so as this is al that is needful to be spoken of the house of York in which vve see that the first and principal competitor is the king of Scots and after him Arbella and the children of the earles of Hartford and Darby are also competitors of the same house as discended by the daughter of the first brother Edward duke of Yorke and king of England and then the Earle of Huntington and his generation as also the Pooles Barringtons and others before named are or may be titlers of York as descended of George duke of Clarence second sonne of Richard duke of Yorke all vvhich issue yet seme to remayne only within the compasse of the house of Yorke for that by the former pedegre of the house of Lancaster it seemeth to the fauorets of this howse that none of these other cōpetitors are properly of the line of Lancaster for that king Henry the 7. comming only of Iohn of Gaunt by Catherin Swinford his third wife could haue no part in Lady Blanch that vvas only inheritour of that house as to these men seemeth euident Only then it remaineth for the ending of this chapter to explane some-what more clearly the discent of king Henry the 7. and of his issue for better vnderstanding vvhereof you must consider that king Henry the 7. being of the house of Lancaster in the manner that you haue heard and marrying Elizabeth the eldest daughter of the contrary house of Yorke did seeme to ioyne both houses together make an end of that bloody controuersie though others now wil say no but how soeuer that vvas vvhich after shal be examined cleere it is that he had by that mariage one only sonne that left issue and two daughters his sonne vvas king Henry the 8. vvho by three seueral wiues had three children that haue reigned after him to vvit king Edward the 6. by Queene Iane Seymer Queene Mary by Queene Catherine of Spaine and Queene Elizabeth by Queene Anne Bullen of al which three children no issue hath remayned so as now vve must returne to consider the issue of his daughters The eldest daughter of king Henry the 7. named Margaret vvas married by her first mariage to Iames the fourth king of Scots vvho had issue Iames the 5. he againe Lady mary late Queene of Scots and dowager of France put to death not long ago in Ingland vvho left issue Iames the 6. now king of Scots And by her second mariage the said Lady Margeret after the death of king Iames the 4. tooke for husband Archebald Duglas earle of Anguys in Scotland by whom she had one only daughter named Margeret which vvas married to Mathew Steward earle of Lenox and by him she had two sonnes to vvit Hēry Lord Darly and Charles Steward Henry marryed the foresaid Lady Mary Queene of Scotland vvas murthered in Edinbrough in the yeare 1566. as the world knoweth and Charles his brother marryed Elizabeth the daughter of Sir William Candish in Ingland by whom he had one only daughter yet liuing named Arbella an other competitor of the crowne of Ingland by the house of Yorke and this much of the first daughter of kinge Henry the 7. Mary the secōd daughter of king Henry the 7. yonger sister to king Henry the 8. vvas maried first to Lewis the 12. king of Frāce by whom she had no issue and afterward to Charles Brandon duke of Suffolk by whō she had two daughters to witt Frances and Elenor the lady Francis vvas marryed first to Henry Gray marques of Dorset after duke of Suffolk behedded by Queene mary and by him she had three daughters to vvit lane Catherine and Mary the lady Iane eldest of the three was married to L. Guylford Dudly sonne to Iohn Dudly late duke of Northumberland vvith whom I meane with her husband father in law she was beheaded soone after for being proclaymed Queene vppon the death of king Edward the fixt the lady Catherine second daughter maryed first the lord Henry Herbert earle of Penbroke and left by hym again she dyed afterward in the tower wher she vvas prisoner for hauing had two childrē by Edward Seymer earle of Hartford vvithout sufficient proofe that she vvas married vnto him and the tvvo children are yet liuing to vvit Henry Seymer commonly called lord Beacham and Edward Seymer his brother The lady mary the third sister though she was betrothed to Arthur lord Gray of vvilton and maryed after to Martin keyes gentleman porter yet hath she left no issue as far as I vnderstand This then is the end of the issue of Lady Francis first of the two daughters of Queene Mary of France by Charles Brandon duke of Suffolk for albeit the said lady Francis after the beheading of the said Henry Lord Gray duke of Suffolk her first husband married againe one Adrian Stokes her seruant had a sonne by him yet it liued not but dyed very soone after Now then to speak of the yonger daughter of the said Frenche Queene and duke named Elinor she vvas married to Henry Clifford Earle of Comberlād who had by her a daughter named Margaret that vvas married to Lord Henry Stanley earle of Darby by whom she hath a plentiful issue as Ferdinand now earle of Darby William Stanley Francis Stanley and others and this is al that needeth to be spoken of these discents of our Inglish kings princes peeres or competitors to the crowne for this place and therfore now it resteth only that vve begin to examine what different pretentions are framed by diuers parties vppon these dissents and genealogies vvhich is the principal point of this our discourse OF THE GREAT AND GENERALL CONTROVERSIE AND CONTENTION BETVVEENE the two houses royal of Lancaster and York and which of them may seeme to haue had the better right to the crowne by way of succession CAP. IIII. AND first of al before I do descend to treat in particuler of the different pretences of seueral persons and families that haue issued out of these two royal linages of Lancaster and Yorke it shal perhaps not be amisse to discusse with some attention what is or hath or may be said on both sides for the general controuersie that lyeth betweene them yet vndescided in many mens opinions notwithstanding their hath bin so much sturr about the same not only writing and disputing but also fighting and murthering for many yeares And truly if we looke into diuers histories recordes and authors vvhich haue written of this matter vve shal find that euery one of them speaketh commonly according to the tyme wherin they liued for that al such as wrote in the tyme of the three Henries fourth fift and sixt kings of the house of Lancaster they make the title of Lancaster very cleare and vndoubted but such others as wrote since that tyme 〈◊〉 the house of Yorke hath held the scepter they haue spoken in far different manner as namely
