Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	die_v	life_n	tenant_n	4,628	5	10.2669	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A09097	A conference about the next succession to the crowne of Ingland diuided into tvvo partes. VVhere-of the first conteyneth the discourse of a ciuill lavvyer, hovv and in vvhat manner propinquity of blood is to be preferred. And the second the speech of a temporall lavvyer, about the particuler titles of all such as do or may pretende vvithin Ingland or vvithout, to the next succession. VVhere vnto is also added a new & perfect arbor or genealogie of the discents of all the kinges and princes of Ingland, from the conquest vnto this day, whereby each mans pretence is made more plaine. Directed to the right honorable the earle of Essex of her Maiesties priuy councell, & of the noble order of the Garter. Published by R. Doleman.	Allen, William, 1532-1594.; Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610, attributed name.	1595 (1595)	STC 19398; ESTC S114150	274,124	500

fauourers of the house of Lancaster that the Inglish inclined stil to acknowlege and admitt his right before his nephew and so they proclaymed this kinge Iohn for king of Ingland vvhiles he vvas yet in Normandie I meane Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury Elenor the Queene this mother Geffrey Fitzpeter chiefe iudge of Ingland vvho knew also vvhat law meant therin and others the nobles and Barons of the realme vvithout making any doubt or scruple of his title to the succession And vvheras those of the house of Yorke do alleage that king Richard in his life tyme vvhen he was to goe to the holy land caused his nephew Arthur to be declared heyre apparent to the crowne and therby did shew that his title vvas the better they of Lancaster do answere first that this declaration of king Richard vvas not made by act of parlament of England for that king Richard vvas in Normandy vvhen he made this declaration as playnly appeareth both by Polidor and Hollingshead Secondly that this declaration was made the sooner by king Richard at that tyme therby to represse and kepe downe the ambitious humor of his brother Iohn vvhom he feared least in his absence if he had bin declared for heyre apparēt might inuade the crowne as in dede vvithout that he was like to haue done as may appeare by that which happened in his saide brothers absence Thirdly they shew that this declaration of king Richard vvas neuer admitted in Ingland neither duke Iohn would suffer it to be admitted but rather caused the bishop of Ely that vvas left gouernour by king Richard vvith cōsent of the nobility to renownce the said declaration of king Richard in fauour of Arthur and to take a contrary oth to admitt the said Iohn if king Richard his brother should dye vvithout issue and the like oth did the said Bishop of Ely together withe the Archbishop of Roan that was left in equal authority with him exact and take of the citizens of London vvhen they gaue them their priuileges and liberties of cōmunaltie as Hollingshed recordeth And lastly the said Hollingshed vvriteth how that king Richard being now come home againe from the warr of Hierusalem and void of that ielosy of his brother vvhich before I haue mentioned he made his last wil and testament and ordeyned in the same that his brother Iohn should be his successor caused al the nobles there present to sweare fealtie vnto him as to his next in blood for which cause Thomas Walsingham in his story vvriteth these wordes Ioannis Filius iunior Henrici 2. Anglorum regis Alienorae Ducissae Aquitaniae non modo iure propinquitatis sed etiam testamento fratris sui Richardi designatus est successo post mortem ipsius Which is Iohn yonger sonne of Henry the second king of Ingland and of Eleanor duchesse of Aquitaine vvas declared successor of the crowne not only by law and right of neernes of blood but also by the wil and testament of Richard his brother Thus much this ancient chronicler speaketh in the testifying of King Iohns title By al which examples that fell out almost vvithin one age in diuers natiōs ouet the world letting passe many others which the Ciuilian touched in his discourse before for that they are of more ancient tymes these fauourers of the house of Lancaster do inferr that the right of the vncle before the nephew vvas no new or straunge matter in those dayes of king Edward the third and that if we vvil deny the same now vve must cal in question the succession and right of al the kingdomes and states before mentioned of Naples Sicilie Spayne Britanie Flanders Scotland Ingland whose kings and princes do euidently hold their crownes at this day by that very title as hath bin shewed Moreouer they saye that touching law in this pointe albeit the most famous Ciuil lavvyers of the world be some vvhat deuided in the same matter some of them fauouring the vncle and some other the nephew and that for different reasons As Baldus Oldratus Panormitanus and diuers others alleaged by Guillelmus Benedictus in his repetitions in fauour of the nephew against the vncle and on the other side for the vncle before the nephew Bartolus Alexander Decius Altiatus Cuiatius and many other their follovvers are recompted in the same place by the same man yet in the end Baldus that is held for head of the contrary side for the nephew after al reasons weighed to and fro he commeth to conclude that seing rigour of law runneth only with the vncle for that in deed he is properly neerest in blood by one degree and that only indulgence and custome serueth for the nephew permitting him to represent the place of his father vvhich is dead they resolue I say that vvhensoeuer the vncle is borne before the nephew and the said vncles elder brother dyed before his father as it happened in the case of Iohn of Gaunt and of king Richard their the vncle by right may be preferred for that the said elder brother could not giue or transmitt that thing to his sonne vvhich vvas not 〈◊〉 himselfe before his father dyed and consequently his sonne could not represent that vvhich his father neuer had and this for the Ciuil law Touching our common lawes the fauourers of lancaster do say two or three things first that the right of the crowne and interest therunto is not decided expresly in our lavv not it is a plea subiect to the common rules therof but is superiour and more eminent and therfore that men may not iudge of this as of other pleas of particuler persons nor is the tryal like nor the common maximes or rules alwaies of force in this thing as in others which they proue by diuers particuler cases as for example the vvidow of a priuate man shal haue her thirdes of al his landes for her dowry but not the Queene of the crowne Againe if a priuate man haue many daughters and dye seazed of any landes in fee simple vvithout heyre male his said daughters by law shal haue the said landes as coparteners equally deuided betweene them but not the daughters of a king for that the eldest must carry away al as though she vvere heyre male The lyke also is seene if a baron matche vvith a femme that is an inheretrix and haue issue by her though she dye yet shal he enioye her landes during his lyfe as tenant by curtesie but it is not so in the crowne if a man mary with a Queene as king Phillip dyd with Queene Marye and so finally they saye also that albeit in priuate mens possessions the common course of our law is that if the father dye seazed of landes in fee simple leauing a yonger sonne and a nephew that is to say a child of his elder sonne the nephew shal succede his grandfather as also he shal do his vncle if