Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2010-12-19 16:55:45
I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have a question about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to Scotland in 1488. Wroe writes:
By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and correspondence with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only five months after the young king's accession, an embassy of forty-two exiled Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of Jersey, and the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him. Safe-conducts had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all other English persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read Lovell was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has him back in Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
Kris
By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and correspondence with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only five months after the young king's accession, an embassy of forty-two exiled Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of Jersey, and the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him. Safe-conducts had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all other English persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read Lovell was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has him back in Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
Kris
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2010-12-19 17:29:23
From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after the
battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have been alive
in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got the safe
conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of whether she knew
of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only that she
had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have wanted to keep
Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of York.
Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's disposition.
The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at that
time, not having proof of his death.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
--- In , "KristineW"
<krisanne712@...> wrote:
>
> I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have a question
about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to Scotland in
1488. Wroe writes:
>
> By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and correspondence
with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only five
months after the young king's accession, an embassy of forty-two exiled
Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of Jersey, and
the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him. Safe-conducts
had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all other English
persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
>
> My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read Lovell
was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has him back in
Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
>
> Kris
>
battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have been alive
in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got the safe
conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of whether she knew
of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only that she
had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have wanted to keep
Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of York.
Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's disposition.
The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at that
time, not having proof of his death.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
--- In , "KristineW"
<krisanne712@...> wrote:
>
> I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have a question
about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to Scotland in
1488. Wroe writes:
>
> By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and correspondence
with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only five
months after the young king's accession, an embassy of forty-two exiled
Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of Jersey, and
the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him. Safe-conducts
had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all other English
persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
>
> My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read Lovell
was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has him back in
Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
>
> Kris
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2010-12-19 18:15:18
Thank you for the reply Joan. Though I've been lurking on this forum awhile, I finally joined a week or two ago. There's certainly enough reading material about Richard the Third. I recently ordered a copy of Christine Weightman's Margaret of York: The Diabolical Duchess. I'm looking forward to reading it.
I enjoy your blog by the way.
Kris
--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after the
> battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have been alive
> in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got the safe
> conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of whether she knew
> of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only that she
> had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have wanted to keep
> Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of York.
>
> Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's disposition.
> The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at that
> time, not having proof of his death.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
>
> --- In , "KristineW"
> <krisanne712@> wrote:
> >
> > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have a question
> about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to Scotland in
> 1488. Wroe writes:
> >
> > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and correspondence
> with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only five
> months after the young king's accession, an embassy of forty-two exiled
> Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of Jersey, and
> the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him. Safe-conducts
> had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all other English
> persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> >
> > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read Lovell
> was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has him back in
> Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> >
> > Kris
> >
>
I enjoy your blog by the way.
Kris
--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after the
> battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have been alive
> in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got the safe
> conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of whether she knew
> of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only that she
> had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have wanted to keep
> Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of York.
>
> Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's disposition.
> The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at that
> time, not having proof of his death.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
>
> --- In , "KristineW"
> <krisanne712@> wrote:
> >
> > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have a question
> about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to Scotland in
> 1488. Wroe writes:
> >
> > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and correspondence
> with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only five
> months after the young king's accession, an embassy of forty-two exiled
> Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of Jersey, and
> the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him. Safe-conducts
> had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all other English
> persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> >
> > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read Lovell
> was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has him back in
> Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> >
> > Kris
> >
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-01 21:17:28
In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts issued. The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488. The June 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as included in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo Hardilstoun, militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798) as part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is obviously Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell was in the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at that time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and Richard Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after the
> battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have been alive
> in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got the safe
> conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of whether she knew
> of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only that she
> had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have wanted to keep
> Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of York.
>
> Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's disposition.
> The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at that
> time, not having proof of his death.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
>
> --- In , "KristineW"
> <krisanne712@> wrote:
> >
> > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have a question
> about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to Scotland in
> 1488. Wroe writes:
> >
> > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and correspondence
> with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only five
> months after the young king's accession, an embassy of forty-two exiled
> Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of Jersey, and
> the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him. Safe-conducts
> had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all other English
> persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> >
> > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read Lovell
> was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has him back in
> Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> >
> > Kris
> >
>
RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after the
> battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have been alive
> in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got the safe
> conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of whether she knew
> of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only that she
> had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have wanted to keep
> Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of York.
