag. 267. YOur often and suspitious obiections whereby you call in question the credit of her Maiesties Heraulds as though you iudged them scarce worthy to be belieued doth proceed as I suppose from a malignant humour in you rather then from any grounds or sufficient reasons that might moue you thereto But I trust those of discretion will sooner giue credit vnto them in matters that they shall auerre by good warrantise and authoritie then to you who ground your contradicting arguments vpon heare sayes and opiniatiue imaginations And where you charge the Heraulds to haue made Anthonie Fitz-Herbert that was Lorde chiefe Iustice of England to bee discended from that familie of Herberts which married the sister of William Earle of Hereford I say they haue done therein like honest and learned Officers of Armes and those that haue or shall deriue the saide Anthonie or anie of that familie of Fitz-Herberts from anie other originall then that aforesaid they haue and shall erre from the trueth IN the time of king Edward the first the barons of Winterborne were the Bradstones from whom by the Ingeldesthorpes and Neuils the Viscount Montacute and the Baron of Wentworth are discended Pag. 271. YOur Barons of Winterborne must be turned out of the plurall into the singular number and where you make them Barons in the reigne of king Edward the first therein are you much deceaued for Thomas Bradston the first and last Baron of that surname began his dignitie at a Parlement holden at Westminster in the 21. yeare of king Edward the third and dyed aboute the 34. yeare of the said kings reigne leauing issue a daughter and heire marryed to Poole who had issue a daughter and heire marryed to Ingeldesthorpe which likewise had a daughter and heire marryed to Neuill Marquis Montacute who hauing diuers daughters his heires one of them was marryed to Browne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and an other to Stoner of whome the Lord Wentworth is discended So that hereby it may appeare that the Vicount Montacute and the Lord Wentworth are discended from Bradston by these foresaid three seuerall families whereof you haue left out Poole the first of them without which the other cannot discend from Bradstone And thus haue you through ignorance obscured and made vnperfect this honorable discent to the preiudice of many worthie families discended of the same SVdley was lately the seate of Giles Baron Chandos whose father Edmond Bruges was created Baron Chandos by Queene Elizabeth because he was discended from the auncient familie of the Chandos out of which familie issued Iohn Chandos Baron de Santo-Saluatore that famous warriour Pag. 272. YOu thinke by your perswasions to make men beleeue you haue seene that which God knoweth you were neuer neare by many a mile otherwise I take it you would not doe as heere you haue done making Edmond Bruges father of the now Lord Chandos to be the first Baron of his surname and that hee was created into that dignitie by Queene Elizabeth Because say you he was discended of the auncient familie of Chandos So that here is both a cause lay de downe a time for a colour and shadowe to this your vntrue imaginatiō to the no small preiudice of that honorable house But to manifest these your delusions and to restore againe this honorable person to his right knowe you for certaintie that Iohn Bruges the grandfather of the now Lord Chandos was the first Baron and not Edmond his father as you very vniustly haue written And for proofe here of I affirme that the said Iohn was created Baron Chandos by Queene Mary at her manner of Saint Iames the eight day of Aprill in the first yeare of her reigne 1553. as by his letters patents bearing date the same day and yeare aboue said it may appeare Which being true I would now gladly knowe heere of you how you can make good that Edmond Bruges was the first Baron and had his creation by Queene Elizabeth OVr Heralds haue thrust vpon vs William Fitz-Eustace to be the first Earle of Glocester But I suppose there was neuer any such borne I haue read in the historie of Teukesbury that aboute the time of the Conquest Bithricke a Saxon was Lorde of Glocester who was much hated of Maude the Conquerors wife because he before that despised to take her to his wife In reuenge of which disgrace she caused him to be imprisoned and dispossessed of all his honors and landes Whose titles and possessions were after giuen to Robert Fitz-Hamon the son of Hamon of Corbule whose onely daughter and heire named Sibill was marryed to Robert Fitz-Roy base sonne to king Henry the first Who was made the first Earle of Glocester commonly called the Consull of Glocester This Robert had issue William who had issue three daughters which caryed this honour by marriage vnto three families Isabell the eldest marrying with Iohn sonne to K. Henry the second honored him with that title who being after king made Almericke de

coulde not containe his hope offered touching the kingdome within the bounds of right and reason grieuouslie afflicted this citie And afterward being made Earle of Norfolke he is thought to haue builded that Castle vpon a high hill neare to the Church which being maruailous deepely entrenched about was in those dayes thought impregnable But Lewis the Frenchman to whom the seditious Barons of England had sworne their fidelitie easilie tooke the same by composition We thinke in deed that Bygot did build this Castle because we haue seene their Lyons saliant in the same forme engrauen in stone as the Bygots vsed them in their seales before they obtained the honour of Marshals Pag. 363. IF your wordes here had beene but coniecturall or gathered by reports as in many other places they are you should haue lesse discredited your selfe then by affirming you had seene that which in truth you