Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	marry_v	son_n	succeed_v	1,537	5	9.6301	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56468	A conference about the next succession to the crown of England divided into two parts : the first containeth the discourse of a civil lawyer, how and in what manner propinquity of bloud is to be preferred : the second containeth the speech of a temporal lawyer about the particular titles of all such as do, or may, pretend (within England or without) to the next succession : whereunto is also added a new and perfect arbor and genealogy of the descents of all the kings and princes of England, from the Conquest to the present day, whereby each mans pretence is made more plain ... / published by R. Doleman.	Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610.; Allen, William, 1532-1594.; Englefield, Francis, Sir, d. 1596?	1681 (1681)	Wing P568; ESTC R36629	283,893	409

that seeing rigour of Law runneth only with the Uncle for that indeed he is properly nearest in bloud by one degree and that only indulgence and custom serveth for the Nephew permitting him to represent the place of his Father who is dead they resolve I say that whensoever the Uncle is born before the Nephew and the said Uncle's elder Brother died before his Father as it happened in the case of John of Gaunt and of King Richard there the Uncle by right may be preferred for that the said elder Brother could not give or transmit that thing to his Son which was not in himself before his Father died and consequently his Son could not represent that which his Father never had and this for the Civil Law Touching our Common Laws the favourers of Lancaster do say two or three things first that the right of the Crown and interest thereunto is not decided expresly in our law nor is it a plea subject to the common rules thereof but is superiour and more eminent and therefore that men may not judge of this as of other pleas of particular persons nor is the Tryal alike nor the common maxims or rules always of force in this thing as in others which they prove by divers particular cases as for example the Widow of a private man shall have her thirds of all his Lands for her Dowry but not the Queen of the Crown Again if a private man have many daughters and die seized of Lands in Fee-simple without Heir Male his said daughters by law shall have the said Lands as co-partners equally divided between them but not the daughters of a King for that the eldest must carry away all as though she were Heir male The like also is seen if a Baron match with a Feme that is an Inheritrix and have Issue by her though she die yet shall he enjoy her Lands during his life as Tenant by courtesie but it is not so in the Crown if a man marry with a Queen as King Philip did with Queen Mary and so finally they say also that albeit in private mens possessions the common course of our law is that if the Father die seized of Land in Fee-simple leaving a younger Son and a Nephew that is to say a Child of his Elder Son the Nephew shall succeed his Grandfather as also he shall do his Uncle if of three Brethren the elder die without Issue and the second leave a Son yet in the inheritance and succession of the Crown it goeth otherwise as by all the fotmer eight examples have been shewed and this is the first they say about the common law The second point which they affirm is that the ground of our Common Laws consisteth principally and almost only about this point of the Crown in custom for so say they we see by experience that nothing in effect is written thereof in the common law and all old Lawyers do affirm this point as were Ranulfus de Granvilla in his books of the laws and customs of England which he wrote in the time of King Henry the second and Judge Fortescue in his book of the praise of English laws which he compiled in the time of King Henry the sixth and others Whereof these men do infer that seeing there are so many presidents and examples alledged before of the Uncles case preferred before the Nephew not only in foreign Countries but also in England for this cause I say they do affirm that our common laws cannot but favour also this title and consequently must needs like well of the interest of Lancaster as they avouch that all the best old Lawyers did in those times and for example they do Record two by name of the most famous learned men which those ages had who not only defended the said title of Lancaster in those days but also suffered much for the same The one was the forenamed Judge Fortescue Chancellor of England and named Father of the common laws in that age who fled out of England with the Queen Wife of King Henry the sixth and with the Prince her Son and lived in banishment in France where it seemeth also that he wrote his learned book intituled de laudibus legum Angliae And the other was Sir Thomas Thorpe chief Baron of the Exchequer in the same Reign of the same King Henry the sixth who being afterward put into the Tower by the Princes of the House of York for his eager defence of the title of Lancaster remained there a long time and after being delivered was beheaded