The Banbury case was notorious both for its long duration and for the fact that it involved the bastardisation of children without an accompanying Parliamentary divorce.

The case fell into abeyance during the English Civil War and the Commonwealth of England, but when Lady Elizabeth’s son Nicholas attempted to take his seat in the Convention Parliament (1660) leading up to The Restoration, his legitimacy was successfully challenged by his peers.

Her husband was, William Knollys, 1st Earl of Banbury, whose mother, Catherine Carey was a first cousin of Queen Elizabeth I.

Indeed, if Vaux's mother can be believed, it was only the Gunpowder Plot that prevented his journey to London to become formally engaged to her; if that be so, she suffered a very sudden change of heart.

In June 1641 The Countess of Banbury and Nicholas obtained a licence to travel abroad and to take with them twelve servants, £200 in money, and such carriages as she needed.

[11] Nicholas was known to have travelled to France with his mother in 1644[12] and may well have been in the party that included his elder brother Edward, the 2nd earl that was robbed in Italy, for John Evelyn notes an entry in his diary for 28 January 1645; "We dined at Sermoneta, descending all this morning down a stony mountain, unpleasant, yet full of olive trees; and , anon, pass a tower built on a rock, kept by a small guard against the bandetti who infest these parts, daily robbing and killing passengers, as my lord Banbury and his company found to their cost a little before.

Nine peers met, however, and appointed the Edward Montagu, 2nd Earl of Manchester to be Speaker of the House pro tempore, and then nominated a committee to determine which lords should receive letters requesting their attendance.

The Convention Parliament (1660) was dissolved on 29 December without having investigated the earl's title, but the leave of absence granted to him appears to be a tacit admission that he had a right to be present.

The petition concluded with a prayer that a writ of summons might issue to him as Earl of Banbury, and that he might "enjoy all the precedency and privilege thereunto belonging granted by the letters patent of that dignity.

In 1628 the House of Lords had grudgingly acceded to the king's request for precedence for the newly created earl, but had insisted that it should be accorded only during his life and should not go to his heirs.

Presumably what excited the hostility of a large body of peers towards Nicholas was his insistence on being granted the precedence accorded to the first earl, to which the House had agreed on the express condition that it should be for the life of the first earl only The petition was referred by the king to the House of Lords where it was read on 6 June 1661 and referred to the Committee for Privileges.

The Committee met on 10 June and on various days thereafter, and heard counsel and witnesses on behalf of Nicholas, and the submissions of the attorney general.

Counsel were heard for and against the claim, and "after long debate " the House once more referred the matter to the Committee for Privileges which was ordered to meet on 15 July.

After counsel had been heard, it was proposed that the judges be consulted on the points of law in the case; that motion was rejected, but immediately afterwards the House resolved that Charles had no right to the Earldom of Banbury and his petition was dismissed.

His indictment as Charles earl of Banbury still subsisted, and he remained on bail on the charge of manslaughter until the day of his death 46 years later.