Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	john_n	lady_n	marry_v	10,714	5	10.3056	5	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A09097	A conference about the next succession to the crowne of Ingland diuided into tvvo partes. VVhere-of the first conteyneth the discourse of a ciuill lavvyer, hovv and in vvhat manner propinquity of blood is to be preferred. And the second the speech of a temporall lavvyer, about the particuler titles of all such as do or may pretende vvithin Ingland or vvithout, to the next succession. VVhere vnto is also added a new & perfect arbor or genealogie of the discents of all the kinges and princes of Ingland, from the conquest vnto this day, whereby each mans pretence is made more plaine. Directed to the right honorable the earle of Essex of her Maiesties priuy councell, & of the noble order of the Garter. Published by R. Doleman.	Allen, William, 1532-1594.; Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610, attributed name.	1595 (1595)	STC 19398; ESTC S114150	274,124	500

to Stephen countie Palatine of Bloys Champagne and Chartres in France and the other two Polidor saith dyed before they were marryed and so their names vvere not recorded These are the children of king William the Conqueror among whom after his death ther vvas much strife about the succession For first his eldest sonne duke Robert vvho by order of ancestrie by birthe should haue succeded him in al his estares was put back first from the kingdome of Ingland by his third brother William Rufus vppon a pretence of the Conquerors vvil and testament for perticuler affection that he had to this his said third sonne William though as Stow writeth almost al the nobility of Inglande vvere against WilliaÌ„s entrance But in the end agreement vvas made between the two brothers vvithe condition that if William should dye vvithout issue then that Robert should succed him and to this accord both the princes themselues and twelue principal peeres of ech side vvere sworne but yet after when VVilliam dyed vvithout issue this vvas not obserued but Henry the fourth sonne entred and depriued Robert not only of this his succession to Ingland but also of his dukedome of Normandie that he had enioyed peaceably before al the tyme of his brother Rufus and moreouer he toke him prisoner so caryed him into Ingland and ther kept him vntil his death which happened in the castle of Cardif in the yeare 1134. And vvhereas this Duke Robert had a goodly prince to this sonne named VVilliam who vvas duke of Normandy by his father earle of Flanders in the right of his grand mother that was the CoÌ„querors wife daughter of Baldwin Earle of Flanders as hath bin said and vvas established in both these states by the help of Lewys the 6. surnamed le gros king of France and admitted to do homage to hym for the saide states his vncle king Henry of EnglaÌ„d was so violent against him as first he draue him out of the state of Normandy and secondly he set vp and maynteyned a competitor or two against him in Flanders by whome finally he was slaine in the yeare of Christ 1128. before the towne of Alost by an arrow after he had gotten the vppet hand in the feild and so ended the race of the first sonne of king William the Conqueror to wit of duke Robert vvhich Robert liued after the death of his saide sonne and heyre duke VVilliam six yeares in prison in the castel of Cardife and pyned avvay vvith sorrow and miserie as both the Frenche and Inglishe histories do agree The second sonne of the Conqueror named Richard dyed as before hath bin sayde in his fathers tyme and left no issue at al as did neither the third soÌ„ne WilliaÌ„ Rufus though he reigned 13. yeares after his father the Conqueror in which tyme he established the successioÌ„ of the crowne by consent of the stares of Ingland to his elder brother duke Roberts issue as hath bin saide though afterward it was not obserued This Kinge Rufus came to the crowne principally by the help and fauour of Lanfrancus Archbishop of Canterbury who greatly repeÌ„ted himselfe afterward of the error vvhich in that point he had committed vppoÌ„ hope of his good gouerment which proued extreeme euel But this king William Rufus being slayne afterward by the error of a crosbow in newforest as is vvel knowne and this at such tyme as the foresaid duke Robert his elder brother to vvhom the crowne by succession apparteyned was absent in the vvarr of the holy land vvher according as most authors do vvrit he vvas chosen king of Hierusalem but refused it vppon hope of the kingdome of Ingland But he returning home fouÌ„de that his fowerth brother Henry partly by fayre promises and partly by force had inuaded the crowne in the yeare 1100. and so he reygned 35. yeares and had issue diuers sonnes and daughters but al vvere either drowned in the seas comming out of Normandie or els dyed otherwise before their father except only Mathildis vvho vvas first marryed to Henry the Emperor fift of that name and after his death without issue to Geffrey Platagenet duke of Anjow Tourayne and Mayne in France by whom she had Henry which reigned after king Stephen by the name of Henry the second and thus much of the sonnes of William the Conqueror Of his two daughters that lyued to be maryed and had issue the elder named Constance vvas maryed to Alayn fergat duke of Britanie vvho vvas sonne to Hoel earle of Nantes and vvas made duke of Britanie by VVilliam CoÌ„querors meanes in manner following Duke Robert of Normandy father to the Conqueror vvhen he went in pilgrimage vnto the holy land in which voyage he dyed left for gouernour of Normandy vnder the protection of king Henry the first of france duke Alayne the first of Britanie vvhich Allayn had issue Conan the first vvho being a stirringe prince of about 24. yeares old when duke VVilliam began to treat of passing ouer into Ingland he shewed himselfe not to fauour much that enterprise which duke VVilliam fearing caused him to be poysoned vvith a payre of perfumed gloues as the French stories do report and caused to be set vp in his place and made duke one Hoel earle of Nantes who to gratifie VVilliam sent his sonne Alaine surnamed Fergant with 5000. souldiars to passe ouer into Ingland vvith him and so he did VVilliam afterward in recompeÌ„ce heer-of gaue him his eldest daughter Constantia in mariage vvith the earldome of Richmond by vvhom he had issue Conan the second surnamed le gros who had issue a sonne and a daughter The sonne vvas called Hoel as his grand father was and the daughters name was Bertha marryed to Eudo Earle of ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ in Normandy for that this duke Conan liked better his daughter and his sonne in law her husband then he did Hoel his owne sonne he disauowed him in his death bedde and made his said daughter his heyre who had by the said Eudo a sonne named Conan surnamed the yonger which vvas the third duke of that name and this man had one only daughter and heyre named Lady Constance who whas marryed to the third sonne of king Henry the second named Geffrey elder brother to king Ihon that after came to rayne by this Lord Geffrey she had issue Arthur the second duke of Britanie whom king Iohn his vncle put back from the crowne of Ingland and caused to be put to death as after shal be shewed and he dying without issue his mother Constance duchesse heyre of Britanie marryed agayne vvith a prince of her owne house vvhom after vve shall name in the prosecution of this lyne and by him she had issue that hath indured vntil this day the last vvherof hitherto is the lady Isabella infanta of Spaine that other of Sauoy her sister whom by this meanes we se to haue

solemnities and feastes that were celebrated at ther seueral natiuities so as it seemeth ther can be no ertor in this matter The 2. reason is for that we read that this Lord Edmond was a goodly vvise and discreet prince notwithstanding that some authors cal him crokback and that he vvas highly in the fauour both of his father king Henry as also of his brother king Edward and employed by them in many great warres and other affayres of state both in France other where vvhich argueth that ther was no such great defect in him as should moue his father and the realme to depriue him of his succession Thirdly vve reade that king Henry procured by diuers waies and meanes the aduancement of this L. Edmond as giuing him the earldomes of Lecester Darby besides that of Lancaster as also procuring by al meanes possible with exceding great charges to haue him made king of Naples Sicilie by pope Innocentius which had bin no pollicy to haue done if he had bin put back from his inheritance in Ingland for that it had bin to haue armed him against his brother the king Fourthly we see that at the death of his father king Henry the third this Lord Edmond vvas principally left in charge with the realme his elder brother prince Edward being scarsly returned froÌ„ the warr of Asia at what tyme he had good occasion to chaleÌ„g his owne right to the crowne if he had had any seing he wanted no power theruÌ„to hauing three goodly sonnes at that tyme aliue borne of his wife Queene Blanch dowager of Nauarre vvho had bin marryed before to Henry king of Nauarre and contie of Champaine to whom she had borne only one daughter that vvas marryed to Phillip le bel king of France But vve shal neuer reade that either he or any of his children made any such clayme but that they liued in very good agreement high grace vvith king Edward the first as his children did also vvith king Edward the second vntil he began to be mis-led in gouerment and then the two sonnes of this Lord Edmond I meane both Thomas and Henry that successiuely vvere earles of Lancaster made vvarr vppon the said Edward the second and vvere the principal doers in his deposition in setting vp of his sonne Edward the third in his place at vvhat tyme it is euideÌ„t that they might haue put in also for themselues if there title had bin such as this report maketh it A fift reason is for that if this had bin so that Edmond earle of Lancaster had bin the elder brother then had the controuersie betweene the two houses of York and Lancaster bin most cleare and vvithout al doubt at al for then had the house of Yorke had no pretence of right in the vvorlde and then vvere it euident that the heyres general of Blanch duchesse of Lancaster vvife of Iohn of Gaunt to wit the discendentes of lady Phillip her daughter that vvas marryed into Portugal these I say and none other were apparent and true heyres to the crowne of Ingland at this day and al the other of the house of Yorke vsurpers as wel king Henry the 7. as al his posterity ofspring for that none of them haue ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ of the said Blanch as is manifest And therfore lastly the matter standeth no doubt as Polidor holdeth in the later ende of the life of king Henry the third vvhere hauing meÌ„tioned these two sonnes Edward EdmoÌ„d he addeth these wordes Ther wanted not certayne men long tyme after this that affirmed this Edmond to be the elder sonne to king Henry the third and to haue bin depriued of his inheritance for that he was deformed in body but these thinges were feyned to the end that king Henry the fourth that came by his mothers side of this Edmond might seeme to haue come to the kingdome by right whereas in decd he gat it by force Thus saith Polidor in this place but aftervvard in the begining of the life of the said K. Henry the 4. he sayeth that some vvould haue had king Henry to haue pretended this title among other reasons but that the more part accompting it but a meare fable it vvas omitted Novv then it being cleere that of these two sonnes of king Henry the third prince Edward vvas the elder and lawful heyre it remayneth only that vve set downe their seueral discents vnto the tymes of king Edward the third and his children in whose dayes the dissention controuersie betweene these royal houses of Yorke and Lancaster began to break fourth And for the issue of Edward that vvas king after his father by the name of king Edward the first it is euident that albeit by two seueral vviues he had a dosen children male and femal yet only his fourth sonne by his first vvife called also Edward vvho vvas king after him by the name of king Edward the second left issue that remayned which Edward the second being afterward for his euel gouerment deposed left issue Edward the third vvho vvas made king by election of the people in his place and after a long and prosperous reigne left diuers sonnes vvherof after vve shal speak and among them his third sonne named Iohn of Gaunt married lady Blanch daughter and heyre of the house of lancaster and of the fornamed Lord Edmond Crouchback by vvhich Blanch Iohn of Gant became duke of lancaster so as the lines of these tvvo bretheren Edward and Edmond did meete and ioyne againe in the fourth discent as novv shall appeare by declaration of the issue of the foresaid L. Edmond Edmond then the second sonne of K. Henry the third being made county palatine of Lancaster as also earle of Lecester and of Darby by his father king Henry as hath bin said had issue three sonnes to vvit Thomas Henry and Iohn among vvhom he deuided his three states making Thomas his eldest sonne county palatine of Lancaster Henry earle of Lecester Iohn earle of Darby But Thomas the eldest Iohn the yongest dying vvithout issue al three states fel againe vppon Henry the second sonne vvhich Henry had issue one fonne and three daughters his sonne vvas named Henry the second of that name earle of Lancaster and made duke of Lancaster by king Edward the third and he had one only daughter heyre named Blanch vvho vvas marryed vnto Iohn of Gant as before hath bin said But Duke Henries three sisters named Ioan Mary and Elenor vvere al marryed to diuers principal men of the realme for that Ioan vvas marryed to Iohn L. Maubery of vvhom are descended the Howards of the house of Norfolk at this day and Mary vvas marryed to Henry lord Pearcy from vvhom cometh the house of the Earles of Northumberland and Elenor vvas married to Richard earle of Arundel vvhence is issued also by his mothers side the Earle of Arundel that novv is so as of this

