Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	issue_n	john_n	marry_v	16,358	5	9.9394	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A48364	An ansvver to the book of Sir Thomas Manwaringe of Pever in Cheshire baronet, entituled A defence of Amicia, daughter of Hvgh Cyveliok, Earl of Chester wherein is vindicated and proved that the grounds declard in my former book, concerning the illegitimacy of Amicia, are not envinced by any solid answer or reason to the contrary / by Sir Peter Leycester ...	Leycester, Peter, Sir, 1614-1678.	1673 (1673)	Wing L1942; ESTC R10789	28,611	95

You conceive there is no weight at all in it whereof I am so sensible that I conceive it not evincing nor do those Antient Historians take upon them to give an account of all the Children of Earl Hugh but onely of the Heirs of Randle Blundevill and yet you say this Reason is as strong as my first Reason My Reply I do confess I urged it but for a probable Reason and yet you say it is as strong as the first Reason Then you might have done well to have answered the first better whereunto I am sure you have made no substantial Answer as yet wherein I appeal to all indifferent and judicious Readers who shall read this Book And for the probability of this you say That the Historians take not upon them to give an Account of all the Earls Children but the Heirs of Randle but do you find that they have left out any of his legitimate Children except this whom you suppose legitimate And then you tell me Mr. Cambden hath mentioned Amicia though not among the Co-heirs yet without the brand of a Bastard you know well he is but of very late standing and not an Historian Contemporary with Amicia and so you and I do now mention her And then you tell me over again which I have before Answered that those Judges and Heralds that have seen your Deeds of which I have heard but I am sure I yet know not who they be nor ever saw any thing attested under any of their hands nor their Reasons nor grounds for their Opinion and you mention Mr. Dugdale in particular for whom I have ever had a great esteem as a diligent searcher of Antiquities all which you again and again affirm to be of your Opinion that Amicia was legitimate but because I have before spoken of this Supra pag. 10 11. I shall onely ask here what weight can be drawn from this some Persons are of that Opinion Ergo it is so whole Councels have erred unless like the Romanists you will say The Pope cannot err And perhaps those Persons you mention never heard what is to be said against that Opinion whereas it were but equal that in consultation of Opinions both sides should show what could be said Pro and Con both together which hitherto for ought I know onely one Party hath privately put the Case as he pleaseth I have often told you I would have you confute me with Reason not Opinions for one man may be of one Opinion and another man of another Opinion but it is firm Reason which must sway every mans Judgment Page 69.70 71 c. And lastly you put down two Deeds wherein Sir Raufe Manwaringe Justice of Chester is subscribed Witness before the Barons of Cheshire for which you think it will be difficult to give a Reason if Amice were a Bastard To this I say it will not be difficult at all to give a Reason and much more easie then to give a Reason why Amice should be no Bastard because Sir Raufe Manwaringe is sometime Subscribed before the Barons of Cheshire The Reason I give is this that antiently in those Ages the Justice was put sometimes before the Barons and sometimes after and sometimes after the Constable and Dapifer and before the rest of the Barons as it happened for proof see the Deed in my-Book making the Baron of Halton the prime Baron pag. 160. where the Justice comes after all the Barons also in the Deed of Earl Randle to his Barons pag. 162. where the Justice comes next after the Constable and Dapifer and before the other Barons see also in my Book pag. 130 131. two Deeds made by Hugh Cyveliok In the one the Justice is put after the Constable and Dapifer In the other the Justice is put before them many other like examples may be produced else where I will appeal herein to Mr. Dugdale or to any Antiquary in England and considering the great uncertainty of Subscription of Witnesses in old Deeds sometimes putting one before another in one Deed and again putting the same Person after the other in another Deed sometimes putting Domino prefixed before the names of some Persons in one Deed and omitting the word Domino before the names of the same Persons in another Deed whereof I have spoken pag. 5 6. in the beginning of this Book I say had you well considered or observed these things it was not worth your labour to have added those three or four leafs in the close of your Book And now I appeal to all Readers whether those Grounds and Reasons alledged in my former Book against the legitimacy of Amicia as also to prove the Bastardy of those two other Ladies as you call them Geva and the Mother of Richard Bacun be evinced by any solid Answer or Reason given yet to the contrary And so I take my leave for ever of this Trivial Controversie but shall ever remain Mobberley May 15. 1673. SIR Your affectionate Cosin and very humble Servant PETER LEYCESTER Courteous Reader I Have here in the end of this Book an opportunity to Rectifie some Omissions and Errours in my former Book which escaped me through misinformation of others and desire thee to pardon and amend them as followeth Page 206. after the last line but two should have followed this Also another John Brereton son of George Brereton of Ashley Esq was Baptised at Bowdon the 20th day of June 1576. he was afterwards Sir John Brereton Knight the King's Serjeant at Law in Ireland he died without Issue whose-Widow Married the Lord Chief Justice Bramston Sir John left all his Personal Estate which was great to his Widow and Caius-Colledge in Cambridge where he was educated and to Randle brereton his youngest Brother which Randle lived in London and Married and had Issue by his Wife a Daughter Married to Mr. Bourcher of Glocestershire and a Son called also Randle Brereton who hath an Estate in Lincolnshire and is the onely Issue Male or Heir-male of all the Family of the Breretons of Ashley now surviving 1672. Page 210. line 27. Where these words With the little Fields above lying up to Aston Town-field are totally to be expunged Page 214. line 18 19. Where it is said Daughter and sole Heir of Sir Henry Willoughby Read Daughter and sole Heir to her Mother and Daughter and Co-heir to her Father Sir Henry Willoughby for Sir Henry had three Daughters and Co-heirs Anne after the death of Sir Thomas Aston Married Mr. Gray younger Son of the Earl of Stamford she was by the first Wife of Sir Henry he had also two Daughters by his second Wife Ibidem page 214. line 25. Read He was Loyal to his Prince and raised a Regiment of Dragooners for the King at his own cost and charge and was a Gentleman of good Parts but was unfortunately c. Page 223. The 6 7 8. lines are to be expunged totally Page 233. line 4. There it is said Maud Married Sir

