Selected quad for the lemma: prince_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
prince_n	daughter_n	king_n	wales_n	3,206	5	10.2634	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A51526	An answer to two books the first being stiled a reply to Sir Thomas Mainwaring's book, entituled, An answer to Sir Peter Leicester's Addenda, the other stiled Sir Thomas Mainwaring's law-cases mistaken / written ... Sir T.M.	Mainwaring, Thomas, Sir, 1623-1689.	1675 (1675)	Wing M299; ESTC R21694	25,559	69

AN ANSWER TO Two Books The first being stiled A REPLY TO Sir Thomas Mainwaring's Book ENTITULED AN ANSWER TO Sir Peter Leicester's Addenda The other stiled Sir Thomas Mainwaring's LAW-CASES MISTAKEN Written by the said Sir T. M. LONDON Printed for Sam Lowndes over against Exeter House in the Strand M. DC.I.XXV TO THE READER Courteous Reader VPon Saturday the 12th of December last I received from Sir Peter Leycester a Book or Books thus called viz. Two Books The first being stiled A Reply to Sir Thomas Mainwaring's Book Entituled An Answer to Sir Peter Leycester's Addenda The other stiled Sir Thomas Mainwaring's Law-cases Mistaken And although the one of these was dated the 14th day of April 1674. And the other the first day of May following yet they came not out in Print till Michaelmas Term in the same year When I had perused the said Books I found the latter to be the same in effect with the former and scarce met with any thing in either which he had not had in some of his Books before and had been formerly answered so that it was much more difficult to find out any new Matter than to give an Answer to the same I believe the Reader when he remembers how Sir Peter in his Answer to my Defence of Amicia did declare That he had taken leave for ever of this Trivial Controversie will very much wonder to find him in Print twice since then upon the same Subject But for that he supposeth he hath a good Excuse For he tells us in his Epistle to the Reader before the first of his two Books That although his resolution then was viz. when he writ his Answer to my Defence of Amicia 1673. to have writ no more about it especially if I had let him alone yet now contrary to his former intention he is necessitated thereunto in his own defence for the removal of those unjust obloquies which are since cast upon him Whereas his Servant Mr. Thomas Jackson in a Letter writen as he says by the Command of his Master did signifie to me that his Master would write again and this before I had printed one word of my Reply so that if we find him thus stumbling at the first it is well if we do not take him oft tripping before he comes to his journies end And for his writing again this second time he hath an excellent Reason For he says pag. 16. I have published another Book since and have therein taxed him already for not being just to his word so that he cannot now incur a greater Censure from me herein though he alter his former resolution and intention and write in his own defence so long as he shall henceforth judge it necessary so that he is resolved to give me just cause to censure him if he had not done so before He also endeavors to apply to me that saying of the angry Man in the Comedy which he mentions in his said Epistle but yet he is conscious I will say as much of him and his Reply and thereupon submits it to the Reader in which I shall willingly close with him and especially if it be a Reader who is well acquainted with his temper and mine But it is high time to leave the Epistle and to proceed to give an Answer to his said Books AN ANSWER TO Sir Peter Leycester's TWO BOOKS c. I Doubt not but the Judicious Reader hath long since observed what strange kind of Arguments Sir Peter Leycester doth insist upon both in these last and in all other his former Books For with all the confidence imaginable he several times affirms that Mr. Glanvil says That Lands might be given with any Woman in Liberum Maritagium whereas he only says That they may be given cum qualibet muliere in Maritagium as you may see in the 39 40 and 41 pages of my Reply where Mr. Glanvil's words are expresly set down He also says That he hath proved Geva to be a Bastard out of an Historian Contemporary by which Ordericus Vitalis is meant and yet the said Ordericus hath said no such thing He also affirms That the Common Law is now alter'd other ways than by Act of Parliament without quoting any Author for what he