>
> Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's disposition.
> The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at that
> time, not having proof of his death.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
>
> --- In , "KristineW"
> <krisanne712@> wrote:
> >
> > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have a question
> about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to Scotland in
> 1488. Wroe writes:
> >
> > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and correspondence
> with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only five
> months after the young king's accession, an embassy of forty-two exiled
> Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of Jersey, and
> the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him. Safe-conducts
> had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all other English
> persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> >
> > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read Lovell
> was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has him back in
> Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> >
> > Kris
> >
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-01 21:57:17
The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted man,
would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was still
alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog from
Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is that
Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he either
didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
England and change his identity.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
--- In , "KristineW"
<krisanne712@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts issued.
The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488. The June
19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as included
in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo Hardilstoun,
militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798) as
part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is obviously
Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell was in
the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at that
time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and Richard
Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
>
> RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
>
>
> --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
wrote:
> >
> > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after the
> > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have been
alive
> > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got the
safe
> > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of whether she
knew
> > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only that
she
> > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have wanted to
keep
> > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of York.
> >
> > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
disposition.
> > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at that
> > time, not having proof of his death.
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> >
> > --- In , "KristineW"
> > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have a
question
> > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
Scotland in
> > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > >
> > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
correspondence
> > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only five
> > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of forty-two
exiled
> > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of Jersey,
and
> > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
Safe-conducts
> > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all other
English
> > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > >
> > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
Lovell
> > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has him
back in
> > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > >
> > > Kris
> > >
> >
>
would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was still
alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog from
Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is that
Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he either
didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
England and change his identity.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
--- In , "KristineW"
<krisanne712@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts issued.
The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488. The June
19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as included
in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo Hardilstoun,
militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798) as
part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is obviously
Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell was in
the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at that
time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and Richard
Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
>
> RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
>
>
> --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
wrote:
> >
> > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after the
> > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have been
alive
> > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got the
safe
> > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of whether she
knew
> > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only that
she
> > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have wanted to
keep
> > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of York.
> >
> > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
disposition.
> > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at that
> > time, not having proof of his death.
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> >
> > --- In , "KristineW"
> > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have a
question
> > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
Scotland in
> > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > >
> > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
correspondence
> > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only five
> > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of forty-two
exiled
> > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of Jersey,
and
> > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
Safe-conducts
> > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all other
English
> > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > >
> > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
Lovell
> > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has him
back in
> > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > >
> > > Kris
> > >
> >
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-02 00:44:35
I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and faolchu. At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of any other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
Kris
--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted man,
> would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was still
> alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog from
> Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
>
> Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is that
> Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he either
> didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> England and change his identity.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
>
> --- In , "KristineW"
> <krisanne712@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts issued.
> The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488. The June
> 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as included
> in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo Hardilstoun,
> militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798) as
> part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is obviously
> Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell was in
> the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at that
> time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and Richard
> Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> >
> > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> >
> >
> > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after the
> > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have been
> alive
> > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got the
> safe
> > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of whether she
> knew
> > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only that
> she
> > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have wanted to
> keep
> > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of York.
> > >
> > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> disposition.
> > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at that
> > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > >
> > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have a
> question
> > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> Scotland in
> > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > >
> > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> correspondence
> > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only five
> > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of forty-two
> exiled
> > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of Jersey,
> and
> > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> Safe-conducts
> > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all other
> English
> > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > >
> > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> Lovell
> > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has him
> back in
> > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > >
> > > > Kris
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Kris
--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted man,
> would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was still
> alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog from
> Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
>
> Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is that
> Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he either
> didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> England and change his identity.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
>
> --- In , "KristineW"
> <krisanne712@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts issued.
> The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488. The June
> 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as included
> in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo Hardilstoun,
> militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798) as
> part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is obviously
> Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell was in
> the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at that
> time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and Richard
> Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> >
> > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> >
> >
> > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after the
> > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have been
> alive
> > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got the
> safe
> > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of whether she
> knew
> > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only that
> she
> > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have wanted to
> keep
> > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of York.