vvoman vvho ought not to be preferred before so many men as at this tyme do or may stand for the crowne and that it vvere much to haue three women to reigne in Ingland one after the other vvher-as in the fpace of a-boue a thousaid yeares before them there hath not reigned so many of that sexe nether together nor a sunder for that from king Cerdick first king of the vvest Saxons vnto Egbright the first monarch of the Inglish name and nation conteyning the space of more then 300. yeares no one vvomā at al is founde to haue reigned and from Egbright to the Conquest which is almost other 300. yeares the like is to be obserued and from the conquest downeward vvhich is aboue 500. yeares one only vvoman was admitted for inheritrix vvhich was Maude the Empresse daughter of king Henry the first vvho yet after her fathers death vvas put back and king Stephen vvas admitted in her place and she neuer receaued by the realme vntil her sonne Henry the second vvas of age to gouerne himselfe then he vvas receaued vvith expresse condition that he should be crowned and gouerne by himselfe and not his mother which very conditiō vvas put also by the spaniards not long after at their admitting of the lady Berenguela yonger sister of lady Blauch neese to king Henry the second vvherof before often mention hath bin made to vvit the condition vvas that her sonne 〈◊〉 should gouerne and not she though his title came by her so as this circumstance of being a woman hath euer bin of much consideration especially where men do pretend also as in our case they doe An other consideratiō of these men is that if this lady should be aduanced vnto the crowne though she be of noble blood by her fathers side yet in respectt of alliance with the nobility of Ingland she is a meere strainger for that her kyndred is only in Scotland and in Inglād she hath only the Candishes by her mothers side vvho being but a meane familie might cause much grudging amōg the Inglish nobility to see them so greatly aduanced aboue the rest as necessarily they must be yf this womā of their linage should come to be Queene vvhich how the nobility of Ingland vvould beare is hard to say and this is as much as I haue heard others saye of this matter and of al the house of Scotland vvherfore vvith this I shal end and passe ouer to treat also of the other houses that do remayne of such as before I named OF THE HOVSE OF SVFFOLK CONTEYNING THE CLAYMES OF THE COVNTESSE OF Darby and her children as also of the children of the earle of Hartford CAP. VI. IT hath appeared by the genealogie set downe before in the third chapter and oftētymes mentioned since how that the house of Suffolk is so called for that the lady Mary secōd daughter of king Henry the seuenth being first married to Lewis the 12. king of France vvas afterward married to Charles Brandon duke of Suffolke who being sent oner to condole the death of the said king gat the good will to marry the widow Queene though the common fame of al men vvas that the said Charles had a vvife lyuing at that day and diuers yeares after as in this chapter vve shal examine more in particuler By this Chatles Brandon then duke of Suffolk this Queene Mary of France had tvvo daughters first the lady Francis married to Syr Henry Gray marques Dorset and aftervvard in the right of his vvife duke also of Suffolke vvho vvas afterward be-hedded by Queene Mary and secondly lady Elenor married to Syr Henry Clifford earle of Cumberland The lady Francis elder daughter of the Queene and of Charles Brandon had issue by her husband the said last duke of Suffolke three daughters to wit Iane Catherin and Mary which Mary the yongest vvas betrothed first to Arthur lord Gray of wilton and after lefte by hym she was marryed to one M. Martin keyes of kent gentlemā porter of the Queenes housholde and after she dyed without issue And the lady Iane the eldest of the three sisters was married at the same tyme to the lord Guylford Dudley fourth sonne to Syr Iohn Dudley duke of Northumberland and vvas proclaymed Queene after the death of king Edward for which acte al three of thē to vvit both the father sonne and daughter in law were put to death soone after But the L. Catherin the second daughter vvas married first vppon the same day that the other two her sisters vvere vnto lord Henry Herbert now earle of Penbroke and vppon the fal and misery of her house she was left by him and so she liued a sole vvoman for diuers yeares vntil in the begining of this Queenes dayes she was found to be vvith child which she affirmed to be by the lord Edward Seymer earle of Hartford vvho at that tyme was in France vvith Syr Nicholas Throgmorton the Embassador and had purpose and licence to haue trauailed into Italie but being called home in haste vppō this new accident he cōfessed that the child vvas his and both he and the lady affirmed that they were man and vvife but for that they could not proue it by witnesses for attempting such a match with one of the blood royal without