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 coÌ„petitors 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 HeÌ„ry 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 secoÌ„d daughter of king Henry the 7. yonger sister to king Henry the 8. vvas maried first to Lewis the 12. king of FraÌ„ce by whom she had no issue and afterward to Charles Brandon duke of Suffolk by whoÌ„ 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 childreÌ„ 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 ComberlaÌ„d 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 ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ the house of Yorke hath held the scepter they haue spoken in far different manner as namely

before her for that he was a man and of the vvhole blood to the last kings of the house of Lancaster and that she was a vvoman and but of the halfe blood so that three prerogatiues he pretended before her First that he vvas a man and she a vvoman and secondly that he descended of the lawful and elder daughter and she of the yonger brother legitimated and thirdly that he vvas of vvhole blood and she but of halfe and for better fortifying of this proofe of his title these men do alleage a certayne case determyned by the learned of our dayes as they say vvherin for the first of these three causes only the succession to a crowne vvas adiudged vnto king Phillip of Spayne to vvit the succession to the kingdome of Portugal vvhich case was in al respects correspondent to this of ours for that Emanuel king of Portugal had three children for so much as apperteyneth to this affaire for afterward I shal treat more particulerly of his issue that is to say two sonnes and one daughter in this order Iohn Elizabeth and Edward euen as Iohn of Gaunt had HeÌ„ry lady Philippe and Iohn Prince Iohn of Portugal first child of king Emanuel had issue an other Iohn and he had Sebastian in whom the line of Iohn the first child vvas extinguished but Iohns sister Elizabeth vvas married to Charles the Emperor had issue K. Phillip of Spayne that now liueth Edward also yoÌ„ger brother to Elizabeth or Isabel had issue two daughters the one married to the duke of Parma the other to the duke of Bragansa so as king Phillip vvas in equal degree vvith these ladies in respect of king Emanuel for that he vvas sonne to his eldest daughter and the two duchesses vvere daughters to his yonger sonne vppon this rested the question vvhich of these should succeede and it vvas decided that it apperteyneth vnto king Phillip for that he vvas a man and his mother vvas the elder sister though if king Phillips mother and the two duchesses father I meane lord Edward of Portugal had bin aliue together no doubt but that he beinge a maÌ„ should haue borne it away vvhich these men say holdeth not in our case but is much more to our aduantage for that it hath bin shewed before that if Queene Phillippe had bin aliue vvith earle Iohn of Somerset at the death of king Henry the sixt she should haue bin preferred as legitimate by birth and therfore much more ought her nephew king Alfonsus to haue bin preferred afterward in that he vvas a man before the neece of the said earle Iohn of Somerset that vvas but a vvoman thus farr they And besides all this they do adde as often before I haue mentioned that king Alfonsus vvas of the vvhole blood vnto al the three king Henries of the house of Lancaster the countesse of Richmond vvas but of the halfe blood and for more strengthening of this argument they do say further that besides that interest or right to the crowne vvhich king Henry the fourth that vvas the first king of the house of Lancaster had by his father Iohn of Gaunt in that the said Iohn vvas third sonne of king Edward the third the said king Henry had diuers other interestes also which came of himselfe only and not from his said father as vvere for example his being called into the realme by general voyce of al the people his right gotten by armes vppon the euil gouerment of the former king the personal resignation and deliuery of the kingdome by solemne instrument made vnto him by king Richard his election also by parlament coronation by the realme and finally the quiet possession of him and his posteritie for almost threescore yeares vvith many confirmations of the whole realme by diuers acts of parlament othes and other assuraÌ„ces as the world knoweth so many I meane and so auteÌ„tical as could possibly be deuised or giuen and besides al this that vvhen king Richard vvas dead he vvas next in degree of propinquitie vnto him of any man liuing for that the sonnes of Roger Mortimer vvere two degrees further of then he as hath bin shewed before Al vvhich particuler rightes and interestes vvere peculier to Henry the fourth his person and vvere not in his father Iohn of Gaunt and therfore cannot possibly discend from him left by the last duke of Parma lord Ranutius that is now duke of Parma and lord Edward that is Cardinal and the lady Catherine duchesse of Bragansa that yet liueth hath issue diuers goodly princes as the lord Theodosius that is now duke of Bragansa and three yonger brothers to vvit Edward Alexander and Phillip al yong princes of great expectation and these are the children of king Emanuel vvhose particuler successions and issues I shall declare somwhat more yet in particuler Prince Iohn of Portugall afterward king by name of king Iohn the third had issue an other Iohn that vvas prince of Portugal but dyed before his father and left a sonne named Sebastian vvho vvas king and slayne afterward by the Moores in Barbary and so ended this first lyne The second sonne and fourth childe of king Emanuel vvas named lord Lewis and dyed also vvithout issue legitimate as is supposed for that don Antonio his sonne that afterward vvas proclaymed king by the people of Lisbone and now liueth in Ingland vvas taken by al men to be vnlawful as presently more at large shal be shewed so as after the death of king Sebastian their entred the Cardinal lord Henry vvhich vvas third sonne to king Emanuel and great vncle to king Sebastian lately disceased for that he was brother to king Iohn the third that vvas grand father to king Sebastian and albeit their vvanted not some accordinge as the authors wryte vvhich afterward I shal name vvho affirmed and held that king Phillip of Spayne should haue succeded king Sebastian before the Cardinal for that he vvas neerer in consanguinitie to him then vvas the Cardinal for that besides that king Phillip was sonne of king Emanuels eldest daughter he vvas brother also to king Sebastians mother yet the said Cardinal entred peceably and by consent of al parties but for that he vvas old and vnmarried and not like to leaue any child of his owne there began presently the contention in his dayes vvho should be his successor To vvhich succession did pretende fiue princes of the blood royal of Portugal besides the lady Catherine Queene mother of France who pretended by her mothers side to be discended of one lord Raphe earle of Bulayne in Picardy vvhich Raphe vvas eldest sonne of Alfonsus the third king of Portugal which Alfonsus before he vvas king to wit in the tyme of his elder brother king Sanches of Portugal was married to the countesse and heyre of Bullayn named Mathildis and had by her this Raphe but afterward this Alfonsus comming to be king of Portugal he married agayne