> > >
> > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> disposition.
> > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at that
> > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > >
> > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have a
> question
> > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> Scotland in
> > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > >
> > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> correspondence
> > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only five
> > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of forty-two
> exiled
> > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of Jersey,
> and
> > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> Safe-conducts
> > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all other
> English
> > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > >
> > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> Lovell
> > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has him
> back in
> > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > >
> > > > Kris
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-02 01:49:38
From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval French
word fordog.
David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII in
his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the Roses.
Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon, nor
in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel among
others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
--- In , "KristineW"
<krisanne712@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and faolchu.
At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of any
other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
>
> Kris
>
> --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
wrote:
> >
> > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
man,
> > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was still
> > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog from
> > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> >
> > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
that
> > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he either
> > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > England and change his identity.
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> >
> > --- In , "KristineW"
> > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
issued.
> > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488. The
June
> > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
included
> > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
Hardilstoun,
> > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798) as
> > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is obviously
> > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
was in
> > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at that
> > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
Richard
> > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > >
> > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
the
> > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
been
> > alive
> > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
the
> > safe
> > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of whether
she
> > knew
> > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
that
> > she
> > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have wanted
to
> > keep
> > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of York.
> > > >
> > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > disposition.
> > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
that
> > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > > ---
> > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
21st-century
> > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have a
> > question
> > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > Scotland in
> > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > correspondence
> > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
five
> > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of forty-two
> > exiled
> > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
Jersey,
> > and
> > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > Safe-conducts
> > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all other
> > English
> > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > >
> > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > Lovell
> > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has him
> > back in
> > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > >
> > > > > Kris
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
word fordog.
David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII in
his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the Roses.
Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon, nor
in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel among
others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
--- In , "KristineW"
<krisanne712@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and faolchu.
At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of any
other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
>
> Kris
>
> --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
wrote:
> >
> > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
man,
> > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was still
> > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog from
> > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> >
> > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
that
> > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he either
> > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > England and change his identity.
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> >
> > --- In , "KristineW"
> > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
issued.
> > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488. The
June
> > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
included
> > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
Hardilstoun,
> > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798) as
> > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is obviously
> > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
was in
> > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at that
> > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
Richard
> > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > >
> > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
the
> > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
been
> > alive
> > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
the
> > safe
> > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of whether
she
> > knew
> > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
that
> > she
> > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have wanted
to
> > keep
> > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of York.
> > > >
> > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > disposition.
> > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
that
> > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > > ---
> > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
21st-century
> > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have a
> > question
> > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > Scotland in
> > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > correspondence
> > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
five
> > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of forty-two
> > exiled
> > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
Jersey,
> > and
> > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > Safe-conducts
> > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all other
> > English
> > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > >
> > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > Lovell
> > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has him
> > back in
> > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > >
> > > > > Kris
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-02 01:58:49
I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...>
wrote:
>
> From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
French
> word fordog.
>
> David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
in
> his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
Roses.
> Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
nor
> in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
among
> others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
>
>
> --- In , "KristineW"
> krisanne712@ wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
faolchu.
> At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
any
> other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> >
> > Kris
> >
> > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> man,
> > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
still
> > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
from
> > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > >
> > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> that
> > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
either
> > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > England and change his identity.
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > >
> > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> issued.
> > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
The
> June
> > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> included
> > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> Hardilstoun,
> > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
as
> > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
obviously
> > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> was in
> > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
that
> > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> Richard
> > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > >
> > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "joansr3"
u2nohoo@
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> the
> > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> been
> > > alive
> > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> the
> > > safe
> > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
whether
> she
> > > knew
> > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> that
> > > she
> > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
wanted
> to
> > > keep
> > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
York.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > disposition.
> > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> that
> > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > >
> > > > > Joan
> > > > > ---
> > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> 21st-century
> > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
Finalist
> > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
a
> > > question
> > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > Scotland in
> > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > correspondence
> > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> five
> > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
forty-two
> > > exiled
> > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> Jersey,
> > > and
> > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
other
> > > English
> > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > Lovell
> > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
him
> > > back in
> > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kris
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...>
wrote:
>
> From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
French
> word fordog.