at High-gate in a tumult in the days of King Edward the fourth These then are the allegations which the favourers of the House of Lancaster do lay down for the justifying of the title affirming first that John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster ought to have succeeded his Father King Edward the third immediately before King Richard and that injury was done unto him in that King Richard was preferred And secondly that King Richard were his right never so good was justly and orderly deposed for his evil Government by lawful authority of the Commonwealth And thirdly that after his deposition Henry Duke of Lancaster Son and Heir of John of Gaunt was next in succession every way both in respect of the right of his Father as also for that he was two degrees nearer to the King deposed then was Edmond Mortimer descended of Leonel Duke of Clarence and these are the principal and substantial proofs of their right and title But yet besides these they do add all these other arguments and considerations following first that whatsoever right or pretence the House of York had the Princes thereof did forfeit and lose the same many times by their conspiracies rebellions and attainders as namely Richard Earl of Cambridge that married the Lady Anne Mortimer and by her took his pretence to the Crown was convicted of a conspiracy against King Henry the fifth in Southampton as before I have said and there was put to death for the same by Judgment of the King and of all his Peers in the year 1415. the Duke of York his elder Brother being one of the Jury that condemned him This Earl Richards Son also named Richard coming afterward by the death of his Uncle to be Duke of York first of all made open claim to the Crown by the title of York But yet after many oaths sworn and broken to King Henry the sixth he was attainted of Treason I mean both he and Edward his Son then Earl of March which afterward was King with the rest of his off-spring even to the ninth degree as Stow affirmeth in a Parliament holden at Coventry in the year 1459. and in the 38. year of the Reign of the said King Henry and the very next year after the said Richard was slain in the same quarrel but the House of Lancaster say these men was never attainted of any such

and Chartres in France and the other two Polidor said dyed before they were Married and so their names were not Recorded These are the Children of King William the Conqueror among whom after his death there was much strife about the Succession For first his eldest Son Duke Robert who by order of Ancestrie by birth should have succeeded him in all his Estates was put back first from the Kingdom of England by his third Brother William Rufus upon a pretence of the Conquerors Will and Testament for particular affection that he had to this his said third Son William though as Stow Writeth almost all the Nobility of England were against William's entrance But in the end agreement was made between the two Brothers with the condition that if William should dye without Issue then that Robert should succeed him and to this accord both the Princes themselves and twelve principal Peers of each side were Sworn but yet after when William dyed without Issue this was not observed but Henry the fourth Son entred and deprived Robert not only of this his Succession to England but also of his Dukedom of Normandy that he had enjoyed peaceably before all the time of his Brother Rufus and moreover he took him Prisoner and so carried him into England and there kept him till his death which happened in the Castle of Cardif in the year 1134. And whereas this Duke Robert had a goodly Prince to this Son named William who was Duke of Normandy by his Father and Earl of Flanders in the right of his grand Mother that was the Conquerors Wife and Daughter of Baldwin Earl of Flanders as hath been said and was established in both these States by the help of Lewis the VI. surnamed Le Gros King of France and admitted to do homage to him for the said States his Uncle King Henry of England was so violent against him as first he drove him out of the state of Normandy and secondly he set up and maintained a Competitor or two against him in Flanders by whom finally he was slaine in the year of Christ 1128. before the Town of Alost by an Arrow after he had gotten the upper hand in the Field and so ended the race of the first Son of King William the Conquerour to wit o● Duke Robert which Robert lived after the Death of his said Son and Heir Duke William Six years in Prison in the Castle of Cardiff and pined away with sorrow and misery as both the French and English Histories do agree The second Son of the Conqueror named Richard dyed as before hath been said in his Fathers time and left no Issue at all as did neither the third Son William Rufus though he Reigned 13. years after his Father the Conqueror in which time he established the Succession of the Crown by consent of the States of England to his elder Brother Duke Roberts issue as hath been said though afterwards it was not observed This King Rufus came to the Crown principally by the help and favour of Lanfrancus Archbishop