noted in the puritan and made them far more egar in defence of their cause according to the saying nitimur in vetitum semper and as a litle brook or ryuer though it be but shalow and tunne neuer so quiet of it selfe yet if many barres and stoppes be made therin it swelleth and riseth to a greater force euen so it seemeth that it hath happened heere wher also the sight remembraÌ„ce of so many of their Seminary preistes put to death for their religion as they accompt it hath wrought great impression in their hartes as also the notice they haue receaued of so many colleges and Inglish Seminaries remayning yet and set vp of new both in Flanders France Italie and Spayne for making of other preistes in place of the executed doth greatly animate them holdeth them in hope of continuing still their cause and this at home As for abroade it is easie to consider vvhat their party and confidence is or may be not only by the Inglish that liue in exile and haue their frends and kynred at home but also principally by the affection of forrayne Princes states to fauour their religion whose portes townes and prouinces lye neere vppon Ingland rounde about for such a tyme and purpose could not want commoditie to giue succor vvhich being vveighed together vvith the knowne inclination that way of Ireland and the late declaration made by so many of the Scotish nobility and gentlemen also to fauour that cause all these poyntes I saye put together must needes persuade vs that this body is also great and stronge and like to beare no smale sway in the decyding of this controuersie for the crowne when tyme shal offer it selfe for the same And so much the more for that it is not yet knowne that these are determined vppon any one person whom they vvill follow in that action nor as it semeth are they much inclined to any one of the pretenders in particuler wherin it is thought that the other two partyes either are or may be deuided among themselues and each parte also within it selfe for that so different persons of those religions do stand for it but rather it is thought that these other of the Roman religion do remayne very indifferent to follow any one that shal be set vp for their religion and is lykest to restore and mayntayne the same be he strainger or domestical which determination and vnion in general among themselues if they hold it still and the earle of Darby haue the difference of titles that before hath bin seene and each one his particuler reasons why he ought to be preferred before the other and for their other abilities and possibilities they are also different but yet in one thing both Lords seeme to be like that being both of the blood royal they are thought to haue abased themselues much by their marriages with the two knightes daughters S. Richard Rogers and S. Iohin Spenfer though otherwise both of them very vvorship ful but not their matches in respect of their kinred with the crowne yet doth the alliance of S. Iohn Spenser seeme to bringe many more frends with it then that of S. Richard Rogers by reason of the other daughters of S. Iohn vvel married also to persons of importance as namely the one to S. Georg Catey gouernour of the he of Wight vvho bringeth in also the Lord Hunsdon his father Captaine of Barwick tvvo of the most important peeces that Ingland hath And for that the said Lord Hunsdon and the Lady knowles disceased were brother and sister and both of them children to the Lady Mary Bullen elder sister to Queene Anne here of it cometh that this alliance with S. George Carey may draw after it also the said house of knowles who are many and of much importance as also it may do the husbandes of the other daughters of S. Iohn Spencer with their ahd erents and followers which are nether few nor feeble al which wanteth in the marriage of the Lord Beacham An other difference also in the ability of these two Lords is that the house of Seymers in state and title of nobility is much yonger then the house of Stanleys for that Edward Seymer late earle of Hartford and after duke of Somerset was the first beginner therof who being cut of together with his brother the Admiral so soone as they were could not so setle the saide house especially in the alliance with the residue of the nobilitie as otherwise they would and might haue done But now as it remayneth I do not remember any allyance of that house of any great moment except it be the childreÌ„ of S. HeÌ„ry Seimer of Hamshire and of S. Edward Seymer of Bery Pomery in Deuonshite if he haue any and of S. Iohn Smith of Essex whose mother vvas sister to the late duke of Somerset or finally the alliance that the late marriage of the earle of Hartford with the Lady Francis Haward may bring with it which cannot be much for so great a purpose as we talke of But the earle of Darby on the other side is very stroÌ„gly honorably allied both by father and mother for by his father not to speake of the Stanleys which are many and of good power and one of them matched in the house of Northumberland his said father the old earle had three sisters al wel married and al haue left children and heyres of the houses wherin they were married for the elder vvas married first to the Lord Sturton and after to S. Iohn Arundel and of both houses hath left heyres male The seconde sister vvas married to the Lord Morley by whom she hath left the Lord that now is vvho in lyke manner hath mached vvith the heyre of the Lord Montegle vvho is likevvise a Stanley And finally the third sister vvas married to S. Nicholas Poynes of Glocestershire and by him had a sonne and heyre that yet liueth And this by his fathers side but no lesse alliance hath this earle also by the side of his mother vvho being daughter of George Cliford earle of Cumberland by Lady Eleanor neece of king Henry the seuenth the said Lord George had afterward by a second wife that was daughter of the Lord Dacres of the North both the earle of Cumberland that now is and the Lady wharton who hereby are brother and sister of the halfe blood to the said Countesse of Darby and the Dacres are their Vncles Besides al this the states and posfessions of the two forsaide Lordes are far different for the purposse pretended for that the state of the earle of Hartford is far inferior both for greatnes situation wealth multitude of subiects the like for of that of the Stanleys doth depend the most part of the shires of Lancaster and Chester and a good parte of the North of Wales at least wise by way of obseruance and affection as also the I le of man is

and after made duke of Hereford by king Richard the second and after that came to be duke also of Lancaster by the death of his father and lastely vvas made king by the deposition of his cosen germaine the said king Richard and reigned 13. yeares by the name of king Henry the fourth and vvas the first king of the house of LaÌ„caster of the right of vvhose title examination shal be made afterwards The first of the two daughters vvhich Iohn of Gaunt had by Blanch vvas named Phillip vvho was marryed to Iohn the first of that name king of Portugal by whom she had issue Edward king of Portugal and he Alfonsus the fift he Iohn the second so one after another euen vnto our dayes The second daughter of Iohn of Gaunt by lady Blanch vvas named Elizabeth vvho was marryed to Iohn Holland duke of Excester she had issue by him an other Iohn duke of Excester and he had issue Henry duke of Excester that dyed without issue male leauing only one daughter named Anne vvho vvas marryed to Sir Thomas Neuill knight and by him had issue Raffe Neuill third earle of Westmerland whose lineal heyre is at this day Lord Charles Neuill earle oft Westmerland that liueth banished in Flanders And this is al the issue that Iohn of Gaunt had by lady Blanch his first vvife sauing only that I had forgotten to prosecute the issue of Henry his first sonne surnamed of Bolenbrok that vvas afterward called king Henry the fourth which king had 4. sonnes and tvvo daughters his daughters vvere Blanch and Phillip the first marryed to William duke of Bauaria and the second to Erick king of Denmarke and both of them dyed without children The four sonnes vvere first Henry that reygned after him by the name of Henry the fift and the second vvas Thomas duke of Clarence the third vvas Iohn duke of Bedford and the fourth vvas Humfrey duke of Glocester al vvhich three dukes dyed vvithout issue or vvere slaine in vvarres of the realme so as only king Henry the fift their elder brother had issue one sonne named Henry also that vvas king and reigned 40. yeares by the name of Henry the sixt who had issue prince Edward both of them I meane both father sonne were murthered by order or permissioÌ„ of Edward duke of Yorke vvho afterward tooke the crowne vppon him by the name of king Edward the fourth as before hath bin said so as in this king Henry the 6. and his sonne prince Edward ended all the blood royal male of the house of Lancaster by Blanch the first wife of Iohn of Gaunt and the inheritance of the said lady Blanch returned by right of succession as the fauorers of the howse of Portugal affirme though others deny it vnto the heyres of lady Phillip her eldest daughter marryed into Portugal vvhose nephew named Alfonsus the fift kinge of Portugal liued at that day when king Henry the 6. and his heyre were made away and this much of Iohn of Gaunts first marriage But after the death of the L. Blanch Iohn of Gaunt marryed the Lady Constance daughter and heyre of Peter the first surnamed the cruel king of Castile who being driuen out of his kingdome by Henry his bastard brother assisted therunto by the french he fledd to Burdeaux vvith his wife tvvo daughters where he founde prince Edward eldest sonne to king Edward the third by vvhom he was restored and for pledge of his fidelity and performance of other conditions that the said king Peter had promised to the Prince he left his two daughters withe hym which daughters being sent afterwards into InglaÌ„d the eldest of them named Constance was marryed to Iohn of Gaunt and by her title he named himselfe for diuers yeares afterward king of Castile and went to gayne the same by armes when Peter her father vvas stayne by his foresaid bastard brother but yet some yeares after that againe their vvas an agrement made betweene the said Iohn of Gaunt and Iohn the first of that name king of Castile sonne and heyre of the foresaid Henry the bastard vvith condition that Catherine the only daughter of Iohn of ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ by lady CoÌ„stance should marry vvith Henry the third prince of Castile sonne and heyre of the said king Iohn and nephew to the bastard Henry the 2. and by this meanes vvas ended that controusie betweene Ingland and Castile and the said L. Catherine had issue by king Henry Iohn the 2. king of Castile he Isabell that marryed with Ferdinando the Catholique king of Aragon and ioyned by that marriage both those kingdomes together and by him she had a daughter named Ioan that marryed Phillip duke of Austria and Burgundy and by him had Charles the fifth that vvas Emperor and father to king Phillip that now reigneth in Spaine vvho as we see is desceÌ„ded tvvo waies from Iohn of Gaunt duke of Lancaster to vvit by two daughters begotten of two wiues Blanch and Constance nether had Iohn of Gaunt any more childreÌ„ by Constance but only this daughter Catherine of vvhom vve haue spoken vvherfore now vve shal speake of his third vvife that vvas Lady Catherine Swinford This lady Catherin as Inglish histories do note vvas borne in Henalt in Flanders was daughter to a knight of that country called Sir Payne de Ruet and she vvas brought vp in her youth in the duke of Lancasters house and attended vppon his first wife lady Blanch and being fayre of personage grew in such fauour vvith the duke as in the tyme of his second wife Constance he kept this Catherin for his concubin and begat vppon her fower children to vvit three sonnes and a daughter vvhich daughter vvhose name vvas Iane was marryed to Raph earle of Westmerland called commonly in those dayes Daw Raby of whom descended the Earles of VVestmerland that insued His three sonnes were Iohn Thomas and Henry and Iohn vvas first earle and then duke of Sommerset Thomas vvas first marques Dorset and then duke of Excester Henry vvas Bishop of VVinchester and after Cardinal And after Iohn of Gaunt had begotten al thes 4. children vppon Catherin he marryed her to a knight in Ingland named Swinford vvhich knight lyued not many yeares after Iohn of Gaunt comming home to Ingland from Aquitaine vvher he had bin for diuers yeares and seing this old concubine of his Catherine to be now a widow and himselfe also without a wife for that the lady CoÌ„stance vvas dead a litle before for the loue that he bore to the children which he had begotten of her he determyned to marry her and therby the rather to legitimate her childreÌ„ though himselfe vvere old now and al his kyndred vtterly against the marriage and so not ful two yeares before his death to wit in the yeare of Christ 1396. he married her and the next yeare after in a parlament begun at Westminster the 22. of Ianuary