priuity and licence of the prince they were committed both of them to the tower vvhere they procured meanes to meete againe afterward had an other childe vvhich both children do yet liue and the elder of them is called lord Henry Beacham and the other Edward Seymer the mother of whom liued not long after nether married the earle againe vntil of late that he married the lady Francis Howard sister to the lady Sheffeild and this is all the issue of the elder daughter of Charles Brandon by lady Mary Queene of France The second daughter of duke Charles and the Queene named L. Elenor vvas married to Henry lord Cliford earle of Cumbeiland and had by him a daughter named Margaret that married Syr Hēry Stanley lord Strāge after earle of Darby by vvhom the said lady who yet liueth hath had issue Fernande Stanley now earle of Darby William and Francis Stanley this is the issue of the house of Suffolk to vvit this Countesse of Darby with her children and these other of the earle of Hartford of al whose clayme 's and titles vvith their impediments I shal here briefly giue accompt and reason First of al both of these families do ioyne together in this one pointe to exclude the house of Scotland both by foraine birth and by the foresaid restament of king Henry authorized by two parlaments by the other exclusions which in each of the titles of the king of Scots and of lady Arbella hath bin before alleaged But then secondly they come to vary betweene themselues about the priority or propinquitie of their owne succession for the children of the earle
he said that he bare reuerent honor and respect and to discusse their seueral pretentions rightes interestes and titles to the crowne he said that his meaning was to offēd hunt or preiudice none nor to determyne any thing 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 or hinderance of any of their pretences or claymes of what side family faction religion or other party soeuer he or she were but rather playnly and indifferently without hatred or partial affection to or against any to lay downe sincerly what he had hard or reade or of himselfe conceaued that might iustly be alleaged in fauour or disfauour of euery tytler And so much the rather he said that he would do this for that in very truth the Ciuiltans speech had put him in a great indifferēcy concerning matter of successiō had takē out of his head many scrupulosites about nyse points of neernes in blood by the many examples reasons that he had alleaged of the proceeding of Christian cōmon wealthes in this affayre preferring oftentymes him that was further of in blood vppon other cōsideratiōs of more waight importance which point seemed to him to haue bin so euidently proued as no man can deny it much lesse cōdēne the same without the incōueniēces before alleaged mētioned of calling al in doubt that now is established in the world considering that not only foraine countries but Inglād also it selfe so often hath vsed the same putting back the next in bloode VVherfore he said that for as much as common wealthes and the consent wil and desire of each realme was proued to haue high and soueraine authority in this affayre and that as on the one side nerenes of blood was to be respected so on the other ther wāted not sundry considerations circumstāces of as great moment as this or rather greater for that oftentymes these considerations had bin preferred before neernes of blood as hath byn declared I do not know quoth he who of the pretenders may next obteyne the garland what soeuer his right by propinquity be so he haue some as I thinke al haue that do pretend and therfore I meane not to stand vppon the iustification or impugning of any one title but rather to leaue la to God and to them that must one day try iudge the same in Inglād to whome I suppose this speech of myne can not be but grateful commodious for the better vnderstanding discerning of those matters wherof of necessity er it be longe they must be iudges vmpires when God shal appoint and consequently for them to be ignorant or vnaquainted with the same as men say that commonly most in Ingland at this day are cannot be but very inconuenient and dangerous In this manner he spake and after this he began his discourse setting downe first of al the sundry bookes and treatises which he vnderstood had bin made or written hitherto of this affaire OF THE DIVERS BOOKES AND TREATISES THAT HAVE BIN VVRITTEN heretofore about the titles of such as pretend to the crowne of Ingland and what they do conteyne in fauour or disfauour of sundry pretendors CAP. I. ACCORDING to the variety of mens iudgments and affections in this behalfe so said the lawyer that diuers had written diuersly in sundry bookes treatises that had come to light went among men frō hand to hand though al were not printed And first of al he said that not long after her maiesties comming to the crowne ther appeered a certayne booke vvritten in the fauour of the house of Suffolke and especially of the children of the Earle of Hartford by the Lady Catherin Gray vvhich booke offended highly the Queene and nobles of Ingland and vvas aftervvards found to be written by one Hales surnamed of the clubb foote vvho was clarke of the hamper Sir Nicholas Bacon then Lord keeper was presumed also to haue had a principal part in the same for vvhich he vvas like to haue lost his office if Sir Antony Browne that had bin cheef iudge of the comon pleas in Queene Maries tyme vvould haue accepted therof vvhen her Maiestie offred the same vnto him and my Lord of Lecester earnestly exhorted him to take it but he refused it for that he was of differēt religion from the state and so Sir Nicholas Bacō remayned vvith the same at the great instance of Sir William Cecill now Lord Treasorer who though he vvere