Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	daughter_n	heir_n	marry_v	22,785	5	9.8759	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A48363	An ansvver to Sir Thomas Manwaring's book, intituled, - An admonition to the reader of Sir Peter Leicester's books. Written by the same Sir Peter Leicester	Leycester, Peter, Sir, 1614-1678.	1677 (1677)	Wing L1941A; ESTC R217658	12,105	49

AN ANSWER TO Sir Thomas Manwaring's BOOK Intituled An Admonition to the READER of Sir Peter Leicester's Books WRITTEN By the same Sir Peter Leicester Printed in the Year 1677. An Answer to Sir Thomas Manwarings Books c. IN the first place I desire the learned and ingenious Reader to take notice of the very first words of Sir Thomas Manwaring's Admonition That you may know Hercul●s by his Foot whereby he would insinuate the blasting of my Credit and Reputation even before he begins one word of his Book and it is all one as if he should have said in downright words take heed of believing any thing which Sir Peter writes For here I will shew you the Partiality Omissions Uncertainties and Mistakes of the said Sir Peter in those two Sheets of his Historical Antiquities in which he writes of the Township of Over-Peever which are so numerous that little credit is to be given to any thing he writes elsewhere for ex pede Hercules and it is no matter what he writes of the Bastardy of Amicia or any thing else See here the scope of his design Had he given me notice of my Mistakes in private it would have shewed more handsomly in him and more acceptable to me but he now publisheth to the World his own Malignancy which will be a greater dishonour to himself than these pitiful exceptions can be a disparagement to me for his Reputation is out of his reach Cum tamen non mordeat oblatrat But let us now take a view of these his pitiful exceptions which he would so unhandsomly charge upon me as Errours To the 1. Pag. 4. Here he saith that in Pag. 330 of my Book I call Ranulphus in Doomsday-Book the supposed Ancestor of the Manwarings But Pag. 208. I call Odard the undoubted Ancestor of the Duttons Now what reason I can have for that except my Partiality he cannot imagine My Answer Yes Reason enough for it though he cannot or will not imagine it For I have seen sundry Deeds of the first Age after the Norman-Conquest namely made in the time of King Henry the first wherein I find Hugh the Son of Odard so stiled and Hugh Son of Hugh Son of Odard See Pag. 264. of my Book and Pag. 117. sub Anno iii 9. and also Pag. 250. whereas I should be glad to see any one Deed of that Age mentioning or calling Richard Mesnilwarin Son of Ranulphus Again the ancient Roll of the Barons of Halton which I have seen and transcribed in one of my Manuscripts noted Lib. Cap. fol. 84 85. which Roll seemed to be written in a Character of 300 Years standing at the least saith thus Ab ipso Hudardo venerunt omnes Duttomenses See also Monasticon Anglicanum Vol. 2. pag. 187. and also pag. 249. of my Book but I never knew nor heard of any such ancient Roll or Record wherein it is said Ab ipso Ranulpho venerunt omnes Manwaringi Again I have seen the ancient Sword called at this day Hudards-Sword and is yet in the possession of the Heirs of Dutton of Dutton and for many Ages hath been passed as an Heir-Loom from Heir to Heir for many Generations and I have seen some Wills of the Duttons giving the same as an Heir-Loom to the Heir by that name of Hudards-Sword which by tradition received hath been constantly preserved by the Heirs of that Family with great veneration the like I believe cannot be shown by any Family of this County or scarcely in England See in my Book pag. 250. I say not this to extenuate any Family but to shew the Antiquity of this Family which hath been seated at Dutton even from the Conqueror's time to this present and continued in the name of the Duttons until in our days it devolved by a Daughter and Heir unto the Lord Gerard of Gerards-Bromley in Stafford-shire And therefore I might well call Odard the undoubted Ancestor of the Duttons and by much surer proof than I believe can be produced to prove the Manwarings to be descended from Ranulphus aforesaid Neither do I look upon the Lands coming to either of the Families to be ne're so sure a proof as what I have mentioned above for possibly Lands might descend by a Daughter and Heir or by Purchase and yet Richard Manwaring