anno Domini 1397. he caused al his said issue to be legitimated which he had begotten vppon this lady Swinford before she vvas his wife But now to go foreward to declare the issue of thes three sonnes of Iohn of Gaunt by Catherine Swinford two of them that is Thomas duke of Excester and Henry Cardinal and Bishop of Winchester dyed vvithout issue Iohn the eldest sonne that vvas earle of Somerset had issue two sonnes Iohn and Edmond Iohn that vvas duke of Somerset had issue one only daughter named Margeret vvho vvas married to Edmond Tidder earle of Richmond by whom he had a sonne named Henry earle also of Richmond vvho after vvas afterward made king by the name of Henry the seueÌ„th was father to K. Henry the eight and grand father to the Q. maiestie that now is this is the issue of Iohn the first sonne to the duke of Somerset EdmoÌ„d the secoÌ„d sonne to Iohn earle of Somerset was first earle of Mortaine and then after the death of his brother Iohn vvho dyed vvithout issue male as hath bin said vvas created by king Henry the sixte duke of Somerset and both he and almost al his kyn vvere slayne in the quarrel of the said king Henry the 6. and for defence of the house of LaÌ„caster against York For first this EdmoÌ„d himselfe was slayne in the battel of S. Albanes against Richard duke and first pretender of Yorke in the yeare 1456. leauing behind him three goodly sonnes to wit Henry Edmond Iohn vvherof Henry succeded his father in the duchy of Sommetset and vvas taken and beheaded in the same quarrel at Exham in the yeare 1463. dying vvithout issue Edmond likewise succeded his brother Henry in the duchy of Sommerset and vvas taken in the battel of Tewkesbury in the same quarrel and ther beheaded the 7. of May 1471. leauing no issew Iohn also the third brother marques of Dorset vvas slayne in the same battel of Tewkesbury and left no issue and so in these tvvo noble men ceased vtterly al the issue male of the line of Lancaster by the children of Iohn of Gaunt begotten vppon lady Swinford his third vvife so that al vvhich remayned of this vvoman vvas only Margeret Countesse of Richmond mother to king HeÌ„ry the 7. which king Henry the 7. and al that do descende from him in Ingland or out of Inglande do hold the right of Lancaster only by this third mariage of Catherine Swinford as hath bin shewed and no wayes of Blanch the first vvife or of Constance the second and this is enough in this place of the discents of Iohn of Gaunt and of the house of Lancaster and therfore I shal now passe ouer to shew the issue of the howse of York I Touched breefly before how Edmond Langley duke of Yorke fourth sonne of king Edward the third had two sonnes Edward earle of Rutland and duke of Aumatle that succeded his father afterward in the duchy of Yorke and vvas slayne vvithout childreÌ„ vnder king Henry the 5. in the battayle of Egencourt in France and Richard earle of Cambridge vvhich marryed lady Anne Mortimer as before hath bin said that was heyre of the house of Clarence to wit of Leonel duke of Clarence second sonne to king Edward the third by vvhich marriage he ioyned together the two titles of the second fourth sonnes of king Edward and being himselfe conuinced of a conspiracy against king Henry the 5. vvas put to death in Southampton in the yeare of Christ 1415. and third of the reygne of king HeÌ„ry the 5. and fift day of August This Richard had issue by lady Anne Mortimer a sonne named Richard vvho succeded his vncle Edward duke of Yorke in the same duchy and afterward finding himselfe strong made clayme to the crowne in the behalfe of his mother and declaring himselfe chiefe of the faction of the white rose gaue occasion of many cruel battailes against them of the red rose and house of Lancaster and in one of the battels vvhich vvas giuen in the yeare 1460. at Wakfilde himselfe was slayne leauing behind him three sonnes Edward George and Richard wherof Edward vvas afteward king of Ingland by the name of Edward the fourth George was duke of Clarence and put to death in Calis in a butte of secke or malmesie by the commandement of the king his brother Richard was Duke of Glocester and afterward king by murthering his owne two nephewes and was called king Richard the third Edward the eldest of these three brothers which afterward was king had issue two sonnes Edward Richard both put to death in the tower of London by ther cruel vncle Richard he had also fiue daughters the last fowre wherof I do purposly omitt for that of none of them ther remayneth any issue but the eldest of al named Elizabeth was marryed to king Henry the 7. of the house of Lancaster and had by him issue king Henry the 8. and tvvo daughters the one marryed vnto ScotlaÌ„d vvherof are discended the king of Scots and Arbella the other matryed to Charles Brandon duke of Suffolk vvherof are issued the children of the earles of Hartford and Darby as after more at large shal be handled and this is the issue of the first brother of the house of Yorke The second brother George duke of Clarence had issue by his wife lady Isabel heyre to the earldomes of Warwick and Salisbury one sonne named Edward earle of Warwick vvho vvas put to death afterward in his youth by King Henry the 7. and left no issue this duke George had also one daughter named Margaret admitted by King Henry the eight at what tyme he sent her into wales with the princesse Mary to be couÌ„resse of Salisbury but yet marryed very meanely to a knight of vvales named Syr Richard Poole by whom she had foure sonnes Henry Arthur Geffrey and Renald the lastvvherof vvas Cardinal and the other two Arthur and Geffrey had issue for Arthur had two daughters Mary and Margaret Mary was married to Sir Iohn Stanny Margaret to Sir Thomas fitzharbert Sir Geffrey Poole had also issue an other Geffrey Poole and he had issue Arthur and Geffrey which yet liue Now then to returne to the first sonne of the countesse of Salisbury named Henry that vvas Lord Montague and put to death both he and his mother by king Henry the 8. this man I say left two daughters Catherine and vvenefred Catherine was married to Sir Francis Hastings earle of Huntington by vvhich marriage issued Sir Henry Hastings now earle of Huntington and Sir Georg Hastings his brother who hath diuers children And Wenefred the yonger daughter vvas married to Sir Thomas Barington knight vvho also wanteth notissue and this is of the second brother of the house of Yorke to vvit of the duke of Clarence The third brother Richard duke of Glocester and afterward king left no issue

and she neece once remoued he preuailed in like manner and thus farr Gerrard historiographes of France And no doubt but if we consider examples that fell out euen in this very age only concerning this controuersie betweene the vncle and nephew we shal finde store of them for in Spaine not long before this tyme to wit in the yeare of Christ 1276. vvas that great and famous determination made by Don Alonso the wise eleuenth king of that name and of al his realme and nobility in their couites or parlament of Segouia mentioned before by the Ciuilian wherin they disinherited the children of the prince Don Alonso de la Cerda that dyed as our prince Edward did before his father and made heyre apparent Don Sancho brauo yonger brother to the said Don Alonso and vncle to his children the two yong Cerdas Which senteÌ„ce standeth euen vnto this day and king Phillip enioyeth the crowne of Spaine therby and the dukes of Medina Celi and their race that are discendentes of the said two Cerdas vvhich vvere put backe are subiects by that sentence and not soueraines as al the world knoweth The like controuersie fel out but very litle after to vvit in the tyme of king Edward the third in fraÌ„ce though not about the kingdome but about the earldome of Artoys but yet it was decided by a solemne sentence of two kings of France and of the whole parlament of Paris in fauour of the aunte against her nephew which albeit it cost great troubles yet vvas it defended and king Phillip of Spaine holdeth the county of Artoys by it at this day Polidor reporteth the story in this manner Robert earle of Artoys a man famous for his chiualry had two children Phillip a sonne and Maude a daughter this maude vvas marryed to Otho earle of Burgundy and Phillip dying before his father left a sonne named Robert the second vvhose father Robert the first being dead the question was vvho should succede ether maude the daughter or Robert the nephew and the matter being remitted vnto Phillip le Bel king of France as chiefe Lord at that tyme of that state he adiuged it to Maude as to the next in blood but vvhen Robert repyned at this sentence the matter vvas referred to the parlament of Paris vvhich confirmed the sentence of king Phillip wher vppon Robert making his way with Phillip de Valoys that soone after came to be king of France he assisted the said Phillip earnestly to bring him to the crowne against king Edward of Ingland that opposed himselfe therunto and by this hoped that king Phillip would haue reuoked the same sentence but he being once established in the crowne answered that a sentence of such importance and so maturely giuen could not be reuoked Wheruppon the said Robert fled to the king of Inglands part against france thus far Polidor The very like sentence recounteth the same author to haue bin giueÌ„ in Ingland at the same tyme and in the same controuersie of the vncle against the nephew for the succession to the dukedome of Britany as before I haue related wherin Iohn Breno earle of Montford vvas preferred before the daughter and heyre of his elder brother Guy though he vvere but of the halfe blood to the last duke and she of the whole For that Iohn the third duke of Britanny had two brothers first Guy of the vvhole blood by father and mother and then Iohn Breno his yonger brother by the fathers side only Guy dying left a daughter and heyre named Iane married to the earle of Bloys nephew to the king of France vvho after the death of duke Iohn pretended in the right of his wife as daughter and heyre to Guye the elder brother but king Edward the third with the state of Ingland gaue sentence for Iohn Breno earle of Montford her vncle as for him that vvas next in consanguinity to the dead duke and with their armes the state of Ingland did put him in possession vvho flew the earle of Bloys as before hath bin declared and ther-by gat possession of that realme and held it euer after and so do his heyres at this day And not long before this againe the like resolution preuayled in Scotland betweene the house of Balliol and Bruse who were competitors to that crowne by this occasion that now I wil declare VVilliam king of Scots had issue tvvo sonnes Alexander that succeded in the crowne and Dauid earle of Huntington Alexander had issue an other Alexander and a daughter marryed to the king of Norway al which issue and lyne ended about the yeare 1290. Dauid yonger brother to king William had issue two daughters Margaret and Isabel Margaret vvas married to Alaine earle of Galloway and had issue by him a daughter that married Iohn Balliol Lord of Harcourt in NormaÌ„die vvho had issue by her this Iohn Balliol founder of Balliol College in Oxford that now pretended the crowne as discended from the eldest daughter of Dauid in the third discent Isabel the second daughter of Dauid vvas married to Robert Bruse Earle of Cleueland in Ingland vvho had issue by her this Robert Bruse earle of Carick the other competitor Now then the question betweene these two coÌ„petitors was vvhich of them should succeede ether Iohn Balliol that was nephew to the elder daughter or Robert Bruse that vvas sonne to the yonger daughter so one degree more neere to the stock or stemme then the other And albeit king Edward the first of Ingland whose power vvas dreadful at that day in Scotland hauing the matter referred to his arbitrement gaue sentence for Iohn Bailliol and Robert Bruse obeyed for the tyme in respect partly of feare and partly of his oth that he had made to stand to that iudgment yet vvas that sentence held to be vniust in Scotland and so vvas the crowne restored afterward to Robert Bruse his sonne and his posterity doth hold it vnto this day In Ingland also it selfe they alleage the examples of king Henry the first preferred before his nephew William sonne and heyre to his elder brother Robert as also the example of king Iohn preferred before his nephew Arthur duke of Britany for that king Henry the second had fower sonnes Henry Richard Geffrey and Iohn Henry dyed before his father vvithout issue Richard reygned after him and dyed also vvithout issue Geffrey also dyed before his father but left a sonne named Arthur duke of Britanie by right of his mother But after the death of king Richard the question vvas vvho should succeede to vvit either Arthur the nephew or Iohn the vncle but the matter in Ingland vvas soone decided for that Iohn the vncle was preferred before the nephew Arthur by reason he vvas more neere to his brother dead by a degree then vvas Arthur And albeit the king of FraÌ„ce and some other princes abroad opposed themselues for stomack against this succession of king Iohn yet say these

