Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	earl_n	heir_n	son_n	26,491	5	5.6823	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A51562	A reply to an answer to the Defence of Amicia, daughter of Hugh Cyveliok, Earl of Chester wherein it is proved, that the reasons alleadged by Sir Peter Leicester, in his former book, and also in his said answer, concerning the illegitimacy of the said Amicia, are invalid, and of no weight at all / by Sir Thomas Mainwaring ...	Mainwaring, Thomas, Sir, 1623-1689.	1673 (1673)	Wing M303; ESTC R10002	39,045	108

the words liberum conjugium to create an Estate of Inheritance as well as the words liberum maritagium which no man before you ever said Whereas no words that are equipollent or amounting to as much can do it it being impossible to make an Estate in Free-marriage if there be wanting either the word liberum or the word Maritagium Also as the words in libero conjugio can make but an Estate for life so it is also clear that in your Deed of Earl Randle to Ceva there was no more intended than an Estate for life it running all along in the singular number Et teneat bene in pace c. ut melius liberius tenuit And it is likely the Deed of Earl Hugh did run after the same manner by that expression sicuti Comes Hughes ei in libero conjugio dedit But I believe the Bassets did afterwards enjoy the said lands though how or by vertue of what Deed I am not able to declare For in Monasticon Anglicanum Part 1. p. 439 and in your Historical Antiquities p. 113. but misprinted 121. I find Geffrey Ridell and Ralph Basset called the heires of the said Geva Now if those persons were the heires of her body and the aforesaid Deed a Gift in Frank-marriage Why did not Earl Randle confirm or grant those lands to her heires as well as to her And if they were not the heirs of her body she could not be a bastard For as my Lord Coke on Littleton fol. 3. b. tells you A Bastard can have no heir but of his own body And whereas I brought another Argument to prove that this Gift of Geva could not be a Gift in Frank-marriage Because my Lord Coke says that one of the things incident to a Frank-marriage is that the Donees shall hold freely of the Donour till the fourth degree be past which cannot be in Geva's case Because there was no Donees but one Donee only and the Estate could not continue until the Fourth degree was past because it was onely for Geva's life You tell me that my Lord Coke upon Littleton fol. 21. b. citeth Peter Saltmarch's Case and Fitz-Herbert de natura brevium fol. 172. that lands may be given by a Man to his Son in Free-marriage and why not to his Daughter alone in Free-marriage But I pray you How can there be a Gift in Free-marriage if there be no Marriage at all and How can there be a Marriage if the Man or Woman be alone But you misunderstand this place as you do many others For my Lord Coke if you observe him well doth not there say that such a Gift can be made with a Man alone or with a Woman alone But there tells you that a gift in free-marriage may be either to a Man with a woman or as some have held to a Woman with a Man and for proof thereof cites Peter Saltmarsh his case and Fitz-Herbert And this is no more than what I said in the 49 Page of my former Book where I also shewed you how Bracton did therewith accord But there is none of them that saith as you do That land may be given in Frank-marriage to a Man without a Woman or to a VVoman without a Man In your 48 49 Pages you would willingly perswade the Reader that Earl Randle de Gernoniis Father to Earl Hugh Cyveliok was Marryed by Robert Earl of Gloucester unto Maude his Daughter thereby to draw him to the part of Queen Maude his Sister about the very year 1139. before which time we find no mention in our antient Historians of Randle's acting against King Stephen but in that very year we do and then by some of them stiled Son-in-law to the Earl of Gloucester But I pray you VVhy is it not full as likely that before that time Randle de Gernoniis was Marryed to the Daughter of the said Earl of Gloucester and thereby was the more easily drawn to that party to which he stood so near related as that that match should be made purposely to draw him to that party And how could you hear much of that Earl Randle's actings against King Stephen before the year 1139 seeing Gervasius a Benedictine Monke of Canterbury who lived in the Reign of King John tells us in his Chronicles or Annalls col 1345. l. 60. that it was in the year 1138 when Robert Earl of Gloucester did begin to quarrel with the said King Stephen And whereas you yet seem unsatisfied that Earl Hugh was of such an age as probably to have had another Wife before Bertred and do now say p. 49. if we reckon by utmost possibilities that Earl Hugh could not possibly be above sixteen or seventeen years older than Bertred I do very much wonder thereat seeing I have formerly from the Argument which you used to prove it to be otherwayes made it manifest that he might possibly be several years above double her age and that so clearly that I am confident no man besides your self will offer to deny the same For I then told you that whether the Marriage of Robert Earl