thought to be priuy also to the said booke yet vvas the matter so vvisely laid vppon Hales and Bacon as Sir William was kept free therby to haue the more authority and grace to procure the others pardon as he did The bent and butt of this book vvas as I haue said to preferr the title of the Lady Catherin Gray daughter of the Lady frauncis Duches of Suffolk which Frauncis was daughter to Mary the yonger daughter of King Henry the seuenth before the title of the Queene of Scotts then liuing of her sonne which were discended of Lady Margeret eldest daughter of the said king Hēry And the reasons which this book did alleage for the same were principally two the first that the lawes of Ingland did not admitt any sttainger or allien to inherit in Ingland to vvit any such as were borne out of the alleageance of our realme for so are the wordes of the law and for that the Queene of Scotts and her sonne are knowne to be so borne therfore they could not succeed and consequently that the house of Suffolck descended of the second daughter must enter in ther place The second reason is for that ther is giuen authority to king Hēry the eight by two seueral acts of parlament in the 28. and 36. yeare of his reigne to dispose of the succession by his last will testament as he should think best among those of his kinred that did pretend after his children and that the said king according to his commission did ordeyne that if his owne children did dye vvithout issue then the of-spring of his yonger sister Mary that vvere borne in Ingland should be preferred before the issue of the elder that vvas Margaret marryed into Scotland and this was the effect of this first book Against this booke were vvryten two other soone after the first by one Morgan a diuine if I remember vvel some-tymes fellow of Oriel College in Oxford a man of good accompt for learninge amonge those that knew hym he vvas thought be haue written the saide book by the aduise and assistance of the forsaide Iudge Browne which thinge is made the more credible by the many authorites of our cōmon law vvhich therin are alleaged and the partes of this booke if I forget not vvere three or rather they were three bookes of one treatise the first wherof dyd take vppon it to cleare the saide Queene of Scottes for the murder of the lord Darly her husband which by many vvas layde against her And the seconde dyd
handle her tytle to the crowne of Ingland and the third dyd answer the booke of Ihon Knox the Scott intituled against the monstruous gouerment of women Of al vvhich three pointes for that the second that conserneth the tytle is that vvhich properly appertayneth to out purpose and for that the same is handled agayne and more largely in the second booke set out not longe after by Ihon lesley lord bishope of Rosse in Scotland vvho at that tyme was Embassador for the saide Queene of Scottes in Ingland and handled the same matter more abundantly vvhich M. Morgan had donne before hym I shal saye no more of this booke of M. Morgan but shal passe ouer to that of the bishope vvhich in this point of succession conteyneth also vvhat soeuer the other hath so as by declaring the contentes of the one vve shal come also to see vvhat is in the other The intent then of this book of the bishope of Rosse is to refute the other booke of Hales and Bacon and that especially in the two points before mentioned which they alleaged for their principles to witt about forrayne birth and king Henries testament And against the first of these two pointes the bishop alleageth many proofes that ther is no such maxima in the cōmon lawes of Ingland to disherit a prince borne out of the land from his or her right of succession that they haue by blood And this first for that the statute made for barring of alliens to inherit in Ingland vvhich was in the 25. yeare of the reigne of king Edward the third is only to be vnderstood of particuler mens inheritance and no wayes to be extended to the succession of the crowne as by comparison of many other like cases is declared and secondly for that ther is expresse exception in the same statute of the kings children and of spring and thirdly for that the practise hath alwayes bin contrary both before and after the conquest to vvit that diuers princes borne out of the realme haue succeded The other principle also concerning king Henryes testament the bishop impugneth first by diuers reasons incongruities vvherby it may be presumed that king Henry neuer made any such testament and if he did yet could it not hold in law And secondly also by vvitnes of the Lord Paget that was of the priuy councel in those dayes of Sir Edward Montague lord chiefe iustice and of one VVilliam Clark that set the kings stamp to the writing al which anowed before the councel and parlament in Queene Maryes tyme that the said testament vvas signed after the king vvas past sense and memory And finally the said bishop concludeth that the line of Scotland is the next euery way both in respect of the house of Lancaster and also of York for that they are next heyres to K. Henry the eight who by his father was heyre to the house of Lancaster and by his mother to the house of york But after these three bookes was vvritten a fourth by one Robart Highinton secretary in tyme past to the Earle of Northumberland a man wel read in storyes and especially of our coūtrey who is said to be dead some yeares past in Paris This man impugneth al three formet bookes in diuers principal points and draweth the crowne from both their pretendors I meane as wel from the house of Scotland as from that of Suffolk and first against the booke of Hales and Sir Nicholas Bacon writen as hath bin said in fauour of the house of Suffolk Heghington holdeth with the Bishop and Morgan that thes two principles layd