says although the Common Law hath always been the same and as my Lord Coke upon Littleton fol. 115. b. says Hath no Controuler in any part of it but the High Court of Parliament and if it be not abrogated or alter'd by Parliament it remains still And whereas my Lord Coke doth also in the same Book fol 21. b. tell us That these words in liberum maritagium are such words of Art and so necessarily required as they cannot be expressed by words equipollent or amounting to as much He for all this brags of several Precedents where Lands were given in free Marriage with Bastards and yet proves not that those necessary words in Liberum Maritagium were used in the granting of any of those Lands or that any of those persons with whom the said Lands were given were Bastards To conclude he tells you That Lhewellin Prince of north-North-Wales was divorced from his Wife Joane the Daughter of King John and for this he can neither shew any Author or Record but only doth dream of such a thing himself and yet you must believe him in all these particulars or else as you may see in the first page of his Reply to my Answer to his Addenda he will tell you you do withstand the plainest truth of History and Reason produced He also hath a fine way of answering For if he be pressed overmuch with any point of Law he will tell you of his own authority that the Law in such particulars hath been clearly alter'd though he cannot tell how or at what time it was so changed If it be a Record that puts him too hard to it then he conceives the Roll from whence the Deed is written is mistaken in such and such words and miswrit therein from the Original Chart it self And if out of any History you tell him of any thing which he cannot answer then he will not suffer the words to be read as they ought to be printed but he will fancy such expressions as will best suit with his turn and will also disparage the said History although in those matters he had formerly said he did chiefly follow the same He doth also to amuse those Readers that are of weak understanding tell them of Circumquaques of bits of Law pieces of Law brought in by the head and shoulders fragments of Law parcels of Law and in his two last Books tells me of my impertinencies of my being impertinent and of my speaking impertinently if one who sayes he hath counted do not mistake himself no less than Thirty times with several other expressions too ridiculous to repeat here He also to keep up his credit with the more simple sort of People doth offer to join issue with me upon

as it is misprinted and thinks he shews a great deal of skill in proving that it cannot be true as it is misprinted which every one will confess as well as himself And lastly although in his Historical Antiquitles in the Fifth Chapter concerning the Kings of Wales and Princes of Wales in which Chapter he did quote Ingulphus Orderiews Cambden Matthew Paris and others and did tell you there in his 44 page that in these Welsh matters he did chiefly follow the Welsh History put out by Dr. Powell 1584. yet now he will also disparage the said History all that he can But that he may seem to have some reason for what he says he will tell you that in that very place where Caradocus speaks of taking Melyenith he also says that at that time King Steven took Geffrey Mandevile Prisoner at St. Albons whereas Mat Paris sub anno 1142. says it was William Mandevile who was there taken and therefore he will not have Caradocus to be believed in other things but this which Sir Peter here says will be of no force first because though Mat Paris be a very good Author yet Caradocus if there was nothing else in the Case ought to be believed before the said Mat Paris because the said Caradocus was living when the said Hugh did win Melyenith and when the said Geffrey de Mandevile was taken Prisoner whereas the said Mat Paris lived a long time afterwards for he dyed in the year 1259. which was 117 years after that time secondly because what Carodocus says concerning the said Geffrey in his said 197 page is very true whose words are these AT that time viz. 1142. King Steven took Geffrey Mandevile Prisoner at St. Albon where the Earl of Arundel was like to be drowned by default of his Horse The Earl Mandevile gave to the King for his liberty the Tower of London with the Castles of Walden and Plassey who afterward lived by spoil of Abbeys and was slain in a skirmish against the King Now that