of Gloucester with Mabill Daughter and heir of Robert Fitz-Hamon was according to Selden in the year 1109. or according to Stow in the year 1110. the said Mabill might have Maude her second Daughter in the year 1112 which Maude if she was Marryed to Earl Randle de Gernoniis in the year 1128 when she was sixteen years of age might have her Son Hugh Cyvelick in the year 1129. which if true the said Earl Hugh was fifty two years old at his death For he died in the year 1181 and if so then he was four years above twice the age of Bertred For she was but Twenty four years old when the said Earl Hugh died as appears Rot. de Dominabus pueris c. in Scacc. penes Remem R. sub Tit. Linc. Rot. 1. And it is certain that the said Earl Hugh was Earl of Chester about four years before his VVife Bertred was born besides what age he was of when his Father died and his Daughter Amicia was Married in his life time and none knows how many years before his death And if the Marriage of the said Robert Earl of Gloucester with the said Mabill was in the year 1109. then he might possibly be Five years above double the age of his VVife Bertred And this is the more likely to be true Because though Mr. Selden be a later VVriter than Mr. Stow is yet Mr. Selden cites one that lived long before Mr. Stow as will appear by the old English Rithmical Story attributed to one Robert of Glocester and recited in the 647. Page of Mr. Seldens Titles of Honour In your Answer pag. 50 51 52 53. you endeavor to weaken the Third and Fourth reasons which were brought as concurrent proof on the behalf of Amicia by saying that Hugh Cyveliok 's Wife was a witness to her Husbands Deed which a Wife cannot now be she being not

Thomas haeredes mei dicto Hamoni haeredibus suis assignatis totas praedict as quinque acras terrae cum omnibus pertinentiis suis sicut praenotatum est contra omnes homines foeminas warantizabimus defendemus imperpetuum In hujus rei testimonium huic praesenti carta● sigillum meum apposui Hiis Testibus Hugone de Duram Willielmo Bernard tunc Seneschallo domini Thomae de Menylgaring Richardo Starkye Roberto de Wynninton Ranulpho de Berthorton Thoma de Queloc Johanne de Merbury Rogero clerico aliis Sciant praesentes futuri quod ego Dominus Thomas de Menylgaring dedi concessi hac praesenti carta mea confirmavi Roberto de Bexeckne pro homagio servitio totam illam terram quam mercatus fuit de Hugone de Berdeney sicut sepe fossato circuitur includitur metis bundis continetur cum omnibus pertinentiis suis Habendum tenendum de me haeredibus meis assignatis dicto Roberto haeredibus suis assignatis libere quiete integre haereditarie in pace bene in bosco in plano in aquis in viis in semitis in pratis in pasturis cum housbold haybold tacfre de omnibus propriis porcis suis infra omnes metas de Cokishull cum omnibus aliis communibus esyamentis praedictae villae spectantibus Reddendo inde annuatim mihi haeredibus meis meis assignatis quindecem denarios argenti ad duos anni terminos videlicet ad nativitatem sancti Johannis Baptistae septem denarios obolum ad festum sancti Martini in yeme septem denarios obolum pro omnibus servitiis secularibus exactionibus demandis praedictae terrae pertinentibus Et ego vero Dominus Thomas de Menilgaring haeredes mei assignati mei dicto Roberto haeredibus suis assignatis totam praedictam terram sicut sepe fossato circuitur includitur sicut proenotatum est contra omnes homines faeminas imperpetuum warrantizabimus defendemus Pro hac autem donatione concessione cartae meae confirmatione dedit mihi dictus Robertus quatuor solidos argenti praemanibus In cujus rei testimonium huic praesenti cartae sigillum meum apposui Hiis testibus Richardo Starkey Willielmo Bernard tunc Seneschallo Domini Thomae de Menilgaring Johanne de Merbury Hugone de eadem Hugone silio Hamonis de Comberbach Ad. de Acton Roberto de Burwys Rogero Clerico aliis And as to what you say page 8. of your Answer that as the word Sir is in common discourse applicable to persons of quality from the highest to the lowest in its larger notion so Dominus is applicable to any Knight or Gentleman as if you should say Domine quaeso num hoc verum est quod dieo neene I grant it to be true but then as you observe the word Sir or the word Dominus must onely so be taken in its larger notion but that is so far from weakening what I say that it doth confirm it For though if I speak to one whose name is Peter that is but a Gentleman I may properly use the word Sir to him yet I cannot properly joyn the word Sir to his name and call him Sir Peter unless the said person be either a Baronet or a Knight and that is the case in these old Deeds where the word Dominus is prefixed to the names of the said Knights Also if the word Dominus do only signify Master as you would have it What is the reason that in some Deeds it is only put before the names of some of the witnesses and not before the names of others although those other persons to whose names it is not put many times are Lords of several Mannors and persons of very great Estate As to what you alledge page 6. of your Arswer to my defence of Amicia that in the 27 page of my said Defence Radulfus de Meidnilwaring after