which is a token that they esteemed his title of Lancaster sufficient of it selfe to beare away the crowne albeit for better ending of strife he tooke to vvife also the lady Elizabeth heyre of the howse of Yorke as hath bin said and this may be sufficient for the present in this controuersie OF FIVE PRINCIPAL HOVSES OR LINAGES THAT DOOR MAY PRETEND TO THE CROWNE of Ingland which are the houses of Scotland Suffolke Clarence Britanie and Portugal and first of al of the house of Scotland which conteyneth the pretentions of the king of Scottes and the Lady Arbella CAP. V. HAVING declared in the former chapter so much as apparteyneth vnto the general controuersie betweene the two principal houses and royal families of Lancaster and Yorke it remayneth now that I lay before you the particuler chalenges claymes and pretentions which diuers houses and families descended for the most part of those two haue among themselues for their titles to the same Al which families may be reduccd to three or fower general heades For that some do pretende by the house of Lancaster alone as those families principally that do descend of the line royal of Portngal some other do pretende by the howse of Yorke only as those that are descended of George duke of Clarence second brother to K. Edward the fourth Some agayne wil seeme to pretend from both howses ioyned together as al those that descende from king Henry the seuenth vvhich are the houses of Scotland and Suffolke albeit as before hath appeared others do deny that these families haue any true part in the house of Lancaster which pointe shal afterward be discussed more at large And fourthly others do pretend before the two houses of Yorke and Lancaster were deuided as the Infanta of Spayne duchesse of Sauoy the prince of Lorayne such others as haue descended of the house of Britanny and France of al vvhich pretences pretendors vve shal speake in order and consider vvith indifferencie vvhat is said or alleaged of euery side to and fro begining first with the house of Scotland as with that which in common opinion of vulgar men is taken to be first and neerest though others denye it for that they are desceÌ„ded of the first and eldest daughter of king Henry the seuenth as before in the third chapter hath bin declared First then two persons are knowne to be of this house at this daye that may haue action clayme to the crowne of Ingland the first is Lord Iames the sixt of that name presently king of Scotland who descendeth of Margaret eldest daughter of king Henry the seueÌ„th that vvas married by her first marriage to Iames the fourth king of Scots by him had issue Iames the fift and he agayne the lady Mary mother to this king now pretendant The second person that may pretend in this house is the lady Arbella descended of the selfe same Queene Margaret by her secoÌ„d marriage vnto Archibald Douglas earle of Anguis by vvhom she had Margaret that vvas married to Mathew Steward earle of Lenox and by him had Charles her second sonne earle of Lenox vvho by Elizabeth daughter of Syr William Candish knight in Ingland had issue this Arbella now aliue First then for the king of Scots those that do fauour his cause wherof I confesse that I haue not founde very many in Ingland do alleage that he is the first and cheefest pretendor of al others and next in succession for that he is the first person that is descended as you see of the eldest daughter of king Henry the seuenth and that in this discent ther caÌ„ no bastardy or other lawful impediment be auowed vvhy he should not succeede according to the priority of his pretention and birth And moreouer secondly they do alleage that it would be greatly for the honor and profit of Ingland for that hereby the two Realmes of Ingland and Scotland should come to be ioyned a pointe loÌ„ge sought for and much to be wished and finally such as are affected to his religion do adde that hereby true religion wil come to be more setled also and established in Ingland which they take to be a matter of no smale consequence and consideration and this in effect is that vvhich the fauourers of this prince do alleage in his behalfe But on the other side there want not many that do accompt this pretence of the king of Scots neither good nor iust nor any waye expedient for the state of Ingland and they do answere largely to al the allegations before mentioned in his behalfe And first of al as coÌ„cerning his title by neernes of succession they make litle accompt therof both for that in it selfe they saye it may easily be ouerthrowne and proued to be of no validitie as also for that if it were neuer so good yet might it for other considerations be reiected and made frustrate as our frend the Giuil lawyer hath largely learnedly proued these dayes in our hearing To begin then to speake first of the king of Scots title by ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ of blood these men do affirme that albeit there be not alleaged any ba stardy in his discent from K. Henry the seueÌ„th his daughter as there is in her second marriage against the lady ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ yet are there other reasons enough to ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ and ouerthrow this clay me and pretention and first of al for that he is not say these men of the house of Lancaster by the lady Blanch the only true ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ as before hath in ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ bin shewed and shal be aftervvard more largely but only by Catherin Swinford whose children being vn lawfully begotten and but of the halfe blood whether they may by that legitimation of parlament that vvas giuen them be made inheritable vnto the crowne before the lawful daughter of the whole blood shal be discussed afterward in place conuenient when we shal talke of the house of Portugal but in the meane space these men do presume that the king of Scots is but only of the house of Yorke and then affirming further that the title of the house of Lancaster is better then that of Yorke as by many argumeÌ„tes the fauorers of LaÌ„caster haue indeuored to shew in the former chapter they do inferr that this is sufficient to make voide al clayme of the king of Scots that he maye pretende by neernes of blood especially seing there waÌ„t not at this day preteÌ„ders enough of the other house of LaÌ„caster to clayme their right so as the howse of Yorke shal not neede to enter for fault of true heyres and this is the first argumeÌ„t which is made against the Scotish king al the rest of his linage by the fauourers and followers of the said house of Lancaster A second Argument is made against the said kings succession not by them of Lancaster but rather by those of his owne house of Yorke vvhich is founded vppon his forraine birth by

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 vvomaÌ„ 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 conditioÌ„ 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 ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ 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 consideratioÌ„ 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 InglaÌ„d she hath only the Candishes by her mothers side vvho being but a meane familie might cause much grudging amoÌ„g the Inglish nobility to see them so greatly aduanced aboue the rest as necessarily they must be yf this womaÌ„ 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 ofteÌ„tymes mentioned since how that the house of Suffolk is so called for that the lady Mary secoÌ„d 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 gentlemaÌ„ 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 theÌ„ 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 vppoÌ„ this new accident he coÌ„fessed 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 HeÌ„ry Stanley lord StraÌ„ge 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

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 illegitimatioÌ„ 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 freÌ„des 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 ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ 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 preteÌ„ded 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 obiectroÌ„ 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

