British freewomen : $b Their historical privilegeStopes, C. C. (Charlotte Carmichael)
History
British freewomen : $b Their historical privilege
Stopes, C. C. (Charlotte Carmichael)
Women -- Great Britain; Women -- History
“De consilio summonite pro Terras habentibus in Hibernia 35 Edward III.,
Maria Comitissa Norfolk, Elianora Comitissa Ormond, Anna le Despencer,
Pha. Comitissa de la Marche, Johanna Fitz Walter, Agnes Comitissa
Pembroch, Maria de Sco Paulo Comitissa Pembroch, Margeria de Ros,
Matilda Comitissa Oxon, Katherina, Com. Atholl, Nulla summonitii
Parliamenti” (Harl., 778). Dugdale gives the same names (“Summons to
Parliament,” p. 263) as summoned by their faith and allegiance to send a
deputy to consult with the King and his council at Westminster.
“Consimiliæ Brevia diriguntur subscriptis, sub eadam Data, de essendo
coram Rege and consulo suo ad dies subscriptos viz., Ad Quindenam Paschæ
Mariæ Comitissa Norfolciæ, Alianora Comitissa de Ormond, Annæ le
Despenser, Ad tres Septimanas Paschæ Philippæ Comitissæ de la March,
Johannæ Fitz-Wauter, Agneti Comitissa Pembrochiæ, Mariæ de S. Paulo
Comitissa Pembroc., Margeria de Roos, Matildæ Comitissæ Oxon, Katarinæ
Comitissæ Atholl,” 35 Edward III., claus in dorso m. 36. These because
they had property in Ireland.”
The proxies,[5] however, do not imply that the ladies themselves would
not have been admitted had they chosen to appear, as the special summons
of Margaret, Countess Marshall, in 1 Richard II., clearly proves. Men
also were allowed to send proxies. “The Bishop of Bath and Wells being
infirm and old is allowed to send a proxy to Parliament.” “Ralph
Botiller Miles, Lord of Sudeley, has the same permission” (6 Rot. Parl.,
app., ex Rot. Parl., 1 Edward IV., p. 1, m. [19] 227, a. b.).
Footnote 5:
Plowden notes on this, that the privilege of voting by proxy is a
privilege of the House of Lords. (“Jura Anglorum,” p. 384.)
The husband’s succession to his wife’s titles was in order to grant her
a permanent and interested “proxy.” In Dugdale’s “Summons to
Parliament,” p. 576, there is “A catalogue of such noble persons as have
had their summons to Parliament in right of their wives.”
This proves:—
(1) That a man not entitled to be summoned in his own right could be
summoned in his wife’s right, but that in doing so he must take her name
and title, whether higher or lower than his own: “George, son and heir
to Thomas Stanley, Earl of Derby, having married Joane, the daughter and
heir to John, Lord Strange of Knockin, had summons to the Parliament
under the title of Lord Strange” (22 Edward IV., 1 Richard III., 3, 11,
12 Henry VII.).
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account