his Daughter Bertrey was marriageable is there named without his Title of Dominus You your self have answered that a little before by confessing though the word Domino is usually set to the name of such a person when he is named a witness that the word Dominus is never used by the party himself but where it is joyned with another word as Ego Willielmus Mainwaring Dominus de Peover Ego Rogerus Dominus Moaldiae which though for the most part it be very true yet I have shewed that it doth not ever hold But instead of observing that you had given a full answer to this objection of your own you strangely fancy that I would possibly say that that Deed was made before the said Ralph was Justice of Chester whereas in the 74 page of my said Book I had told you that the said Deed was so far from being made before the said Ralph was Justice of Chester that it was made after he had parted with the said Office And thus you became guilty of a double levity first in making an objection which you your self had answered but in the preceding page and then in framing an answer thereto for me directly contrary to what I had formerly said And whereas you say page 8. that you had rather give to any especially to my Family more then is due then less I could wish I had just cause to be of that opinion For I am sure you have omitted in our Descent not only Ranulfus who is nominated in Doomesday Book but also Richard Mesnilwaren mentioned in your Historical Antiquities pag● 〈◊〉 Roger de Menilgarin and * Note That page 117. of your Historical Antiquities you have placed Randle before William contrary to what you have done Pa. 341. and contrary to Monasticon Anglicanum Par. 1. Pa. 985. William and Randle his Sons spoken of by you page 341. Roger de Menilgarin or Mainwaring named by you page 362. Sir Ralph Mainwaring and Sir Roger Mainwaring his Son both taken notice of by you pa. 330. and this upon a pretence that they were Lords of Warmincham whereas I am confident you will not deny but that the Mainwarings of Warmincham were also owners of Over-Peover or the most part thereof until Sir Roger Mainwaring gave Peover to his younger Son Sir William Mainwaring and it was not long after that the Mainwarings of Peover became Heirs male to those Mainwarings of Warmincham Sir Warine Mainwaring Son of Sir Thomas Son of the said Sir Roger dying without issue Male Also I am sure you denyed to do us right in one other particular when you did it in the like case for another Family which had not so clear proof for it as mine had As for your new quarrel page 9 of your Answer with the Herald for giving to Sir Randle Mainwaring my great Grandfather six Barrulets as his most proper Coat whereas you say ever since the time of Sir Roger Mainwaring aswell the Heirs

capable to be a Witness either for or against her Husband whereby you would insinuate a change of the Law in that particular from what it was formerly and you also say that if Hugh Cyveliok had had a former Wife sure Raph Mainwaring would have called his Daughter after her and not after the then Countess And you there make nothing of Roger Mainwaring's calling Randle Earl of Chester and Lincoln his Uncle in a Deed nor of Henry de Audley's being a Witness to the Deeds of Randle Earl of Chester and Lincoln and of Robert de Ferrars which later you say is far fetcht nor of Raph Mainwarings and Roger Mainwarings being Witnesses to so many Deeds of those that were Earles of Chester in their times But to these things I say that the Law is still the same as it was formerly in the particular by you here mentioned For both antiently and at this day also I know nothing that hinders but that the Wife may subscribe as a Witness to a Deed which her Husband doth make and though she neither antiently could nor yet can be a witness for or against her Husband yet there is this use of it that if the Wife survive her Husband and it come to be controverted amongst other parties whether such a Deed was Sealed by him or not she in the time of her VVidowhood may be a good VVitness for the proving of the same And as to the calling of Sir Raph Mainwarings Daughter by the name of Bertred after the present Countess and not after the name of Hugh Cyvelioks first VVife That is no wonder at all it being more ordinary to call Daughters after their Godmothers Names than after the names of their own Grandmothers and especially when the Godmothers are of great quality Now the said Amicia's Daughter being called Bertred which is a very unusual name it is more than probable according to what you expressed to me under your hand in April 1664. that Bertred the Countess was Godmother to the said Bertred Mainwaring And if so it is very unlikely that Amicia was illegitimate For VVives are seldome Godmothers to their Husbands Bastards or to the Children of such Bastards Also Sir Raph Mainwaring and Sir Roger Mainwaring and Henry de Audley the Sou-in-law of the said Sir Raph Mainwaring being so often VVitnesses to the Deeds of the Earls of Chester and to the Deeds of their very near Relations doth certainly shew there was then a very great and constant intimacy betwixt the said Families And though you pretend that Sir Raph