Caradocus doth not mistake herein will thus appear If you look in Henry of Huntington who lived in the time of the said King Stephen pag. 393. line 15. you may thus read EOdem anno cepit Rex Gaufridum de Magnavilla in Curia sua apud sanctum Albanum magis secundum retributionem nequitiae consulis quam secundum j●● gentium magis ex necessitate quam ex honestate Nisi enim hoc egisset perfidia consulis illius regno privatus fuisset Igitur ut Rex eum liberaret reddidit ei Turrim Londoniae Castellum de Waledene illud de Plaisseiz possessionibus igitur caren● consul praedictus invasit Abbatiam Ram●siensem Monachis expulsis raptores immisit Ecclesiam Dei speluncam fecit latronum Also if you peruse the History of Simeon Dunelmensis who lived in the time of the said King Steven and whose History was continued for about 25 years by John Prior of Hagulsted col 273. line 15. you may thus read Galfridus enim de Magnavilla ejectis Monachis Monasterio de Ramesbi abusus est vice Castri Also Roger Hoveden who lived in the times of King Henry 2. R. 1. and King John in his Annals printed at Franfurt 1601. pag. 488. l. 41. thus says ANno autem ipso consul Gaufridus de Mandevilla Regem validissime vexavit in omnibus valde gloriosus effulsit Mense autem Augusti miraculum justicia sua dignum virtus divina monstravit Duos namque qui monachis evulsis Ecclesias Dei converterant in Castella similiter peecantes simili poena mulctavit Robertus namque Marmiun vir bellicosus hoc in Ecclesia de Coventree perversus exegerat Porro Gaufridus ut diximus in Ecclesia Ramesiensi scelus idem patraverat And a little before in the said page he also tells how the said Geffrey was taken Prisoner at St. Albon and delivered the Tower of London and the Castles of Wallinden and Plasseis to the then King Also Gulielmus Nubrigensis who lived in the times of R. 1. and King John thus writes lib. 1. cap. xi EOdem tempore Rex Stephanus cepit Gaufridum de Magnavilla in curia sua apud Sanctum Albanum non quidem honeste secundum jus pro merito ejus metu scilicet quod expediret quam quod deceret plus attendens Erat enim idem Gaufridus homo Audacissimus magnarum virium simul Artium praeclaram illam Arcem Lundoniensem cum duabus aliis Munitionibus non ignobilibus possidens subtili astutia ingentia moliens And afterwards in the same Chapter he speaks how the King did wrest from the said Geffrey the Tower of London with his two other Castles and also what the said Geffrey did to the Monastery of Ramesey Also Raph de Diceto who was Dean of Pauls in King John's time in his Abbrev Chronic col 508. line 32. thus says 1142. STephanus Rex Gaufridum de Magnivilla cepit in Curia sua qui ut liberaretur reddidit turrim Lundoniae Castella sua Also Gervasius a Benedictine Monk of Canterbury who lived in the time of King John col 1360. line 7. thus writes M CX LIIII REx Stephanus cepit Comitem Gaufridum de Mandavilla in Curia sua apud sanctum Albanum magis ex necessitate quam ex honestate Nisi enim hoc fecisset ut a pluribus dicebatur perfidia Comitis regno privandus esset Captus itaque Comes nulla potuit occasione liberari nisi sua Castella resignans Regiae pareret voluntati Reddidit ergo Turrim Londoniae Castellum de Waldene illud de Plessiz liberatus est Comes igitur munitionibus carens a Militari crudelitate se cohibere non valens invasit abbatiam de Rameseia de Ecclesia Dei non ●●ritus Justitiam speluncam fecit Latronum Also John Brompton col 1033. l. 1. EOdem anno Comes Galfridus de Mandavilla a Rege captus pro restitutione turris Londoniensis Castelli de Walde postea liberatur qui possessionibus carens cum adhuc magnam haberet familiam confestim abbathiam Sancti Benedicti de Rameseye invasit Monachis expulsis raptores immisit sanctum Monasterium speluncam fecit latronum But I shall after all this shew you what Mat Paris himself says in that Edition put out by Dr. Wats pag. 79. which is the same place which Sir Peter doth cite whose words are these EOdem tempore Rex Stephanus cepit Willielmum de Mandevilla apud Sanctum Albanum unde reddidit Regi Turrim Londoniarum cum Castellis de Waldene de Plessiz antequam a vinculis solveretur Qui carens possessionibus paternis invasit abbatiam Ramefiensem atque Monachis expulsis raptores immisit But on the other side of the Leaf viz. pag. 80. l. 17. in the year 1143. he thus says EOdem anno Robertus Marmimi vit bellicosus qui Monachos Coventrenses a suo Monasterio expulerat de Ecclesia illa