>
> David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
in
> his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
Roses.
> Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
nor
> in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
among
> others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
>
>
> --- In , "KristineW"
> krisanne712@ wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
faolchu.
> At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
any
> other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> >
> > Kris
> >
> > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> man,
> > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
still
> > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
from
> > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > >
> > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> that
> > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
either
> > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > England and change his identity.
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > >
> > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> issued.
> > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
The
> June
> > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> included
> > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> Hardilstoun,
> > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
as
> > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
obviously
> > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> was in
> > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
that
> > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> Richard
> > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > >
> > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "joansr3"
u2nohoo@
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> the
> > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> been
> > > alive
> > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> the
> > > safe
> > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
whether
> she
> > > knew
> > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> that
> > > she
> > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
wanted
> to
> > > keep
> > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
York.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > disposition.
> > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> that
> > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > >
> > > > > Joan
> > > > > ---
> > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> 21st-century
> > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
Finalist
> > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
a
> > > question
> > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > Scotland in
> > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > correspondence
> > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> five
> > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
forty-two
> > > exiled
> > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> Jersey,
> > > and
> > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
other
> > > English
> > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > Lovell
> > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
him
> > > back in
> > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kris
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-02 02:18:23
Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
Kris
--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
>
> --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> wrote:
> >
> > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> French
> > word fordog.
> >
> > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> in
> > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> Roses.
> > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> nor
> > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> among
> > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> >
> >
> > --- In , "KristineW"
> > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> faolchu.
> > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> any
> > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > >
> > > Kris
> > >
> > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > man,
> > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> still
> > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> from
> > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > >
> > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > that
> > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> either
> > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > England and change his identity.
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > > ---
> > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > issued.
> > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> The
> > June
> > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > included
> > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > Hardilstoun,
> > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> as
> > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> obviously
> > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > was in
> > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> that
> > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > Richard
> > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > >
> > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> u2nohoo@
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > the
> > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > been
> > > > alive
> > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > the
> > > > safe
> > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> whether
> > she
> > > > knew
> > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > that
> > > > she
> > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> wanted
> > to
> > > > keep
> > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> York.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > disposition.
> > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > that
> > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > 21st-century
> > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> Finalist
> > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> a
> > > > question
> > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > correspondence
> > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > five
> > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> forty-two
> > > > exiled
> > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > Jersey,
> > > > and
> > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> other
> > > > English
> > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > Lovell
> > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> him
> > > > back in
> > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
Kris
--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
>
> --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> wrote:
> >
> > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> French
> > word fordog.
> >
> > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> in
> > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> Roses.
> > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> nor
> > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> among
> > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> >
> >
> > --- In , "KristineW"
> > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> faolchu.
> > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> any
> > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > >
> > > Kris
> > >
> > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > man,
> > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> still
> > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> from
> > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > >
> > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > that
> > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> either
> > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > England and change his identity.
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > > ---
> > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > issued.
> > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> The
> > June
> > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > included
> > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > Hardilstoun,
> > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> as
> > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> obviously
> > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > was in
> > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> that
> > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > Richard
> > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > >
> > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> u2nohoo@
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > the
> > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > been
> > > > alive
> > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > the
> > > > safe
> > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> whether
> > she
> > > > knew
> > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > that
> > > > she
> > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> wanted
> > to
> > > > keep
> > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> York.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > disposition.
> > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > that
> > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > 21st-century
> > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> Finalist
> > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> a
> > > > question
> > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > correspondence
> > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > five
> > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> forty-two
> > > > exiled
> > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > Jersey,
> > > > and
> > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> other
> > > > English
> > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > Lovell
> > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> him
> > > > back in
> > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-02 11:02:26
We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
----- Original Message -----
From: KristineW
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
Kris
--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
>
> --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> wrote:
> >
> > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> French
> > word fordog.
> >
> > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> in
> > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> Roses.
> > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> nor
> > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> among
> > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> >
> >
> > --- In , "KristineW"
> > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> faolchu.
> > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> any
> > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > >
> > > Kris
> > >
> > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > man,
> > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> still
> > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> from
> > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > >
> > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > that
> > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> either
> > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > England and change his identity.