Mainwaring was very conversant with the Earle because he was Judge and therefore came so often to be a VVitness and say that we may find the like number of Charters or more to which Philip Orreby Judge of Chester was witness in like nature I conceive that you are deceived therein although Philip Orreby was Judge of Chester perhaps longer than Sir Raph Mainwaring was For I do believe that I can make it to appear by what Deeds I have and what Deeds I have seen of others that Sir Raph Maeinwaring and his Son Sir Roger Mainwaring were witnesses to more Deeds of Hugh Cyvelioks and Randle Blundevil than any other persons of any one Family were Add hereunto which I have in my former Book mentioned that Sir Roger Mainwaring in a Deed of his own calls Randle Earl of Chester and Lincoln his Vncle and how I did there observe that though the VVriters of Histories did sometimes give to Bastards the name of Cosen Brother Uncle Son and Daughter I did believe you could hardly find any one that you could certainly prove to be a Bastard or the Son of a Bastard that did presume in a Deed to call so great a person as the Earl of Chester was his Brother or Uncle unless he came to be a very great Person himself And this is so true that in the 53 Page you are forced to confess that such Precedents are scant but yet you think you have found one viz. Randle de Estbury or Astbury who in a Deed mentioned in the Addenda of your Historical Antiquities is called the Earl of Chester 's Nephew and is put the last of all the witnesses and was certainly but an ordinary Gentleman nor Knight nor Lord. But this Precedent will fail you for two Reasons First Because you do as good as confess that you cannot prove him to be a Bastard and he might perhaps be a younger Brother or Son of a younger Brother and so not necessarily a Knight or a Lord And Secondly Because he doth not call himself the Earles Nephew but is called so by others and that is so far from contradicting that it doth confirm what I said in my former Book Also if you observe it there were no VVitnesses to the said Deed besides the said Randle de Astbury except David de Malpas whom I conceive was Baron of Malpas and William his Son And whereas you say you should be glad to find out the Extraction of the said Randle de Astbury if he were not a Bastard Though it be perhaps impossible now to tell you his Extraction certainly because he lived so long since and we only find him mentioned as a witness in one Ded Yet I doubt not but to satisfie the Reader that he and his Father and Mother might all be Legitimate For not to say that he might be a Son of some other Daughter of the said Hugh Cyveliok by his former VVife he might possibly be the Son of Roger Son of Hugh Cyveliok And I know no great reason why the said Roger should by you be suspected to be a bastard For you only find him as appears by your Historical Antiquities p. 134. and in my First Book p. 1. mentioned as a Witness to a Deed of his Brother Randle 's to the Abbey of Saint VVerburge So that you conceive him to be a bastard Because neither he nor any issue-Male of his succeeded in the Earldome of Chester after the death of Randle Blundevil VVhereas the said Roger might be lawful and be Father to this Randle de Astbury and yet both he and the said Randle de Astbury might dye before the said Randle de Blundevil For he lived very long and was Earl of Chester above Fifty years Also it is very strange if Amicia was a Bastard and the Father or Mother of the said Randle de Astbury was also a Bastard that those Bastards could find none to call their Children after but the then Countess and the then Earl For the Daughter of Amicia was called Bertred after Randle Blundevill's Mother and Randle de Astbury was of the same Name with the said Earl But admitting that the said Roger was a Bastard Why might not Randle de Astbury however be his Son and then What necessity of what you say in your Addenda of either finding out another Base Son or another Base Daughter of the said Hugh Cyveliok But you have been very willing to charge

Bastards now ergo it was so taken in Glanvil's time but I have given you many reasons why the Law was taken in the time of Glanvill in the point of Free-Marriage as it is taken now to which you give no other answer but that you will leave it to wise Men to judge who will take the paines to scan them whether they be pertinent And I do willingly appeal to all wise men whether that be an Answer to those Eight Reasons for if it be I am much mistaken therein But what will you say though I did admit it to be so because I would put the Case as hard as I could upon my self if Glanvil by those words of his Lib. 7. cap. 1. Quilibet liber homo quandam partem terrae suae cum filia sua vel cum aliqua alia qualibet muliere dare potest in Maritagium sive habuerit haeredem sive non velit haeres vel non imo eo contradicente did not say or mean that a man might give lands in Free-marriage with any woman whatsoever but only that he might give lands with any woman in that kind of Marriage which was not free For if you observe him well he doth not there say that any man whatsoever can give Lands in liberum maritagium with