of Canterbury who greatly repented himself afterward of the error which in that point he had committed upon hopes of his good Government which proved extream evil But this King William Rufus being slayn afterward by the Arrow of a Cross-bow in Newforrest as is well known and this at such time as the foresaid Duke Robert his elder Brother to whom the Crown by Succession apperteined was absent in the War of the Holy Land where according as most Authors do Write he was chosen King of Hierusalem but refused it upon hope of the Kingdom of England But he returning home found that his fourth Brother Henry partly by fair promises and partly by force had invaded the Crown in the year 1110. and so he Reigned 35. years and had Issue divers Sons and Daughters but all were either drounded in the Seas coming out of Normandy or else dyed otherwise before their Father except only Mathildis who was first Married to Henry the Emperour fifth of that name and after his death without Issue to Geffrey Plantagenet Duke of Anjow Touraine and Maine in France by whom she had Henry which Reigned after King Stephen by the name of Henry the II. And thus much of the Sons of William the Conqueror Of his two Daughters that lived to be Married and had Issue the elder named Constance was Married to Alayn Fergant Duke of Britain who was Son to Hoel Earl of Nants and was made Duke of Britain by William the Conquerors means in manner Following Duke Robert of Normanyd Father to the Conqueror when he went on Pilgrimage unto the Holy Land in which Voyage he dyed left for Governour of Normandy under the protection of King Henry the first of France Duke Alayne the first of Britain which Allayn had Issue Conan the first who being a stirring Prince of about 24. years old when Duke William began to treat of passing over into England he shewed himself not to favour much that enterprise which Duke William fearing caused him to be Poysoned with a pair of perfumed Gloves as the French stories do report and caused to be set up in his place and made Duke one Hoel Earl of Nantes who to gratifie William sent his Son Alaine surnamed Ferga●t with 5000. Souldiers to pass over into England with him and so he did and William afterward in recompence thereof gave him his eldest Daughter Constantia in Marriage with the Earldom o● Richmond by whom he had Issue Conan the second surnamed le Gross who had Issue a Son and a Daughter The Son was called Hoel as his Grand-Father was and the Daughters name was Bertha Married to Eudo Earl of Porhet in Normandy and for that this Duke Conan liked better his Daughter and his Son in-law her Husband then he did Hoel his own Son he disavowed him on his Death Bead and made his said Daughter his Heir who had by the said Eudo a Son named Conan surnamed the younger which was the third Duke of that name and this man had one only Daughter and Heir named Lady Constance who was Married to the third Son of King Henry the second named Geffrey and elder Brother to King John that after came to Reign and by this Lord Geffrey she had Issue Arthur the second Duke of Britain whom King John his Uncle put back from the Crown of England and caused to be put to death as after shall be shewed and he dying without Issue his Mother Constance Dutchess and Heir of Britain Married again with a Prince of her own House whom after we shall name in the prosecution of this Line and by him she had Issue that hath endured until this day the last whereof hitherto is the Lady Isabella infant of Spain and that other of Savoy her Sister whom by this means we see to have descended from King William the Conqueror by his eldest Daughter Lady

elder Houses they hold this matter for very clear and all pretence of this House of Clarence utterly excluded Secondly the same opposite Houses do alledge divers Attainders against the principal Heads of the House of Clarence whereby their whole Interests were cut off as namely it is to be shewed in three descents one after another to wit in Duke George himself the first Head and Beginner of this House who was Attainted and Executed and then in the Lady Margaret Countess of Salisbury his Daughter and Heir who was likewise Attainted and Executed And thirdly in her Son and Heir Henry Poole Lord Montague put also to death from whose Daughters both the Earl of Huntington and his Brethren together with the Children of Sir Thomas Barrington do descend And albeit some may say that the said House of Clarence hath been restored in Bloud since those Attainders yet reply these men That except it can be shewed that particular mention was made of reabilitating the same to this pretence of Succession to the Crown it will not be sufficient as in like manner they affirm That the same restoring in Bloud if any such were hath not been sufficient to recover the ancient Lands and Titles of Honour which this House of Clarence had before these Attainders for that they were forfeited thereby to the Crown And so say these men was there forfeited thereby in like manner unto the next in Bloud not Attainted this Prerogative of succeeding to the Crown and cannot be restored again by any general Restauration in Bloud