To the last pointe of religion they answer that this impediment is not vniuersal not admitted in the iudgment of al men but only of those Inglish that be of different religion from her But to some others and those many as these men do vveene her religion vvil rather be a motiue to fauour her title then to hinder the same so that on this ground no certaintie can be buylded and this is as much as I haue to say at this tyme of these two families of Clatence and Britanie OF THE HOVSE OF PORTVGAL VVHICH CONTEYNETH THE CLAYMES AS VVEL OF the king and prince of Spayne to the succession of Ingland as also of the dukes of Parma and Bragansa by the house of Lancaster CAP. VIII IT hath bin oftentymes spoken before vppon occasions offred that the princes of the house of Portugal at this day do persuade theÌ„selues that the only remaynder of the house of Lancaster resteth among them as the only true heyres of the lady Blanch duchesse and heyre of Lancaster first wife of Iohn of Gaunt which pointe of these princes descents from the said duchesse of Lancaster though it be declared sufficiently before in the third and fourth chapters yet wil I briefly here also set downe and repeat agayne the reasons therof vvhich are these that follow Iohn of Gaunt vvas duke of Lancaster by the right of his first vvife lady Blanch and had by her only one sonne as also one daughter of vvhom vve neede heere to speake for that the other hath left no issue now liuing The sonne vvas king Henry the fourth vvho had issue king Henry the fift and he agayne Henry the sixt in vvhom vvas extinguished al the succession of this sonne Henry The daughter of Iohn of Gaunt by lady Blanch vvas called Phillip vvho vvas married to Iohn the first king of that name of Portugal vvho had issue by him king Edward and he agayne had issue king Alfonsus the fift king of Portugal and he and his ofspringe had issue agayne the one after the other vntil our tymes and so by this marriage of lady Phillip to their first king Iohn these princes of the house of Portugal that liue at this day do pretende that the inheritance of Lancaster is only in them by this lady Phillip for that the succession of her elder brother king Henry the fourth is expired long ago This is effect is their pretence but now vve vvil passe on to see vvhat others say that do pretend also to be of the house of Lancaster by a latter marriage Iohn of Gaunt after the death of his first vvife lady Blanch dyd marrye againe the lady Constance daughter of king Peter surnamed the cruel of Castile and had by her one daughter only named Catherin vvhom he married afterward back to Castile againe giuing her to vvife to king Henry the third of that name by vvhom she had issue king Iohn and he others so as lineally king Philippe king of Spayne is desceÌ„ded from her vvhich king Phillip being at this day king also of Portugal and the cheife titler of that house vnto Ingland he ioyneth the inheritance of both the two daughters of Iohn of Gaunt in one so we shal not neede to talk of these two daughters hearafter distinctly but only as of one seing that both their discents do end in this one man The only difficultie and dissention is then about the issue of the third marriage vvhich vvas of Iohn of Gaunt vvith lady Catherin Swinford whom he first kept as a Concubine in the tyme of his second wife lady Constance as before hath bin shewed in the third chapter and begat of her fower children and after that his wife lady Constance vvas dead he tooke her to vvife for the loue he bare to his children a litle before his death and caused the said children to be legitimated by authority of parlament and for that none of these fower children of his haue left issue but only one that vvas Iohn earle of Somerset we shal speake only of him ommitting al the rest This Iohn then earle of Somerset had issue an other Iohn which was made duke of Somerset by king Henry the sixt who vvith his three sonnes vvere slayne by the princes of the house of Yorke in the quarrel of Lancaster so left only one daughter named Margaret who by her husbaÌ„d Edmond Tydder earle of Richmond vvas Countesse of Richmond had by him a sonne named Henry earle of Richmond that was after king by the name of king Henry the senenth and from him al his discendents both of the house of Scotland and Suffolke do pretend also to be of the house of Lancaster which yet can be no otherwise then now hath bin declared to wit not from Blanch first wife heyre of the duchy of Lancastee but froÌ„ Catherin Swinford his third wife vvherin riseth the question vvhether those men I meane king Henry the seueÌ„th his discendents may properlie be said to be of the true house of Lancaster or no wherunto some do answere vvith a distinctioÌ„ to wit that to the duchy of LaÌ„caster wherof the first wife lady BlaÌ„ch was heire these of the third marriage cannot be heyres but only the remaynder of the issue of the said lady Blanch that resteth in the princes of the house of Portugal But yet to the title of the crowne of Inglande which came by Iohn of GauÌ„t himselfe in that he vvas third sonne of K. Edward the third and eldest of al his children that liued vvhen the said king Edward dyed by vvhich is pretended also that he should haue succeded immediatly after him before king Richard the secoÌ„d as before in the fourth chapter hath bin declared to this right I saie to this interest of the crowne which came by Iohn of Gaunt himselfe not by lady BlaÌ„ch or by any other of his wiues the discendents of king Henry the seuenth do say that they may and ought to succede for that Iohn earle of Somerset eldest sonne of Iohn of Gaunt by lady Catherin Swinford though he vvere begotten out of matrimony yet being afterward made legitimate he vvas to inherite this right of Iohn of Gaunt his father before the lady Phillip his sister for that so vve see that king Edvvard the sixt though yonger and but halfe brother vnto the lady Mary and Elizabeth his sisters yet he inherited the crowne before them and in like manner is lord Phillippe prince of Spaine at this daye to inherite al the states of that crowne before his two sisters that be elder then he so likewise saye these men ought Iohn of Somerset to haue donne before Phillippe his eldest sister if he had bin aliue at that tyme vvhen king Henry the sixt vvas put downe and dyed and consequently his posterity vvhich are the discendents of king Henry the seuenth ought to enioye the same before the princes

by al the states of that counttey but also a broad as namely of Maximilian the Emperor and approued also by the king of Denmarke and by al the Princes of Germany neere about that realme who saw the resonable causes which that common wealth had to proceed as it did And a litle before that the like was practised also in Denmarke agaynst Cisternus ther lawful king if we respect his discent in blood for he vvas sonne to king Iohn that reigned a fore him and crowned in his fathers life but yet afterwards for his intolerable cruelty he vvas depriued and driuen into banishment together with his vvife and three children al vvhich were disinherited his vncle Frederik Prince of Holsatia vvas chosen king whose progeni yet remayneth in the crowne the other though he were marryed to the sister of Charles the fifth last Emperor of that name and vvere of kyn also to king Henry the eight of Ingland yet could he neuer get to be restored but passed his tyme miserably partly in banishment and partly in prison vntil he dyed But it shal be best perhapps to ende this narration with an example or two out of Ingland it selfe for that no where els haue I read more markable accidents touching this poynt then in Ingland and for breuity sake I shal touch only two or three happened since the coÌ„quest for that I wil go no higher though I might as appeareth by the exaÌ„ple of K. Edwin others nether vvil I beginne to stand much vppon the example of king Iohn though wel also I might for that by his euel gouerment he made himselfe both so odious at home contemptible abroade hauing lost Normandy Gascony Guyenne and al the rest in effect which the crowne of Ingland had in France as first of al he vvas both excommunicated and deposed by sentence of the pope at the sute of his owne people and vvas inforced to make his peace by resigning his crowne into the handes of Pandulfe the popes legate as Polidor recounteth and afterwards faling back agayne to his old defects and naughtie gouerment albeit by his promise to the pope to go and make warr against the Turkes if he might be quiet at home and that his kyngdome should be perpetually tributary to the sea of Rome he procured him to be of his side for a tyme and against the BaroÌ„s yet that stayed not them to proceed to his depriuation which they did effectuate first at Canterbury and after at London in the eighteenth last yeare of king Iohns reigne and meant also to haue disinherited his sonne Henry which vvas afterward named king Henry the third and at that tyme a childe of eight yeares old only and al this in punishement of the father yf he had liued and for that cause they called into Ingland Lodouick the Prince of France sonne to king Philip the second and father to Saynt Lewis the nynth and chose him for their king and did sweare him fealtye with general consent in London the yeare of our Lord 1216. And but that the death of king Iohn that presently ensued altered the vvhole course of that designment and moued them to turne their purposes and accept of his sonne Henry before matters were fully established for king Lodowick it vvas most likely that France and Ingland would haue bin ioyned by thes meanes vnder one crowne But in the end as I haue said king Henry the third vvas admitted and he proued a very wor thi king after so euel as had gon before him and had bin deposed which is a circumstance that you must alwayes note in this narration and he reigned more yeares then euer king in Ingland did before or after him for he reigned ful 53. yeares left his sonne heyre Edward the first not inferior to himselfe in manhode vertue vvho reigned 34. yeares and left a sonne named Edward the second vvho falling into the same defects of gouerment or vvorse then king Iohn his great grandfather had donne was after 19. yeares reigne deposed also by act of parlament holden at London the yeare 1326. his body adiudged to perpetual prison in which he was at that present in the castle of vvallingford vvherher diuers both bishops Lordes knights of the Parlament vvere sent vnto him to denounce the sentence of the realme agaynst him to wit how they had deptiued him and chosen Edward his sonne in his place for vvhich act of choosing his sonne he thanked them hartely and vvith many teares acknowledged his owne vnwoorthines wheruppon he was digraded his name of king first taken from him and he appoynted to be called Edward of Carnaruan from that howre forward and then his crowne and ring were taken away and the steward of his house brake the stafe of his office in his presence and discharged his seruants of their seruice and al other people of ther obedience or allegeance toward him and towardes his mayntenance he had only a hundreth markes a yeare allowed for his expences and then was he delyuered also into the hands of certayne particuler keepers vvho led him prisoner from thence by diuers other places vsing him with extreme indignity in the way vntil at last they tooke his life from him in the castle of Barkley and his sonne Edward the third reigned in his place who if we respect eyther valor provvesse length of reigne acts of cheualry or the multitude of famous Princes his children left behinde him vvas one of the noblest kinges that euer InglaÌ„d had though he were chosen in the place of a very euel one as you haue sÃ©en But vvhat shal we say is this worthines vvhich God giueth commoÌ„ly to the successors at thes changes perpetual or certayne by disceÌ„t no truly nor the example of one Princes punishment maketh an other to beware for the next successor after this noble Edward vvhich vvas king Richard the second though he were not his sonne but his sonnes sonne to wit sonne and heyre to the excellent and renounced black Prince of vvales this Richard I say forgetting the miserable end of his great grand father for euel gouerment as also the felicity and vertue of his father and grand father for the contrary suffered himselfe to be abused and misled by euel councellors to the great hurte disquietnes of the realme For vvhich cause after he had raigned 22. yeares he was also deposed by act of parlamaÌ„t holden in London the yeare of our Lord 1399. and condemned to perpetual prison in the castel of Pomfret vvher he was soone after put to death also and vsed as the other before had bin and in this maÌ„nes place by free electioÌ„ was chosen for king the noble knight Henry Duke of LaÌ„caster who proued afterwards so notable a king as the world knoweth and vvas father to king Henry the fifth surnamed commonly the Alexander of Ingland for that

