A DISCOVERY OF CERTAIN ERRORS PUBLISHED IN PRINT IN the much commended Britannia. 1594. Very prejudicial to the discentes and successions of the ancient Nobility of this Realm.  
By York Herald.  Quam quisque norit artem, in hac se exerceat.  

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE, ROBERT EARL OF ESSEX, Earl Marshal of England, Viscount Hereford, and Bourchier, Lo. Ferrer of Chartley, Bourchier and Lovayne, Knight of the most Noble order of the Garter. etc. Lord general of her majesties Forces in her Realm of Ireland. And to all other the Nobility of England.  
RIght Honourable, having upon deligent search, apprehended within the compass of my profession, and science of Heraldry, certain errors in descents and successions, such as may be scandalous to the grey hears of Antiquity, and prejudicial to the branches of our Nobility; I thought it my duty to present them as Captives at your honours feet, being the undoubted Champion of truth, and the worthy Marshal of all Heroic magnanimity and honour: unto whom I humble myself for a favourable censure, and protection of this my poor service. As no child is so deformed, but the father commonly hath a natural affection towards it: so these errors will no doubt, be both fathered and favoured of the Author; whose reputation for Learning is so great, and beard of Antiquity lately grown so long, that the goodly Britannia, Mother of us all, is become his daughter, trained up, and taught to speak Latin in his School; only she lisps, and makes no good congruity in these principles of Herauldy: For which I challenged him; not that my exception, and challenged, is about the words and terms of our Art, (that is the least) but touching the falsifiing of Noble discentes, depriving some Nobles of issue to succeed them, who had issue, of whom are descended many worthy families. Naming others to have but one sole Daughter and heir, when they had divers Sons and Daughters. Denying Barons, and Earls, that were: and making Barons and Earls of others, that were not: mistaking the Father for the Son, and the Son for the Father: affirming legitimate children to be illigittimate, and illigittimate to be legitimate: those to be basely borne, who were in deed descended of very honourable Parentage: assigning Arms, and ensigns of Honour to others not their own. Lastly, the framing incestuous and unnatural marriages, making the Father to marry his sons wife, and the Son his own Mother. These, and such like matters of importance, are the errors that I have examined, and attached, to abide your Honour's censure and reformation: For whom, with bowed heart and knee, I pray to God, for all increase of honour, heart's contentment, and happy victory.  
Your Honours in all duty, Ra. Brooke, York Herald at Arms.   

TO MASTER CAMDEN.  
WHere as You expect thanks at the hands of her majesties Heralds, for intermeddling so sparingly and gently with that, which appertaineth to their profession. Contrary to your expectation, and answerable to your deserts, myself (being the most unable) have undertaken to answer your unkind speeches: as also your untrue, and erroneous writing touching matters of our profession and science, published in your Britannia. In deed you dealt but sparingly, and after a sort gently (as you say) in the handling of our mysteries at the first: but in your fourth and last Edition (though your Preface spoke as it did, sparingly still) yet your Book hath swelled with large additions of Heraldry: in which you have (by your patience) been too busy, and venturous; except your proceedings, in those points, had been more firmly grounded upon experience. And I doubt not, but the growth and increase of your Book hath sprung from some of those Heralds labours, which you so much hold in scorn. Nay, it can not be denied, but since the death of Glover, late Somerset Herald. 1588. you have gleaned not only handfuls, but whole sheaves, out of his industrious collections, being reserved in the Library of that Honourable Lord Treasurer deceased, and by that means incommoned to your use, and free recourse. I would his Gloves might have fitted your hands in such sort, as you might have smoothly carried them away: his Notes (I mean) I wish you had neither misunderstood, nor misreported; as contrariwise you have, in such palpable manner, that (me thinks) ever hereafter you should distrust yourself in the search of such mystical points, without the advice of an Herald better experimented then yourself. I prognosticate already, what entertainment in these mine advertisements, I shall have: It will be objected from yourself, that I understand not your Book. I confess mine intelligence not so great, but my fear is the greater, and my care the more, to understand you by helps; so that the trust in myself is the less: And this suspicion (I hope) will force me to make sure work in that I undertake. Valour (they say) may be too bold, and Learning too full of quillities: the one standing more upon the bravery of his fight, than the goodness of the quarrel: the other, more upon the generality of his knowledge, than the truth of his cause. The mother tongue of every Nation (as you affirm) is the best conserver of Original names: And yourself endeavour to get a more ample credit in History, by avouching that you have read over many home-bredd Historinas. By your example therefore, I am induced to believe that English Authors, and English Heralds (though they have concealed their travails from the world, and not published a Rapiamus general upon every light occasion) are to be credited for the truth of English successions, discentes, and reports, of all honourable designments. Again, who is more unfit to describe the truth of actions in their proper nature, than such affectate Novices, as have their mouths and pens running over with the foaming Must of un-refined Eloquence? who choose rather to let the truth of the matter slip, then to abate one title of their self-pleasing phrase. Therefore, I have heard many great statesmen affirm, that the Court hath afforded more absolute Wisemen for any active employment in the Commonwealth, than the Schools: which falleth out especially, because to these proceedings of the one in Art, there hath not been added some lecture of discretion to qualify the same withal; which is to be had daily by examples, and practise in the other. And doubtless for a mere Scholar to be an Historian, that must take up all by hearsay, and uncertain rumours, not being acquainted with the secrets, and occurrences of state matters, I take it (as many others affirm with me) very unfit, and dangerous. I hope you will (in some sort) acknowledge this to be true, if indifferently you take a view of these errors by yourself committed; a man of so rare knowledge, and singular industry. Yet no one man so generally well seen in all things, but an inferior person in some one special matter, may go beyond him. In regard whereof, contemn not these few Collections of mine (wherein I have not vaunted my Learning, but cleared the truth, according to the oath and profession of an Herald) unless learnedly with truth you confute the same: Until then, I bid you farewell.   

A DISCOVERY OF DIVERS ERRORS, PUBLISHED IN PRINT ANNO 1594, prejudicial to the descents and successions of most of the ancient Nobility of this Realm.  TVtburie castle was built by Henry Lo. Ferrars a Norman, 
Tutburie.  unto whom William the first gave large possessions▪ which Robert Earl Ferrars and Derbie, his grandchild (by his son Robert) lost, by revolting the second time from king Henry the third. Pag. 447. 
THe Catholic credit of your great learning, (which might have been a club to daunt the courage of unlettered Heralds, and cause them to retire the field, from encountering with you) hath been the drum that hath summoned me out, not as a champion, but as a defendant (by my oath and profession) for the trial of the truth, and defence of the unspotted honour of Arms, and ancient Nobility. The sacred body of my sweet and native Country Britannia, I embrace. The phrases of your scholarlike language, I esteem as gorgeous ornaments upon a Matron that is naturally beautiful: the relics of industrious Leyland, together with his farre-fetched and dear bought Antiquities, I admire: almost I had said adore, but for religion sake. Only the disgrace of ancient Herauldie: (wherewith England hath much flourished in former age,) the impeachment of many illustrious families, the misreport of many honourable descents, and the dangerous errors avouched by your lowd-sounding pen, I must repeal and reverse with a writ of Quo warranto, lest in time, the countenance of your world-wondred and self-conceited knowledge, cause naked truth to be held in scorn of others, as it is in captivity by yourself. My humble requestis, that the honourable beholders of our combat blush not, nor the scholastical Readers bite the lip, to see an English Herald encounter with an antic Hercules. Let not the foreruning breath of deep renowned science blow up the weight of long experience: you may enjoy the reputation of Arts, but in Arms and Herauldie we except against your skill. And because I intent only a freedom of truth in matter of mine own profession, you shall understand, that I will not intermeddle with any other the commendable discoveries of Antiquity, (being without the lists and compass of mine exception) but only where the ancient pedigrees of honourable families are either clipped, or strange feathers imped into their trains: there am I bold to note the defects, and to declare the excess that may make a worthy progeny seem some monstrous offspring, if the truth be not unfolded. What cause I have to undertake this charge, may appear by these few erroneous slips (gathered out of many) in your Britannia. In the detection whereof, I have not followed your Method, a long by the rivers side, from shire to shire, and town to town (for that were a journey too tedious, and out of my way) but I have fastened first upon that noble Ferrarian line, whose present issue, so glorious at this time, seemeth to command a redress of that injurious obscurity, wherewith your superficial skill, or rather ignorance, hath somewhat eclipsed the former excellency thereof.  
First therefore, I am priest to encounter you at the castle of Tutburie, in the honour of whose founders, I am to spend my first breath and valour: to the end I may revive the race of them which you have overthrown, by falsifying and extinguishing four descents in seven. If you demand how? I answer, in making Robert Earl Ferrars, grandchild of Henry Lord Ferrars the Norman, to be that Robert which did forfeit all his lands to king Henry the third: when in truth, it was the said Robert's great great grandchild. And therefore, to build up again this honourable descent and succession of the Earls Ferrars, (which you have ruinated) I will first begin with Henry Lord Ferrars the Norman, unto whom (by the book of doomsday) William the Conqueror gave many large possessions in the counties of Stafford, Leicester, Bedford, Gloucester, Oxford, Bucking and Berkshire. He had issue Robert Earl Ferrars, who founded the Abbay of Muriuall, in king Henry the first his time, and died the 19 of king Stephen: whose eldest son William Earl Ferrars, and Lord of Tutburie being slain in his lodging in Lumbards' street in London, without issue, Robert his second son succeeded, and was Earl Ferrars Lord of Tutburie and Oucam. He kept the town of Leicester for king Henry the second against the young king, and had issue William Earl Ferrars, and first earl of Derbie, who married Margaret, daughter and heir of William Peuerell Lord of Nottingham, and died the 12. of Henry the third, leaving issue William the second Earl Ferrars and Derbie his son: who took to wife Agnes, the third sister, and coheir of Ranulph Earl of Chester and Lincoln: and died 1242. unto whom succeeded the third William Earl Ferrars, and Derbie, who married Margaret daughter and coheir of Roger Quincy earl of Winchester. On whom he be got Robert Earl Ferrars, and Derbie, who in the fifty year of king Henry the third, was taken prisoner at the battle of Chesterfield, and imprisoned in the castle of Chipenham: where he for the obtaining of his liberty made assurance before john Chishall then Lord Chancellor of England, of all his lands (except Chartley and Bolbroke) to Lord Henry son of the king of Romans, William Valence Earl of Penbroke, john earl Warren & Surry, William Beauchamp earl of Warwick, Roger Somery, Thomas Clare, R. Walleron, Roger Clifford, Hamon le Strange, Bartholomew de Sudley, & Robert Bruse, Barons, his sureties, for the payment of 50000. pounds on a day, at one entire payment, to Lord Edmond the King's son. Which day & payment being broken, and not performed, the said Lord Edmond, by the surrender of the sureties aforesaid, took possession of those his lands, and enjoyed the same during his life: and after left them to his heirs, the same being then valued at two thousand pounds by the year. And this is that Robert, whom you very untruly have set down to be grandchild to Henry Lord Ferrars that lived in the time of the Norman conquest, he being the seventh in line all descent from him: (as by your own words in the title of Derby. pag. 430. it may appear) where you confess William to be the father, & William the grandfather of this Robert, that forfeited his lands in king Henry the third his time. Now, to let you know the inconvenience arising hereby: It is the concealment and loss of three most notable inheritrices, that were married unto three of these Ferrarian Earls. The first was the daughter and sole heir of William Peuerell, Lord of Nottingham (whose son was honoured with the title of earl of Nottingham.) The second was the sister, and coheir of Ranulph Earl of Chester and Lincoln, who enriched this family with the Castle and honour of Chartley. The third being the daughter and coheir of Roger Quincy Earl of Winchester, who brought with her the honour and barony of Grooby. Of which fruitful marriages, if you make a feigned nullity, or divorce, you intercept those noble plants, from whence sprung sundry the most famous branches of our nobility, flourishing in this our declining age.  CHartley Castle builded by Ranulph earl of Chester, came to 
Chartley.  the Ferrars by Agnes his daughter, whom Robert earl Ferrars and Derby married: of whose progeny issued seven barons Ferrars of Chartley: Anne daughter of the last of them, brought this title and honour by marriage, to Walter Devereux her husband, who was the great-great-great grandfather of the right honourable Robert Earl of Essex that now is. Pag. 449. 
WHere you affirm in this place, Ranulph Earl of Chester to have builded the Castle of Chartley, which after came to be the possession of Robert earl Ferrars and Derby, by marrying Agnes the daughter of the foresaid Ranulph: and that there did descend of the said Robert & Agnes seven barons in direct line successively: hereto I answer, that Ranulph Earl of Chester builded indeed the castle of Chartley, in the fourth year of king Henry the third, & died An. 1236. But that he was father to the said Agnes, I utterly deny: affirming him to die without any issue at all. And for proof hereof, I appeal to yourself, in perfect remembrance, testifying the same against yourself, in the title of Earls of Chester, Pag. 471. And for the foresaid Robert Earl Ferrars, he never married any such woman. So that by this your not understanding, you have obscured and made unperfect that noble line of the Earl Ferrars. Nay you have done them a far greater wrong, for hereby have you (contrary to all law and reason) made the said Agnes to be daughter to her own brother, and the said Robert to be husband unto her that was his grandfathers wife. By which untrue wresting, you have thrust out of their places, not only two of the greatest Earls of their time, but also the coheir of Quincy, who (as before I said) brought into that family the barony of Grooby. Therefore that you may reform this your error, I will here set you down the truth of this descent, proved by good authority, beginning first with William Earl Ferrars and Derby, grandfather of the said Earl Robert, who married the forenamed Agnes, the third sister, and coheir of the forenamed Ranulph Earl of Chester and Lincoln, (and not his daughter, as you have written.) This said William died in the 27. year of king Henry the third, and left issue William Earl Ferrars, and Derbie, his son, Lord of Chartley, who married with Margaret Lady of Grooby, daughter and coheir of Roger Quincy Earl of Winchester, on whom he begot Robert Earl Ferrars and Derby, and after died in the 38. year of king Henry the third. Which Robert was he that you would have to marry Agnes the daughter of Ranulph Earl of Chester, who was in truth his grandmother. But for your further satisfaction, understand, that the said Robert married to his wife the daughter of the Lord Basset, and was taken prisoner soon after by King Henry the third, in the Barons wars, and forced to pay at one entire payment for his ransom, & delivery, to Lord Edmond the King's son, the sum of fifty thousand pounds: for the assurance of which payment he bond over all his lands: as before in the title of Tutbury I have set down. He died in the seventh year of king Edward the first, 1278. leaving issue by his said wife, john Lord Ferrars of Chartley, ancestor to the Earl of Essex now living.  REignald, base son to king Henry the first, was made Earl 
Reignald earl of Cornwall.  of Cornwall, and after died without issue. Pag. 130. 
IN making Reignald Earl of Cornwall to die without issue, you offer great injury to divers worshipful families, depriving them of their Ancestor from whom they are descended. For the said Reignald had issue three daughters, his heirs: one married to Baldwin Riduerse Earl of Devon, of whom descended the honourable families of Courtneys: and an other to Valitort, of whose issue many remain at this present.  KIng Richard the second honoured William le Scroop, first, 
Earls of Wiltshire.  with the Earldom of Wiltshire. But the felicity of this man did both stand, and fall with his Prince, etc. Not many years after, this dignity came unto james Butler Earl of Ormond. From thence (the family of Lancaster decaying) it went unto john Stafford, second son to Humphrey Duke of Buckingham, by the gift of king Edward the fourth: of which stock, one or two succeeded. At last, a grandchild of the forenamed james Butler, by his son, carried this title into the family of Bullens: for Thomas Bullen, in right of his mother, was created Earl of Wiltshire: whose eldest daughter Anne was married unto king Henry the eight, and by him had issue, our sovereign Lady Elizabeth: Pag. 187. 
ALthough your rash, and over hasty pen, have seemed unto you so privileged, as that thereby you durst adventure the prejudice of many honourable persons in their descents and ensigns of honour (as you have done) yet me thinks that her majesties sacred name might justly have limited your writings within such bounds of loyal duty, as that your hand should have trembled to indite, or your heart once to admit the publishing any untruth, whereby her honour might in any part be eclipsed. Hear you say, that james Butler Earl of Wiltshire had a grandchild (by his nameless son) which was mother unto Thomas Bullen Earl of Wiltshire, grandfather to the Queen's most excellent Majesty that now is: in which you greatly wrong her, she being not descended of the said james, but of Thomas Butler Earl of Ormond his brother. And the better to manifest the same, the said james was attainted by Act of Parliament, for high treason, & suffered for the same at Newcastle, in the first year of king Edward the fourth, without any issue of his body at all to beget such a grandchild, as you say, was the mother to Sir Thomas Bullen. Which being true (as it cannot be denied) I admire that a man of your learning, and professing such skill in Heraldy, would so unadvisedly publish in print, to the view of the whole world, so great an untruth, you having neither proof, nor warrant for the same. And not contented herewith, after, for maintenance and colour of these your errors, you further affirm, that the said Sir Thomas Bullen was created Earl of Wiltshire in right of Margaret his mother, graund-childe (as you say) of the said james. In which so saying, you show yourself very ignorant in the descents of dignities. And for answer hereunto: First I say, that Margaret the mother of Sir Thomas Bullen was second daughter and coheir of Thomas Butler Earl of Ormond, brother of james Earl of Wiltshire, and not the said james his grandchild: and so in that point, have you falsified this descent. Secondly, where you would have this dignity of Wiltshire to descend to Thomas Bullen in right of his mother, that do I also deny: and for proof thereof say, that the said james, being both the first and last Earl of Wiltshire of that surname, did by his attainture forfeit the same to king Edward the fourth: by reason whereof, the said honour reverted to the crown, and there remained until king Henry the eight, of his mere grace and great favour, did bestow the same upon Sir Thomas Bullen, grandfather to our most gracious sovereign lady Queen Elizabeth. And thus was Sir Thomas Bullen advanced to this dignity, and not as in any right descended to him from james Butler Earl of Wiltshire, from whom he did not descend.  TOtnes, the ancient possessions of judeall, surnamed the Totnes: 
Totnes.  afterwards it came to William Briwer a Noble man: by one of whose daughters it came to the Bruises, and from them by a daughter to George Cantelup Lord of Abergeuenny: whose daughter did carry the same by marriage to the Baron's Zouches: in which name it remained, until john Baron Zouch was banished for taking part with Richard the Tyrant. Pag. 135. 
