Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
lord_n page_n sir_n william_n 13,166 5 10.9723 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A51514 An admonition to the reader of Sir Peter Leicester's books. Written by Sir T. M. Mainwaring, Thomas, Sir, 1623-1689. 1676 (1676) Wing M297; ESTC R218644 8,189 26

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

AN ADMONITION To the Reader of Sir Peter Leicester's Books Written by Sir T. M. Printed in the Year 1676. An Admonition to the Reader of Sir Peter Leicester's Books Courteous Reader THat you may know Hercules by his Foot and not with some few persons confidently believe every thing which Sir Peter Leicester doth write I here give you an account of the Partiality Omissions Uncertainties and Mistakes of the said Sir Peter in those two Sheets of his Historical Antiquities in which he writes of the Township of Over Peover And I cannot but wonder that they are so numerous considering he always had liberty to peruse any Deeds or Copies of Records which I had in my custody and that I also was ever willing to give him any other assistance concerning my Family which did lie in my power First in his 330 page he calls Ranulphus who as he confesseth in the Conqueror's time held this Township of Peover or the greatest part thereof the supposed Ancestor of the Mainwarings as he also usually doth in other Townships where he hath occasion to name the said Randle and yet as you may see page 208. he calls Odard the undoubted Ancestor of the Duttons Now what reason he can have to call Odard the undoubted Ancestor of the Duttons and Ranulphus but the supposed Ancestor of the Mainwarings except his partiality I cannot imagine For first the Sirname of Mainwaring was a fixed name whereas the Sirname of Dutton was taken from that place and if another Family had bought it of the Posterity of Odard within few Generations after the Conquest they possibly might have stiled themselves after that place that being the manner of those Ages as Sir Peter tells us in his 250 page and accordingly he not onely gives us examples there of three Branches of the Duttons viz. Warburton Chedill and Ashley who did all call themselves after the Places where they lived but he gives us many other like instances in many other places of his said Book Secondly Sir Peter doth not add the Sirname of de Dutton in his said 250 page to the said Odard or Hugh Son of the said Odard but onely to Hugh de Dutton Son of Hugh who was the Third of that Family Whereas the Sirname of Mesnilwaren or Mainwaring was used as you may see in the 111 page of the said Book in King William Rufus his days by Richard Mesnilwaren which except the said Ranulphus is the first Mainwaring that we do find Thirdly the principal reason as I conceive why Sir Peter says Odard was the undoubted Ancestor of the Duttons is because the Duttons enjoyed those Lands which the said Odard held in the Conqueror's time which were if I mistake not part of Dutton which the said Odard held of the Earl of Chester and Aston and part of Weston and part of Halton which the said Odard held under William Fitz-Nigel Baron of Halton But as the aforesaid Lands of the aforesaid Odard were enjoyed by the Duttons so the Lands of the said Ranulphus in Blaken Wenitone Tatton Pever Warford Little-Pever Cepmundewiche Ollerton Senelestune Cocheshalle Hoiloch Tadetune which is the same with Warmincham Norwardine Sundreland and Bageley in Cheshire and the Lordship of Waburne in Norfolk being all the Lands which the said Ranulphus held in the Conqueror's time were certainly enjoyed by the Mainwarings But this I say not to take off any thing from the Family of Duttons for I am fully satisfied that Odard was their Ancestor but to shew the Partiality of Sir Peter in doubting of Ranulphus more than of the said Odard 2. He tells us in his said 330 page That by antient Deeds there were antiently two Places or Hamlets in Over-Peover one called Cepmundewich the other Fodon whereas there were Seven such Places there viz. Cepmundewich Fodon Hongrill Hethalis Brydenbrugge Twyford and Radbroc And it is very strange how Sir Peter could omit the last of these seeing in the very same page he speaks of Radbrook-house in Over-Peover and mentions a Deed by which William Mainwaring then Lord of Over-Peover gave illam terram quae vocatur Radbroc integram unto Thomas Mainwaring his younger Son 3. In the Pedigree of the Mainwarings page 331 he leaves out Ranulphus who is nominated in Doomsday-Book Richard de Mesnilwarin mentioned in his Hist Antiq. page 111. Roger de Mesnilgarin or Mainwaring and William and Randal his Sons spoken of by him page 341. Roger de Menilgarin or Mainwaring named by him page 362. Sir Ralph Mainwaring and Sir Roger Mainwaring his Son both taken notice of by him page 330. and this upon a pretence that they were Lords of Warmincham Whereas I am confident he will not deny but that the Mainwarings of Warmincham were also Owners of Over-Peover or the most part thereof until Sir Roger Mainwaring gave Peover to his younger Son Sir William Mainwaring presently after which time the Line of the Mainwarings of Warmincham failing the Mainwarings of Peover became Heirs male to those Mainwarings of Warmincham Sir Warine Mainwaring Son of Sir Thomas Mainwaring Son of the said Sir Roger dying without Issue Male. And though he may pretend that he did not mention those Mainwarings of Warmincham who also were Owners of Peover because they as he supposeth then lived at Warmincham in another Hundred yet in his said Book he gives an account of the Descents of some who had Estates in Bucklow Hundred though he then looks upon them as living in other Hundreds 4. He tells us page 332 that Margery Praers one of the Coheirs of William Praers of Baddeley and Sister to Joan the other Coheir who was Wife to William Mainwaring married John Honford of Honford and afterwards that she married Hugh Holt 33 Edw. 3. but had no Issue by Holt and that she had Issue by John Honford a Son named John Honford who was a Bastard But he is mistaken in saying that Holt was her second Husband for Margery had her Bastard John Honford before she had any Husband and she was Wife to Hugh Holt 33 Edw. 3. and she was Wife to John Honford 46 47 and 50 of Edw. 3. 5. In the 332 page he takes no notice that William Leigh of Baggeleigh who married Joan the Daughter of William Mainwaring of Peover in the 33 of Edw. 3. was a Knight and yet as you may see in his 217 page he knew the said William to be a Knight 6. He says in his said 332 page That William Mainwaring the Elder who lived 33 Edw. 3. sealed with three Bars with a Lion passant in Chief whereas the Coat of Arms was Argent two Bars Gules on a Chief of the Second a Lion passant gardant Or and so it is cut in his own Book page 331. 7. He takes notice page 332. that William younger Son of William Son of William Mainwaring had a Daughter named Ellen who was married to Adam Glasebroke But he omits John and Margery Brother and Sister to the said Ellen.