who has such privilege and the others, one or several, do not, I believe the privilege  is to take precedence in this connexion. Suppose one holds of one person in socage  and of another by military service, quaere which of the chief lords ought to be  preferred in the marriage of the heir. In truth it is he who enfeoffed by military  service, nor will attention have to be paid to priority of time or posteriority,  because of the military privilege. But to return to the first case, if an inheritance  held by military service descends from the father's side and one in socage from the  mother's side, or conversely, and a dispute arises as to the marriage of the heir in  whose person those two inheritances ought to be united, he must be preferred in  the marriage whose fee was1 first delivered, as will be explained more fully below.2  And finally, note that a minor under age and in the wardship of [his lord] cannot  have another minor in his wardship, for it is true as a rule that one who cannot  govern himself cannot govern others.3 Nor will the marriage belong to him [A]  who is guardian of the minor [B] of whom the sub-tenant [C] ought to hold unless  the tenement of that minor sub-tenant is of the guardian's fee. If it is of another's  fee, that other will have the marriage of the heir of him who was enfeoffed by his  [A's] tenant, and the wardship of the tenement which his [A's] tenant [B] would  have were he of full age even though the marriage belonged to another, his [C's]  chief lord by reason of an older feoffment. 4<The case of Henry de Tracy [A] and  William de Punchardon concerning the heir of Roger Beaupel [C], where the  ancestors of William had enfeoffed Reginald Beaupel [B] of the land of Hywissa,  of which Reginald had enfeoffed Roger his son, and, the heirs of both being under  age at the same time, the heir of Reginald [was] in the wardship of the said Henry  by reason of the land of Cockesley and the heir of Roger in the wardship of William,  because Reginald's tenement and Roger's were not of the same fee.>
Of the marriages of heirs and to whom the marriage ought to belong.
 We have spoken above of heirs who are of full age and sui juris on the death of their  parents, and [of those] who are within age, and shown in whose wardship and care  they ought to be until they are of lawful age, whether married in the lifetime of  their parents or not. Now we must turn to those who were not married in the lifetime  of their parents [and see] to whom their marriage may belong, according as  they are in the wardship of their kinsmen or in that of their chief lords. But in the  first place we must not fail to see what the law is if they are of full age and were  not married in the lives of their parents, whether they are male or female. It is  clear that when they are of full age such heirs may arrange their own marriages  without