except special mention be made thereof even as we see that many Houses Attainted are restored daily in Bloud without restorement of their Titles and Dignities and a present Example we have in the Earl of Arundel restored in Bloud but not to the Title of Duke of Norfolk And this say the opposite Houses against this House of Clarence But now thirdly entreth in also against the Earl of Huntington the opposition of some of his own House which is of the Issue of Sir Geffrey Poole Brother to his Grand-father who say That when the Lord Henry Montague was put to death with his Mother the Countess of Salisbury and thereby both their Pretences and Titles cut off in them then fell such right as they had or might have upon the said Sir Geffrey Poole and not upon his Neece the Lady Katharaine Daughter of the Lord Henry his elder Brother and Mother of the Earl of Huntington and this for three Causes First for that he was not Attainted and so whether we respect his Grand-father George Duke of Clarence or his Great-grand-father Richard Duke of York the said Right in this respect is descended to him And secondly for that he was a degree nearer to the said Duke's Ancestors than was at that time his Neece Katharine which right of nearest Propinquity say these men is made good and lawful by all the Reasons Examples Presidents and Authorities alledged before in the fourth Chapter of this Conference in favour of Uncles before their Nephews And it shall not need that we speak any thing more of that matter in this place but only to remit your remembrance to that which herein hath been said before Fourthly they prove the same in favour of Sir Geffrey for that the Lady Katharine was a Woman and Sir Geffrey a man whose priviledge is so great in a matter of Succession as also hath been touched before that albeit they had been in equal degree and that Sir Geffrey were not a degree before her as he was yet seeing neither of them nor their Fathers were ever in possession of the thing pretended Sir Geffrey should be preferred as hath been shewed before by some Presidents and shall be seen afterwards in the Case of Portugal wherein the King of Spain that now is was preferred to the Crown for that only respect that his Competitors were Women and in equal degree of descent with him and he a Man And the very like Allegations of Propinquity I heard produced for the Lady Winifred Wife of Sir Thomas Barrington if she be yet alive to wit that she is before the Earl of Huntington and his Brethren by this reason of Propinquity in Bloud for that she is one degree nearer to the stock than they Fifthly and lastly both these and other Competitors do alledge against the Earl of Huntington as an important and sufficient bar against his pretence the quality of his Religion which is as they say that he hath been ever known to favour those who commonly in England are called Puritans and not favoured by the State but yet this stop is alledged diversly by Competitors of divers Religions For that such as are followers and favourers of the form of Religion received and defended by publick Authority of England at this day whom for distinction-sake men are wont to call by the name of moderate Protestants these I say do urge this Exclusion against the Earl of Huntington not upon any certain Law or Statute extant against the same but ab equo bono as men are wont to say and by reason of State shewing infinite inconveniencies hurts damages and dangers that must needs ensue not only to the present State of Religion in England but also to the whole Realm and Body-politick if such a man shall be admitted to govern And this Consideration of State in their opinion is a more forceable Argument for Excluding such a man then any Statute or particular Law against him could be for that this comprehendeth the very intention meaning and drift of all Laws and Law-makers of our Realm whose intentions must needs be presumed to have been at all times to have Excluded so great and manifest inconveniencies And thus they say But now those that are of the Roman Religion and contrary both to Puritan and Protestant do urge a great deal further this Argument against the Earl and do alledge many Laws Ordinances Decrees and Statutes both of the Canon and Imperial Laws as also out of the old Laws of England which in their opinion do debar all that are not of their Religion and consequently they would hereby Exclude both the one and the other Pretenders And in fine they do conclude that seeing there wanteth not also some of their own Religion called by them the Catholick in the House of Clarence they have so much the less difficulty to exclude the Earl of Huntington's person for his Religion if one of that House were to be admitted of necessity And this is so much as seemeth needful to be spoken at this time and in this place of this House of Clarence and of the Pretenders thereof It resteth then that I treat something also of the House of Britany and France which two Houses are joyned all in one for so much as may appertain to any Inheritance or Pretence to England or to any parcel or particular state thereof at home or abroad that may follow the