TO that part where you affirm, George Lord Cantelup of Abergaveny to have issue a daughter and heir married unto the Baron Zouch: I answer, that the said George had no daughter at all, but died without issue: as by his office taken after his death, in the first year of king Edward the first, it doth plainly appear: and therefore have you greatly erred, in making him to have issue a daughter.  IN the time of king Richard the second, Torbay was the seat of 
Torbay.  the Briwers, who were in those days men of great account. Pag. 136. 
IT seemeth unto me very strange, that you will affirm Torbay to be the Seat and habitation of the honourable family of Briwers, in the time of king Richard the second, when as you are not able to prove any of that surname to live in almost an hundredth and fifty years before: for William Briwer, the last of that progeny, died without issue, in the beginning of the reign of king john, leaving his five sisters his heirs, of whom are descended many of our Nobility now living.  HAccombe was in times past the Mansion of jurdan Fitz-Stephens 
Haccombe.  a famous knight. His daughter and heir Cecilie did marry into the family of the Archdeacon's: from whom, in process of time, that possession came by Hugh Courtney unto the Carewes: For jane the sole daughter and heir of Peter Courtney, was married to Nicholas Baron Carew, and had issue divers sons. Pag. 136. 
HAccombe was never the Mansion or possession of Fitz-Stephens: but always the seat and inheritance of the family of Haccombs, and did continue in that surname until their heir general was married to Archdeacon. And for proof that these were two several families: Haccombes bare for their Arms, argent three Bends sables: Fitz-Stephens was an other family, always seated at Norton in the county of Devon, and never at Haccombe, and did bear for their Arms, gules an Eagle displayed gold. But because I see you are at a stand, I will here help you with an excuse, giving you to understand, that about the reign of king Edward the second, there was one Stephen de Haccombe, who dwelling at Haccombe, had a son named Waren (which happily might be called Waren filius Stephani de Haccombe) And so I think, that worshipful family of Carewes will confess: to whose judgement I refer myself in this point, and you to be corrected: as also to say whither Nicholas Baron Carewe did ever mary with jane, the daughter and sole heir of Peter Courtney. Which Peter (by my books) as yet had never other father then yourself.  Exeter had three Dukes, vidz. john Holland Earl of Huntingdon, 
Exeter.  made Duke of Exeter by king Richard the second (his half brother by the mother:) he was dispossessed of that honour by king Henry the fourth, and Thomas Beauford of the house of Lancaster set in his place. Yet afterwards, john Holland, son of the said john, recovered his father's honour, which he left to his son Henry, who had issue one only daughter married to the family of Nevil's, Pag. 139. 
IN this place have you committed a dangerous error, to the hazard of disinheriting many honourable families, by publishing in print, that Henry Holland duke of Exeter, had issue one sole daughter and heir, married to the family of Neuills: when as it is manifest, that after his deprivation by Act of Parliament, the first of Edw. the fourth, he was found drowned in the sea, the 12. year of the said kings reign, without any issue: and therefore, no such daughter of his could be married to Nevil (as you affirm.) And that you may the better know the said Henry Holland, as also his coat of arms, I wish you to see his tomb, where he lieth buried in the Southside of Saint Peter's Church at Westminster, which you have heretofore avouched to be the tomb of john of Eltham Earl of Cornwall. But if you will take good view thereof, you shall find him that lieth thereon, to wear on his head a Duke's crown (no fit ornament for john of Eltham, being but an Earl) and to bear in his shield the arms of England within a border of France. The which shield and arms to be the said Henry Holland's, it doth appear by divers his deeds yet extant, with their seals affixed to the same.  WIscombe appertained to William Baron Bonville, who 
Wiscombe.  in right of his wife did augment his inheritance with the barony of Harington, and left behind him one sole daughter named Cecilie, who by her marriage transported both those titles, with their possessions, unto the Greys' Marquis Dorcet. Pag. 140. 
HEre you make William Lord Bonuile, that married the daughter and heir of the Lord Harington, to die without issue male, leaving one sole daughter married to Graye Marquis Dorcet, when as in truth the said William had issue a son, that succeeded him in his dignity, and no daughter at all. And if you would know his name, I answer William, who carried both the title of Lord Bonuile and Harington, and had to wife Katherine, daughter to Richard Nevil Earl of Salisbury, by whom he had issue Cecilie his daughter and sole heir, married to Thomas Grace Marquis Dorcet. Which cecily you would have to be sister to her father, and daughter to her grandfather: by which mistaking the father for the son, and the son for the father, you have obscured, and made unperfect this descent of the Lord Bonuills, of whom many honourable families at this day are descended.  BAldwin Rivers was by king Henry the first, made Lord of 
Earls of Devon.  Twifferton and Plymton, and after Earl of Devonshire. He had issue Richard that succeeded him, who had issue Baldwin and Richard, both Earls successively: which dying without issue, that honour came to their father's brother called William of Uernon. This William had issue Baldwin, who died before his father, leaving issue by Margaret daughter of Warin Fitzgerald, a son called Baldwin, the third Earl of Devon: who changed his ancestors Escutcheon, from a griffon gold in a field gules, unto a shield gold charged with a Lion azure. He had issue two children, Baldwin the last Earl of this family, and Isabella, that was married to William de Fortibus, Earl of Albemarle, and of Devonshire in her right. Pag. 144. 
HEre do you wrong this descent of the Earls of Devonshire, making Baldwin Rivers to be the first Earl of Devonshire, and Lord of Twyfferton and Plympton, in king Henry the first his time: when as it is very manifest, that Richard Rivers, father of this Baldwin was the same person unto whom king Henry the first gave Twifferton, Plimpton, and the isle of Wight, with the Earldom of Devonshire, and not to Baldwin his son (whom you name:) as is very well proved by the book of Brightley and Ford, where those of that family do lie buried, as also by your own Testimony against yourself, in the tittle of Isles, in your book, Pag. 710. Secondly, to your affirmation, that Baldwin the third Earl of Devon did change his Ancestors Escutcheon gules a griffon gold, unto a shield gold a Lion azure: I answer, it is a fault in a mean person to be found untrue in his reports, much more in you to publish in print such an untruth as this: for you can not ever prove the said shield gules with the griffon gold to have been borne or used by any of the said family: or any other Arms at all of theirs can you show, until that Baldwin the third did use for his Arms the foresaid Lion azure upon gold. Thirdly, because in the beginning of this succession of Earls of Devon you abridged us of the first, now to make amends for the same, and to fill up the number again, you do here name for an Earl of Devon, William de Fortibus, who never as yet attained unto that dignity. And therefore, no reason why you should thus add or substract, to, or from noble persons dignities at your pleasure. But here peradventure ye will say, Isabel the wife of the aforenamed William de Fortibus, did in her widowhood write herself Countess of Albermale, and Devon, and Lady of the isle: which if I grant unto, that she did, it was in respect that she was the only heir than left alive of that honourable family: and yet will not that make a necessity, that her husband must be Earl of Devon.  THe Barony of Stoke-Curcy was so named of the Lords 
Stoke-Curcy.  thereof. It was the seat of William Curcy that was Sewer unto king Henry the first. He had issue William, whose daughter Auice was wife to Warin Fitz-Gerald, and their daughter and heir was married to Baldwin rivers Earl of Devon. Of this family of Curcies did descend john Curcie, which by warlike force overcame Ulster in Ireland, Pag. 157. 
YOur errors here committted are these: first, you make William de Curcy, that was Sewer to K. Henry the first, to have issue a son named William: which is untrue, for that he died without issue, and left Robert de Curcy his brother his heir. Secondly, you say, the said William de Curcy had a grandchild by his son William, called Auice, married to Warrin Fitz-Gerald, who had issue a daughter and heir married to Baldwin Earl of Devon. In which you are also deceived: For, the first William (as I said before) had not any issue at all, and therefore no such grandchild. And where you affirm the said Warin Fitz-Gerald to have issue by Auice his wife but one only daughter: it is manifest that he had issue a son named Warin Fitz-Gerald, who had issue the third Warin Fitz-Gerald. But for your better instruction herein, and to correct this your error, I will set you down the truth of this descent, as followeth: Robert de Curcy, a great Baron and councillor unto William Rufus, had issue two sons, William and Robert. William the eldest son dying without issue, Robert his brother succeeded him in his dignity, and was a witness to the Charter of king Stephen, of lands that he gave to the Abbay of Westminster, by the name of Robert de Curcy the king's Sewer. After whose death, Robert de Curcy his eldest son, Sewer to king Henry the second, being slain in Ireland without any issue, William the second son succeeded, and was a witness to the Charter of king Henry the second, of lands and liberties that he gave to Saint Peter at Westminster. He had issue john de Curcy governor of Ulster in Ireland, in the time of king john, who having no issue, left his rich patrimony to Alice (or Auice) his sister, than the wife of Warin Fitz-Gerald: which Warin was a witness to the Charter of king john, of his submission to the Pope, 1212. He had issue by his said wife, the second Warin Fitz-Gerald, Lord of Harewood, father to the third Warin.  THe greatest glory of Bridgewater was, that king Henry the 
Bridgewater.  seventh honoured it with the title of an Earldom, by making Giles Dawbeney Gentleman of his Chamber Earl thereof: whose only daughter and heir was married to I. Bourchier, the first earl of Bath of that family. Pag. 161. 
IF the making of Gentlemen heretofore hath been greatly misliked by her Majesty in the kings of Arms, much more displeasing (I think) it will be to her, that you being no Officer of Arms, should erect, make, and put down Earls and Barons at your pleasure, publishing in print falsely their admittance or deprivation: as in this place you have done, making Giles Dawbeney to be created Earl of Bridgewater by King Henry the seventh, when as the said King never advanced him nor any other to that dignity, neither was the said Giles ever any Earl during his life. And therefore here have you no great cause to boast of your skill in Heraldy. But, to pleasure you, I will bring you to the mark whereat your unadvised pen hath roved, which is to Henry Dawbeney, whom king Henry the eight on the 21. day of julie, in the 30. year of his reign, did at his Manor of Ocking created Earl of Bridgewater: which Henry was both the first and last that ever carried that title of dignity, and died without issue. All which I hope you will confess to be true, and acknowledge your fault.  HVngerford was a family of great account ever since the time 
Hungerford.  of King Edward the third: for Thomas Hungerford was grandfather to Walter Lord Hungerford Treasurer of England: Which Walter enriched his family by marrying Katherine Peuerell, she being descended from the Moils, and Courtneys. His son Robert also enlarged the same more, by marrying with Eleonore the daughter and heir of William Lord Mollins, who was beheaded at Newcastle, in the civil wars betwixt the families of Lancaster and York. He had issue Thomas, that was slain at Salisbury in the life of his father: yet left he issue one sole daughter called Marie, that was married to Edward Lord Hastings.. Pag. 168. 
YOur fault committed here, is far greater than that before in the title of Bridgewater: for in that you added a supposed earl that never was: & from this descent of Hungerford you have subtracted a Baron that was, in making Robert Lord Hungerford, who married the daughter and heir of the Lord Mollins, to be son of Walter lord Hungerford (that was Treasurer to King Henry the sixth) and father to Thomas which was slain at Salisbury. In which you are greatly deceived: for that Robert, who (you say) married the daughter of Lord Mollins, was grandchild to Walter, and son to Robert Lord Hungerford and Margaret the daughter and heir of William Lord Botreaux. By which your error you have not only thrust quite out of this descent, Robert the true son of the foresaid Walter, but his wife also the heir of the Lord Botreaux: to the great prejudice of the now Earl of Huntingdon, who is heir general both to the said Lord Robert, and Margaret his wife. And for your better satisfaction, that there were two Roberts, the father and son, betwixt Walter that was Treasurer to king Henry the sixth, and Thomas that was slain at Salisbury, look into the Parliament holden at Westminster, in the 29. year of king Henry the sixth, and there shall you find both the said Roberts, the father by the name of Robert Lord Hungerford the elder, and the son by the name of Robert Lord Mollins.  PHilibert de Chandew a Bretaigne, borne in France, was by 
Earls of bath.  king Henry the seventh made Earl of bath: after whom, king Henry the eight, in the 28. year of his reign, created john Bourchier Earl of bath. He had issue john his son, that succeeded him: who had issue john Lord Fitz-Warren, that died in the life of his father, leaving issue William now Earl of bath. 1594. Pag. 171. 
WHat your meaning is, by so often falsifying the pedigrees and descents of the Nobility, I know not: but wish there were some good order taken in time for reformation of the same, lest these and other like untruths be received generally for infallible verities, to the disparagement of noble families, as well in their fame, as right of inheritance. And especially would I desire, yourself being famous for learning (which you acknowledge) through all the provinces of Christendom, to recant such erroneous fallacies: that the world may perceive in your great learning, a spirit of singleness, not obstinately resting in the love of your selfconceited opinion, but willingly subscribing to the clear shining truth: which truth hath uncharged the noble succession of honourable houses, from the mist of your ignorant conjectures, by the means of us contemned Heralds. And now to manifest your error committed in this succession of Earls of Bath, I affirm you have thereunto added an Earl, who never had other father then yourself. If you demand his name, I answer john, whom you make to be son to john the first Earl of bath, and grandfather to William that now liveth. But that you may the better amend this your rash and unadvised writing, I will set you down the truth of this descent, beginning with john Bourchier Lord Fitz-Warrin, whom king H. 8. on the 9 day of julie, 1536. created Earl of bath. He had issue john Lord Fitz-Warin, that died before his father at Hengrave in Suffolk. 1560. leaving issue William now Earl of Bath: to whose honourable judgement I submit myself, to say whether he had any such grandfather.  KIng Henry the second, and Robert the son of Harding, 
Lo. Berkley.  who was the son of the king of Denmark, were founders of the Monastery of Saint Austin's by Bristol. This Robert was Alderman of Bristol, and so dearly beloved of king Henry the second that by his means he married the only daughter and heir of the Lord Berkeley, whereby the said Robert's posterity living in great honour, are yet called Barons of Berkeley: some of which are buried in this Church at Bristol. Pag. 174. 
IN this title of Berkley, you make Morice the son of Robert Fitz-Harding to be son to his own wife, and the said Robert to marry his sons wife: which unnatural marriages, though well liked of by yourself, yet never known nor allowed of by any others. And where you affirm Robert Fitz-Harding to marry the only daughter and heir of the Lord Berkeley: therein will you fail of your proof: for Roger Lord Berkeley of Dursley (whom you mean) had issue a son, of whom are descended many living at this present. But, that you may both know and confess your fault, I will set you down again the true descent hereof, with my authority for the same: beginning first with Harding the Dane, who (by the Book of doomsday) in the 20. year of William the Conqueror, held of Brictric, in mortgage, the Manor of Witenhort, in the County of Gloucester. He had issue Robert Fitz-Harding, who founded the Abbay of Saint Augustine's, and the hospital of Saint john's in Bristol, 1135. and married one Eva: by whom he had issue Morice Fitz-Robert, who took to wife Alice the daughter of Roger Berkley Lord of Dursley: as doth appear by the said Roger's deed, made in the sixth year of the reign of King Stephen, where he giveth unto the said Morris Fitz-Robert, in frank marriage, with Alice his daughter, the Manor of Slimbridge, in the County of Gloucester. And this I hope will be sufficient to make a divorce of this your forenamed unlawful and unnatural marriage.  WAlter d'Eureux, Earl of Rosmar in Normandy, had 
Earls of Salisbury.  great possessions given him by William Conqueror, aboxt Salisbury: which possessions he left unto his younger son Edward, surnamed of Salisbury, giving to Walter his eldest son his other lands in Normandy, with the Earldom of Rosmar: whose posterity failed within a while. Edward aforesaid lived in the twentieth year of William the Conqueror. Walter his son builded a Monastery at Bradenstocke, wherein he became a Monk: yet he first left issue a son called Patrick, (By Sibyl de Chaworth his wife) which Patrick was the first Earl of Salisbury, and was slain coming out of the holy land (by Guy de Lusignan:) to whom succeeded William his son, which died at Paris in the time of King Richard the first. Whose only daughter honoured William Longa-Spatha her husband, with the title of that Earldom, and with her Escutcheon Azure charged with six Lion's gold. His son William succeeded, and was in battle in the holy land, Anno. 1250. Whose son William lost the Earldom, through displeasure of King Henry the third: but he had issue one sole daughter named Margaret, which being married to Henry Lacie Earl of Lincoln, and Salisbury, in her right, had issue by him a daughter called Alice, that was married to Thomas Earl of Lancaster. Pag. 183. 
THe more plainly to decipher your errors in this title of Salisbury, I will first begin with Edward d'Eureux, whom I find to live in the 21. year of King William the Conqueror, and to be a witness to the said king's Charter touching the foundation of the Abbay of Selby, by the name of Edward Earl of Salisbury. Which proveth, that Patrick his grandchild was not then the first Earl of Salisbury, of that family (as you affirm.) Secondly, where you hold for a certainty, that Walter the son of Edward aforesaid (before his monastical profession) left issue to succeed him, Patrick his son. To that I answer, that Sibyl his wife, after the death of the said Walter her husband, took upon her the habit of a Nun, and having continued in that estate but one month, & perceiving herself to be with child, forsook that order again, and afterwards was delivered of a son, which was named Patrick, who was after steward to Maude the Empress: by whose means king Henry the second, in the 28. year of his reign, confirmed unto the said Patrick the earldom of Salisbury. Thirdly, concerning your affirmation, that William son of the said Patrick had but one only daughter named Ella, married to William Longa-Spatha, who in her right was Earl of Salisbury, and did bear her Arms. To this I say, you do hereby greatly prejudice the honourable family of howard's: for, the said William had not only two sons, but also two daughters (as appeareth by the book of Bermondsey in Southwark) viz. Patrick, William, Mabell, and Ella. Mabell was married to Nigell Lord Mowbray, of whom all the Howards, with many others are descended: Ella was married unto William Longa-Spatha, base son to Henry the second, who afterward by the special favour of King Richard the first, in the 9 year of his reign, was made Earl of Salisbury: and not in right of his wife (as you would have it.) And where you say, the said William Longa-Spatha and Ella had issue William, who succeeded his father in that dignity, and left issue the third William, which lost that Earldom through displeasure of King Henry the third. I answer, that I marvel how you can invent two so great untruths, as, first to affirm these two last Williams to be Earls of Salisbury, when neither of them both were ever Earls, either of that or any other place. And that the said William did use or bear the Arms of his wife, I take it, you have no other proof for the same than your own bare imagination: which with you is very great. Lastly, where you affirm Henry Lacie to be Earl of Salisbury, in right of his wife, the daughter and heir of the last William Longa-Spatha: I say that neither he the said Henry, nor any other of his Surname were ever at any time honoured with that title or Earldom. And now, to manifest the marriage of the Lord Nigell de Mowbray with Mabell daughter of William Fitz-Patrike, I will set you down for proof, the said Nigels deed, which is as followeth.  