might not be Son of Ranulphus as is certainly recorded of the Duttons from Odard Howbeit I am so much satisfied with the Lands found in Possession of the Manwarings in the very next Ages after William the Conqueror that I suppose the same Ranulphus to be the Ancestor of the Manwarings but I cannot say it is so certain as the other What reason now hath Sir Thomas to charge me with Partiality in the Case To the 2. Pag. 6. Here he saith that in the same 330 Pag. I tell him of two Places or Hamlets in Over-Peever anciently called Cepmundewich the other Fodon whereas there were seven such places there which he reckoneth up Answer But Sir Thomas mistakes himself therein for neither Radbroke nor the other four there mentioned by him were called Hamlets as Cepmundewich and Fodon were See Pag. 331. of my Book for although there might be some parcels of Land in Over-Peever so called either Fields or Tenements yet were those parcels never called Hamlets in any Deed that I ever saw as yet Now Hamlets are as it were a Ville within a Ville and are places more conspicuous and usually containing a greater quantity of Land than a private Place Field or Tenement gaining certain names as those did and other Places also might do nor was it fit for me to take notice of all such inconspicuous places in my Book though I did take notice of the Hamlets for that were to make my work endless and to stuff it with trifles But I did take notice of Radbroke because it was a Freehold at this day and now not belonging to Manwaring which made me the rather to mention the same and though it be locus cognitus in Over-Peever at this day yet no Hamlet at all To the. 3. Pag. 7. Here he tell us that I have left out in the Pedegree of the Manwarings Pag. 331. Ranulphus mentioned in Doomsday-Book Richard Mesnilwarin Roger de Mesnilgarin or Mainwaring and William and Randle his Sons Roger de Menilgarin or Mainwaring Sir Ralph Manwaring Sir Roger Manwaring his Son Answer But if he had viewed well Pag. 330. of my Book he might have found the last Roger Manwaring and Ralph Manwaring his Father sometime Judg of Chester to have been there but that either of them were Knights it doth not certainly appear to me as in my lesser Book I have formerly given my reasons and for the descents here mentioned before Ralph Manwaring I think he himself will have much ado to put them into right order as they ought to be I am sure I cannot and though they were Lords of Over-Peever or the greatest part thereof yet certainly none of them lived

Year 1449 and died several Years before her Husband Answer But this mistake I rectified in Print long since at the end of my said Book among the Errata and also at the end of my Answer to the defence of Amicia so soon as I knew the certainty of it and therefore ought not to be charged upon me To the 16. Pag. 12. Here he saith that I said Sir John Manwaring died about the very end of Edw. 4. his Raign but he was dead for certain the 14. of April 20. of Edw. 4. Answer Had I but said towards the latter end of Edw. 4. I had not much erred and I could not put down the exact time till I knew it Now Edw. 4. raigned but 22 Years in all To the 17. Pag. 12 13. Here he saith that I omitted Agnes Daughter of John Manwaring of Peever Esquire and Wife of Sir Robert Nedham Answer Indeed at first I made some doubt of the truth hereof because I found in my Lord Kilmorey's Pedegree under the Herald's Seal that the said Sir Robert Nedham married Maud Daughter of Sir John Savage But as soon as I found out the truth I rectified that omission in Print at the end of my Answer to the defence of Amicia Pag. 87 as will appear by the said Book Printed 1673 and did also blot out that Match with Savage in my own Book in the Pedegree of that Family pag. 233. and yet he imputes it now again as if I had not mended the same which is unjustly charged here To the 18. Pag. 13. Here he saith that Katharine Manwaring married William Newton probably 1522 and I had said it was 1521 so that there was no certainty of what I there said Answer I say it is as probable they were married 1521 as 1522 and can absolute certainties be always found out in matters of this nature in every particular therefore let it stand till he proves it to be an errour To the 19. Pag. 14. Here he saith that Pag. 335 I say Sir John Manwaring was Sheriff of Flint-shire 6. of Henry 8. but I take no notice that he was Sheriff there 23 and 24 of Henry 7 and also 1 and 2 of Henry 8. Answer What if I did not It is true what I have said and well enough without it for as I said before it is not possible that I should comprehend every particular nor any Man else and shall my Credit of writing Truth be impeached by him for this because I cannot know every thing therefore I have committed no errour herein To the 20. Pag. 14. In the same Pag. 335 I say Sir John Manwaring died 8. of Henry 8. 