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 coÌ„mon 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 couÌ„trey 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 LaÌ„caster 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 LaÌ„caster to whom sayth he apperteyned only the successioÌ„ 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

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 ScotlaÌ„d 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 ScotlaÌ„d in like maÌ„ner 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 LaÌ„caster 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 successioÌ„ and for that of these two propositioÌ„s 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 seueÌ„th 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 HeÌ„ry 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 seueÌ„th so as this lady Margaret couÌ„tesse 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 yoÌ„ger 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

might be legitimate before God and yet illegitimate before men and consequently incapable of al such succession as otherwise he might pretend by his said mother And this now is for the first begotten of these two persons for as touching the second childe begotten in the tower of London diuers learned men are of opinion that he may be freed of this bastardy for that both the earle and the lady being examined vppon their first child did consesse and affirme that they vvere man and wife and that they had meaning so to be and to continew vvhich confession is thought to be sufficient both for ratifying of their old coÌ„tract and also for making of a new yfthe other had not bin made before And seeing that in the other former pretended contract and marriage their wanted nothing for iustifying the same before men and for making it good in law but only external testimony of witnesses for prouing that they gaue such mutual consent of myndes before their carnal knowledge for the presence of priest or minister is not absolutly necessary no man can say that their wanted witnesses for restifying of this consent before the second copulation by vvhich vvas begotten their second sonne for that both the Queene herselfe and her councel and as many besides as examined these parties vppon their first acte and child birth are vvitnesses vnto them that they gaue their ful consents and approbations to be man vvife vvhich they ratified afterward in the tower by the begetting of their second child and so for the reasons afore-said he must needes seeme to be legitimate vvhatsoeuer my lord of Canterbury for that tyme or in respect of the great offence taken by the estate against that act did or might determyne to the contrary And this is the somme of that which commonly is treated about these two families of the house of Suffolk to wit of Hartford and Darby both vvhich families of Suffolke the other two opposite houses of Scotland and Clarence do seeke to exclude by the first bastardy or vnlawful contract betweene the Queene ofFrance and duke Charles Brandon as hath bin seene of which bastardye the house of ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ doth indeuour to auoide it selfe in manner as before hath bin declared and preferreth it selfe in degree of propinquity not only before the foresaid two houses of Scotland and Clarence but also before this other part of the house of Suffolke I meane the familie of Hartford though descended of the elder daughter for that the countesse of Darby doth hold her selfe one degree neerer in discent then are the other pretenders of Hartford as hath bin shewed And albeit their vvant not many obiections and reasons of some against this pretence of the house of Darby besides that which I haue touched before yet for that they are for the most part parsonal impediments and do not touch the right or substance of the title or any other important reason of state concerning the common vvealth but only the mistike of the persons that pretende and of their life and gouerment I shal omitt them in this place for that as in the begining I promised so shal I obserue as much as lieth in me to vtter nothing in this conference of ours that may iustly offend and much lesse touch the honor or reputation of any one person of the blood royal of our realme vvhen the tyme of admitting or excluding cometh then vvil the realme consider as vvel of their persons as of their rightes and vvil see vvhat accompt and satisfaction ech person hath giuen of his former life and doings and according to that vvil proceede as is to be supposed but to me in this place it shal be enough to treat of the first pointe vvhich is of the right and interest pretended by vvay of succession and so vvith this I shal make an ende of these families and passe ouer to others that yet do remayne OF THE HOVSES OF CLARENCE AND BRITANIE WHICH CONTEYNE THE CLAYMES OF the earle of Huntington with the Pooles as also of the lady Infanta of Spayne and others of those families CAP. VII HAVING declared the claymes rightes and pretences which the two noble houses of Scotland and Suffolke descended of the tvvo daughters of king HeÌ„ry the seuenth haue or may haue to the succession of Ingland with intention afterward to handle the house of Portugal a part vvhich pretendeth to comprehend in it selfe the whole body or at least the first and principal branch of the ancient house of Lancaster it shal not be amisse perhaps by the way to treate in this one chapter so much as appartayneth to the tvvo seueral houses of Clarence and Britanie for that there is lesse to be said about them then of the other And first of al I am of opinion that the earle of Huntington and such other pretendors as are of the house of Yorke alone before the coniunction of both houses by king Henry the seuenth may be named to be of the house of Clarence and so for distinction sake I do name them for not to confound them vvith the houses of Scotland and Suffolke which are termed also by the Lancastrians to be of the houfe of Yorke alone for that they deny them to be of the true house of Lancaster but principally I do name them to be of the house of Clarence for that in deed al their clayme and title to the crowne doth discende from George duke of Clarence as before in the third chapter and other vvhere hath bin declared which duke George being brother to king Edward the fourth and put to death by his order left issue Edward carle of Warwick and of Salisbury vvhich vvas put to death by king Henry the seuenth in his youth and Margaret countesse of Salisbury which Margaret had issue by Syr Richard Poole Henry Poole lord Montague afterward behedded and he agayne Catherin married to Syr Francis Hastings earle of Huntington by whom she had Sir Henry Hastings now earle of Huntington Syr George Hastings his brother yet liuinge others so as the earle of Huntington vvith his said bretheren be in the fourth degree from the said George duke of Clarence to wit his nephewes twice remoued The faide Margaret countesse of Salisbury had a yonger sonne also named Syr Geffrey Poole vvho had issue an other Geffrey and this Geffrey hath two sonnes that liue at this day in Italie named Arthur and Geffrey vvho be in the same degree of distance with the saide earle of Huntington sauing that some alleage for them that they do discend al by male kinde from Margaret and the earle pretendeth by a Woman vvherof vve shal speake afterward Hereby then it is made manifest how the earle of HuntingtoÌ„ commeth to preteud to the crowne of Ingland by the house of York only vvhich is no other in deede but by the debarring and disabling of al other former preteÌ„dors not only of Portugal and of Britanie as strangers but

vvith the king of Castiles daughter and had by her a sonne called Denyse vvho reigned after him and his successors vnto this day al which succession of kinge Denyse his posteritie the said Queene mother would haue improued and shevved that it apperteyned to her by the said Raphe for this cause sent she to Portugal one lord Vrban bishop of Comince in Gasgonie to plead her cause vvhich cause of hers vvas quicklie reiected and only the forsaide fiue princes discended of king Emanuels children were admitted to tryal for the same which vvere Don Antonio sonne of lord Lewis the king Cardinals elder brother and king Phillip of Spayne sonne of lady Elizabeth the eldest sisteof t he said Cardinal and Philibert duke of Sauoy sonne of the lady Beatrix the same Cardinals yonger sister and the two duchesses of Parma and Bragansa named Mary and Catherine daughters of lord Edward yonger brother of the said Cardinal and yongest child of king Emanuel And for that the lady Mary duchesse of Parma vvhich vvas the elder of the tvvo daughters vvas dead before this controuersie fel out her eldest sonne lord Ranutio now duke of Parma pretended by her right to the said crowne And for that this matter vvas of so great importance euery parte procured to lay downe their reasons and declared their rightes in the best manner they could and such as could not be present themselues in Portugal sent thither their agentes Embassadors and Atturneys to plead their causes for them Don Antonio and the duchesse of Bragansa as inhabitants of that kingdome were present and declared their pretences namely Don Antonio by himselfe and for himselfe and the lady Mary of Bragansa by her husband the duke and his learned councel The prince of Parma sent thither for his parte one Ferdinande Farnese bishop of Parma The duke of Sauoy sent Charles of Rouere aftervvard made Cardinal The king of Spaine as the greatest pretender sent the lord Peter GyroÌ„ duke of Osuna afterward Viceroy of Naples Syr Christopher de Mora knight of his chamber at that tyme but since of his priuye councel and lately made earle of Castel Rodrigo in Portugal of vvhich country he is natiue and besides these two a great lawyer named Roderigo Vasques made since as I heare saye lord President of Castil vvhich is as much almost as lord Chancelor vvith vs. Al these did lay forth before the king Cardinall their seueral reasons and pretensions to the succession of the crowne of Portugal for the fiue persons before mentioned whereof two vvere quickly excluded to wit the duke of Sauoy for that his mother was yonger sister to king Phillips mother and himselfe also of lesse age then the said king And secondly Don Antonio was also excluded by publike and iudicial sentence of the king Cardinal his vncle as illegitimate and borne out of lawful wedloke and albeit DoÌ„ Antonio denyed the same and went about to proue hym selfe legitimat affirming that his father the lord Lewis before his death had married with his mother in secret and for this brought forth some witnesses as namely his mothers sister with her husband and two others yet the king Cardinal affirmed that vppon examinatioÌ„ he had found them to be suborned vvhich he said vvas euident to him partly for that they agreed not in their speeches and partly for that some of them had confessed the same to wit that they were suborned vvhom he cast into prison and caused them to be punished and so sitting in iudgement accompained with fower bishopes and fower lawyers vvhoÌ„ he had called to assist him in this cause he pronounced the same Don Antonio to be a bastard for vvhich the Authors that I haue read about this matter which are principally two the first named Hierom Franke a gentleman of Genua who wrote ten bookes in Italian of the vnion of the crowne of Portugal to the crowne of Castilia and the second is named Ioanes Antonius Viperanus a Sicilian as I take him who wrote one booke only in latine de obtenta Portugallia Ã rege Catholico Phillippo of Portugal gotte by king Phillip the Catholike both these bookes I say out of vvhom principally I haue taken the pointes which heere I wil touch do seuerally set downe the causes following vvhy the king Cardinal did reiect the pretence of Don Antonio before al other pretenders and pronounced him a bastard First for that he had byn euer so taken al the tyme of his fathers life and no man euer dowted therof or called the matter in question vntil now that himselfe denyed the same Secondly for that in the tyme of Iulius Tertius the Pope when certayne decres came out from Rome against the promotion of bastardes the same DoÌ„ Antonio sued to the said Pope to be dispensed with al in that case vvhich argueth that then he knew himselfe not legitimate Thirdly that his father the lord Lewis had often tymes both by word and writing testified the same that this Antonye vvas his bastard and had signified also so much in his last vvil testament Fourthly the said Cardinal as of himselfe also affirmed that if his brother the lord Lewis had euer doÌ„ne any such thinge as to marry this Woman who was but base in birth and of the Iewish race as these stories do affirme that it is like that he would haue made some of his owne frendes kynred acquainted therwith as a matter so much important for them to know but he neuer did though the said Cardinal auowed that himselfe was present vvith him at his death Fiftly he said that if Don Antonio had bin legitimate how happened that he did not pretend the succession before the Cardinal himselfe next after the death of king Sebastian seing that he vvas to haue gone before the said Cardinal by as good right as his other nephew Sebastian did if he had bin legitimate for that he vvas sonne also to the Cardinales elder brother as hath bin saide Sixtly lastly the said king Cardinal auowched against Don Antonio partly the disagreeing and partly the open confessing of the vvitnesses that they were suborned by him vppon al vvhich causes and considerations he proceeded to the iudicial sentence before alleaged Thus passed the matter in the case of Don Antonio vvho if he had bin legitimate no doubt but by al right he should haue bin preferred before al the other pretenders to the crowne of Portugal and must be at this day towards the crowne of Ingland before al those that pretend of the house of Portugal if vve graunt him to be legitimate and much more clearly may he pretend to the dukedome of Lancaster as before hath bin declared for that it must discend to the lawful heyre of lady Phillip Queene of Portugall wherof enseweth also one consideration not impertinent to vs in Ingland that seing we hold him there for true king of Portugal I see not