SCiant presents & futuri, quod ego Nigellus dominus de Mowbray, dedi & concessi, etc. Know ye, that I Nigell Lord Mowbraw, have given and confirmed, from my Manor of Bensted in Surrey (which I had in marriage with Mabell my wife, heir of William Fitz-Patrike) the Church of Bensted, to the canons of Southwark, in whose possession I found the said Church, confirmed by Richard Bishop of Winton, etc.  TOuching the Earls of Winchester (as our Heralds' report) 
Earls of Winchester.  after that Clito the Saxon was by the Normans deprived of his ancient dignity, King john made Saer the Quincie Earl of Winchester: who used for his Arms, a Fez with a Label of five points (as we have seen in his Seal:) but Roger his son bore seven lozenges gold voided in a field Gules. He having no issue male by Helen his wife, the eldest daughter and Coheir of Alane Prince of Galloway in Scotland, that honour lay dead. A great while after, Hugh de Spencer was honoured with that title by King Edward the second: whose son for treason lost both that dignity and his life. After that, by the bounty of king Edward the fourth, Lewis of Bruges, a Belgian, Baron of Gruthuse, and Prince of Stenhuse, enjoyed this title, with the Arms of Quincies: Which title, after the death of King Edward aforesaid, he surrendered again to King Henry the seventh. Pag. 197. 
WHom you understand by the term of our Heralds, I know not: myself being one of her majesties Heralds, do approve for truth that Seer de Quincy was Earl of Winchester, and did use in his shield for his Arms, a Fez, and a Label of 13. points, and not of 5. (as you misreport to have seen in his seals. And, to prove my assertion true, I have diverse deeds with the Seals of the said Quincies in my custody, made aswell in the reign of king Richard the first, as in the times of king john, and Henry the third. As for Hugh Spencer, he was made Earl of Winchester, & high Treasurer of England in the 15. year of King Edward the second, and in the 19 year of the said king's reign he was executed at Bristol by Queen Isabella: so that the dignity ceased in himself, and not in his son (as you affirm) who never had, or was possessed of that dignity. Lastly, where you say, that King Edward the fourth did give to Lewes of Bruges the Earldom of Winchester, with the Arms of Quincies: I answer, you have not only misreported the same: but also showed yourself to be very ignorant in matters of Arms, for those Arms given by Edward the fourth to Lewes of Bruges, were neither the arms of Quincies, nor any thing at all resembling the same. And for proof hereof, I pray you let us a little compare them both together: first the arms given by K. Ed. 4. to the said Lewes were, Azure ten mascles gold: the arms of Quincies were, Gules 7. masclesgold: Bruges did bear in his arms a canton Gules charged with a Lion passant gardant of the second: Quincy had neither Canton nor Lion in his Arms. So that here is neither colour nor charge, to induce a man of any judgement or knowledge, to think or say, that this gift of Edward the fourth was the Arms of Quincy. And for better proof hereof, I will here insert the words of king Edward's grant, concerning the gift of the said Arms.  
REx omnibus, etc. Sciatis quod etc. Lodovicum Brugensem, principem de la Gruthuse, dominum de Spieres, de Aemsted & de Oestamp, in Comitat. Winton. praefecimus, Creavimus, & insignivimus, ac per praesentes praeficimus, Creamus, & insignimus, unà cum armis & insignib. armorum, modo & forma hîc depict. in gallico sic discernundis: Il port d' azure a dix mascles d'or en orme de un canton de nostre propre armes de Angleterre: c' est ascavoir, de gules un Leopard passant d'or armé d'azure, pat. 12. Edw. 4.  LAnheron was the seat of the family of Arundels, (or de Hirundine,) 
Lanheron.  that is, of the Swallow: for Arondell is in French a Swallow. Those of that family bore for their Arms, five Swallows silver: Pag. 127. 
WOuld any man of learning or judgement thus have enterprised to publish in print, to the view of the whole world, those things he is utterly ignorant of, but yourself? And that you are merely ignorant in matter of armory, I think there needeth no further proof than your own writing, touching the Arms of Bygot Earl of Norfolk, Longa-spatha Earl of Salisbury, Quincie, and Lewis of Bruges, both Earls of Winchester, all in this book mentioned: as also this of Arundel, touching which, well am I assured, that until you add sable for a colour to the field of this coat, and an other Swallow to make up the true number of 6. this is unperfect Armoury, and no ensign or arms pertaining to the family of Arundels, (as you say it is) nor any coat of Arms at all.  WIgot a Saxon was Lord of that honour, at the time of the 
Wallingford.  Conquest: who had one only daughter married to Robert d'Oyley, by whom he had issue Maude his heir, who was first married to Miles Crispin, and after to Brian filius-Comitis, by the favour of king Henry the first. Bryan taking part with Maude the Empress, fortified this Castle of Wallingford against king Stephen, who had erected a fort over against the same. But after that an atonement was made between king Stephen and king Henry the second, Bryan became professed in a Monastery, as also his wife: whereupon the honour of Wallingfordwas annexed to the crown. Pag. 206. 
THe great trouble, and late suit in the star-chamber, for setting down in Pedigree a forged heir general of Anthony Lord Grey of Ruthin, to the great danger of of disinheriting an honourable person now living, might be a warning both to you, & others, how they commit the like fault hereafter. Which notwithstanding, I see it is not regarded, for that not long since I have seen a pedigree made by yourself, more faulty than that before spoken of: which to let pass, I will come to answer this title of Wallingford. Here you affirm, Robert d' Oyley to have issue a daughter and heir named Maude, married to Miles Crispin: by which imagined heir, you wrong most of the honourable families of this Realm now living, descended of the said d'Oylye. And to redress this, I will here set you down the true descent of the said Robert d'Oylye: in which it shall appear, no such daughter ever to have been (as you affirm.) First by the book of doomsday it is set down, that William the Conqueror did give unto Robert d'Oylye these lands following: Watelinton, Garinges, Bernecester, Hochenorton, Chedelinton, Eton, and Braiton, with many other goodly possessions in the county of Oxford. Likewise in the book of Osney I find, that in the time of the Norman conquest, there lived two brothers of the family of d'Oyleys, Robert, and Nigell: and that Robert died without issue, leaving Robert (his nephew by his brother Nigel) to succeed him in his possessions. Also by divers evidences in my custody, it is manifest, that the foresaid Robert the nephew, founded the Abbey of Osney in the time of king Henry the first, and had issue Henry d' Oyley Constable to king Henry the second: to whom succeeded the second Henry d' Oily his son, that was likewise Constable to king Richard the first, and died without issue, leaving Margaret his sister and coheir, married to Henry Newborough Earl of Warwick: of whom that great and honourable family of Beauchamps Earls of Warwick did descend. So that hereby you may see the true line of heirs males continued from the first Robert, in William the Conqueror's time, unto Richard the first, very apparently proved: to the overthrow and avoiding of your feigned heir general. Whereby also you may take a caveat, to alter & recall in again your late coined pedigree, being of the same stamp. For proof, read these deeds following.  
NOtum sit fidelibus Sanctae Ecclesiae, etc. Be it known unto all faithful people of the holy Church, that I Henry d' Oleio, by the consent of Robert my brother the king's son, and other my friends and acquaintance, do give and grant, in free and perpetual Alms, unto the Holy Church of Saint Marie of Osney, for the soul of Henry the king, and for the soul of my father Robert d' Oleio, who founded the same Church: and for the soul of Gilbert my brother, and for the souls of all my predecessors, etc. ten pound land, etc. These being witnesses. Hugh de Chanuill, Paganus Westbery, etc.  
NOtum sit tam praesentibus quàm futuris, etc. Be it known unto all men, aswell present as those that shall hereafter come, that I Robert son of king Henry, by the consent of Henry de Oleio my brother, and of all other my friends, do give and grant, in free and perpetual Alms, to the Church of Saint Mary de Osney, etc. ten pound land, etc. These being witnesses, Hugh de Chanuill, Paganus Westbery, Hugh de Westberie, and Richard de Cahannes.  
SCiant presents & futuri, etc. Let all men know that are present, and those that shall be hereafter, that I Henry de Oilli, son of Henry de Oilli, the king's Constable, have made a certain change with my Cannons of Osney, of divers lands in my Manors of Cleinder, and Weston, by my own free will, and by the consent of Sibyl my wife, and by the counsel of my free mea: aswell for the commodity of myself, as also of my said Canons, which they held within my said Lordships aforesaid, etc. Dated the fift year of the reign of king Richard the first: witness whereof, William Baivell, Stephen de Hampton, Hugh Delahese, Roger Azure my Sewer, and many others.  WAlter Hungerford, high Treasurer of England to 
Hungerford.  king Henry the sixth, had issue Robert his son, commonly called Earl Hungerford, whose grandchild by his son transported that inheritance to the Hastings. Pag. 207. 
IN this descent of Hungerford, you have made the grandchild to be son to his grandfather. If you desire to know how: I answer, in making Robert Earl Hungerford to be son to Walter Lord Hungerford, Treasurer to King Henry the sixth, (who was in deed his grandchild.) In which doing, you have not only bereaved the said Walter of his lawful son: but also Robert Earl Hungerford, both of his father, and mother. And to manifest, that there was a Robert between Walter which was Treasurer to king Henry the sixth, and Robert called Earl Hungerford, I will first here insert the descent with the several marriages, beginning at the said Walter Lord Hungerford, who married the daughter and heir of Peuerell, and had issue Robert, that took to wife Margaret the daughter and heir of William Lord Botreaux: by whom he had issue the second Robert Earl Hungerford, which in the life of his grandfather Walter, and Robert his father, married the daughter and heir of the Lord Mollens, and in her right was summoned to the Parliament: Anno 25. of Henry the sixth, by the name of Robert Lord Mollens. And after the death of the forenamed Walter, the said two Roberts were both at one time of the Parliament, Anno 29. of Henry the sixth, the father by the name of Robert Lord Hungerforde signior, and the son by the Name of Robert Hungerforde Lord Mollens' junior. Which I take to be so strong a proof, as upon the sight hereof, you will recant and subscribe to the same.  WIdehay was the ancient seat of the Baron's Saint Amend, 
Widehay.  whose inheritance and dignity came to Gerald Braybrooke, in right of his wife: And Elizabeth, his grandchild by Gerald his son, transported the same to William de Beauchampe, who left issue but one only son, which was a bastard. Pag. 207. 
WHat an ungodly course is this you take, to deprive noble men both of their honour and honesty, framing to some unnatural marriages, falsifying the discentes of other, and making legitimate heirs, illegitimate? which abuses, by reason of my oath taken at my creation, I may not let pass, without telling you thereof. Understand therefore, that where you affirm William Beauchamp Lord Saint Amond (who married Elizabeth grandchild to Gerald Braybrooke) to have issue one only son, and he a Bastard: therein do you greatly both wrong and scandalise him, for he had in lawful matrimony by his said wife, Richard Beauchamp Lord Saint Amond, his legitimate son that succeeded him in the dignity of Saint Amond, and married Anne the daughter of Sir Walter Wrotesley knight. And therefore, very untruly have you charged the said William, to have had any such Bastard.  THe Barons of Windsor took their original from William the 
Barons of Windsor.  son of Other, that was Constable or keeper of Windsor Castle in the time of king William the first: from whom also are descended the Fitz-Geraldes in Ireland, Earls of Kildare, and Desmond: as Robert Glover, called Somerset (the most studious and skilful in Heraldy of all that society) hath proved. Pag. 213. 
HEre would you impeach the credit of that worthy Officer of Armes Robert Glover, in making him the Author of your imagined dreams, he having under his own hand in the Pedigree of the honourable Lord Windsor, both denied, that William de Windsor was son to Other, keeper of the Castle of Windsor: as also, that the Earl of Kildare, and Desmond were descended from the said William. By which your untrue misse-alledging the said Somersets works, to serve your turn, you show yourself very ungrateful towards him, out of whose books, (in the custody of the late Lord Treasurer) you gathered the flowers wherewithal you have made your unperfect garland, which you in your last edition so much have boasted of. But here would I not, that you, or any other should misconceive my meaning, that I think or judge Somerset Herald hath written or set down in his said books any of these untruths: but rather, that you, not rightly understanding them, nor able to discern the true use of his travels, have through ignorance committed these your errors, in affirming William de Windsor to be son to Other, and ancestor to the Earls of Kildare and Desmond in Ireland: of which two points you cannot prove any one: for the original ancestor of these before spoken of, was Walter the son of Other, and not William son of Other: for Walter had two sons, William, of whom are descended the Lords of Windsor: and Gerald, who was ancestor to the Geraldines Earls of Kildare and Desmond. And where you make William de Windsor to be son of Other: therein are you also deceived, for the same William you speak of, was son of Walter, and grandchild to Other: as doth appear by the Charter of king Henry the second here following,  
HEnricus rex Angliae, & Dux Normanniae, & Aquitaniae, & Comes Andegaviae: Archiepiscopis, Episcopis etc. Henry king of England, Duke of Normandy, and Aquitaine, and Earl of Anjou: to all Archbishops, Bishops, etc. Know ye that I have given and granted to William de Windsor, as his inheritance, all the lands which before were the possessions of William son of Walter his father, and of Walter son of Other his grandfather. Wherefore I will etc. that he hold it, as his fee and inheritance, etc. peaceably, freely, and honourably, even as his father and grandfather held the same, in the time of king Henry my grandfather, and of my predecessors, in woods and plains etc. Witnesses, William my brother, Reignald the Earl, and joceline Baillol etc.  WIlliam Rufus king of England, made William Earl 
Earls of Surrey.  Waren first Earl of Surrey, whose arms were, a shield gold checked azure. He had issue a son, and a grandchild of the same name, succeeding him: but the last had issue only a daughter, who marrying first with William, son of king Stephen, and after with Hamelin base son of Geffrey Plantagenet, honoured both her husbands with this title. Hameline begot on her William Earl of Surrey, who married the eldest daughter and coheir of William Earl of Pembroke, widow of Hugh Bygot. This William was father of john, who begat William, father of john. Afterwards, king Henry the fourth advanced Thomas Beauford to that title and dignity, making him after Duke of Exeter, and Lord Chancellor of England, Pag. 223. 
ALthough I omit here to tell you, that the first William Earl Warren was made Earl of Surrey by William Conqueror, and not by William Rufus: yet will I (by your patience) put you in mind of an other error by you here committed, of more importance, which is: if you remember, in the title of the Earls of Norfolk, Pag. 370. You there have made Roger By got Earl of Norfolk to be husband unto Maude the eldest daughter and coheir of William Marshal Earl of Pembroke: and now in this place, you make the said Maude to be the widow of Hugh Bygot, father of the foresaid Roger: which I take to be incest, for the son to marry his own mother. And therefore, lest all their modest posterity might blush at such an incestuous Oedipus, as your poetical fancy hath brought upon the stage, I would wish you to correct this your tragical fable.  KIng Richard the second made Thomas Holland Earl of Kent (being his half brother by the mother) Duke of Surrey: 
Thomas Beauford.  who being attainted, Thomas Beauford was advanced to that dignity, by king Henry the fourth, and after made Duke of Exeter, and Chancellor of England. He died (as Walsingham saith) Anno 1410. Pag. 223. 
WHere you say, that Thomas Beauford, after the attainder of Thomas Holland, was advanced to the dignity of Duke of Surrey, and died Anno 1410. (as Walsingham saith.) To the first I answer, the said Thomas Beauford was never dignified with the title of Duke of Surrey, by K. Henry the fourth, or any other king. And to prove the same, I find, that the said king, in the 13. year of his reign, did create the said Thomas Earl of Dorset: in which dignity he continued until the fourth year of king Henry the fift: in which year he sat in Parliament by that name of dignity, and after was made Duke of Exeter. And therefore herein have you failed. And to the second, concerning the time of Thomas Beaufordes death: it maketh me much to muse, how the said Duke should die, Anno 1410, and being deceased, how he should start up out of his grave, and make personal appearance at the high court of Parliament holden at Westminster 1425. fifteen years after, except you can show some strange Metamorphosis, or prove that dead men being summoned, did take their places in that Parliament: which cannot be without some necromancy, or strange work beyond nature.  THe Barons Botreaux, alias Boterels, did bear for their 
Barons Botreaux.  arms, three toads sable in a field argent. The first of that family, (named William) married Alice daughter of Richard Corbet, whose sister was Paramour to king Henry the first, on whom he begot Reignald Earl of Cornwall. From this William descended successively eleven Barons all called Williams, except the third, and seventh, which were called Reignalds. Margaret the sole daughter of the last of them, married Robert Hungerford: by whose posterity that inheritance came to the family of Hastings. Which said inheritance, was augmented by the marriage of the said Margaret's grandfather, with Katherine a Coheir of Katherine Twenge▪ and by the marriage of her great grandfather, with the daughter & heir of Sir john Saintlow knight: and by the marriage of her great great grandfather, with the daughter and heir of john de Moeles, a rich Baron. Pag. 129. 