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > > ---
> > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > issued.
> > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> The
> > June
> > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > included
> > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > Hardilstoun,
> > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> as
> > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> obviously
> > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > was in
> > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> that
> > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > Richard
> > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > >
> > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> u2nohoo@
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > the
> > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > been
> > > > alive
> > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > the
> > > > safe
> > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> whether
> > she
> > > > knew
> > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > that
> > > > she
> > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> wanted
> > to
> > > > keep
> > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> York.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > disposition.
> > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > that
> > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > 21st-century
> > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> Finalist
> > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> a
> > > > question
> > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > correspondence
> > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > five
> > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> forty-two
> > > > exiled
> > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > Jersey,
> > > > and
> > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> other
> > > > English
> > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > Lovell
> > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> him
> > > > back in
> > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
----- Original Message -----
From: KristineW
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
Kris
--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
>
> --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> wrote:
> >
> > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> French
> > word fordog.
> >
> > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> in
> > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> Roses.
> > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> nor
> > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> among
> > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> >
> >
> > --- In , "KristineW"
> > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> faolchu.
> > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> any
> > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > >
> > > Kris
> > >
> > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > man,
> > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> still
> > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> from
> > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > >
> > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > that
> > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> either
> > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > England and change his identity.
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > > ---
> > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > issued.
> > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> The
> > June
> > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > included
> > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > Hardilstoun,
> > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> as
> > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> obviously
> > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > was in
> > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> that
> > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > Richard
> > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > >
> > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> u2nohoo@
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > the
> > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > been
> > > > alive
> > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > the
> > > > safe
> > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> whether
> > she
> > > > knew
> > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > that
> > > > she
> > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> wanted
> > to
> > > > keep
> > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> York.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > disposition.
> > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > that
> > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > 21st-century
> > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> Finalist
> > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> a
> > > > question
> > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > correspondence
> > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > five
> > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> forty-two
> > > > exiled
> > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > Jersey,
> > > > and
> > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> other
> > > > English
> > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > Lovell
> > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> him
> > > > back in
> > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-02 14:50:37
I don't blame them for being confused.
The first safe conduct was issued on June 19th 1488, only five days after James became king on June 11th 1488. This was obviously something he wanted to do for a while, and finally had the opportunity to do so. As Stoke took place on June 16th 1487, almost an entire year had passed before the safe conduct was issued. Other people listed in the first safe conduct included "Thome Brochton, Rogero Hartiltom and Olivero Frank."(RSM ,nos. 1738) If any of these people were still hiding somewhere in England, how would they've known about the safe conduct? Conveying information and news was a laborious process in the 1400s. Wasn't Richard Harliston in Burgandy by that time? Where was Brochton and Frank? Also, was Olivero Frank Edward Franke? The correct dating of years isn't the only thing that's confusing.
Is it true there's a document pertaining that Sir Edward Brampton saw Lovell somewhere on the continent? I'm not sure if he saw him before or after Stoke.
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
> My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: KristineW
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
>
>
>
>
>
> Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
>
> If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
>
> That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
>
> I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
>
> Kris
>
> --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> >
> > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > French
> > > word fordog.
> > >
> > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > in
> > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > Roses.
> > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > nor
> > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > among
> > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > faolchu.
> > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > any
> > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > >
> > > > Kris
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > man,
> > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > still
> > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > from
> > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > that
> > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > either
> > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Joan
> > > > > ---
> > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > issued.
> > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > The
> > > June
> > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > included
> > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > as
> > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > obviously
> > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > was in
> > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > that
> > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > Richard
> > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > u2nohoo@
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > the
> > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > been
> > > > > alive
> > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > the
> > > > > safe
> > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > whether
> > > she
> > > > > knew
> > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > that
> > > > > she
> > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > wanted
> > > to
> > > > > keep
> > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > York.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > that
> > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > Finalist
> > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > a
> > > > > question
> > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > five
> > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > forty-two
> > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > Jersey,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > other
> > > > > English
> > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > him
> > > > > back in
> > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The first safe conduct was issued on June 19th 1488, only five days after James became king on June 11th 1488. This was obviously something he wanted to do for a while, and finally had the opportunity to do so. As Stoke took place on June 16th 1487, almost an entire year had passed before the safe conduct was issued. Other people listed in the first safe conduct included "Thome Brochton, Rogero Hartiltom and Olivero Frank."(RSM ,nos. 1738) If any of these people were still hiding somewhere in England, how would they've known about the safe conduct? Conveying information and news was a laborious process in the 1400s. Wasn't Richard Harliston in Burgandy by that time? Where was Brochton and Frank? Also, was Olivero Frank Edward Franke? The correct dating of years isn't the only thing that's confusing.