Earldoms anciently were might be entailed on the Heirs-Males only and then the Male Line being extinct why might not the King confer it as well upon Randle de Meschines who was a near kinsman as on a stranger which later course is also usual at this day and it is very probable that the Earldom was entailed on the Heirs-Males onely for James York in his union of honour p. 105. says That this Randle was made Earl by grant of King Henry the First and if so it came not to him by Descent and so all that I object you say is fully answered But if it had been so that the Earldom had been to descend to the Heirs general if Geva was Daughter of Hugh Lupus by another Wife besides Ermentrude then the Earldom of Chester would have descended from Earl Richard to Randle de Meschines by his Mother being Aunt of the whole blood to Richard and not his Sister Geva or her Issue they being but of the Half-blood My Answer to the third Reason Let any ingenious Reader observe whether any substantial Answer be here given at all you say it is possible that the Earldom was then entailed on the Heirs Males onely but will you argue upon possibilities to prove a thing de facto but suppose it were so entailed why should not the King have conferred it on the Issue of Geva before Randle de Meschines that being the Issue of a Sister and Randle the Issue but of an Aunt or why may you think that the King though he gave it to Randle did not give the honour and Lands unto him as in whom was the greatest right to have it but to this you give no Answer at all but we find not that the Issue of Geva ever moved for it The true reason being that her Title was not good but had she been Legitimate it is more then probable she would have looked after the obtaining of so great an inheritance yea and obtained it too before Randle Nay had she been but of the Half-blood which is your old and onely Subterfuge she would by all probability have buzled hard for so great an Estate in those Ages before she had lost it but you are now come to an excellent way of arguing by ifs and ands and possibilities by which means Answers may be made to any thing even to eternity but if you would substantially prove Geva to be of the Half-blood then must you prove Hugh Lupus to have another Wife before Ermentrude and Geva to be the Daughter of that very Wife I would fain have you but to prove that ever he had another Wife by any Historian or Record this would be something but what you here say is nothing and then you Instance that the Earldom of Chester probably was entailed on the Heirs Males onely becauses James York saith that Randle Meschines was made Earl by the Kings grant and if so say you it came not to him by descent who must grant it him but the King what doth hinder but the King gave it to him as one who by descent had most right to it although he was not the direct Heir Male of Earl Hugh but of another Family yet a near Kinsman by marriage And therefore must now come in by a Grant yet for all this no necessity that the Earldom was entailed at that time on the Heirs Males onely Fourthly Page 46. And now you come to show me a Precedent which I desired where ever the Heirs of an Aunt inherited before the Heirs of a Sister both legally born c. And now you will shew me where an honour in such a case came to the Heirs of the younger Sister and not to the Heirs of the elder Sister which is full as much say you as if it were done in the case of a Sister and an Aunt and you Instance out of Birds Treatise of Nobility p. 96. in the Case of Raufe Lord Cromwell being a Baron-by Writ died without Issue leaving two Sisters and Co-heirs Elizabeth the eldest Married Sir Thomas Nevill Joane the younger Married Sir Hunt Bourcher Bourcher was called to Parliament as Lord Cromwell and not sir Thomas Nevill My Answer to the fourth Reason Bird indeed alledgeth this Precedent in the place cited where he tells us before That the Question or point that is whether a Barony by Writ may descend to the Heirs Females or no is somewhat perplexed by means of difficult Presidents and now in this place he saith comming to compound the Controversy that it is observed that some Precedents do prove that Baronies by Writs have descended unto Heirs Females whose Husbands have been called to Parliament whether in regard of themselves or in regard of their Wifes it matters not and secondly out of the Precedents it is to be observed That the King is nevertheless at liberty to call to Parliament whom he shall think most meet in his Princely Wisdom as his Majesties Progenitors in former Ages have observed and then he brings in the Case of the Lord Cromwell before mentioned thirdly it is observed that if a Baron by Writ dye without Heir Male having Daughter or Sister or other who can challenge the Lands of such Baron deceased the Title of such Heir Female hath been heretofore allowed c. Now the Case comes as near to the Case of Geva as an Apple to an Oyster for let any rational man be Judge whether the King by his Pretogative Summoning by his Writ to Parliament the Husband of the younger Sister and Co-heir before the Husband of the elder Sister and Co-heir both of them sharing the Lands equally be any thing to the Point of Geva or to satisfie why she should not have had both the Earldom of Chester and all the Lands thereof had she been legitimate and by consequence sole Sister and Heir to her Brother Richard Earl of Chester And in this Case of the Kings Writ proposed yet you see the Sisters shared the Lands as by right they ought to do and so I shall pass to your next Reason Fifthly Page 48. But now you come and ask me what I will say if this Deed which I alledge to be made to Geva will not at all concern Amicia because Cook upon Littleton fol. 21. b. which in your Book you have miscited also by putting the Page for the Folio tells us that these words in liberum maritagium are words of Art and so are necessarily required As if a man give Lands to another with his Daughter in Connubio soluto ab omni Servitio yet here passeth but an Estate for Life And the words in the Deed to Geva are not in liberum maritagium but in libero conjugio and so are but like the words in Connubio soluto ab omni Servitio which make but an Estate for Life and so might be passed to a Bastard or any other and then after you say the Deed to Geva is worded as if it intended onely an Estate for Life there being