FIrst, in making Botreaux and Boterell to be all one family, and name, you do much err: they being several, and not one: as may be proved by William Botreaux Sheriff of Cornwall, who lived in the ninth year of king john, and bare for his Arms (as you fay) three Toads Sable: and William Boterell, that lived in the fift year of king Edward the first, (and was summoned amongst other Barons, for the levying of an army against Llewellin Prince of Wales) did bear for his Arms, checkie gold and Gules a cheveron Azure. By which two great differences, both of the name, and Arms, it doth evidently appear, that they were not one, but two several families. Secondly, in affirming that William Botreaux married Alice the daughter of Richard Corbet, sister to her that was Paramour to king Henry the first, and mother to Reignald Earl of Cornwall, you are also greatly deceived: for the mother of the said Reignald, was daughter and coheir of Robert Corbet, and not of Richard: as by the gift of king Henry the first, to the said Robert his Concubine's father, of the borough of Alencester, in the County of Warwick, it is manifested. But I need not strive much against you for this point, seeing I may oppose your own narration, pag. 438. of your book, against yourself: and therefore I leave you to quarrel with your own memory, not doubting, but you can take it best, to be controller to yourself. Thirdly, your Arithmetical pen, can as well multiply, for a need, as detract when it list, having as quick a slight to make Barons, as the heathens had to make gods, which were something in name, but many times nothing in nature: for here you make eleven Barons of the family of Botreaux, one to succeed the other, after the first William. Whereas you are able to prove but four. And to make your computation aright, you must begin first with William Botreaux, who began his Barony, at a Parliament holden at Westminster the first day of May, in the 24. year of king Edward the third: which William had issue William, that was the second Baron: who begat William the third, father of William the fourth, and last Baron of that family. Of which second, and third Barons, you have made the father to marry his sons wife, and the son to marry his own mother. To which most unnatural matches I wonder how you could ever give your consent, you being the only parent of seven of those eleven Barons, who had all their conceptions and births in the womb of your pregnant brain. Lastly, I deny that any of the said Williams, Lords Botreaux, did marry with any Katherine that was coheir to Katherine Twenge, as you untruly have set down.  Pemsey Castle was sometime belonging to the Earl Morton: 
Pemsey castle.  afterward William son to king Stephen had it, who delivered up the same, with the lands thereabout, unto King Henry the second. It was called the honour of the Eagle, of Gilbert Lord of the Eagle, who (taking part against King Henry the second, being deprived of all that he had, fled into Normandy. Pag. 231. 
THis Castle took not the title of honour of the Eagle, of Gilbert who took part against King Henry the second (as you say:) for King William the Conqueror gave to Stephen Earl of Blois and Charters, with Ella his daughter, the Earldom of the Eagle in Normandy, and the Castle and honour of Pemsey in Suffex. Which foresaid honours the said Stephen enjoyed, and afterward gave the same to Henry of Bloys his son: who enjoyed the same, until he resigned them unto Richard his son, and became Abbot of Glastenburie, and after Bishop of Winchester. This Richard being Earl of the Eagle, and Lord of Pemsey, lived in King Stephen's time, and was a witness to the covenants of peace betwixt him and Henry Duke of Normandy, by the name of Richard Earl of the Eagle. He gave his said Earldom, and honour of Pemsey, to William Earl of Morton his cozen german, son to King Stephen. Which gift, with the said titles of honour, King Henry the second did confirm: but not long after▪ he constrained the said William to surrender unto him again, aswell those honours, as also all other lands that he had, both in Normandy, and in England, upon condition, that the said king should re-assure unto him all those lands which king Stephen his father was possessed of, at the death of king Henry the first. And how truly you affirm, the honour of Pemsey to have belonged to any Earl Morton before the reign of King Stephen (William son to king Stephen being the first Earl Morton which enjoyed the same) it is thought as unworthy of credit, as that before, where you allege, Pemsey castle to have taken his first honour from Gilbert Lord of the Eagle, in the reign of King Henry the second when it is truly proved, to be an honour at such time as William the Conqueror gave the same in marriage with his daughter.  Five Earls of Sussex were of the family of the Albeneys, who 
Earls of Sussex.  in like manner were Earls of Arundel. William de Albeney, son of William Lord of Buckenham in Norfolk, was the first of them, who used for his Arms, a Lion rampant in a field Gules. He was called Earl of Chichester, and of Arundel: who had issue, by Adelize daughter of the Duke of Lorraine and Brabant, William the second Earl of Sussex and Arundel, father of William the third Earl: which had issue (by Maude coheir of Ranulfe Earl of Chester) William the fourth Earl, and Hugh that was the fift Earl, both dying without issue. After which time, that honour of Sussex lay dead, until that king Henry the eight, in the 21. year of his reign, created Robert Radclife Earl of Sussex. Pag. 234. 
IN this succession of Albeneys, Earls of Sussex, you have taken great pains, making five of that surname, to have been Earls both of Sussex and Arundel: when as you can prove but four in all to have been Earls of that family, and but two of them Earls of Sussex, viz. William, whom king Henry the second made the first Earl of Sussex, and Hugh his son, who died without issue, in the 27. year of king Henry the third: for that William whom you call the fourth Earl of Arundel, I deem as yet never borne. And the first William, which married Queen Aelidise, the widow of King Henry the first, who you say was both earl of Sussex and Arundel, I make great doubt of, thinking you not able to make proof he was Earl of either. For sure I am, that his own deed doth show the contrary, that he was only Earl of Chichester, and not of Arundel and Sussex: which to manifest I have here set down his deed, as followeth.  
GVilielmus Comes Cicestriae, etc. William Earl of Chichester: to the Bishop of Norwich, and to all faithful children of our holy mother the Church, and to all men, as well French as English, etc. Knoweye, that I have given and granted, to God and to the Church of Saint Maries in Thetford, and to the Monks there serving God: for the the souls of my father and mother, and Queen Aelidise my wife, and the health of our children, in pure alms, the lands that were Godricks' in Ridlesworde, and in Guareshall, which belonged to Garestorpe, which land the same day that I made this grant, one Robert held. Witnesses, Ralph the Chaplain, and Hubert de Montecaniso, with many others.  
Lastly, where you say, that after the family of the Albeneyes were extinct, the Earldom of Sussex lay dead, until he 21. year of king Henry the eight, who then created Robert Radcliffe Earl of Sussex. To that I answer: it did not lie dead all that while: for after the death of Hugh de Albeney, 1242. king Edward the first, in the 18. year of his reign, made Richard Fitzallen Earl of Arundel knight: at which time he also girded him with the sword of the Earldom of Sussex. In whose issue it continued divers descents: and then, by attainture fell unto the crown. As in my book, entitled the Nobility of England, which I mean shortly (God willing) to publish, you may see at large.  RIchard Earl of Clare, builded the Castle of Tunbridge, having 
Tunbridge.  had the said Tunbridge in exchange for bryony in Normandy: for his grandfather Godfrey, base son of William the second, Duke of Normandy, was Earl of Anjou & Brionie. Pa. 243 
THis descent of Godfrey Earl of Anjou, and bryony, is foreign, and bred beyond the Seas in Normandy, from whence you have had little intelligence: & therefore not so much to be condemned, for mistaking the right father of the said Godfrey, making him the son of William the second duke of Normandy, when as he was son to Richard the first Duke of Normandy. Which fault (notwithstanding) I would wish you to amend in your next edition: and also to take away from this Richard (his grandchild) the title of Earl, until such time as you have a better commission for making of Earls. And for your warrant to do this, you shall have both the book of doomsday, and diverse charters of William the Conqueror, wherein the said Richard was a witness by the name only of Richard Fitz-Gilbert, without any other title of honour.  THe Crevecueurs, (so named the crepito-corde) builded the 
Leeds castle.  Castle of Leedes: of which family, the first was Robert, who had issue Daniel, that was father to Robert, who had issue Hamon, which married the daughter and heir of the Baron of Folkestone, and by her had issue Hamon, the father of Robert, who wanting issue, gave his patrimony to King Edward the first. Pag. 244. THe family of Abrinces were Barons of Folkestone: from 
Folkestone.  whom, by marriage, the same went to Hamon de Crevecueur, and by his daughter to john of Sandwich▪ whose grandchild by his son john, (named julian) carried that title to john Seagrave. Pag. 259. 
TO reconcile your contradictions, in these two titles of Leedes Castle, and Folkestone, I think it a very hard matter: for in the first you say, That Hamon Crevecueur (who married the daughter and heir of the Baron of Folkestone (had issue Hamon, that succeeded him: which Hamon had issue Robert, who dying without issue, gave his patrimony to king Edward the first. And after, in the title of Folkestone you affirm the contrary: saying, That the same Hamon had issue a daughter that carried Folkestone, by her marriage, to john of Sandwich. By which thus still overmuch busying yourself in matters passing your skill, it maketh you so forgetful, that oftentimes you are feign to utter matters incoherent, and much contradictory. Wherefore understand, that Hamon Crevecueur, (who you say married the daughter and heir of the Baron of Folkestone) had issue Hamon, who succeeded his father: and he had issue Robert, (which died without issue) and four daughters: Eleonor married to Bertram Criell, Agnes to john of Sandwich, Isolde to Nicholas Lenham, and Isabella to Henry Hawt. Of which four daughters you have left out the first, and two last, naming but only the second, married to john of Sandwich: who was not the daughter of the first Hamon (as you affirm) but of the second, whom you have casscered out of this descent. And whereas, in the title of Leedes castle, you say, that the last Robert Crevecueur, dying without issue, gave his patrimony to K. Edward the first. Before I answer there unto, I first demand of you, how that may be? When yourself, in the title of Folkstone, have set down the said Robert's sister to carry Folkestone by her marriage to john of Sandwich: which was a part of the said Robert's patrimony. And for direct proof, that the said Robert did not give his patrimony to king Edward the first (as you have said:) it appeareth by an inquisition taken after the death of the said Robert, in the thirtieth year of King Edward the first, that his foresaid four sisters were his heirs, and that Eleonore the eldest had for her part of her brother's inheritance, the Manor of Estwell in Kent, and Agnes the second sister had Folkestone: the other two had other lands that descended to the said Robert from his ancestors, which I take to be his patrimony.  HVbert de Burgo, was made Earl of Kent by king Henry the 
Earls of Kent.  third, and died without issue, Pag. 262. 
IF this be true, that Hubert de Burgo Earl of Kent died without issue (as you here report he did) then doth the now Lord de La-ware wrong, to quarter the said Hubert's Coat of Arms, pretending thereby to be his heir. But whether the said honourable person doth wrong therein, or you wrong him in so saying? Let us examine this matter a little better. First it doth appear in a summons of the Nobility of this realm, for the levying of an army against Llewellin Prince of Wales, in the fift year of king Edward the first, that john de Burgo, Baron of Lammale, grandchild to Hubert by his son john, was by the name of john, son of john de Burgo, called thereunto. Also by an inquisition taken after the death of the said john, in the same king's reign, it was found, that Deruergulda the wife of of Robert Fitz-Walter Lord of Woodham, and Hawise the wife of Robert Greylie of Manchester, were the daughters and heirs of the said john de Burgo, and that the foresaid Hawise did hold of the inheritance of Hubert de Burgo her great grandfather, the Manor of Werkerley in Northamptonshire, and the Manor of Portland in Essex. Which descent being thus far proved to Greyley, I doubt not but you will confess, that joan the only daughter of the said Robert Lord Greyley was married to john Lord de La-ware. Which done, I hope you will yield yourself to have erred herein, and acknowledge the said noble person now to be right heir, and that the said Hubert died not without issue, as you very dangerously have affirmed he did.  HErbert married the sister of William Earl of Hereford, and 
Fitz-Herbert.  in her right was Lord of Deane, from whom is descended the noble family of the Epirotes. From hence also (if we shall credit the heralds, and Escutcheons of Arms) Anthony Fitz-Herbert, that great lawyer, and Lord chief justice of England, took his original. But, I think he rather descended from the worshipful family of the Fitz-herberts' in Derbishire. Pag. 267. 
YOur often and suspicious objections, whereby you call in question the credit of her majesties Heralds (as though you judged them scarce worthy to be believed) doth proceed (as I suppose) from a malignant humour in you, rather than from any grounds or sufficient reasons that might move you thereto. But I trust, those of discretion will sooner give credit unto them, in matters that they shall aver by good warrantise, and authority, then to you, who ground your contradicting arguments upon hear says, and opiniative imaginations. And where you charge the Heralds, to have made Anthony Fitz-Herbert, (that was Lord chief justice of England) to be descended from that family of herbert's, which married the sister of William Earl of Hereford: I say, they have done therein like honest and learned Officers of Arms: and those that have, or shall derive the said Anthony, or any of that family of Fitz-herberts', from any other original, than that aforesaid, they have and shall err from the truth,  IN the time of king Edward the first, the barons of Winterborne 
Barons of Wintenborne.  were the Bradstones, from whom, by the Ingeldesthorpes and Nevil's, the Viscount Montacute, and the Baron of Wentworth are descended, Pag. 271. 
YOur Barons of Winterborne must be turned out of the plural into the singular number: and where you make them Barons in the reign of king Edward the first, therein are you much deceived: for Thomas Bradston the first and last Baron of that surname, began his dignity at a Parliament holden at Westminster, in the 21. year of king Edward the third, and died about the 34. year of the said kings reign, leaving issue a daughter and heir married to Poole, who had issue a daughter and heir married to Ingeldesthorpe, which likewise had a daughter and heir married to Nevil Marquis Montacute: who having divers daughters his heirs, one of them was married to Browne, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and an other to Stoner, of whom the Lord Wentworth is descended. So, that hereby it may appear, that the Viscount Montacute, and the Lord Wentworth, are descended from Bradston, by these foresaid three several families, whereof you have left out Pool the first of them, without which the other cannot descend from Bradstone. And thus have you through ignorance obscured, and made unperfect this honourable descent, to the prejudice of many worthy families descended of the same.  SVdley was lately the seat of Giles Baron Chandos, whose father 
Baron's de Chandos.  Edmond Bruges was created Baron Chandos by Queen Elizabeth, because he was descended from the ancient family of the Chandos: out of which family issued john Chandos Baron de Santo-Saluatore, that famous warrior, Pag. 272. 
YOu think by your persuasions, to make men believe you have seen that which God knoweth you were never near by many a mile: otherwise (I take it) you would not do as here you have done, making Edmond Bruges father of the now Lord Chandos, to be the first Baron of his surname, and that he was created into that dignity by Queen Elizabeth: Because (say you) he was descended of the ancient family of Chandos. So that here is both a cause laid down, & a time, for a colour and shadow to this your untrue imagination: to the no small prejudice of that honourable house. But, to manifest these your delusions, and to restore again this honourable person to his right: know you for certainty, that john Bruges, the grandfather of the now Lord Chandos, was the first Baron, and not Edmond his father, (as you very unjustly have written.) And for proof here of, I affirm, that the said john, was created Baron Chandos by Queen Mary, at her manner of Saint james, the eight day of April, in the first year of her reign, 1553. as by his letters patents, bearing date the same day and year above said, it may appear. Which being true, I would now gladly know here of you, how you can make good, that Edmond Bruges was the first Baron, and had his creation by Queen Elizabeth.  Our Heralds have thrust upon us William Fitz-Eustace, to be 
Earls of Gloucester.  the first Earl of Gloucester: But I suppose, there was never any such borne. I have read in the history of Teukesbury, that about the time of the Conquest, Bithricke a Saxon was Lord of Gloucester, who was much hated of Maude the Conqueror's wife, because he before that despised to take her to his wife. In revenge of which disgrace, she caused him to be imprisoned, and dispossessed of all his honours and lands. Whose titles and possessions were after given to Robert Fitz-Hamon, the son of Hamon of Corbule: whose only daughter and heir, named Sibyl, was married to Robert Fitz-Roy, base son to king Henry the first: Who was made the first Earl of Gloucester, commonly called the Consul of Gloucester. This Robert had issue William, who had issue three daughters, which carried this honour by marriage unto three families: Isabella the eldest, marrying with john son to K. Henry the second, honoured him with that title: who being after king, made Almericke de Ebroice●, soun● to Mabel the second daughter, Earl of Gloucester: who dying without issue, the inheritance came to the youngest daughter Amicia, that was wife to the Earl of Clare, and had by him issue Gilbert Earl of Clare & Gloucester, who had issue Richard, father of Gilbert the second, which had issue Gilbert the third, that was slain at Sterling in Scotland: but during the nonage of this Gilbert the third, Ralph the Mounthemerye (who had married joan of Acres the king's daughter and widow of Gilbert the second) was for a while called Earl of Gloucester. Afterwards, this honour (as some say) came to Peter of Gaveston (a Gascoigne) by right of his wife, which was daughter to Gilbert the second. He dying without issue, this honour descended to Hugh Spencer son of Eleonor, second daughter of Gilbert aforesaid. Hugh Spencer being executed, this title came to Hugh Audley, who had married the widow of Gaveston. Pag. 275. 
YOu here charge the Heralds with thrusting upon you one Earl that you cannot find, nor think as yet ever to have been borne. And sure, I suppose this was but a flourish of your flowing style, whereby you love to gird at Heralds. Yet, grant they did obtrude some such Earl, you are even with them: for you force on them here two Earls of Gloucester which never attained unto that dignity, vidz, Peter de Gaveston, and Hugh de Spencer. Wherefore, the better to satisfy you, and those that have written Peter Gaveston to be Earl of Gloucester, and to have succeeded Ralph Mont-Hermerye. I affirm, that the said Ralph Mont-Hermerye sat in Parliament in the 27. year of king Edward the first, as Earl of Gloucester, and continued in all Parliaments by that name, until the last year of the said kings reign, when young Gilbert de Clare his wives son came of age: who the next year after (being the first year of K. Edward the second) was placed in Parliament by the name of Gilbert de Clare Earl of Gloucester. He continued in that dignity, until he was slain at Sterling in Scotland, in the sixth year of the same king's reign, which was a year after the said Peter Gaveston was beheaded by the Earl of Warwick. Which I hope is sufficient proof against the said Peter. And touching Hugh de Spencer, that he was ever Earl of Gloucester, I utterly deny the same: and therefore now it standeth you upon, being in the affirmitive, to prove it: otherwise neither I, nor any other are bound to believe you. Lastly, where you have made Sibyl to be the only daughter and heir of Robert Fitz-Hamon, and wife to Robert Earl of Gloucester, called the Consul. I deny, not only that the one had ever any such daughter named Sibyl, but also that the other ever married any such wife. And for proof hereof, I will desire no other than your own Author, the book of Tewksbury, which you have so greatly wronged.  IF it please you to believe our Heralds, Hertford had these 
Earls of Hertford.  Earls, Roger, who was also Earl of Clare: and those Claroes, whom we have said to be Earls of Gloucester: for Richard Clare, who died 1262. is plainly named by Florilegus, to be Earl of Gloucester and Hertford. Pag. 309. 