by the other of forayne birth and of king Henries restament against the Scotish line are of no Validity as nether ther reasons for legitrimating of the Earle of Hartfords children vvhich afterward shal be handled And secondly he is against bothe Morgan the Bishop of Rosse also in diuers important points and in the very principal of al for that this man I meane Highington maketh the king of Spayne to be the next and most righful pretender by the house of Lancaster for proofe vvherof he holdeth first that king Henry the 7. had no title in deede to the crowne by Lācaster but only by the house of York that is to saye by his marriage of Queene Elizabeth elder daughter to king Edward the fourth for that albeit himselfe were discended by his mother from Iohn of Gaunt duke of Lancaster yet this vvas but by his third vvife Catherin Swynford and that the true heyres of Blanch his first vvife duches and heyre of Lācaster to whom sayth he apperteyned only the successiō after the death of king Henry the sixth and his sonne with whom ended the line male of that house remayned only in Portugal by the mariage of Lady Phillip daughter of the foresaid Blanch to kinge Ihon the first of Portugal that for as much as king Phillip of Spaine saith this man hath now succeded to al the righte of the kings of Portugal to him appertayneth also the only right succession of the house of Lancaster and that al the other discendents of king Henry the 7. are to pretend only by the title of Yorke I meane aswel the line of Scotland as also of Suffolk and Huntington for that in the house of Lancaster king Phillip is euidently before them al. Thus holdeth Heghington alleaginge diuers stories arguments and probabilities for the same then adioyneth two other propositions which do importe most of al to vvit that the title of the house of Lancaster was far better then that of York not for that Edmond Crokback first founder of the house of Lancaster vvho was sonne to king Henry the third and brother to king Edward the first was eldest to the said Edward and iniurioufly put back for his deformity in body as both the said bishop of Rosse and George Lylly do falsly hold and this man refuteth by many good arguments but for that lohn of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster being the eldest sonne that King Edward the third had a liue when he dyed should in right haue succeded in the crowne as this man holdeth and should haue bin preferred before Richard the second that was the black princes sonne vvho vvas a degree further of from king Edward the third his grandfather then vvas lohn of Gaunt to whom king Edward vvas father and by this occasion this man cometh to discusse at large the opinions of the lawyers vvhether the vncle or the nephew should be preferred in the succession of a crowne to vvit vvhether the yonger brother or the elder brothers sonne if his father be dead vvithout being seased of the same which is a point that in the ciuil law hath great disputation and many great authors on each side as this man sheweth and the matter also wanteth not examples on both pattes in the succession of diuets Inglish kings as our frend the ciuil lawyer did signifie also in his discourse
discended from king VVilliam the Cōqueror by his eldest daughter lady Cōstance as also by diuers other participations of the blood royal of Ingland as aftervvards vvil appeare Now then to come to the second daughter of king VVilliam the Conqueror or rather the third for that the first of al vvas a Nonne as before hath byn noted her name vvas Adela or Alis as hath bin saide and she vvas marryed in France to Stephen counte Palatin of Champagne Charters and Bloys by whom she had a sonne called also Stephen vvho by his grand mother was earle also of Bollayne in Picardie and after the death of his vncle king Henry of Ingland vvas by the fauour of the Inglish nobility and especially by the helpe of his owne brother the Lord Henry of Bloys that vvas Bishop of Winchester and iointly Abbot of Glastenbury made kinge of England and this both in respect that Mathilda daughter of king Henry the first was a woman and her sonne Henry duke of Anjou a very childe one degree farther of from the Conqueror and from kings Rufus then Stephen vvas as also for that this king Henry the first as hath bin signified before vvas iudged by many to haue entred vvrongfully vnto the crowne and therby to haue made both himselfe and his posterity incapable of succession by the violence vvhich he vsed against both his elder brother Robart and his nephew duke VVilliam that vvas sonne and heyte to Robert vvho by nature and law were bothe of them held for soueraintes to Iohn by those that fauored them and their pretentions But yet howsoeuer this were we see that the duke of Britany that liued at that day should euidently haue succeded before Stephen for that he was discended of the elder daughter of the Conqueror and Stephen of the yonger though Stephen by the commodity he had of the neernes of his porte and hauen of Bullayne vnto Ingland as the French stories do saye for Calys vvas of no importance at that tyme and by the frendship and familiarity he had gotten in Ingland during the raigne of his two vncles king Rufus and king Henry and especially by the help of his brother the Bishop and Abbot as hath bin said he gat the start of al the rest and the states of Ingland admitted him This man although he had two sonnes namely Eustachius duke of Normandy and William earle of Norfolk yet left they no issue And his daughter Marie was maried to mathew of Fladers of whom if any issue remaines it fell afterward vppon the house of Austria that succeded in those states To king Stephen who left no issue succeded by compositiō after much warre Henry duke of Aniou sonne and heyre to