any woman whatsoever but only that it may be so given with any woman in Maritagium Now that Maritagium is two-fold Glanvil himself tells you Lib. 7. cap. 18. where he sayes Maritagium autem aliud nominatur liberum aliud servitio obnoxiums liberum dicitur Maritagium quando aliquis liber homo aliquam partem terrae suae dat cum aliqua muliere alicui in Maritagium ita quod ab omni servitio terra illa sit quieta a se haeredibus suis versus capitalem dominum acquietanda in hac quidem libertate ita stabit terra illa usque ad tertium haeredem nec interim tenebuntur haeredes inde facere aliquod homagium post tertium vero haeredem ad debitum servitium terra ipsa revertetur homagium inde capietur Many of which words of Glanvil you may also find cited by my Lord Coke on Littleton fol. 21. b. Now if you well observe it Glanvil doth not there say that a man may give Lands in liberum Maritagium cum qualibet muliere but only in Maritagium But when he speaks of Free-marriage he useth the expression cum aliqua muliere with some woman viz. one of the Kindred so that without doubt he using the same expression with Mr. Bracton who was the next VVriter after him he also understands it in the like manner as the other did But if Mr. Glanvill's expressions Lib. 7. cap. 1. had concerned Free-marriage yet I have formerly shewed that the word Mulier in that case could only have been understood of a woman of the Kindred Also my Lord Coke upon Littleton fol. 21. b. when he hath told you that one of the four things incident to a Frank-marriage is that the VVoman or Man that is the cause of the Gift be of the blood of the Donour not long after on the Margent of the same Page quotes Glanvil lib. 7. cap. 1. the place on which you build which he would never have done if that place had been contradictory to his opinion and certainly if Glanvills words in that place are to be understood as you would have them they do contradict what my Lord Coke there sayes unless the Law in that point was taken after one manner in Glanvil's time and after another manner in my Lord Coke's time which if it had been so my Lord Coke had been concerned to have taken notice thereof having no otherway to reconcile it with what he had said What you say pag. 32 33. is not at all to the purpose For you there tell us that Bastard Sons bastard Daughters bastard Brothers c. in all Settlements and Conveyances of these last antient Ages are termed Bastards but you say that was never used in the Antient Ages But this is only your bare saying without any proof at all so that your word herein will not pass unless you had shewed us several antient Settlements and Conveyances in which bastard Sons bastard Daughters bastard Brothers c. are named without the word Bastard joyned to them which I am confident you cannot do unless when very great persons are named who by reason of their greatness are usually excepted in such cases as those And indeed you do not only want proof to make good what you here say but I have formerly brought proof of the contrary from Sir Henry Spelman who in his Glossary on the word Bastardus sayes Quoties enim agitur de honore vel commodo filiorum appellatione siliorum non comprehenduntur bastardi And as to what you affirm that Bastards be of the blood both now and in former ages though the Law will not allow them so because they now are esteemed in the eye of the Law quasi nullius filius For if A. have a Bastard Son or Daughter which is really his they must needs be of his blood for no Law can extinguish Nature though by common Law they are not now esteemed so There is no force in what you so say Because in this case Children are looked at as they are in Law and not as they are really because it cannot be known what they are really And therefore if A. have a bastard child which is really his yet it shall not inherit because it is in Law nullius filius and on the other side If A. have a Wife who doth play false with him and hath a Child begotten of her body by another man yet this Child shall inherit because it is in Law the Child of A. And whereas you also ask the Question What if you say that the reason why in the Deeds of those elder Ages they were called Daughters without any addition of Bastard whereby the party owned them to be of their blood was that the Lands passed in libero maritagio with such might descend to their heires For our Lawyers now tell us that Bastards are capable of receiving Lands after they have gained a Name by reputation Why may not then Bastards having gained the names of Daughters receive a grant from their owned Fathers either in Frank-marriage or otherwayes Your Question will be easily answered because the consideration of the Gift in Free-marriage is the blood that is betwixt the Donour and that Donee with whom the Land is given But a Bastard is not de sanguine patris Dyer Fol. 374. b. and the calling of any person Daughter who is not so in Law will not make her of the blood for if that would serve a Man might call any other Woman his Daughter that is not so and then give Lands with her in Frank-marriage Besides to what purpose should such tricks as these be used which will not hold when though a Man cannot give