to king Richard The title of Yorke is by a VVomaÌ„ Stovv in vit Henrici 5 au 3. regni The earle of Cambrige executed for conspiracy An obiection for Yorke that Edmond Mortymer vvas declared heyre apparent Polydor l. 20. Stovv in vit Rich. ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ an 1385 Hollings-head in vit Rich. 2. pag. 1088. Stovv an 1382. Polydor li. 20. an 1394. The cause of hatred be rvveeue king Richard and the house of Lancaster Iohn frosard in histo Polydor. Hollings Stovv in vita ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ 2 Tho vvassing in vit Richardi 2. pag. 341. 344. Iohn Fros sard in vit HeÌ„ri VVhy Ro ger Mortimer vvas declared heyre apparent Hollings in vit Richard 3. pag. 1406. in vit Edvvard 6. pa. 1715 The declaration of king Edvvard 6. in fauour of the Lady Iane Gray Girard de Haillan l. 15. his Fran. initio VVhether vncles or nephevves to be preferred in Succession Barthol in ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ C. ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ The ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ of the ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ And example of the vncle before the nephevv in spayne Garibay li. 13 cap. 14 and 1276. An other example in France and Flanders Polidor l. 25. in vit ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ 3. An other example of Britanny Supra c. 2 An other example in Scotland The conuentioÌ„ of the houses of Balliol Bruse in Scotland 8. Examples in InglaÌ„d ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ head in vit Regis ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ 142. Hovv Arthur duke of Britanny vvas declared ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ apparent ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ 1. 14 ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ in vit Richar ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ 420. 2. 3. Hollingli in vit Richar ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ pag. 496. 499. 4. Hollingshead pag. 540. VValsing in ypodig Neustriss Opinions of lavvyers for the nephevv vncle Benedict Cap. Ranutius verb in eodem testam Baldus in lib. vt in test cap. de suis leg hered per. li. vnicam pro 20. sui auteÌ„ nouissimo Touching the common lavv of Ingland Different rules in successioÌ„ of the crovvne and of other inheritances The common lavv grounded in custome Ancient lavvyers that defended the house of Lancaster Holling ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ vit HeÌ„ric 6. pag. ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ 00. The summe of this controuersie repeated 1. 2. 3. Other arguments of Lancaster Stovv in vita Henrici 5. pag. 587. The princes of Yorke often attained Stovv in vita Henrici 6. 2. Yorke entred by violence Stovv in fine vit ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ 6. 3. The house of Yorke put dovvne a holy king 4. Long pos sessions of the house of Lancaster 5. The difference of kings of both houses 6. The princes of Yorke cruel one to the other Polydor virg hist. Anglie lib. 24. Great vnion faythfulnes of the princes of Lancaster Polyd. lib. 23. Diffentions in the house of Yorke King Edvvard 4. King Richard 3. King HeÌ„ry 3. hovv many he put to death of his ovvne kynred The de la pooles The house of Buckingam The house of Courtneis The house of Salisbury Seymers put to death Queene of Scots 7. No old noble house standing in InglaÌ„d but such as tooke parte vvith LaÌ„caster Siue ancient noble hovvses Arondel Oxford Northum berland VVestmerland Shrevvsbury Houses that fauo red York deftroyed The Mon braies The de la Pooles The house of Salesbury VVarvvicke King ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ the 7. crovvned in the fild in respect of the house of Lancaster only thoughe his tytle that vvay vvas not great A diuisioÌ„ of the families that do precend Of the house of Scotland Arbella In fauour of the king of Scots 1. 2. 3. ArgumeÌ„t against the king of Scots 1. The king of Scots not of the house of Lancaster 2. The king of Scots foraine botne The controuersie about somayne ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ Movv straÌ„gers may inherite Reasons vvhy the statute toucheth not our case The crovvne not holdeÌ„ by allegeance The king of Scots excluded by the starute of association Other coÌ„sideratioÌ„s against the King of Scots Ioyning of InglaÌ„d and Scotland together 1. Polydor. lib. 17. in vit Edvvardi primi 3. Inconueniences of bringing straÌ„gers into Ingland A consideration of importance Polydot hist. Ang. l. s. 9. Example of Spaine Garibay l. 20 c 42. An DnÌ„i 1207. Example out of Portugal Garibay l. 34. c. 38. An. DnÌ„i 1383. Stovv pa. 54. 59. 95. 76. Of the religion of Scotland Of the title of lady Arbella 1. 2. An Inglish vvoman Against Arbella 1. Not of the house of Lancaster 2. The testa ment of king HeÌ„ry 3. The coun tesse of darby neerer by a degree Illegitimation by bastardye The testimonie of the lord Vvillian hovvard Other reasons of state against Arbella Gouerment if vvomen Bolyd l. 12 Garibay li. ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ c. 41 The issue of Charles Brandon Issue of lady Fran cis Stovv an 7. Edon 6 The issue of the L. Catherin The issue of L. Eleanor Allegations of the houses of Darby hartford the one against the other Charles Brandon had a vvyse a lyue First bastardie against the issue of hartford Stovv in vita Edvvard An. ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ 2. Bastardie 3. Bastardie The fourth be ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ coÌ„mon to both famines of Suffolk The ansvvere of those of hartford to the foresaid bastardies Of the marriage betvveen the earle of hartford and the L. Catherin Gray Concil Trid. Sess. 24. cap. 1. Hovv the second sonne of the earie of hart ford mav be legitimate Allegations of the house of Darby VVhy the earle of HuntingtoÌ„s house is said to be of the house of Clarence Issue of the house of Clarence Issue of S. Geffrey Poole The interest preteÌ„ce of the earle of Huntington ObiectioÌ„ns against the earle of Huntington 1. 2. Attainders in the house of Huntington Restitution may be in blood vvithout restitutioÌ„ of dignitie The pretence of the Pooles against Huntington ObiectioÌ„ of Religion The house of Britanie The course of inheritan ce in the crovvne of FraÌ„ce First pretence of the Infan ta to Ingland 1. 2. Polydor. in vita Guliel Rufi 3. Second pretence of the Infanta of Spaine 3. Pretence by Arthur duke of Britanie Belforest I. 3. cap. 71 hist. Fran. ElectioÌ„ of Levvys the 8. to be King of InglaÌ„d Polydor. l. 15. hist. Angl. Holling Stovv in vita Ioannis Belfor li. ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ cap. 67. Girard li. histor ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ france Pretence by dissent from HeÌ„ry the third AdmissioÌ„ by composition ObiectioÌ„s against the Infan tas pretence The princes of Portugal are of the house of LaÌ„caster The issue of lady Phillip Queene of Portugal Issue of Iohn of Gaunt by his later vviues Sce the arbor in the end of this booke The point of difficultie Issue of Catherin Svvinford The principal question Ansvver Duchie of LaÌ„caster The crovvne An exam ple of Edvvard the sixth of the prince of spaine Replies of the house of Portugal The duke dome of LaÌ„caster The legitimation of Catherin Svvinfords children not lavvful Stovv in vit Richardi 2. Garibay his Portugal l. 33 cap. 4. Note this example Stovv in vit Henrici 8. Iohn of Gauntes marriage vvith Catherin Svvinford helpeth not the legitimation The question betvveene lord Phillip and Iohn of Somerset The question betvveene the

Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Text snippets containing the quad