TO this your scoffing sport, that you make yourself, upon the credit of Heralds: I answer, that there is great reason, (and so I hope all men will acknowledge) that her majesties Heralds, invested officers of Arms (who at their creations and admittances into their offices, are solemnly sworn to be true in all their reports, and have their employments in the greatest affairs between Princes) should be believed, in matters of their own profession, before others not of like experience. And touching this Roger: whom you have brought upon the Stage, by the name and title of Earl of Hertford: I say, it resteth in you to make proof of your affirmation, the Heralds being quite against you: whom you notwithstanding so injuriously traduce, and yet produce as Authors of your own fantastic assertions. And for your better direction herein, I will here insert the said Roger's deed, by which it is very manifest that he was Earl of Clare, and not of Hertford.  
ROgerus Comes de Clare confirmavit donationem. H. Comitis Cestr. quam fecit Sanctae Werburg. super Ecclesia de Deneford, & terram Ecclesiae, cum decimis de molend. & omnibus pertin. & precipuè illam virgatam terrae, quam Adeliza de Claro-Monte aura sua dedit praefatae Ecclesiae. etc.  HAresfield, the Patrimony of Richard Earl of Clare, in 
Haresfield.  William Conquerors time, Pag. 312. 
THat there was one Richard Fitz-Gilbert, in the time of William the Conqueror, which held Haresfield of the king, it is manifest by the book of doomsday: but, that he was ever Earl of Clare, and that Haresfield was his patrimony, I utterly deny. And for proof hereof, I say, that he being the first of his name that ever came into this realm, and that possessed any lands here, could have no possessions left unto him by his Ancestors, which might be said to be his patrimony. And where you nominate the said Richard to be Earl of Clare: that are you not able to prove, for in divers Charters of William the Conqueror, and William Rufus, the said Richard is a witness, by the name of Richard Fitz-Gilbert Dapifer: as also in the book of doomsday, by the name of Richard, son of Earl Gilbert. And this do you your own self confess against yourself, in the title of Clare, in your book, Pag. 350.  Dunmow was the town of the Fitz-walters, who issued from 
Dunmow.  the family of the Claroes. juga daughter of Ralph Baynard founded a Monastery there, 1103. But William Baynard (of whom juga did hold) forfeited the Barony of Dunmowe to the king, through felony. King Henry gave the same to Robert, son of Richard, son of Gilbert, Earl of Clare, with the Castle of Baynard's in London, Pag. 332. 
HEre have you made Gilbert the grandfather of Robert Fitz-Richard, to be Earl of Clare: which Gilbert never arrived in England, till your pen conducted him hither: but was slain in Normandy by Ralph Waceio, Anno 1033. Which was 33. years before the Norman Conquest: And Richard his son was the first of that family that came into England with William the Conqueror, who had issue Gilbert, and this Robert: to which Robert, king Henry the first gave the Town of Dunmowe, by the name of Robert Fitz-Richard his Sewer. As witnesseth your Author of Dunmowe, whom you allege, though very unfaithfully: for had you alleged the same truly, and put down what king Henry he was, which gave to the said Robert Dunmowe (as your Author doth) you should then have disclosed your own error, and saved me a labour.  RIchard son of Gilbert, Earl of Angy in Normandy, (for 
Earls of Clare  his service in the Conquest) was by the Conqueror advanced to the honour of Clare. He had issue Gilbert, who succeeded his father, and was the first that was called Earl of Clare. Who had issue Richard Earl of Clare, which was slain by the Welshmen. This Richard had issue three sons, Gilbert Earl of Clare, that died without issue, Roger Earl of Clare (created Earl of Hertford by Henry the second) and Robert his third son, from whom the family of Fitz-Walters descended. Roger begat Richard Earl of Clare & Hertford, who married Amicia youngest daughter and heir of William Earl of Gloucester: Pag. 350. 
YOur historical reports are very changeable: for in the title of Haresfield, Pag. 312. you tell us that Richard was Earl of Clare in William the Conqueror's time: and now here, you affirm that Gilbert his son was the first Earl of Clare, of that family. And again, in the title of Dunmowe, there have you set down this Robert the third son of Earl Richard, truly, to be the son of the first Richard that came into this land with William the Conqueror: but here will you have him to be great grandchild to the same Richard. Which by no means, the now Earl of Sussex will consent unto, because thereby he shall lose two of his greatest ancestors, with their wives, they being the daughters and heirs of Saint-lyces Earl of Northampton, and the Lord Lucy: which were both married, the one to the said Robert, and the other to Walter his son: as more plainly doth appear by the true descent here following. Richard son of Gilbert Earl of Angy in Normandye, was Lord of Tunbridge and Clare in England, by the gift of William the Conqueror, and had issue Gilbert Earl of Clare, Roger that died without issue, 1173. and Robert who was Sewer to king Henry the first, and Lord of Dunmow, by the said king's gift. He married Matilda de Sainct-lices lady of Bradham, and had issue Walter, Lord and Baron of Woodham, that had to wife Matilde the daughter and coheir of Richard Lucy, Lord chief justice of England in Henry the seconds time. Of which Walter, the honourable family of Fitz-walters took first their surname. He died 1198. leaving the second Robert his son to succeed him: who died in the 19 year of king Henry the third. So that, by this your mistaking, you would cut off the first Robert and Walter his son, making the second Robert to be the first that came from the main line of the family of Clares. And for proof hereof, I wish you to examine Gemiticensis, who will affirm the same, to be true that I have here said.  GEffery Magnavill, made Walden the seat and head of his 
Walden.  honour and Earldom, Pag. 342. 
THe dignity and Earldom of the Magnavills, whilst they were honoured with the title of Earls, was Essex, and not Walden. Well that family might be Lords and owners thereof, but that never the head of their honour, and Earldom. Wherefore, if your Author so write, he did it rather like a novice, than an Herald: and your discretion may be suspected, in that you played not rather your part, to teach him to speak more Herauld-lyke, then to bring in his absurd terms for a testimony, amongst Earldoms and Honours.  THe first Earls of Essex of the Norman race, was Geffrey 
Earls of Essex.  Magnavill, commonly called Mandeuill, son of William, by Margaret heir of Eudo the Sewer: who was slain in battle in king Stephen's time. There succeeded him two sons, Geffrey and William, from whom, by a daughter, that honour went to Geffrey Fitz-Pieres, whose two sons, Geffrey and William succeeded in that honour. Geffrey died young, slain at the Tilt: William took part with Lewis of France, against king john, and died without issue, 1227. After whom succeeded Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Constable of England, who had married their sister, Pag. 343. 
YOur undiscreet words used in this place, may make those noble personages deceased to be called in question for that which nature abhorreth: but it were better your pen should prove a false witness, than so heinous a matter true. Shall we surmise (as you writ in this page) that Humphrey de Bohun, son of Henry, did marry his own mother. Assuredly we might seem in so doing, not only over-credulous, but also irreligious. Yet you say here, Humphrey Bohun married the sister and heir of William Magnavill Earl of Essex (who died without issue 1227.) Which by no means we may believe, because the match were against nature, if it be true, that Henry Bohun married with that sister and heir of William Magnavill aforesaid: which is so undoubted a truth, that voluntarily it drops out of your own pen. Pag. 479. of your book, in the title of the Earls of Hereford. Besides that, it is most evident, that the said Henry, in the right of his wife above mentioned, was the first Earl of Essex of that family: as appeareth by a Charter of king Henry the third, in the 25. year of his reign, concerning lands that he gave to the Abbay of Westminster: whereunto the said Henry was a witness, by the name of Henry de Bohun Earl of Hereford and Essex, and Constable of England. And further, to manifest that it was not Humphrey the son of this Henry that married with Matilda, Know you, that she died 1236. in the one and twenty year of king Henry the third, which was during the life of the said Henry her husband, and four years before he was a witness to the king's Charter aforesaid.  AFter the death of the family of Bigots, and ufford, Richard 
Earls of Suffolk.  the second advanced Michael De-la-Poole, from a Merchant, to the Honour and dignity of Earl of Suffolk, and Lord Chancellor of England. King Henry the sixth created William his son, first Marquis, and after Duke of Suffolk. He was beheaded on the Seas, and left issue john, who married the sister of king Edward the fourth. Pag. 357. 
WHat is it that you will not undertake to write, and publish of a mean person? when you very unjustly have wronged that honourable family of De-la-Pooles, reporting Michael De-la-Poole, the first Earl of that name, to have been advanced by Richard the second, from a Merchant of Hull, (Pag. 549.) to the dignity of Earl of Suffolk, he being a knight of the noble order of the Garter: by the Statutes whereof, none can be elected unless he be borne gentle three descents, both of father and mother. Also it doth appear by an inquisition taken the 9 of Edward the third, that sir William De-la-Poole knight Banneret, father of this Michael, was son and heir of sir William De-la-Poole knight. All which testimonies might have satisfied you, or any other reasonable person, both to have thought and written more reverently of him. But not herewith contented, you after deprive him the said Michael, both of his son, and eldest grandchild, which succeeded him in the said dignity, the one after the other, by the names of Michael the second, and Michael the third: placing in their rooms, as immediate successor, and son to the foresaid first Michael, William De-la-Poole duke of Suffolk, his second grandchild. In both which points how much you have erred (to the great prejudice of the honourable Lord viscount Monta-cute, the Lord Cobham, and the Baron Wentworth, with many other now living, descended of the same honourable family) the true descent here following, will explain.  
Michael De-la-Poole, Lord Wingfield, Earl of Suffolk, and knight of the noble order of the Garter, son and heir of Sir William De-la-Poole knight Banneret, and of Katherine his wife, sister of sir john Norwich knight, had issue Michael De-la-Poole, the second Earl of Suffolk, who died at Haresflew, 1415. leaving issue two sons, Michael De-la-Poole Earl of Suffolk, that died at the battle of Agincourt, in the 3. year of Henry the fift, without issue, & William De-la-Poole Marques, and afterward Duke of Suffolk, who was beheaded on the seas. 26. of king Henry the sixth: whom you make son to his grandfather Michael the first of that name. And for the better satisfying of the world, that this Michael De-la-Poole the first Earl of Suffolk, of that family, was not basely descended, nor a merchant of Hull (as you and others after you have written) I have hereto added a deed of the said michael's before he was Earl, which doth prove his father, mother, brother, sister, and children.  
MIchael De-la-poole, dominus Wingfield, etc. I Michael De-la-Poole 
I. Hayward saith M. De-la-poole was a merchants son of London.  Lord Wingfield, do confirm certain lands to the religious house of Saintcleare, near unto Kingston upon Hull, the which lands were before given by sir William De-la-Pole knight my father, to pray for the good estate of king Richard, and for Michael De-la-poole, john, Thomas, William, Richard, and Margaret my children, and for sir Edmond De-la-Poole knight, my Brother, and Margaret Nevil my sister, and for the souls of sir William De-la-Poole my father, and Katherine my mother, etc. Witnesses Alexander Archbishop of York, Henry Percy Earl of Northumberland, Thomas Sutton, Robert de Hilton, and Walter Fawconbridge, knights, with many others. Dated at Hull the first of March, the seventh year of the reign of King Richard the second.  HEngham: the Barons thereof were called the Barons of Rhia, 
Hengham.  who descended from john Martial, nephew of William Martial Earl of Penbroke (by his brother:) to whom King john gave the lands of Hugh Gurney a traitor, together with the daughter, and coheir of Hubert de Rhia. From the Marshals the same came to the Morleys, and from them, by the Louels, to Parker now Lord Morley. Pag. 360. 
NOw coming to speak of the Barons of Rhia, let me, by your patience, put you in mind of a late conference had before the now right honourable Earl marshal of England, concerning the true coats of the two families of Bygot Earl of Norfolk, and Marshal Earl of Penbroke. Master Garter having before that time set down and quartered in diverse noble personages achievements, for Marshal's coat, quarterly gold and vert a Lion passant Gules (a coat lately devised:) and for Bygots' coat, perpale gold and vert a Lion rampant Gules: neither of them both being in truth their right coats. Myself being commanded to say what I knew touching these matters, showed, for Marshal's coat, one fair deed with a seal of Arms thereto, of john Martial father of William Martial Earl of Penbroke, and Anselme, that was father to john Martial Baron of Rhia: on which seal was written, john Martial, and in his shield or escutcheon, a bend fuzulie. Also I showed a transcript of an other deed of the said john, in which was written: john, son of john the kings Marshal, with the same Arms, of a bend fuzulie, testified under the hand of an Officer of arms, long before that time deceased. Lastly, I showed an old roll of Arms, wrought in colorus, in Henry the thirds time: wherein was the same coat, viz. Gules a bend fuzulie gold, and over the head thereof written the name of Martial. All which proofs notwithstanding, yourself being there then present, very steadfastly denied the same to be the coat of Marshal Earl of Penbroke, affirming that bend fuzulie to be the peculiar coat of Marshal Baron of Rhia: who was (as you then said) of no consanguinity to Marshal Earl of Penbroke. For further maintaining of which your speech, you then showed two new petegrees, lately contrived and made by your consent, declaring the said two Marshals to be several families, and not one. Since which time (perusing well your Britannia (fol. 360,) I find the same there avouched by yourself for truth, which at that time you so confidently denied before the said Earl Martial: viz. That john Marshal Baron of Rhia, was nephew to William Martial Earl of Penbroke by his brother: which is quite contrary to your speeches before used. By this your information of these Marshals to be several families (without which you had no colour to maintain your error: for that the Barons of Rhia always used for their coat of Arms the said bend fuzulie) the right coat of Marshal, is like now to be neglected, and the Lion in the parted field used in stead thereof, the same being the peculiar coat borne by Martial and Bygot, when they were Marshals of Englnd, and not belonging to any one private name: as by many other good proofs it may appear. And because I would not have any hereafter to stand doubtful which of us both are to be believed touching these two Marshals to be descended of one parent. I will here set down the record that doth warrant the same. Which being proved, I trust you will show us some reason, why the younger brother did bear the bend fuzulie, if not descended to him from his father. That done, I will then show you proof, how and when, both the elder Marshal, and Bygot did bear the Lion on the parted field, which you miss to find in Master Somersets Notes, and Master Leylands twelve books lent you by master john Stow: in whose custody I have seen diverse of them being most excellent and rare works, touching the description of this Country, written not upon heresay and reports, but upon his eyesight and long travel from town to town, and place to place, upon the King's charge and Commission, which Books I wish might be published in the right Authors name.  
EX Rotulo cartarum de Anno quinto Regis johannis: johannes Mariscallus nepos Guilielmi Marescalli comitis Penbroc. Habet terras in Norfolk, & Suffolk: quae fuerunt Hugonis de Gornaco proditoris regis, & terram, quae fuit Hugonis de Angee in Norfolk, & Kantelee & Castre, etc. Testibus I. Norwich Episcopo Gulielmo Marescallo Comit. Penbroc. Galfrid. filio Petri Comit. Essex, Roberto filio Rogeri, Hugone de Nevil. Dat. apud Merleberge. 16. januarii.  KIng Stephen gave Norwich to his son William, from whom 
Norwich.  king Henry the second took it again, and kept it himself, although that Henry his son, called the young King, had (when he had aspired unto the crown) with great protestation promised the same unto Hugh Bygot, whom he had drawn unto his faction. Bygot notwithstanding, following the young king's side (who could not contain his hope offered, touching the kingdom, within the bounds of right and reason) grievously afflicted this city. And afterward being made Earl of Norfolk, he is thought to have builded that Castle, upon a high hill near to the Church: which being marvelous deeply entrenched about, was in those days thought impregnable. But, Lewis the Frenchman, to whom the seditious Barons of England had sworn their fidelity, easily took the same by composition. We think in deed, that Bygot did build this Castle, because we have seen their lions salient, in the same form engraven in stone, as the Bygots used them in their seals, before they obtained the honour of Marshals. Pag. 363. 
IF your words here had been but conjectural, or gathered by reports, as in many other places they are, you should have less discredited yourself, then by affirming you had seen that, which in truth you did never see: for where you say: We think that the Bygots builded this Castle, because we have there seen Lions salient in the same form engraven in stone as the Bygots used in their seals before they obtained the honour and office of Marshal: certain it is, that on the said Castle there are no Lions salient, nor any such Ensign or token as the Bygots did bear in seal or shield, or any Arms at all. And, for that you did of late, (as before) upon conference had before the now Earl Marshal of England, affirm the said Lious salient upon the Castle walls of Norwich, to be the true Arms of the Bygots, before they came to be Marshals of England, myself having seen diverse deeds of the said Bygots to prove the contrary, the Seals whereof were, Shields charged only with a plain Cross, (which coat you then avouched to be the Arms of Ulster) whereupon, I for my better satisfaction therein, did ride to Norwich for to search the truth of your speech: and going into the said castle, I found over the first gate, two great stones fixed, of some yard square, and upon each of them a Lion passant cowardie, their tails turning under their bellies, and coming over their backs, but in no Shield or Escutcheon. And seeking more diligently all other places about the said Castle, I did find over the hall door, other two like stones, with a Lion also upon each of them, but contrary to the former, for these were passant, regardants with their tails over their backs, and the ends in their mouths: yet neither in Shield, nor Escutcheon. And therefore no such coat armour is there upon the Castle of Norwich, as you said you had seen, that the Bygots did use in their Shields and Seals. In consideration of this my great pains, and journey, I desire but that you will from henceforth make a difference between the antic fictions of a carvers brain, and the right ensigns of our ancient Nobility: which you say, Were in King Henry the thirds time but every man's own inventions, they being long time before, the honourable rewards and tokens of valorous persons.  WOrmegay, commonly called wrongay, was given by William 
Wormegay.  the third Earl Warren and Surrey, to Reignald de Warren his younger brother: by whose grandchild Nicholea, daughter of William his son, it was forthwith translated to the Bardolphs, who bore for their arms, in a shield Azure three Cinkfoyles gold: a great part of whose inheritance, together with the dignity, fell to William Philip's, and by his daughter, unto the viscount Beaumount. Pag. 369. 
YOur bare imagination concerning the gift of Wormegay, by William Earl Warren, to his younger brother, is nothing probable: for Reignald de Warren had the same by marriage with the daughter & heir of William de Wormegay, & not by any gift of his brother. And where you affirm, the said Reignald had a grandchild by his son William, named Nicholea married to Bardolph, I say he never had any such grandchild, but two others, called Beatrix, and Isabella: which Beatrix was married to Bardolph: as by the testimony of several deeds here following it may appear.  