Is it true there's a document pertaining that Sir Edward Brampton saw Lovell somewhere on the continent? I'm not sure if he saw him before or after Stoke.
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
> My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: KristineW
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
>
>
>
>
>
> Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
>
> If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
>
> That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
>
> I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
>
> Kris
>
> --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> >
> > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > French
> > > word fordog.
> > >
> > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > in
> > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > Roses.
> > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > nor
> > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > among
> > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > faolchu.
> > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > any
> > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > >
> > > > Kris
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > man,
> > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > still
> > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > from
> > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > that
> > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > either
> > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Joan
> > > > > ---
> > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > issued.
> > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > The
> > > June
> > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > included
> > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > as
> > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > obviously
> > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > was in
> > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > that
> > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > Richard
> > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > u2nohoo@
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > the
> > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > been
> > > > > alive
> > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > the
> > > > > safe
> > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > whether
> > > she
> > > > > knew
> > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > that
> > > > > she
> > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > wanted
> > > to
> > > > > keep
> > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > York.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > that
> > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > Finalist
> > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > a
> > > > > question
> > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > five
> > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > forty-two
> > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > Jersey,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > other
> > > > > English
> > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > him
> > > > > back in
> > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-02 15:32:16
i think there may be some confusion because of the term "domino luvel."
consider...
Cokayne, George Edward (1936) The Complete Peerage of England
Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal, s. and h., aged 10 in 1476. In 1477 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and Piers Courtenay, Dean of St. Stephen's, Westminster. On 18 Jan. 1477/8 he was made a knight, at the marriage of Richard, Duke of York, with Anne Mowbray, suo jure Countess of Norfolk, da. of John (Mowbray), Duke of Norfolk. In 1483 he took part in the funeral of Edward IV, and on 6 July in the Coronation of Richard III. On 5 Feb. 1488/9 livery of his estates was granted to him as Henry Lovel, s. and h. of William Lovel, Lord Morley. He was not sum. to Parl. He m., at Wingfield, Suffolk, Elizabeth, da. of John (de la Pole), Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, and da. of Richard (Plantagenet), Duke of York [by Cicely, da. of Ralph (Nevill), Earl of Westmorland]. He d. s.p., 13 June 1489, being slain at Dixmude in Flanders, and was bur. at Calais. Dower was assigned to
his widow 31 Dec. 1489. She was bur, at Hallingbury, Essex.
henry and francis were first cousins.
--- On Sun, 1/2/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
To:
Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 6:02 AM
We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
----- Original Message -----
From: KristineW
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
Kris
--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
>
> --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> wrote:
> >
> > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> French
> > word fordog.
> >
> > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> in
> > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> Roses.
> > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> nor
> > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> among
> > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> >
> >
> > --- In , "KristineW"
> > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> faolchu.
> > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> any
> > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > >
> > > Kris
> > >
> > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > man,
> > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> still
> > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> from
> > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > >
> > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > that
> > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> either
> > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > England and change his identity.
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > > ---
> > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > issued.
> > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> The
> > June
> > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > included
> > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > Hardilstoun,
> > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> as
> > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> obviously
> > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > was in
> > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> that
> > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > Richard
> > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > >
> > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> u2nohoo@
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > the
> > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > been
> > > > alive
> > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > the
> > > > safe
> > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> whether
> > she
> > > > knew
> > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > that
> > > > she
> > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> wanted
> > to
> > > > keep
> > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> York.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > disposition.
> > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > that
> > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > 21st-century
> > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> Finalist
> > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> a
> > > > question
> > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > correspondence
> > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > five
> > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> forty-two
> > > > exiled
> > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > Jersey,
> > > > and
> > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> other
> > > > English
> > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > Lovell
> > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> him
> > > > back in
> > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
consider...
Cokayne, George Edward (1936) The Complete Peerage of England
Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal, s. and h., aged 10 in 1476. In 1477 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and Piers Courtenay, Dean of St. Stephen's, Westminster. On 18 Jan. 1477/8 he was made a knight, at the marriage of Richard, Duke of York, with Anne Mowbray, suo jure Countess of Norfolk, da. of John (Mowbray), Duke of Norfolk. In 1483 he took part in the funeral of Edward IV, and on 6 July in the Coronation of Richard III. On 5 Feb. 1488/9 livery of his estates was granted to him as Henry Lovel, s. and h. of William Lovel, Lord Morley. He was not sum. to Parl. He m., at Wingfield, Suffolk, Elizabeth, da. of John (de la Pole), Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, and da. of Richard (Plantagenet), Duke of York [by Cicely, da. of Ralph (Nevill), Earl of Westmorland]. He d. s.p., 13 June 1489, being slain at Dixmude in Flanders, and was bur. at Calais. Dower was assigned to
his widow 31 Dec. 1489. She was bur, at Hallingbury, Essex.
henry and francis were first cousins.
--- On Sun, 1/2/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
To:
Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 6:02 AM
We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
----- Original Message -----
From: KristineW
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
Kris
--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
>
> --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> wrote:
> >
> > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> French
> > word fordog.
> >
> > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> in
> > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> Roses.
> > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> nor
> > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> among
> > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> >
> >
> > --- In , "KristineW"
> > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> faolchu.
> > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> any
> > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > >
> > > Kris
> > >
> > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > man,
> > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> still
> > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> from
> > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > >
> > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > that
> > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> either
> > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > England and change his identity.
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > > ---
> > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > issued.
> > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> The
> > June
> > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > included
> > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > Hardilstoun,
> > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> as
> > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> obviously
> > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > was in
> > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> that
> > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > Richard
> > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > >
> > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> u2nohoo@
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > the
> > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > been
> > > > alive
> > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > the
> > > > safe
> > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> whether
> > she
> > > > knew
> > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > that
> > > > she
> > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> wanted
> > to
> > > > keep
> > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> York.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > disposition.
> > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > that
> > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > 21st-century
> > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> Finalist
> > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> a
> > > > question
> > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > correspondence
> > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > five
> > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> forty-two
> > > > exiled
> > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > Jersey,
> > > > and
> > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> other
> > > > English
> > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > Lovell
> > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> him
> > > > back in
> > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-02 16:10:04
After reading your post several times, it seems you're saying Domino(lord) Lovel was actually Henry Lovel, and not his cousin Francis. I have never heard of this, and I'm not sure if I agree with it. Does anyone else have an opinion?
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i think there may be some confusion because of the term "domino luvel."
> consider...
> Cokayne, George Edward (1936) The Complete Peerage of England
> Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal, s. and h., aged 10 in 1476. In 1477 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and Piers Courtenay, Dean of St. Stephen's, Westminster. On 18 Jan. 1477/8 he was made a knight, at the marriage of Richard, Duke of York, with Anne Mowbray, suo jure Countess of Norfolk, da. of John (Mowbray), Duke of Norfolk. In 1483 he took part in the funeral of Edward IV, and on 6 July in the Coronation of Richard III. On 5 Feb. 1488/9 livery of his estates was granted to him as Henry Lovel, s. and h. of William Lovel, Lord Morley. He was not sum. to Parl. He m., at Wingfield, Suffolk, Elizabeth, da. of John (de la Pole), Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, and da. of Richard (Plantagenet), Duke of York [by Cicely, da. of Ralph (Nevill), Earl of Westmorland]. He d. s.p., 13 June 1489, being slain at Dixmude in Flanders, and was bur. at Calais. Dower was assigned to
> his widow 31 Dec. 1489. She was bur, at Hallingbury, Essex.
> Â
> henry and francis were first cousins.