Mathilda before named daughter of Henry the first which Henry named afterward the second tooke to wife Elenor daughter and heyre of VVilliam duke of Aquitaine earle of Poytiers which Elenor had bin marryed before to the king of France Lewis the 7. and bare him two daughters but vppon dislike conceaued by the one against the other they were deuorced vnder pretēce of being within the fowerth degree of consanguinitye and so by second marriage Elenor vvas vvife to this said Henry who afterward was king of Ingland by name of K. Henry the fecōd that procured the deathe of Thomas Becket archebishope of Canterbury and vvas both before and after the greatest enimye that euer Lewis the king of France had in the vvorld and much the greater for his marriage by vvhich Henry vvas made far stronger for by this woman he came to be duke of al Aquitaine that is of Gascony and Guyene and earle of al the coūtrey of Poytiers wheras beforealso by his fathers inheritance he vvas duke both of Anjou Tourayne and Mayne by his mother Mathilda king Henries daughter of Ingland he came to be king of Ingland duke of Normandie and by his owne industry he gat also to be lord of Ireland as also to bring Scotland vnder his homage so as he enlarged the kingdome of Ingland most of any other king before or after him This king Henry the second as Stow reconteth had by Lady Elenor fyue sonnes and three daughters His eldest sonne vvas named VVilliam that dyed yonge his seconde vvas Henry vvhom he caused to be crowned in his owne life tyme vvherby he receaued much trouble but in the end this sonne died before his father without issue His third sonne vvas Richard surnamed for his valour Cor de leon who reigned after his father by the name of Richard the first and died vvithout issue in the yeare of Christ 1199. Hys fovverth sonne named Geffrey maried lady Constance daughter and heyre of Britanie as before hath bin said and dying left a sonne by her named Arthur which vvas duke of Britanie after him and pretended also to be king of Ingland but vvas put by it by his vncle Iohn that tooke him also prisoner and kept him so in the castel first of fallaise in Normandie and then in Roan vntil he caused him to be put to death or slew him vvith his owne hands as Frēch stories vvrite in the yeare 1204. This duke Arthur left behind him two sisters as Stow writeth in his chronicles but others write that it was but one and at least wise I fynde but one named by the french stories which vvas Elenor whom they saye king Iohn also caused to be muthered in Ingland a a litle before her brother the duke vvas put to death in Normandie and this was the end of the issue of Geffrey whose vvife Constance duchesse of Britanie marryed againe after this murther of her children vnto one Guy Vicond of Touars and had by him two daughters wherof the eldest named Alis was duchefse of Britanie by vvhome the race hath bin continued vnto our tyme. The fift sonne of king Henry the second was named Iohn who after the death of his brother Richard by help of his mother Elenor and of Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury drawen therunto by his said mother gat to be king and put back his nephew Arthur vvhom king Richard before his departure to the war of the holy land had caused to be declared heyre apparent but Iohn preuayled and made away both nephew and Neece as before hath bin saide for which fact he vvas detested of many in the world abroade and in France by acte of parlament depriued of al the states he had in those partes Soone after also the pope gaue sentence of depriuation against him and his owne barons tooke armes to execute the sentence and finally they deposed both him and his yong sonne Henry being then but a child of 8. yeares old and this in the 18. yeare of his reigne and in the yeare of Christ 1215. and Levvis the 8. of that name prince at that tyme but afterward king of France was chosen king of Ingland sworne in Londō and
or collegiate church is remayned on foote vvith the rents and dignities therunto apperteyning and vvhen our nobilytie shal remember how the nobilitie of Scotland is subiect at this day to a few ordinary and common ministers vvithout any head vvho in their synodes and assemblies haue authority to put to the horne and driue out of the realme any noble man vvhatsoeuer vvithout remedy or redresse except he vvil yeald and humble himselfe to them and that the king himselfe standeth in avve of this exorbitant and populer povver of his ministers and is content to yeld therunto it is to be thought say these men that few Inglish be they of vvhat religion or opinion so-euer vvil shevv themselues forvvard to receaue such a King in respect of his religion that hath no better order in his ovvne at home and thus much concerning the King of Scotland Now then it remayneth that we come to treat of the lady Arbella second branch of the house of Scotlād touching whose title though much of that vvhich hath bin said before for or against the king of Scotland may also be vnderstoode to apparteyne vnto her for that she is of the same house yet shal I in this place repeat in few wordes the principal points that are alleaged in her behalfe or preiudice First of al then is alleaged for her and by her fauourers that she is descended of the foresaid lady Margaret eldest daughter of king Henry the seuenth by her second marriage vvith Archibald Duglas earle of Anguys and that she is in the third degree only from her for that she is the daughter of Charles Steward vvho was sonne to Margaret Countesse of Lenox daughter to the said lady Margaret Queene of Scots so as this lady Arbella is but neece once remoued vnto the said Queene Margaret to vvit in equal degree of discent vvith the king of Scots vvhich king being excluded as the fauorers of