NOtum sit omnibus, tam praesentibus, quam futuris, quod ego Reginaldus, de Warren, etc. Be it known unto all men, aswell present, as they that shall be hereafter, that I Reignald de Warren, have given my church of Plumbton to the Canons of Southwark, for the health of my soul, and of Alice my wife, William my son, Isabel the Countess my mother, and William Earl Warren my brother, and of William de wormegay father of Alice my said wife, etc.  
SCiant praesentes & futuri, quod ego Gulielmus de Warren, etc. Let those men know that are present, and they that shall come hereafter, that I William de Warren, do give and confirm to the Canons of Southwark, thirty Acres of land in ●otis●ray, for the health of mine own soul, my father Reignald, my mother Alice, and my wife Beatrix, my son Reignald, and my daughters Beatrix and Isabella, and for all my ancestors, etc.  WIlliam the Conqueror made Ralph the first Earl of 
Earls of Norfolk.  Norfolk: who (as I have said) stirring up new Rebellion, had for his successor Hugh Bygot Earl of Norfolk: who had the third penny of the said County (as appeareth in his Charter of creation) given him by king Henry the first (whose steward he was.) After whom, in direct succession from father to son, followed Hugh (that took part with Henry the young king, against king Henry the second his father) Roger, which flourished in king john's time, Hugh who died in the year of our Lord 1225. Roger who in right of his wife brought into his family the Honour of Marshal of England, for he married Maude, the eldest daughter and one of the heirs of William Martial Earl of Penbroke: by whom he had issue Roger earl of Norfolk, who being wounded with running at the tilt, died without issue: and Hugh Bygot, Lord chief justice being slain in the battle of Lewis, his son Roger was placed after his uncles death in the Earldom of Norfolk, and dignity of Marshal: who incurring the displeasure of king Edward the second, was enforced to pass over all his honours, and almost his whole inheritance to the king. Pag. 370. 
THe errors herein are these: first you say, that Hugh Bygot was Earl of Norfolk, and had the third penny of that County (as appeareth by his Charter of creation, given him by king H. the first. For answer I say: you have not seen, nor can prove any such Charter as you here avouch: neither was he the said Hugh, or any of that family Earl before the first year of king Stephen, who then made him Earl of Norfolk: because he being present at the death of king Henry the first, testify before the Archbishop of Canterbury and other the Barons of this realm, that he heard king Henry upon his death bed say, his will was, that his Nephew Stephen, and not Maude his daughter, should succeed him in his kingdom of England.  
Secondly, where you reckon a confused succession of these Earls: saying, That from the first Hugh in Henry the first time, succeeded in direct line from father to son, Hugh that took part against king Henry the second, etc. To this I answer, that you were in a Labyrinth, not able to find out what issue there was betwixt the first and second Hugh. And to unfold this your error: I affirm, that the first Hugh, and those that you say succeeded between from father to son, to that Hugh, whom you name the second, were all but one person: for he that was Steward to king Henry the first, and was after made Earl of Norfolk by king Stephen, was the same person that lived in the time of king Henry the second, and that took part with the young king against his father.  
Thirdly, where you affirm, that the last Earl Roger surrendered all his honours, and almost all his inheritance unto king Edward the second, it seemeth a matter unto me very unlike, that the said Roger dying in the life of king Edward the first, could in the reign of king Edward the second make any such surrender. But here have you done very wisely, in leaving out the cause of the king's displeasure against the said Roger: for therein would you have disclosed your own error. But, because I would not have you ignorant of the same, king Edward the first in the fifteenth or sixteenth year of his reign, required this Roger Bygot Eerle of Norfolk, Gilbert de Clare Earl of Gloucester, and Humphrey de Bohun then Earl of Hereford, to go with him into France: whose request these three noble persons refused, whereupon, at the said kings return again into England, he forced Gilbert de Clare, and Humphrey de Bohun the younger son of the soresaid Humphrey, to marry with two of his daughters, without either land or money, and the said Roger Bygot (to appease the king's indignation) did make over unto him most part of his lands, with the office of Marshal of England. And this was done by king Edward the first, and not by Edward the second, as you have here set down.  KIng Edward the third, gave the Earldom of Cambridge 
Earls of Cambridge.  unto Edward of Langley his fift son. Afterwards, Richard his younger son enjoyed the same honour, by the favour of king Henry the fift. But he being disloyal and ungrateful, plotting the death of that most excellent prince, was beheaded, and the Earldom of Cambridge utterly decayed with him, Pag. 381. 
THe Earldom of Cambridge utterly decayed not with Richard of Conesborough, younger son of Edmond of Langley Earl of Cambridge, and Duke of York (who was executed in the third year of Henry the fift, (as you say) but was after revived again in Richard his son, whom king Henry the sixth, in the fourth year of his reign created Earl of Cambridge, and after Duke of York, Regent of France, and protector of England.  HVntingdon had these Earls, Syward and Walthe of his son, 
Earls of Huntingdon.  after whom, by Maude his daughter, that honour came first to Simon Sant-lize Earl of Northampton. After that, to David brother to Alexander king of Scots: (for Maude was married to to them both: and had issue by both.) Whereupon, as the prince's favour and fortune changed, sometimes the Sant-lizes, and sometimes the Scots enjoyed this honour, vidz. Henry the son of David, than Simon Sant-lize son to the first Simon. And then Simon Sant-lize the third: who dying without issue, William king of Scots, brother of the foresaid Malcolme, succeeded: whom David his brother followed, and had issue that succeeded him, john his son, surnamed Scote, that was Earl of Chester, and died without issue, leaving for his successor, Alexander the second, which married the daughter of king Henry the third; who possessed this honour but a while, Pag. 387. 
BEfore I enter to open your errors in this succession of the Earls of Huntingdon, I would entreat you, of this number of eleven Earls, to put out five of them at the least. And because you shall take them right, I will first nominate unto you those which ought to stand, beginning with Walthe of Earl of Northumberland, unto whom William the Conqueror gave in marriage with judith his niece the Earldoms of Huntingdon, & Northampton. This Walthe of had issue Maude, who was given in marriage unto David, brother to Alexander king of Scots: which David was after a witness to the Charter of king Henry the first, touching lands and liberties that the said king gave unto the City of London, by the name of David Earl of Huntingdon. After the death of David, the foresaid Maude was married again to Simon Sant-lize a Norman gentleman, who had with her the Earldom of Northampton. David before named, had issue Henry, who in the life of his father was Earl of Huntingdon, and died in the 18. year of king Stephen, leaving issue three sons, Malcolme, William, and David. Malcolme being king of Scots, rebelled against king Henry the second: for which cause, the king seized into his hands the Earldom of Huntingdon. After the said Malcolmes death, William his brother succeeded him in the kingdom of Scotland. He likewise rebelled against his Lord king Henry the second, and being taken prisoner, was carried into Normandy, Anno 1174. Where he compounded to pay for his ransom ten thousand marks, and to release all his title and interest of the Earldoms, both of Huntingdon, and Northumberland. After which, king Henry gave the Earldom of Huntingdon to David, the third son of David Earl of Huntingdon before mentioned. Which David was a witness to the Charter of king Richard the first, of lands that he gave to the Abbey of Peterborough, Anno 1189. by the name of David Earl of Huntingdon. He died in the second year of king Henry the third, and left issue john his son, surnamed Scotte, who succeeded him: which died without issue in the 22. year of king Henry the third. Thus have I rightly set down the succession of the Earls of Huntingdon, unto john surnamed Scotte: which unless you can by good authorities disprove (as I assure myself you cannot) I hope you will not only confess your error: but will abate in your next impression those five, which in deed were never Earls of Huntingdon: vidz. Syward who was but Earl of Northumberland: then the three Simons Sant-lizes, that were Earls of Northampton only, and lastly, William king of Scots.  Ashbye de-la-zouch was sometimes belonging to Alane de-la-zouch 
Ashbye de-la-zouch.  Baron, who bore for his arms, a Shield gules ten bezants. He by marrying the daughter of Roger Quincie Earl of Winchester, greatly increased his inheritance. But calling in question of law, john Earl Warrin (who would have his cause tried by sword, and not by law) he was by him slain in the king's court at Westminster Anno 1279. and within a few years after, the daughters and heirs of his grandchild carried this inheritance by marriage to the family of Hollands, who were Barons a long time: whose inheritance passed to the Louels and Saint-mawres. Pag. 399. 
BY aiming at successions without sure ground, you still miss the mark whereat you do shoot: as here, when you say, That the daughters and heirs of the grandchild of Alane Baron Zouch were married to the families of Holland: Who long time continued in the name and title of Barons: you being not able to prove but one of those daughters married to Holland, and he no Baron, nor any of his posterity, other then of your making. And where you say, That the said Holland's inheritance descended to the families of the Lovells and Saint Mawres, I answer: Well may you dream of such a succession, but never can you produce any testimony for the same. For, had you known the truth hereof, you would have said, that both Holland & Saint-Mawre married the two daughters and coheirs of Zouch: and not have made Saint-Mawre to descend from Holland, when there was never any such matter.  NOw let us come to the Earls of Warwick. And to let pass 
Earls of Warwick.  Guare, Morindus Guy, that bore the bell of England, and others of like account, whom the fruitful wits of our Heralds were brought a bed with all at one birth etc. Pag. 438. 
BY this may all men evidently see your malicious and disdainful humour against her majesties Heralds of Arms, in that you cannot be contented in many other places of your book, to make doubt and question of their reports and doings, whether the same may be credited, yea or no: but here most injuriously and falsely, you charge them to have brought forth for Earls of Warwick, Guare, Morindus, Guy the bell-ringer, and many others of that rank, of which, though Rouse of Warwick, and others have written of Guy, yet are not you able to justify, that the Heralds were Authors of any such suspected Chieftains. And in that you make your worship merry (with The fruitful wits of our Heralds: supposed by you, To have been brought a bed with those imagined Earls all at one birth.) I wonder that so cunning a midwife should make us the reputed fathers of those which we never wrapped up within the sheets or leaves of our Records. But such a midwife, such a nurse are you, as have not only changed other men's children in the cradle and sophisticated the reports of worthy Authors: but also most ungratefully have charged the parents, and first collectors of many sound notes (helpful to your credit and labours) as the inventors of your misreports, whereby you have not only falsified in your book, many things concerning the descents of noble families, imagining of your own brain, divers nobles to have been, that never were, & extinguishing the memorial of others that were: But also most untruly have made her majesties Heralds the Authors of feigned stories, and legends of lies, when beside concealment of many favours received from the Heralds, you cease not to carp at them, from whose works you have borrowed the substance of your Herauldy, and the grounds of your skill in descents, therefore own them good words at the least, for your own credit, lest they should call for their lent feathers again, and leave you naked of your armory, as Esop's crow.  Earls of Leicester were of the Saxons, first Leofrike, who was 
Earls of Leicester.  Earl there, in the year of our Lord 716. to whom in right line succeeded, Algare the first, Algare the second, Leofrike the second, Leofestan, Leofrike the third, who lieth buried at Coventrie, Algare the third, whose sons were Edwine Earl of March, Morkar Earl of Northumberland, and Lucy his daughter, who first was married to juon Talboys borne at Anjou, after to Roger de Romara, of whom was borne William de Romara Earl of Lincoln: when male issue of the Saxons failed, and the naeme of a Saxon became despised, Robert de Beaumont a Norman, Lord of Pont-Audomare, and Earl of Millent, was created Earl of Leicester, by king Henry the first. After him succeeded his son surnamed Bossu, than his grandchild called Blanchmaine, and his grandchildes' son named Fitz-Parnell, all Roberts. This Fitz-Parnell (so called of Parnell his mother, the daughter and only heir of Hugh Grantmaismill) died without issue. Within a few years after, Simon de Mountford (who was descended of the kings of France) Robert Fitz-Parnels sister's son, enjoyed this honour. After that, Ranulfe Earl of Chester had it, not by right of inheritance, but by the prince's favour. Then Almericke the son of Simon de Montford, and after him, Simon de Mountford his son, whom (being banished) king Henry the third sent for out of France, and honouring him which the Earldom of Leicester, and other great promotions, married him to his sister: he rebelling against his sovereign, Edmond, surnamed Crouchbacke Earl of Lancaster, youngest son to king Henry the third, had this honour given him by his brother. Afterwards, this honour lay hid (as it were) a long time amongst the titles of the family of Lancaster's: And Maude the daughter of Henry Duke of Lancaster, being married to William of Bauare Earl of Holland, Zealand, etc. Added moreover to him the Earldom of Leicester, she dying without issue, it came again to john of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster, who had married Blanch, the other sister of Maude. Since that, it continuaed to be all one with Lancaster, until the sixth year of Queen Elizabeth's reign, when she made Robert Dudley Earl of Leicester, Pag. 404.. 
HEre will we not stand to examine the truth of your Saxon Earls: but receive them as matter indifferent to fill up a room in your book. And touching these other Earls of Leicester: I say, your wits have misconceived and brought forth Rainulph Earl of Chester, Almarike Earl Mountfort, Simon his son, William of Bavare, and others, which as yet were never Earls of Leicester, with whose untimely birth, you were so pained (as it seemeth) that you quite forget four other Earls that were rightly invested, and succeeded in that dignity vidz. Thomas & Henry, grandchildren to king Henry the third by his son Edmond: After Henry, succeeded the second Henry his son: And after him his grandchild by his daughter Blanch (called Henry of Bullingbrooke) who was after king of England by the name of Henry the fourth. And therefore I would entreat you to leave out in your next and fift edition, your first four Earls here mentioned: in which doing, you should make room for the other four, whom very injuriously you have thrust out of their right place of succession.  HInckley (if our Heralds deceive me not) had for Earls 
Hinckley.  thereof Hugh Grantmaisuill, great Steward of England during the reign of king William Rusus, and of Henry the first, he had issue two daughters, Petronel that was married to Robert Earl of Leicester (who in her right was high Steward of England) And Alice married to Roger Bygot. etc. Pag. 399. 
Truly I must needs confess that her majesties Herald hath deceived you, and contrary to your expectation, hath answered some of your untruths: but that the Heralds do affirm Hugh Grentemaisnill to be Earl of Hinckley I utterly deny the same. And now comparing your speeches here, with those before in the title of Earls of Leicester, I find them very variable, and yourself forgetful to contradict yourself: in so little a distance: for in that before, you make erroneously Hugh Grantemaisnill to have had but one only daughter and heir named Parnell, that was married to Robert Earl of Leycester, and here you acknowledge that he had a second daughter named Alice, married to Roger By got ancestor to the Earls of Norfolk: By disannulling of which Alice, you endanger the succession and inheritance of most of the Nobility of this Realm, which are from her descended. But understand that I do not produce this your assertion as erroneous in this place: but rather to confirm your opinion here as true, that your own words before disagreeing from this truth, may not receive any credit when they shall be read. Pag. 404. of your book.  WIlliam Conqueror gave Pontfret unto Hildebert Lacie 
Pontfret.  a Norman, who builded there a castle. He had issue Robert that succeeded him: to Robert succeeded Henry, whose only daughter Albrede was married to Robert de Luzures, unto whom she bore one only daughter married to Richard Fitz-Eustace Constable of Chester, whose successors took unto them the name of Lacie, and were Earls of Lincoln. Pag. 534. 
YOu have so long used this trade of patching and piecing of Petegrees with untimely issue and unnatural marriages, as many now well experienced do condemn you of palpable ignorance, I wish you therefore some other practice more fitting your skill, and less prejudicial to the common wealth, for here (as in many other noble families) you have confused and falsified this pedigree of Lacy's, making Henry Lacie Lord of Pomfret to have issue but one only daughter, and sole heir named Albrede, when as he had a son named Robert that succeeded him, and no daughter at all. After you avouch that daughter Albrede, to be wife to Robert de Luzurs (a man as yet unborn) and to have issue by him a daughter and sole heir, married to Richard Fitz-Eustace Constable of Chester. To which I answer, that the same Albrede, who (you say) married Robert de Luzurs was the widow of Henry Lacie, and not his daughter. And that daughter and sole heir you affirm to be wife to Richard Fitz-Eustace, was the only heir of Eudo de Luzurs by Albrede the relict of Henry Lacie, and not of Robert de Luzurs. And for proof that Henry Lacie did marry with Albrede, and had issue Robert Lacie, that died 1193. as also that the said Albrede after the death of Henry Lacie, married for her second husband, Eudo de Luzurs, and had issue one sole daughter & heir named Albrede, wife to Richard Fitz-Eustace, Constable of Chester, I set you down these four deeds following.  
REgi Angliae & omnibus fidelibus suis tam Franc. quam Angl. salutem. To the king of England and to all his true and faithful people as well French as English greeting. Know ye that I Robert de Lacie of Pomfred, for the health of my soul, and Henry my son, and of all my ancestors, have given to Gilbert the hermit of Saint james of Notall, and to his ten brethren there serving God, being of the same house and to their successors, the town of Nether Sutton, with all such liberties and bondmen as Gilbert my father had, of the free gift of William Duke of Normandy, the year after the conquest of England, etc. Witnesses, Geffrey Estotevile the Sheriff, and Roger his brother, Sir Henry de Alder, etc.  
OMnibus ad quos praesentes pervenerint tam Franc. quàm Angl. salutem. To all to whom these presents shall come, aswell French as English, greeting. Know ye that I Robert de Lacie of Pomfret, for the health of my soul, and for the soul of Henry my father, and Albrede my mother, and for the souls of all my ancestors, and successors, have given and confirmed in perpetual Alms, to the Abbay of Kirkestall, and to the Monks there serving God, four Hides of land, with a Mill in the town of Killinghale. Witnesses Henry the Archdeacon the writer, William son of Richard, etc.  
