Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	heir_n	life_n	tenant_n	2,811	5	9.7331	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A70632	An answer to Sir Peter Leicester's Addenda, or, Some things to be added in his Answer to Sir Thomas Mainwarings book written by the said Sir Thomas Mainwaring.	Mainwaring, Thomas, Sir, 1623-1689.	1674 (1674)	Wing M298; ESTC R18031	20,134	55

be used as well as the word maritagium as I have shewed in the 56 and 57 pages of my said Reply But if it were so that you could have proved Joan the wife of the said Lhewellin to have been the base Daughter of King John by the said Agatha and if it had been so that this gift of Ellesmere had been in libero maritagio yet it would have stood you in no stead for as you may see Coke upon Littleton fol. 21. b. if the Donee in a Gift of Frank-marriage that is cause of the gift be not of the blood of the Donor yet there may pass an Estate for life if Livery be made And in this case of Ellesmere as appears before Livery was made And you may find in the Welsh History put out by Doctor Powell p. 306. and Mat. Par. p. 625 and 626. that though Ellesmere was injoyed by the said Lhewellin yet it was not long enjoyed by his Son David but was the next year after the death of Lhewellin in or about the Feast of the Decollation of St. John Baptist in the hands of King Henry the III. and as appears by good Record the custody thereof together with the Hundred of Ellesmere was afterwards committed by the same King to the Trust of Hamonle Strange Fourthly you are also mistaken in thinking that the Mannors of Budeford and Suttehall were given by King John to Lhewellin with his Daughter Joan and for all your boasting demand of what can be clearer yet your Deed is far from proving what you suppose it doth For it neither says that King John gave those Mannors cum filia sua bastarda or that he gave them cum filia sua And whereas you say in the fourth page of your Addenda that the said Prince Lhewellin never married any Daughter of King John but the said Joan I shall thus far agree with you That he married a Daughter of King John's named Joan and but one Daughter of his but not that Joan which you suppose But certainly your conceit that Lhewellin could not have a former Wife unless she was another Daughter of the said K. John is a very wild one For King John might give those Mannors to Lhewellin with any Woman that was of his kindred and it is very apparent that our English Kings about that time were very desirous to have Alliance with the Princes of North-Wales For besides that Match of Lhewellin with the Daughter of King John and this Match of John Scot with Hellen Daughter of the said Lhewellin David ap Owen Uncle to the said Lhewellin did marry a Sister of King Henry the II. as you may see in Sylvester Giraldus p. 203. and the Welsh History p. 235. And King Edward the I. also caused Lhewellin ap Griffith Lhewellin to marry a Daughter of Simon de Mountford Earl of Liecester which Daughter the said Earl had by a Daughter of King John and this although the said Lhewellin ap Griffith Lhewellin would have married elsewhere as you may read in Knighton col 2462. num 26 and num 50. And although we cannot tell the name of her who was the first wife of that Lhewellin who married Joan the Daughter of King John as aforesaid we being ignorant of that as we also are of the Wives of many great persons and of many other things in those elder ages yet the said Lhewellin must necessarily have a former Wife as will appear by these following Reasons First because most Writers as Fabian in the 7 Part of his Chronicle p. 13. a. Stow p. 167. a. Doctor Powell in his Notes on the Welsh History p 259. York p. 20. Speed in his History printed at London 1632. p. 573. Vincent on Brooke p. 204. Cambden in his Britania in Latine Printed at London 1607. p. 453. and Knighton col 2417. num 42. do all tell us of Lands given by the said King John to the said Lhewellin with his Daughter Joan and yet none of them do say that these Mannors of Budeford and Suttehall or either of them were given with the said Joan. Secondly Because our best Authors who tell us what Children the said Lhewellin had by the said Joane do only name one son viz. David and two daughters viz. Marret married to John de Bruse and Gladys married to Sir Baph Mortimer but none of them doth name Hellen so that it seems Hellen was no daughter of his by the said Joane Thirdly Because as before appears the said Lhewellin married the said Joane in the year 1204. Now Randle Earl of Chester coming to the City Damiata in the beginning of the year 1218. as you may see in Matt. Paris p. 303. n. 24. 309. n. 16. compared together and this Match of John Scot and the said Hellen as you may find in Knighton col 2430. n. 9. being agreed on by Randle Earl of Chester and the said Lhewellin before the said Randle went thither and by consequence about the year 1217. What likelihood is there that the said Joane could have any daughter old enough to be married to the said John Scot it being impossible that Lhewellin could at that time have any Child by King John's daughter who could be above the age of twelve years And though you pretend that John Scot did marry the said Hellen about the year 1222 yet you do that because she could not well be marriageable till about that time if her Mother had been married in that year which you fasly supposed she was But there is no likelihood that Randle Blundevil would go to the Holy Land after the said marriage was agreed on before it was Consummated and that he had thereby some assurance that the said Lhewellin would keep that peace which was then made But Lhewellen might very well have a daughter by a former wife who in the year 1217. might be old enough to be married to John Scot for the said Lhewellin as appears by the proofes before was then aged 41 years And it is like that John Scot was then of a good age for if his Grandmother Bertred had his Mother Maude when she the said Bertred was 18 years of age and if his Mother Maude had him the said John Scot when she was also 18 years of age yet John Scot would be born in the year 1193 and would be 24 years old in the year 1217. Fourthly which doth absolutely clear the point the said Lhewellin could not possibly have given the Mannors aforesaid in free marriage with his daughter Hellen unto the said John Scot unless they had been given to the said Lhewellin with a former wife and that the said Hellen was the heir unto his former wife For when lands are given in free marriage the husband hath not the inheritance of the said lands neither hath he so much as an estate for life until he be Tenant by the Curtesie of England And you cannot pretend according to your old subterfuge that the Law in this point was differently