this vvoman do affirme by the causes and arguments before alleaged against hym no reason say they but that this lady should enter in his place as next in blood vnto him Secondly is alleaged in her behalfe that she as an Inglish vvoman borne in Ingland and of parents vvho at the tyme of her birth vvere of Inglish alleageance vvherin she goeth before the king of Scots as hath bin seene as also in this other principal pointe that by her admission no such inconuenience can be feared of bringing in strangers or causing troobles sedition vvith-in the realme as in the pretence of the Scotish king hath bin considered and this in effect is al that I haue heard alleaged for her But against her by other competitors and their frendes I haue hard diuers arguments of no smale importance and consideration produced vvherof the first is that vvhich before hath bin alleaged against the king of Scotlād in like māner to wit that neither of them is properly of the house of Lancaster as in the genealogie set downe in the third chapter hath appeared And secondly that the title of Lācaster is before the pretence of Yorke as hath bin proued in the fourth chapter wherof is inferred that neythere the king of Scots nor Arbella are next in successiō and for that of these two propositiōs ther hath bin much treated before I remitte me therunto only promising that of the first of the tvvo vvhich is how king Henry the seuēth vvas of the house of Lancaster touching right of succession I shal handle more particulerly afterward vvhen I come to speake of the house of Portugal vvherby also shal appeare playnly vvhat pretence of succession to the crowne or duchy of Lancaster the discendentes of the said king Henry can iustely make The second impediment against the lady Arbella is the aforesaid testament of king Henry the eight and the two acts of parlaments for authorising of the same by al vvhich is pretended that the house of Suffolke is preferred before this other of Scotland A third argument is for that there is yet liuing one of the house of Suffolk that is neerer by a degree to the stemme to vvit to Hēry the seuenth to vvhom after the discease of her Maiesty that now is we must returne then is the lady Arbella or the king of Scots and this is the lady Margeret countesse of Darby mother to the present earle of Darby vvho was daughter to lady Elenor daughter of Queene Mary of France that vvas second daughter of king Henry the seuēth so as this lady Margaret coūtesse of Darby is but in the third degree from the said Henry wheras both the king of Scotland and Arbella are in the fourth and consequently she is next in propinquitie of blood how greatly this propinquity hath bin fauoured in such cases though they vvere of the yōger liine the examples before alleaged in the fourth chapter do make manifest Fourthlie and lastely and most strongly of al they do argue against the title of this lady Arbella affirming that her discent is not free from bastardly vvhich they proue first for that Queene Margaret soone after the death of her first husband king Iames the fourth marryed secretly one Steward lord of Annerdale which Steward vvas alyue longe after her marriage vvith Duglas and consequently this second marriage vvith Duglas Steward being aliue could not be lawful vvhich they do proue also by an other meane for that they saie it is most certaine and to be made euident that the said Archibald Duglas earle of Anguis had an other vvife also aliue vvhen he married the said Queene vvhich points they say vvere so publique as they came to king Henries eares vvhervppon he sent into Scotland the lord William Howard brother to the old duke of Norfolke and father to the present lord Admiral of Ingland to enquire of these pointes and the said lord Howard founde them to be true and so he reported not only to the king but also aftervvards many tymes to others and namely to Queene Mary to vvhom he vvas lord Chamberlayne and to diuers others of vvhom many be yet liuing which can and will testefy the same vppon the relation they heard from the-sayd lord Williams owne mouthe vvheruppon king Henry vvas greatly offended and would haue letted the marriage betweene his said sister and Duglas but that they were married in secret and had consummate their marriage before this was knowne or that the thing could be preuented vvhich is thought vvas one especial cause and motiue also to the said king afterward to put back the issue of his said sister of Scotland as by his fornamed testament is pretended and this touching Arbellas title by propinquitie of byrthe But besides this the same men do alleage dimers reasons also of inconucnience in respect of the common vvealthe for vvhich in their opinions it should be hurtful to the real me to admitt this lady Arbella for Queene as first of al for that she is a
of Hartford and their frendes do alleage that they do discend of lady Francis the elder sister of lady Elenor and so by law and reason are to be preferred but the other house alleageth against this two impediments the one that the lady Margaret countesse of Darby now lyuing is neerer by one degree to the stemme that is to king Henry the seuenth then are the children of the earle of Hartford and consequently according to that which in the former fourth chapter hath bin declared she is to be preferred albeit the children of the said earle vvere legitimate Secondly they do affirme that the said children of the eatle of Hartford by the lady Catherin Gray many waies are illegitimate First for that the said lady Catherin Gray their mother was lawfully married before to the earle of Penbrok now liuing as hath bin touched and publike recordes do testifie and not lawfully seperated nor by lawful authority nor for iust causes but only for temporal and wordly