OMmibus ad quos praesentes pervenerint tam Franc. quam Angl. salutem. To all to whom these presents shall come, aswell French as English, greeting. Know ye that I Eudo de Luzures have confirmed certain lands by my deed in Euerstone, with the assent of Albrede my wife, and Robert Lacie her son, to Hugh de Osmondwike, and to his heirs for ever, for homage and service, etc. These being witness, Matthew Vicar of Pomfret, Sir Richard de Thoresworth, etc.  
noverint universi per praesentes, quod ego Robertus de Lacie, etc. Know all men by these presents, that I Robert de Lacie of Pomfret, have given, and granted, and by this my deed, have clearly confirmed to Richard Fitz-Eustace, & to my sister Albrede his wife, & to their heirs for ever, the towns of Hotton, Newton, Locton, Euerston, and Broitton, with the half part of the town of Riggeton, etc. Moreover, I do clearly acquit the said Eustace, and Albrede his wife, and their heirs for ever, of all service, and homage due to me, and my heirs for the same. Witnesses Sir Richard de Lunel Constable of Pomfret, Sir William de Warerton etc.  ALencester (the free town) which king Henry the first gave 
Alencester.  to Robert Corbet, for love of his daughter. But he the said Robert, gave the same town to William Botreaux, and Peter Fitz-Herbert, his gradchildrens, Pag. 438. 
HEre are you to be commended, in reforming your own error: for in the title of the Barons of Botreaux, page of your Book 229. You there have set down Richard Corbet to be father to the concubine of king Henry the first. And here you say that Robert Corbet was her father, which is true indeed, and the other false: but as you have here in this place amended one error, so have you likewise committed an other, in avouching Peter Fitz-Herbert, to be the said Robert Corbets grandchild, when as the said Robert (in your sense) had neither son graundchild, nor great grandchild, which was called by the name of Peter Fitz-Herbert. And therefore, I marvel, from whence you have these fabulous fragments.  BArons Burnell, were an ancient family here, until that in 
Barons Burnell.  King Edward the seconds time, the only daughter and heir of that house, married first with john Lovel, & after with john Handlo, whose son H●gh, took to him the surname of Burnell, from whom the Radcliffes Earls of Sussex are descended. Pag. 456. 
TO this may I answer as to many others: That you writ you know not what, otherwise you would not here so untruly have affirmed Hugh Handlo, to be son of john Handlo, and Maude Burnell his wife: they never having any such son, nor you any other proof than your own imagination for the same: And for approbation hereof, it appeareth by diverse offices, in the time of king Edward the third, that john Handlo, in right of Maude Burnell his wife was seized of the Manors of Holgat, and Acton Burnell, for term of his life, the Remainder to Nicholas Handlo, alias Burnell, son and heir of the said john by Maude his wife. And therefore no such Hugh, as you avouch to be son of john Handlo: but had you said, that Hugh had been grandchild of john, and son of Nicholas, then had you in this point saved your own credit, and me a labour,  HArewood Castle came from the Curcyes to Waryn Ftz-Gerald, 
Harewood Castle.  whose daughter Margaret, was married first to Bauldwyn Rivers, son to the Earl of Devonshire (who died before his father) and after she married Foulke de Brent; from her it came by inheritance to G. Lisley, whose successors were called Lords of the Isle, Rouge-mount and Harewood: But male issue failing, the sister of the last Robert, transported this inheritance (by marriage) to William de Alborough; by whose only daughter, it came to the Rythers, which now holdeth the same, Pag. 535. 
YOur errors committed in this Title of Harewood Castle, are worthy some censure: For, first you say, that Harewood Castle came from the Curcyes to Waryn Fitz-Gerald, and that his daughter Margaret carried the same by marriage to Bauldwyn Rivers; Wherein, you are greatly deceived: For Waryn Fitz-Gerald, which first possessed Harewood Castle, by marrying the sister & heir of Curcy, had issue a son, and no daughter: which son, had issue an other son and two daughters; and so your descent very untrue in that point. Secondly, you affirm that after the death of the said Margaret, Harewood Castle did descend by inheritance, to G. Lisley. To that I answer; Had you known the truth of this descent, you would have set down both the time, and how the said G. Lisley was the said Margaret's heir, whether by lineal, or collateral descent: but that being a matter too intricate for you to perform, in steed thereof you were forced to leave for his name a bare letter G. and his right of inheritance, for the readers of your Book, to find in nubibus. And although for some special cause, I do forbear here to lay open this honourable progeny of Lisles, yet by the way will I tell you, that there was never any one of that family, whose name began with a G. that possessed Harewood as an inheritance descended to him (from the foresaid Margaret;) nor that wanting heirs male, his issue carried the same by marriage to the family of Aldborough, as you very undiscreetly have here set down: for all those Lysleys that were owners of Harewood, were called by the name of john. Thirdly, that the sister and heir of Robert Lysley, transported this inheritance by marriage, to William de Aldborough, I utterly deny the same; and for proof say, that Elizabeth the wife of Sir William Aldborough was sister and heir of john Lisley, in the time of king Edward the third, and not of Robert. And lastly, whereas without any probability, you affirm, that the foresaid Sir William Alborough had issue by his wife one only daughter and heir, married to Sir William Ryther. I answer, that in saying he had but one only daughter, you wrong divers Worshipful families now living, that are descended of Elizabeth an other daughter and coheir of the said Sir William Aldborough, and his wife; who was first married to Sir Bryan Stapleton, and after to Sir Richard Redman, as by an inquisition taken after the death of the said Sir William Aldborough and Elizabeth his wife, in the. 12. year of king Richard the second, it doth appear.  FOkingham, now the habitation of the Clynton's, in ancient time 
Barons of Fokingham.  the Barony of Gauntes, who descended from Gilbert of Gaunt, grandchild to Bauldwyn Earl of Flaunders; to whom many goodly Revenues fell, by the bounty of William the Conqueror: His son Walter of Gaunt begat Gilbert (created by king Stephen Earl of Lincoln) and Robert of Gaunt: but the Earl left one only daughter, married to Simon the third Earl of Northhampton, who died without issue; to whom her uncle Robert succeeded in the Barony, and was father to Gilbert de Gaunt; to whom Lewis the Frenchman (called in by the Barons against king john) granted the title of Earl of Lyncolne: whose son, the third Gilbert, begat the fourth Gilbert, and Margaret, wife to William Kyrdeston: which fourth Gilbert, having no children, made E. 1. his heir, and king E. 2. gave this Barony to Henry de Bellement or Beaumonte. Pag. 412. 
FIrst, in your assertion, that (Gilbert the Earl, son and heir to Walter de Gaunt) had but one only daughter: It is manifestly to be proved that he had two sons, and a daughter; both which sons had issue. Secondly, I say that neither the daughter of Gilbert came to the inheritance, nor any such uncle Robert succeeded her in that dignity: the right thereof ever remaining in her brothers, who with their issue, succeeded in the dignity. Thirdly, that the foresaid Robert was not father to the third Gilbert (as you report) whom Lewis the Frenchman made Earl of Lincoln, but great uncle (if any such Robert were ever at all:) and the better to manifest the same, I have here set you down the rrueth of this descent, as ensueth.  
WAlter de Gaunt, son of Gilbert de Gaunt, that founded the House of Gauntes in the city of Bristol in William conquerors time, had issue Gilbert, (made Ear of Lincoln by king Stephen) Walter, Henry, Bawldwyn, Gonora, and Agnes. The said Earl Gilbert, married Hawise, daughter of the first William Romare Earl of Lincoln, and had issue Gilbert, the second Earl of Lincoln, disinherited by Henry the second, Bawldwyn Lord of Borne, and Alice wife to Simon Sanctolice Earl of Northampton. Gilbert the second had issue the third Gilbert, whom Lewis the Frenchman made Earl of Lincoln, and that died sanz issue in Henry the thirds time. Bawldwyn second son of the first Earl Gilbert, was by the gift of his father Lord of Borne, and Deeping: he founded the Abbay of Borne. 1140. in the honour of Henry the second his Master, and died the 4. of May. 1156. leaving Emme his only daughter and heir, married to Hugh Lord Wake of Lydell, of whom the noble families of Wakes descended. And now to return again to Walter de Gaunt Lord of Folkingham, second son to the first Walter, (whom you name Robert) he had issue Gilbert de Gaunt, father to the second Gilbert: whose son, Gilbert the third, was the first Baron of Folkingham; and was by that name in a Parliament holden at Worcester. 49. of Henry the third. This Gilbert had great livings given unto him by Gilbert the last Earl of Lincoln his kinsman: He died, leaving issue Gilbert de Gaunt his son, (who was Baron of Folkingham. 24. E. 1. Nichola wife to Peter Malolakue, and Margaret wife to William Kyrdeston. Thus by my long and laborious journey, in the end, I have brought these honourable Families descended of the Lord Wake, to their right and ancient Ancestor Gilbert de Gaunt, the first Earl of Lincoln; whom you would have obscured, by making him to die without heirs male, he having issue two sons, as before in this place I have mentioned.  THis County of Lyncolne boasteth of her Earls (after Egga, 
Earls of Lyncolne.  and Morcar Saxous) William the Romara a Norman, borne of Luce (sister of Morcar) and Roger Fitz-Gerald de Romara, to whom being dead (for neither his son, who died before his father, nor his grandchild, used this title) Stephen substituted Gilbert de Gand, whose daughter and heir Simon S. Lice married, and succeeded in this honour: but he being dead, Ranulph Earl of Chester, William de Romara his brother by the mother, (for Luce had now the third time married Ranulph the second of Chester) obtained this inheritance and honour of king Henry the third. Pag. 420. 
FIrst, where you affirm Simon de Sanctolice to have been Earl of Lincoln in right of Alice his wife, daughter of Gilbert de Gaunt Earl of Lincoln: I deny that there was ever any of the Sanctolices Earls of Lincoln; as by their several deeds extant is to be proved, wherein they writ themselves only Earls of Northampton, and not of Lincoln. Secondly, you say, that Ranulph of Chester the second, married Lucy the mother of William Romara Earl of Lincoln, and begot on her Ranulph, who succeeded his father in the Earldom of Chester, and obtained of Henry the third the Earldom of Lincoln. In which saying, you have brought yourself into a labyrinth of errors: for, if you mean (by second) the second Earl of Chester, his name was Richard, and not Ranulph. If by that word (second) you mean the second of that name; the second Ranulph married not Lucy, but Alice, the daughter of Robert Earl of Gloucester, and had issue by her Hugh▪ Again, if you confess that you mistook the third Earl for the second, and so meant Ranulph the first to have been the same that married Lucy, Mother to William Romara, and begot on her the second Ranulph, whom king Henry the third made Earl of Lincoln: that is impossible to be true, that the second Ranulph should be made Earl of Lincoln by king Henry the third, he being dead almost an hundred years before the said king came unto the Crown. But to help you out of this perplexity, and that yourself, and others may be warned for falling into the like error hereafter, I will set you down what I find by Record and Evidences touching the same; which is, that Ranulph the first of that name, and third Earl of Chester, had issue the second Ranulph & fourth Earl of Chester (half brother to William de Romara) who married Alice daughter to Robert Earl of Gloucester, otherwise called the Consul; and had issue Hugh the fift Earl of Chester, father of Ranulph the sixth, and last Earl of Chester of that family: unto whom Henry the third gave the Earldom of Lincoln. And for proof that it was this last Ranulph, to whom king Henry the third gave the Earldom of Lincoln, and not Ranulph his grandfather, (who you say, was brother to William Romara) peruse these two Deeds following.  
HVgo Comes Cestriae omnibus Baronibus suis et ministris. etc. Hugh Earl of Chester, unto all his Barons, Ministers, and people, aswell French as English, and to all the faithful of the holy Church, aswell Clergy as laity; and aswell these that are present, as they that shall come hereafter, greeting. Know ye, that I have given, and confirmed by this my present Writing, unto the Church of S. Augustine of Grimesby, and to the Canons there, serving God, all those Alms which Ranulph Earl of Chester my father did give, and confirm unto them by his Writing. etc. Witnesses Richard son of the Earl, Ranulph de Virro, Hachet de Ridefort. etc.  
RAnulphus Comes Cestriae et Lincolinae omnibus Christi fidelibus. etc. Ranulph Earl of Chester and Lincoln, unto all the faithful people of Christ, unto whom this present writing shall come, sendeth health in the Lord. Be it known unto you, that I have granted, and by my present writing confirmed to God, and the Church of S. Augustine of Grimesby, and to the Canons there serving God, for the health of my soul, and of my father and mother. etc. The fourth part of that Manor which Hugh de S. Paul held of Ranulph my grandfather. etc. which Ranulph Earl of Chester my grandfather gave unto them: and which Hugh my father confirmed, according as their writing witnesseth which the Canons than had, and seven Rods of Land. etc. even as the writing of Gilbert of Turfs, and the confirmation of William Romare, which they then had, do show. Wherefore I will and straightly command, that the foresaid Canons may freely and quietly possess the same. etc. Witnesses john the Earl my Nephew, William of Cantelup, Fulco Fitz-Warin, Baldwyn de Ver, Henry de Ferraris.  THe first Lord of Coventrie was Leofrike, from whom by Luce his Niece (daughter of Algar his son.) it passed to the Earls of Chester: for she married the first Ranulph of Chester. etc. Pag. 434. 
FRom Lincoln to Coventrie is a long and wearisome 
Lords of Coventrie.  journey (especially) when the traveler is ignorant of the way, and wanteth a guide; as here (it seemeth) you did, when you passed from the one to the other: and setting down the successions of the Earls of Lincoln, and Lords of Coventrie; where, in the first you have made Luce (daughter of Algar the Saxon) to be wife to Ranulph the second Earl of Chester: and after in the other (not far distant) to be wife to Ranulph the first Earl of Chester; the one being the father, and the other his son: But how lawful a thing it is for the father to marry his sons wife, or the son his own mother (as your words in these two places import) I refer myself to the judgement of the indifferent readers.  COncerning the Lords of the Isle of Wight, After that William Fitz Osberne was slain in the wars in Flaunders, and his son Roger banished, this Lordship came into the kings hands; and king Henry the first gave this Island unto Richard Riduers Earl of Devonshire, with the fee of the manor of Christ-church; where the said Richard builded a Castle, as he likewise 
Lords of the Isle of Wight.  did at Caresbroke: But his son Bauldwyn was driven thence in the troublesome times of king Stephen (when there were so many Kings or Tyrants in England, as there were Lords, or keepers of Castles: of the which, every one challenged the privilege of Coining money, and other rights and royalties of the Crown) yet his successors did after enjoy the same again. At length, Isabella widow of William de Fortibus, Earl of Albemarle and of Holdernes, the sister and heir of Bauldwyn the last Earl of Devonshire of that family, with much entreaty, passed over all her right by her deed, to King E. 1. Pag. 710. 
THis is quite Camme from your words before in the title of Earls of Devon. Pag. 144. for there you affirm Bauldwyn Ryduers to be made the first Earl of Devonshire, by king Henry the first: And now in this place, you make Richard father of the said Bauldwyn, to be first Earl of Devon in the same kings time: which Richard must needs be understood to be that Richard which was father to Bauldwyn, whom you say, was driven from the Isle of Wight in king Stephen's time, as in mine answer before to the Earls of Devon more at large it doth appear. Thus your words in one place, being merely repugnant to those in an other, what credit may any give to your writings?  THe owners of Skelton Castle, were first Robert de Bruse a 
Skelton Castle.  Norman; who had issue two sons, Adam that was Baron of Skelton; and Robert Lord of Auandale in Scotland: from whose posterity came the Kings of Scotland: Peter Bruise the fift in succession from that Adam, died without issue, and left for his heirs his sisters, Agnes, marid to Walter Faulconberg, Lucy married to Walter Twenge, from whom is descended the Baron of Lumley; Margaret married to Robert de Roos, and Ladrina to john Bella-aqua, men of great account in that time. Page. 556. 
WHat thanks you look for, I know not: but well assured I am in this place, as in many others, you have deserved none: for few or none of the Noble Families, with whom you have had to deal with, or to write off, but that you have injured them in some one point or other. And now that we are come to speak of the last Peter Bruse Baron of Skelton, who died. 14. kalends of October, 1273. I pray you let us examine a little that honourable the Lord Lumley his descent; whom (in your own conceit) you have made much beholding unto you, for adding to him one Ancestor (such as I dare boldly say) neither he, nor any other as yet ever knew or heard of; I mean Walter Twenge, who (you say) married Lucy the sister and coheir of Peter Bruse Baron of Skelton, & was Ancestor to the now Baron of Lumley. But that you may the better reform this, with many other your faults, I will for your better instruction, manifest unto you the name, & true husband of the said Luce: which was, Marmaduke Twenge, a noble Baron in king Edward the first his time: who died in the kalends of March. 1284. and was buried by his said wife Lucia in the Church of Gwisborne, founded by Robert Bruise the Norman, his wives Ancestor. 1129.  DAnby came from the successors of Walter Twenge to the Latymers, 
Danby.  which were afterward Barons Latymers of Danby, from whom it passed by marriage unto the Willoughbyes: which inheritance, with the honour, Ralph Nevil the first Earl of Westmoreland did purchase for his younger son George Nevil: in whose issue it remaineth to this day. Pag. 556. 
THat Danby was the possession of Walter Twenge, and that from his successors it came to the Latymers, who were after Barons of Danby, I answer (as before in the title of Skelton). That there was never any such Walter yet borne; and then no such successors of his could carry the same to the Latymers, as you very untruly have here set down: for proof hereof, I refer me to the judgement of the honourable Lord Lumley himself; who hath this descent most exactly set down by that worthy and late Officer of Arms, Somerset Herald. And to the other, That Ralph Nevell Earl of Westmoreland, did purchase the said inheritance and honour, of john Lord Latymer of Danby, for his younger son George: I grant for true, that he purchased the Lands, but not the dignity: for john Nevil that sold the said lands, had no fee simple in the dignity to sell but only an estate for term of life: therefore can you not rightly say that Ralph Nevil Earl of Westmoreland, did purchase the dignity which George his son enjoyed. But more agreeable to the truth had it been, if you had said, that George son of Ralph Nevil in regard that he had the Lands whereof the dignity of Latymer was erected, obtained the honour by the kings free gift and favour, otherwise that title and dignity had been extinct: for seldom shall you find, that the Kings of this Realm did ever create or invest any into a Barony, which took the name of dignity from an others peculiar place of inheritance or possession.  THe Barony of Burford (descended from the posterity of Theodericke 
The Barons of Burford.  Saij) to Robert Mortimer; and from his posterity, to Geffrey Cornwall (that came of Richard Earl of Cornwall, and King of Romans) his of spring having continued Barons thereof to this day. Pag. 455. 