did neuer see for where you say We thinke that the Bygots builded this Castle because wee haue there seene Lions saliant in the same forme engrauen in stone as the Bygots vsed in their seales before they obtained the honour and office of Marshall certaine it is that on the said Castle there are no Lions saliant nor any such Ensigne or token as the Bygots did beare in seale or shield or any Armes at all And for that you did of late as before vpon conference had before the now Earle Marshall of England affirme the saide Lious saliant vpon the Castle walles of Norwich to bee the true Armes of the Bygots before they came to bee Marshals of England my selfe hauing seene diuerse deedes of the said Bygots to prooue the contrarie the Seales whereof were Shieldes charged onelie with a plaine Crosse which coate you then auouched to be the Armes of Vlster whervpon I for my better satisfaction therein did ride to Norwich for to search the truth of your speach and going into the said castle I founde ouer the first gate two great stones fixed of some yarde square and vppon each of them a Lyon passant cowardie their tayles turning vnder their bellies and comming ouer their backes but in no Shielde or Escucheon And seeking more diligentlie all other places about the saide Castle I did finde ouer the hall doore other two like stones with a Lyon also vppon each of them but contrarie to the former for these were passant regardants with their tayles ouer their backes and the endes in their mouthes yet neither in Shielde nor Escucheon And therefore no such coate armour is there vppon the Castell of Norwich as you sayde you had seene that the Bygots did vse in their Shieldes and Seales In consideration of this my great paines and iourney I desire but that you will from hencefoorth make a difference betweene the Antique fictions of a caruers braine and the right ensignes of our auncient Nobilitie which you say Were in King Henrie the thirds time but euerie mans owne inuentions they being long time before the honorable rewardes and tokens of valorous persons VVOrmegay commonly called wrongay was giuen by William the third Earle Warren and Surrey to Reignald de Warren his younger brother by whose grandchilde Nicholea daughter of William his sonne it was forthwith translated to the Bardolphs who bare for their armes in a shield Azur three Cinkfoyles golde a great part of whose inheritance togither with the dignitie fell to William Philips and by his daughter vnto the viscount Beaumount Pag. 369. YOur bare imagination cōcerning the gift of Wormegay by William Earle Warren to his yonger brother is nothing probable for Reignald de Warren had the same by marriage with the daughter heire of William de Wormegay not by any gift of his brother And where you affirme the said Reignald had a grandchild by his sonne William named Nicholea married to Bardolph I say he neuer had anie such grandchild but two others called Beatrix and Isabell which Beatrix was married to Bardolph as by the testimonie of seuerall deedes here following it may appeare NOtum sit omnibus tam praesentibus quam futuris quod ego Reginaldus de Warren c. Be it knowne vnto all men aswell present as they that shall be hereafter that I Reignald de Warren haue giuen my church of Plumbtō to the Canons of Southwark for the health of my soule and of Alice my wife William my sonne Isabel the Countesse my mother and William Earle Warren my brother and of William de wormegay father of Alice my said wife c. SCiant praesentes futuri quod ego Gulielmus de Warren c. Let those men know that are present and they that shall come hereafter that I William de Warren do giue and confirme to the Canons of Southwarke thirtie Acres of land in ●otis●ray for the health of mine owne soule my father Reignald my mother Alice and my wife Beatrix my sonne Reignald and my daughters Beatrix and Isabell and for all my auncestors c. VVIlliam the Conquerour made Raph the first Earle of Norfolke who as I haue saide stirring vp newe Rebellion had for his successor Hugh Bygot Earle of Norfolke who had the third pennie of the said Countie as appeareth in his Charter of creation giuen him by king Henrie the first whose stewarde he was After whom in direct succession from father to sonne followed Hugh that tooke part with Henrie the yong king against king Henrie the second his father Roger which flourished in king Iohns time Hugh who died in the yeare of our Lord 1225. Roger who in right of his wife brought into his familie the Honor of Marshall of England for he married Maude the eldest daughter and one of the heires of William Marshall Earle of Penbroke by whom he had issue Roger earle of Norfolke who being wounded with running at the tilt died without issue and Hugh Bygot Lord chiefe Iustice being slaine in the battell of Lewis his sonne Roger was placed after his vncles death in the Earldome of Norfolke and dignitie of Marshal who incurring the displeasure of king Edward the second was inforced to passe ouer all his honours and almost his whole inheritance to the king Pag. 370. THe errors herein are these first you say that Hugh Bygot was Earle of Norfolke and had the third pennie of that Countie as appeareth by his Charter of creation giuen him by king H. the first For answere I say you haue not seene nor can proue any such Charter as you here auouch neither was he the said Hugh or any of that familie Earle before the first yeare of king Stephen who then made him Earle of Norfolke because he being present at the death of king Henrie the first testifie before the Archbishop of Canterburie and other the Barons of this realme that hee heard king Henry vpon his death bed say his will was that his Nephew Stephen and not Maude his daughter should succeede him in his kingdome of England Secondly where you reckon a confused