respects for that the house of Suffolk was come into misery disgrace vvherby she remayned stil his true wife in deede and before God so could haue no lawful children by an other whiles he liued as yet he doth Agayne they proue the illegitimatiō of these children of the earle of Hartford for that it could neuer be lawfully proued that the said earle and the lady Catherin were married but only by their owne assertions vvhich in law is not holden sufficient for which occasion the said pretended marriage vvas disanulled in the court of arches by publique definitiue sentence of Doctor Parker archbishop of Canterbury and prymate of Ingland not long after the birth of the said children Further-more they do add yet an other bastardy also in the birth of lady Catherin her selfe for that her father lord Henry Gray marques of Docset was knowne to haue a lawful wife aliue vvhen he married the lady Francis daughter and heyre of the Queene of France of Charles Brandon duke of Suffolke and mother of this lady Catherin for obteyning of which great marriage the said marques put away his foresaid lawful vvife vvhich was sister to the L. Henry Fytzallen earle of Arondel vvhich disorder was occasion of much vnkindnes and hatred betweene the said marques and earle euer after But the power of the marques and fauour vvith king Henry in womens matters vvas so great at that tyme as the earle could haue no remedie but only that his said sister vvho liued many yeares after had an annuitye out of the said marques lands during her life liued some yeares after the said marques aftervvards made duke vvas put to death in Queene Maries tyme. These then are three waies by vvhich the family of Darby do argue the issue of Hartford to be illegitimate but the other two houses of Scotland and Clarence do vrge a former bastardy also that is common to them both to wit both against the lady Francis and the lady Eleanor for that the lord Charles Brandon also duke of Suffolk had a wife a liue as before hath bin signified when he married the lady Mary Queene of France by vvhich former wife he had issue the lady Powyse I meane the vvife of my lord Powyse of Poystlandes in VVales how long after the new marriage of her husband Charles Brandon this former vvife did liue I cannot set downe distinctly though I think it were not hard to take particuler information therof in Ingland by the register of the church wherin she vvas buried but the frēdes of the countesse of Darby do affirme that she died before the birth of L. Eleanor the second daughter though after the birthe of lady Francis and thereby they do seeke to cleare the familie of Darby of this bastardye and to lay al foure vppon the childen of Hartford before mentioned but this is easy to be knowne verified by the meanes before signified But now the frendes of Hartford do answere to al these bastardies that for the first two pretended by the marriages of the two dukes of Suffolk they saye that either the causes might be such as their deuorces with their former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be lawful and proue them no marriages and so giue them place to marrie againe or els that the said former wiues dyd dye before these dukes that had bin their husbands so as by a post-contract and second new consent giuen betweene the parties vvhen they vvere now free the said later marriages vvhich vvere not good at the begining might come to be lawful aftervvards according as the law permitteth notwithstanding that children begotten in suche pretēded marriages where one partye is alredy bounde are not made legitimat by subsequent trew marriage of their parentes this for the first two bastardies But as for the third illegitimation of the contract betweene the lady Catherin and the earle of Hartford by reason of a precontract made betweene the said lady Catherin and the earle of Penbroke that now liueth they saye and affirme that precontract to haue bin dissolued afterward lawfully and iudicially in the tyme of Queene Mary There remayneth then only the fourth obiectrō about the secret marriage made betweene the said lady Catherin and the earle of Hartford before the birth of their eldest sonne now called L. Beacham vvhich to say the truth seemeth the hardest pointe to be answered for albeit in the sight of God that marriage might be good and lawful if before their carnal knowledge they gaue mutual consent the one to the other to be man and vvife and vvith that mynde and intention had carnal copulation vvhich thing is also allowed by the late councel of Trent it selfe which disanulleth otherwise al clandestine and secret contracts in such states and countries vvher the authoritie of the said councel is receaued and admitted yet to iustifie these kide of marriages in the face of the church and to make the issue therof legitimate and inheritable to estates and possessions it is necessary by al law and in al nations that there should be some vvitnes to testifie this consent and contract of the parties before their carnal knowledge for that otherwise it should lye in euery particuler mans hand to legitimate any bastard of his by his only woord to the preiudice of others that might in equitie of succession pretend to be his heyres and therfore no doubt but that the Archbishop of Canterbury had great reason to pronounce this contract of the lady Catherin and the earle of Hartford to be insufficient and vnlawful though themselues did affirme that they had giuen mutual consent before of being man vvife and that they came together animo maritali as the law of wedlock requireth but yet for that they were not able to proue their said former consent by lawful vvitnesses their saide coniunction was rightly pronounced vnlawful and so I conclude that the first sonne of these tvvo parties