1515. and no part of 8. Henry 8. falls in Anno 1515. Answer What of all this It perhaps were better placed to be Anno 1516 or 1517. let him find out the absolute time and I will mend it To the 21. Pag. 14. Here he saith that Pag. 335. I say Sir Randle Manwaring after the death of his first Wife married Elizabeth Daughter of Sir Ralph Leicester of Toft 6. of Edw. 6. 1551 but saith he I cannot prove they were married till the Year 1552. Answer Therefore let it stand donec probetur in contrarium it may yet be so for ought I know To the 22. Pag. 14. Here he saith that Pag. 336. I say Philip Manwaring Esquire was the fifth Son of Sir John Manwaring but he was the seventh Son born and not the fifth as appears by the Monument of the said Sir John in Over-Peever Church wherein the Monument of the said Philip is also Answer It may be so but they all died young and Philip became Heir If it be an errour it is but a small one and not material To the 23. Pag. 15. Here he confesseth what I say to be truth that the Herald in the raign of Queen Elizabeth made for Sir Randle Manwaring's Coat Barry of twelve pieces Argent and Gules See Guillims Heraldry Pag. 373. but saith he the Manwarings since then have again given two Bars only and the Coat which the said Sir Randle did then usually bear was six Barrulets and that I knew the ancient Coat to be six Barrulets Pag. 330. and not Barry of twelve pieces Answer It is true that I said the ancient Deed of Roger Manwaring made in the raign of King Henry the third was sealed with an Escocheon of six Barrulets Pag. 330. but that Coat devised for the said Sir Randle Guillim the Herald calls it Barry of twelve pieces I know not the criticism in these terms of Heraldry the Heralds themselves are the best Judges herein and whether we call it the one or the other it is not a Pin matter nor have I committed any errour at all for I there vouched Guillim for it To the 24. Pag. 15. Here he saith that I say the said Sir Randle Manwaring the elder built the Hall of Over-Peever anew 1586. but saith he part of the said House was built 1585 and another part was built 1586. Answer Is not here a worshipful exception It is more proper to ascribe the time when it was built to the finishing of it than when it was begun for it was not all built till it was finished To the 25. Pag. 16. Here he saith that Pag. 336. I call Sir Philip Manwaring Secretary of Ireland to the Earl of Stafford 1638. whereas the said Sir Philip was his Majesties Secretary of State there Answer Here I confess my words were not well ordered for I intended no more there than that he was Secretary of Ireland in the time of the Earl of Stafford then Lord Lieutenant there 1638. But I have corrected this in my Notes at the side of my own Book long before without any admonition from Sir Thomas To the 26. Pag. 16. Here he saith that I say the said Sir Philip Manwaring died the second of August 1661 at London but saith he he died at Westminster in Sir Philip Warwick's House which is in or near to St. James's Park Answer Is not here a ridiculous exception for a wise Man to make Do not we always say in the Country such a Man died at London whether he died at Westminster or in any of the Suburbs according to our common use of speaking it is no matter for taking notice at whose House To the 27. Pag. 16 17. Here he saith that I take no notice that Sir Robert Brierwood was made Serjeant at Law 1640 nor that he was made one of the Judges of the Kings-Bench 1643. and further saith that Pag. 187 I say the said Sir Robert was made Judg of the Common-Pleas 1643. whereas he was never made Judg of the Court of the Common-Pleas but of the Kings-Bench And also that Pag. 334. I say Sir John Nedham was Justitiarius de Banco whereby he supposeth I did there erroneously take Justitiarius de Banco to be a Judg of the Kings-Bench Answer For the first It was not necessary nor material to take notice in that