Selected quad for the lemma: life_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
life_n estate_n land_n tenant_n 4,546 5 9.9060 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

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

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

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
holden in those elder times from what it is now For as you may see in my Lord Coke on Littleton fol. 22. a. the husband in the time of King Edward the Third was so far from having the inheritance of Lands given to him in Frankmarriage that if he and his wife were divorced the woman should enjoy the whole land And for this he cites in the Margent 13 Edw. 3. tit Ass 19 Edw. 3. Ass 83. with several other proofes of the like nature Also in the time of King Edw. 1. as you may see in the Antient Treatise called Fleta the inheritance in these cases was in the wife and not in the husband For in the 3 Book and 11th Chapter de donationibus in maritagiis it is thus said Et quamvis fiat mentio in donatione quod terra data sit in maritagium tali viro cum tali uxore res data tamen est liberum tenementum uxoris non viri cum non habeat nisi custodiam cum uxore donec liberum tenementum sibi accrescat per legem Angliae Secus si pro homagio servitio viri in Maritagium facta fuerit donatio And so also Bracton who lived in the time of King Henry the Third and also in the time of the said Lhewellin lib. 2. cap. 11. says Si autem fiat mentio quod terra data sit in maritagium cum uxore eorum haeredibus communes haeredes de corpore utriusque admittantur qui si defecerint revertitur terra data alii remotiores excluduntur quia res data est liberum tenementum uxoris non viri cum non habeat nisi custodiam cum uxore Si autem sic terra detur in Maritagium viro cum uxore eorum haeredibus pro homagio servitio viri quod fit aliquando licet detur in liberum maritagium quae sunt sibi ad invicem adversantia sive repugnantia tunc prefertur homagium erit acsifieret donatio tam viro quam uxori And so also my Lord Coke on Littleton fol. 21. b. tells us That if the King give Land to a man with a woman of his kindred in frank-marriage and the woman dyeth without issue the Man in the Kings case shall not hold it for his life because the woman was the cause of the gift but otherwayes it is in the case of a common person and for this in the Margent he cites 9 H. 3. Dower 202. So also Mr. Glanvile who l●ved in the time of King Henry the Second and before the time of the said Lhewellin lib. 7. cap. 18. to the same purpose sayes Cum quis itaque terram aliquam cum uxore sua in maritagium ceperit si ex eadem uxore sua haeredem habuerit filium vel filiam clamantem auditum infra quatuor parietes si idem vir uxorem suam supervixerit sive vixerit haeres sive non illi in vita sua remanet maritagium illud post mortem vero ipsius ad donatorem vel ejus haeredes est reversurum Sin autem ex uxore suae nunquam habuerit haeredem tunc statim post mortem ●xeris ad donatorem vel haeredes ejus revertetur maritagium so that it is clear that the lands which were given with the said Hellen to the said John Scot were given to the said Lhewellin with a former wife who was Kinswoman to the said King John and Mother to the said Hellen for otherwise the said Gift to John Scot could not be good But if they were given to the said Lhewellin with a wife who was Mother to the said Hellen but dead at the time of the gift to the said John Scot then the said Lhewellin being Tenant by the Curtesie of England and the inheritance being in the said Hellen he might pass away his Estate to the said John Scot with the said Hellen and they might lawfully hold the said Mannors in libero maritagio according to the Agreement made betwixt the said Randle Earl of Chester and Lincolne and the said Lhewellin Prince of North-Wales Lastly You erre a fifth time in saying that Joane the wife of Robert de Audeley was the same Joane who was wife to the said Lhewellin For that cannot possibly be because Robert de Audeley married Joane the base daughter of King John by Agatha who might well be marriageable in the 14 year of King Henry the Third which fell out to be in the years 1229. and 1230. But I have before shewed that there is no possibility that the said Joane daughter of Agatha could be wife to Lhewellin in the year 1204. nor any likelihood that she then was born And this mistake of yours doth further appear because as before is shewed Prince Lhewellin was husband to the said Joane in the year 1204. and as you well know and confess he dyed not till the 24th year of King Henry the 3d. How then can that Ioane who was wife to Robert de Audeley in the 14th year of King H. 3. be the same Joane who was wife to Lhewellin unless she had two husbands living at one time Or How can what your Author Vincent sayes be true That she was re-married to Robert de Audley 14 H. 3. after the death of Lhewellin seeing the said Lhewellin died not till the 24th year of Henry 3d and did also outlive his wife Joane three yeares Certainly if Vincent had known as well as you how long the said Lhewellin lived he would never have said that Joane the wife of Robert de Audley was the same Joane who was wife of Lhewellin But though you do acknowledge that Vincent did erre in saying Lhewellin was dead when Joane was married to Robert de Audeley yet you would willingly justifie the other part of his error in making Audeleys wife Joane to be the same woman with Lhewellins wife Joane and to do this you fancy that Lhewellin was divorced from his wife Joane though there be no Author who doth alleadge any such thing And Can we think that a Prince of North-Wales and a daughter of King John could be divorced and one or both of them marry again in the life-time of each other and no writer take notice thereof Or can it be that Mat. Paris who lived at that very time should in his 365. Page speak of William de Braus his being taken in Adultery with the said Joane with an ut dicebatur only Or the Welch History p. 286. with an as it was reported if the Adultery was so notorious as that she was divorced for it Indeed you tell us out of Knighton col 2439. that Anno Domini 1228. 13 H. 3. Leolinus Princeps Walliae rebllare cepit Tandem vero post concursus varios discrimina multa per quoddam maritagium cum Rege concordatus est in pace dimissus and from these words per quoddam maritagium you would insinuate a Divorce and a new Marriage of the said Joane with Robert