I Do much pity you, that in such high sails of learning, you should have so little ballast of discretion: You have a great facility, and a rare gift in the creating and making of Barons with the dash of your pen: But it argueth how shallow you are in the true definition of a Baron, in that you will publish in print that the family of Cornwalles were Barons of Burford; you being not able ever to make proof of any one of them, to have had that dignity. Notwithstanding, divers of that surname have been Knights: of which number, king Henry the sixth did erect Sir john Cornwall to be a Baron, and Peer of this Realm, by the name and title of Lord Fanhope: which john, was both the first and last Baron of that family; and therefore it standeth now with your credit, to make proof of these your Barons of Burford: which, I think, willbe too hard and difficult a matter for you to do.  KIng Stephen made Walleron Earl of Millent (brother to 
Earls of Worcester.  Robert Bossu Earl of Leicester) the first Earl of Worcester: whose children left the Realm, and returned to their ancient patrimony in Normandy: And that dignity lay void, until Richard the second bestowed it upon Thomas Percy; who was after slain by King H. 4. Pag. 445. 
IS it possible? or, do you think to persuade any senscible man to believe, that this late borne Britannia was of your own collection? (you as it seemeth, not understanding the same.) No, assure yourself: for who knoweth not, that the contents thereof are neither taught, nor learned amongst children in Schools, and yourself never employed else where to attain the knowledge thereof. Many learned, think it more fit you had waded within the compass of your own profession and knowledge, in which your errors would not so apparently have been descried, as here they are. In this Title of Earls of Worcester, you make Walleron to be the first Earl of Worcester: and that his issue did departed this Realm to their ancient patrimony in Normandy: By which, if it were true, then were there none of that progeny to be looked for here in this Realm of England (to the great prejudice of many honourable Families descended of the said Walleron.) But to reform this your error, I wish you to understand that the foresaid Walleron, had issue Robert Earl of Millent, Worcester, and Lord of Ponttadomara: which Robert did remain here in England, and married an English woman named Mauld, Lady of Estrumenister, Moreys, and Rydlestone; And by her had issue Henry, Peter, Mabell, and Mary: the two sons, and the youngest daughter, dying without issue; Mabell the eldest daughter, was married to William de Vernon, alias Ryduers▪ Earl of Devonshire; and had issue Bauldwyn Earl of Devonshire, and Mary, first married unto Sir Robert Courteney, by whom she had issue: (of whom all the Courteney are descended:) After she married Peter de Prouz, a noble Gentleman of Devon: to which Peter, the said Robert Earl of Millent and Worcester, did by his deed give in frank marriage with the said Marie his grandchild, the third part of all his Land in England; and unto Bauldwin his gran-child (by his daughter Mabell) all his Land in Normandy, with the Manors of Estrumenister, Moreyes, and Riddleston in England. So that here you are not only found to fail in your affirmation, that there was not any Earl of Worcester between the said Walleron in King Stephen's time, and Thomas Percy, who had that dignity of Richard the second: But also, in saying his issue returned to their ancient Patrimony in Normandy; when it is manifest that his sole heir continued here, and left issue: of whom are descended many of our noble Families at this present.  THe first Lord of Gillesland, was William Meschines, 
Lords of Gillesland.  brother to Ranulfe Earl of Carlell. Pag. 604. 
AS you did begin at the first, so have you in your Book continued unto the end, making to some Nobles unnatural marriages, and to others unlawful issue. In this place, you have made the son to be brother to his own father, by affirming William Meschines Lord of Gillesland, to be brother to Ranulph Earl of Carlell. And to prove that the said William was son of Ranulph Earl of Carlell, and not his brother, I will first for the better understanding of the reader hereof, set down a brief of the said William's descent, beginning at Hugh Lupus his uncle, the first Earl of Chester, whose sister Margaret was married to Ranulph Earl of Carlell, and by him had issue two sons, Ranulph the first of that name, and third Earl of Chester; and William Mischines Lord of Gilleslande: and that this is true which here I have inserted, read this Deed following: which done, I trust you will not only recant your error, but also acknowledge from whence you have received the truth hereof.  
NOtum sit omnibus me Ran. Comit. Cestrae concessisse quando feci transferri corpus Hugonis Comitis awnculi mei a cimiterio in Capitulum. etc. Be it known unto all man, That I Ranulph Earl of Chester, have granted at such time as I caused the body of Hugh the Earl my uncle to be translated from the Church yard, into the Chapter house: That on the day of my death, I should give together with my body, to the Church of S. Werburge, Vpton, in pure Alms, free from every thing, for the soul of the foresaid Hugh, and the health of my soul, and the souls of all my kinsfolks. And whereas Hugh the Earl, before had granted to the Church of S. Werburge, at the feast of the translation of the same, the Privilege of a Fair: I also do grant and confirm the same. Moreover, William Meschinus my brother, hath given the Church of Destart. Matthew of Ruelant hath given the Church of Thurstanestone. etc.   

An enforced Conclusion.  
WHen as I had collected ready for the Press, so many of your defects and errors, (published in your so highly commended Britannia) as might well have satisfied the world, that I undertook not this work in vain, nor yet without good cause me moving thereunto. Then was I stayed in the printing thereof, by the disturbance and indirect dealing of your friends the Stationers, (who heretofore have made no small gain of your four former Impressions) and thereby constrained abruptly here to make an end, suppressing a great part of my first pretended purpose: yet before I do end, I think it my duty, here to put the Nobility in mind, that your Book now going in hand, may be both seen, and allowed, before it go to the Press, by such as have both skill, and authority so to do: (I mean the Earl Martial) and not to pass as before it hath done, to the prejudice of so many honourable Families. And to the end the world may know with whose plumes you have heretofore feathered your nest (besides the Heralds) I have hereunto annexed a Newyears gift, dedicated to king Henry the eight in the. 37. year of his reign, by that worthy and learned English Antiquary Master john Leyland, concerning his six years travail, and laborious journey for the search of England's Antiquities, upon the said kings commission and charges: by which it may appear unto the indifferent Reader, who was the first Author and contriver of this late borne Britannia, either he whose name is clean razed and blotted out, or you that have both taken the title and whole credit thereof to yourself. Also, I may not here let pass the words of Master john Bale in his declarations upon the same work, dedicated to King Edward the sixth: which are these following. Blessed be the man which shall set this worthy work abroad: and contrariwise, Cursed be he for ever and ever, that shall in spite of his Nation, seek thereof the destruction.   

john Leylands new years Gift, given of him to King Henry the. viii. in the. 37. year of his reign, concerning his laborious journey and search for England's antiquities.  
WHere as it pleased your Highness, upon very just considerations, to encourage me, by the authority 
Studium antiquitatis in principe.  of your most gracious Commission, in the XXXV. year of your prosperous reign, to peruse, and diligently to search all the Libraries of Monasteries and Colleges of this your noble Realm, to the intent that the Monuments of ancient Writers, as well of other Nations as of your own Province, might be brought out of deadly darkness to lively light, and to receive like thanks of their posterity, as they hoped for at such time, as they employed their long and great studies to the public wealth.  
Yea, and furthermore, that the holy Scripture of God might both be sincerely taught and learned, all manner of superstition, 
Cura religionis in principe.  & crafty coloured doctrine of a rout of Roman Bishops, totally expelled out of this your most catholic Realm. I think it now no less than my very duty, briefly to declare to your Majesty, what fruit have sprung of my laborious journey and costly enterprise, both rooted upon your infinite goodness & liberality: qualities right highly to be esteemed in all Princes, and most specially in you, as naturally your own well known proprieties.  
First, I have conserved many good Authors, the which 
Exemplaria veterum authorum conseruata.  otherwise had been like to have perished, to no small incommodity of good Letters. Of the which part remain in the 
Auctae Bibliothecae palatinae.  most magnificent Libraries of your royal Palaces. Part also remain in my custody; whereby I trust right shortly, so to describe your most noble Realm, and to publish the majesty of the excellent acts of your progenitors, hitherto sore obscured, both for lack of imprinting of such works as lay secretly in corners.  
And also, because men of eloquence hath not enterprised to set them forth in a flourishing style, in some times past, 
Stylus agrestis veterum scriptorum.  not commonly used in England of Writers, otherwise well learned, and now in such estimation, that except truth be delicately clothed in purpur, her written verities can scant find a reader. That all the world shall evidently perceive, that no particular Region may justly be more extolled than yours, for true Nobility and Virtues at all points renowned.  
furthermore, part of the exemplaries, curiously sought by me, and fortunately found in sundry places of this your dominion, hath been imprinted in Germany, and now be in the 
Exemplaria praelis commissa.  Presses chief of Frobenius; that not alonely the Germans, but also the Italians themselves, that count (as the Greeks' did full arrogantly) all other Nations to be barbarous and unlettered, saving their own, shall have a direct occasion, openly of force to say: That Britannia prima fuit parens, altrix (addo hoc etiam, & iure quidem optimo) conseruatrix cum virorum magnorum, tum maxime ingeniorum.  
And, that profit hath risen by the aforesaid journey, in bringing full many things to light, as concerning the usurped 
Antiphilarchia repellens ambitiosum Ro. Epi. Imperiu.  authority of the Bishop of Rome and his complices, to the manifest and violent derogation of kingly dignity. I refer myself most humbly to your most prudent, learned, and high judgement, to discern my diligence in the long volume, wherein I have made answer for the defence of your supreme dignity, alonely leaning to the strong pillar of holy Scripture, against the whole College of the Romanistes, cloaking their crafty assertions and arguments, under the name of one poor Pighius of Vltraiecte in Germany; and 
Albertus' Pighius.  standing to them as to their only anchor hold, against tempests that they know will arise, if truth may be by licence let in, to have a voice in the general counsel.  
Yet herein only, I have not pitched the supreme work of my labour, whereunto your Grace, most like a kingly patron 
Affectus autoris erga patriam.  of all good Learning, did animate me. But also considering and expending with myself, how great a number of excellent godly Wits and Writers, learned with the best, as the times served, hath been in this your Region: Not only at such times as the Roman Emperors had recourse to it, but also in those days that the Saxons prevailed of the Britons, and the normans of the Saxons, could not but with a fervent zeal, and an honest courage, commend them to memory. Else alas, like to have been perpetually obscured, or to have been lightly remembered, as uncertain shadows.  
Wherefore, I knowing by infinite variety of Books, and assiduous reading of them, who hath been learned, and who 
Libri quatuor de viris illustribus, sive de scriptoribus Britannicis.  hath written from time to time in this Realm; have digested into iiij. Books the names of them, with their lives and monuments of learning: And to them, added this little, De viris illustribus, following the profitable example of Hierome, Gennadie, Cassiodore, Severyane, and Trittemie a late writer: But always so handling the matter, that I have more exspaciated in this camp, than they did, as in a thing that desired to be somewhat at large, and to have or nature. The first Book beginning at the Druids, is deducted unto the time of the coming of S. Augustine into England. The second, is from the time of Augustine, unto the advente of the normans. The third, from the normans, to the end of the most honourable reign of the mighty, famous, and prudent Prince, Henry the. seven. your Father. The fourth, beginneth with the name of, Your Majesty: whose glory in Learning, is to the world so clearly known, that though among the lives of other learned men I have accurately celebrated the names of Bladudus, Molmutius, Constantinus magnus, Sigeberius, Alfridus, 
Principes eruditi.  Alfridus magnus, Athelstanus, and Henry the first, Kings and your progenitors. And also Ethelward, second son to Alfride the great, Hunfryde Duke of Gloucester, and Tipetote Earl of Worcester: yet conferred with your Grace, they seem as small lights (if I may freely say my judgement, your high modesty not offended) in respect of the day star.  
Now, farther to insinuate to your Grace, of what matters the Writers, whose lives I have congested into four Books, 
Ingenia scriptorum Britannicorum omni genere eruditionis exercitata.  hath treated of. I may right boldly say, that beside the cognition of the. iiij. tongues, in the which part of them hath excelled; that there is no kind of liberal science, or any feat concerning learning, in the which they have not showed certain arguments of great felicity of wit. Yea and concerning the interpretation of holy Scripture, both after the ancient form and sense, the scholastical trade, they have reigned as in a certain excellency.  
And, as touching Historical knowledge, there hath been to the number of a full hundredth or more, that from time to 
Ingens numerus scriptorum rerum Britannicarum.  time hath with great diligence, and no less faith (would to God with like eloquence) perscribed the acts of your most noble predecessors: and the fortunes of this your Realm, so incredibly great, that he that hath not seen, and thoroughly read their works, can little pronounce in this part.  
Wherefore, after that I had prepended the honest and profitable studies of these Historiographers, I was totally inflamed with a love, to see thoroughly all those parts of this your opulent and ample Realm, that I had read of in 
Perogralio laboriosa totius Britanniae primae.  the aforesaid Writers: In so much that all my other occupations intermitted, I have so travailed in your Dominions both by the Sea coasts, and the middle parts, sparing neither labour nor costs, by the space of these six years past, that there is almost neither Cape nor Bay, Haven, creak or Pere, River, or confluence of Rivers, Breaches, Washeses, Lakes, Meeres, fenny waters, Mountains, Valleys, Moors, heaths, Forests, Woods, Cities, Burges, Castles, principal manor Places, Monasteries, and Colleges; but I have seen them, and noted in so doing: a whole world of things very memorable.  
Thus instructed, I trust shortly to see the time, that like 
Descriptio totius Britanniae primae in quadrata argenti tabula.  as Carolus magnus had among his treasures, three large and notable tables of Silver richly enamelled: one of the site and description of Constantinople; an other of the site and figure of the magnificent City of Rome; and the third of the description of the World. So shall your Majesty have this your World and Empery of England so set forth in a quadrate table of Silver, if God send me life to accomplish my beginning, that your Grace shall have ready knowledge at the first sight, of many right delectable, fruitful, and necessary pleasures, by contemplation thereof, as often as occasion shall move you to the sight of it.  
And because that it may be more permanent, and farther 
Liber de Topographia Britanniae primae.  known, then to have it engraved in Silver or Brass, I intend by the leave of God, within the space of. xii. months following, such a description to make of your Realm in writing, that it shall be no mastery after, for the Graver or Painter, to make the like, by a perfect example.  
Yea, and to wade further in this matter, where as now almost no man can well guess at the shadow of the ancient 
Restituta vētera locorum in Britannia nomina.  names of Havens, Rivers, Promontories, Hills, Woods, Cities, Towns, Castles, and variety of kinds of people: that Cesar, Livi, Strabo, Diodorus, Fabius Pictor, Pomponius Mela, Plinius, Cornelius Tacitus, Ptolomeus, Sextus Rufus, Ammianus, Marcellinus, Solinus, Antoninus, and divers other, make mention of. I trust so to open this window, that the light shall be seen so long: that is to say, by the space of a whole thousand years stopped up, and the old glory of your renowned Britain to reflorish through the world.  
This done, I have matter at plenty already prepared to this purpose: that is to say, to write an History, to the which 
De Antiquitate Britannica sive de Civili historia, libri quinquaginta.  I intend to ascribe this title, De Antiquitate Britannica: or else, Civilis historia. And this work I intend to divide into so many Books, as there be Shires in England, and Shires and great dominions in Wales: So that I esteem that this Volume will include a fifty Books; whereof each one, severally shall contain the beginnings, increases, and memorable acts of the chief Towns and Castles of the Province allotted to it.  
Then, I intend to distribute into six Books, such matter 
Libri sex de insulis Britanniae adiacentibus.  as I have already collected concerning the Isles adjacent to your noble Realm, and under your subjection. Whereof three shall be of these Isles, Uecta, Mona, and Menavia, sometime Kingdoms.  
And, to superadd a work as an ornament and a right comely garland, to the enterprises aforesaid, I have selected stuff to be distributed into three Books: the which I purpose thus to entitle, De nobilitate Britannica: Whereof, the 
De nobilitate Britannica libri tres.  first shall declare the names of Kings and Queens, with their children, Dukes, Earls, Lords, Captains, and Rulers, in this Realm, to the coming of the Saxons and their conquest. The second, shallbe of the Saxons and Danes, to the victory of King William the great. The third, from the normans to the reign of your most noble Grace, descending lineally of the Britain, Saxon, and Norman kings: So that all Noble men shall clearly perceive their lyniall parentell.  
Now if it shall be the pleasure of Almighty God, that I may live to perform these things that be already begun, 
Conclusio a delectabili & utili.  and in a great forwardness, I trust that this your Realm shall so well be known, once painted with his native colours, that the renown thereof shall give place to the glory of no other Region. And my great labours and costs, proceeding from the most abundant fountain of your infinite goodness towards me your poor Scholar, and most humble Servant, shall be evidently seen to have not only pleased, but also profited the studious, gentile, and equal Reeders. This is the brief declaration of my laborious journey, taken by motion of your Highness, so much studying at all hours, about the fruitful preferment of good letters, and ancient virtues. 
john Bale. Blessed be that man which shall set this worthy work abroad: And contrariwise, Cursed be he for ever and ever, that shall in spite of his nation, seek thereof the destruction.   
Christ continue your most royal estate, and the prosperity, with succession in kingly dignity, of your dear and worthily beloved Son Prince Edward: granting you a number of princely Sons, by the most gracious, benign, and modest Lady, your Queen Catherine.  
joannes Leylandus Antiquarius.   


Leylands supposed Ghost.  
AM I deceived? or doth not Leylands ghost,  
Complain of wrong sustained after death;  
As Virgil's Polidore accused his host  
The Thracian King for cruel breach of faith,  
And treasures gained, by stopping of his breath?  
Ah greedy Guardian that t'inioye his goods,  
Didst plunge thy princely Ward into the floods.   

Am I deceived? or doth not Leylands spirit  
Complain with ghosts of English Notaries;  
Whom Polidor Virgil robbed of merit,  
Bereft of name, and sacked of Histories,  
While (wretch) he ravished English Libraries?  
Ah wicked Booke-theefe whosoever did it:  
Should one burn all, to get one single credit?   

Am I deceived? or doth not Leylands spirit  
Make hue and cry, for some Booke-treasure stealth  
Riffling his works, and razing name and merit,  
Whereby are smothered a prince-given wealth,  
A learned writers travail, wits and health:  
All these he spent to do his country pleasure:  
Oh save his name, the world may know this treasure.   

I am deceived, for Leylands ghost doth rest  
From plaints and cries with souls of blessed men:  
But Heaven and human Laws cannot digest  
That such rare fruits of his laborious pen  
Came to be drowned in such a thankless Den.  
And therefore heaven and all humanity doth sue,  
That Leyland dead, may have his titles due.