> Â
> --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> To:
> Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 6:02 AM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
> My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: KristineW
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
>
> Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
>
> If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
>
> That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
>
> I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
>
> Kris
>
> --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> >
> > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > French
> > > word fordog.
> > >
> > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > in
> > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > Roses.
> > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > nor
> > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > among
> > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > faolchu.
> > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > any
> > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > >
> > > > Kris
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > man,
> > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > still
> > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > from
> > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > that
> > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > either
> > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Joan
> > > > > ---
> > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > issued.
> > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > The
> > > June
> > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > included
> > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > as
> > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > obviously
> > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > was in
> > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > that
> > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > Richard
> > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > u2nohoo@
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > the
> > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > been
> > > > > alive
> > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > the
> > > > > safe
> > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > whether
> > > she
> > > > > knew
> > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > that
> > > > > she
> > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > wanted
> > > to
> > > > > keep
> > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > York.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > that
> > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > Finalist
> > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > a
> > > > > question
> > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > five
> > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > forty-two
> > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > Jersey,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > other
> > > > > English
> > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > him
> > > > > back in
> > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i think there may be some confusion because of the term "domino luvel."
> consider...
> Cokayne, George Edward (1936) The Complete Peerage of England
> Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal, s. and h., aged 10 in 1476. In 1477 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and Piers Courtenay, Dean of St. Stephen's, Westminster. On 18 Jan. 1477/8 he was made a knight, at the marriage of Richard, Duke of York, with Anne Mowbray, suo jure Countess of Norfolk, da. of John (Mowbray), Duke of Norfolk. In 1483 he took part in the funeral of Edward IV, and on 6 July in the Coronation of Richard III. On 5 Feb. 1488/9 livery of his estates was granted to him as Henry Lovel, s. and h. of William Lovel, Lord Morley. He was not sum. to Parl. He m., at Wingfield, Suffolk, Elizabeth, da. of John (de la Pole), Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, and da. of Richard (Plantagenet), Duke of York [by Cicely, da. of Ralph (Nevill), Earl of Westmorland]. He d. s.p., 13 June 1489, being slain at Dixmude in Flanders, and was bur. at Calais. Dower was assigned to
> his widow 31 Dec. 1489. She was bur, at Hallingbury, Essex.
> Â
> henry and francis were first cousins.
> Â
> --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> To:
> Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 6:02 AM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
> My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: KristineW
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
>
> Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
>
> If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
>
> That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
>
> I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
>
> Kris
>
> --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> >
> > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > French
> > > word fordog.
> > >
> > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > in
> > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > Roses.
> > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > nor
> > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > among
> > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > faolchu.
> > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > any
> > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > >
> > > > Kris
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > man,
> > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > still
> > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > from
> > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > that
> > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > either
> > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Joan
> > > > > ---
> > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > issued.
> > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > The
> > > June
> > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > included
> > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > as
> > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > obviously
> > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > was in
> > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > that
> > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > Richard
> > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > u2nohoo@
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > the
> > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > been
> > > > > alive
> > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > the
> > > > > safe
> > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > whether
> > > she
> > > > > knew
> > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > that
> > > > > she
> > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > wanted
> > > to
> > > > > keep
> > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > York.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > that
> > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > Finalist
> > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > a
> > > > > question
> > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > five
> > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > forty-two
> > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > Jersey,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > other
> > > > > English
> > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > him
> > > > > back in
> > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-02 16:33:30
i am saying there is a possibility that henry is lord lovell vs francis who was presumed dead by the date of the safe conduct. i wish you success in locating the brampton extract. it may help clarify which lord lovell was where.
please note where henry died. a bit of research may prove or disprove if he was connected to the court of margaret. i do think there is a strong possiblity though, as he was married to her neice, elizabeth de la pole.
roslyn
--- On Sun, 1/2/11, KristineW <krisanne712@...> wrote:
From: KristineW <krisanne712@...>
Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
To:
Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 11:05 AM
After reading your post several times, it seems you're saying Domino(lord) Lovel was actually Henry Lovel, and not his cousin Francis. I have never heard of this, and I'm not sure if I agree with it. Does anyone else have an opinion?
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i think there may be some confusion because of the term "domino luvel."
> consider...
> Cokayne, George Edward (1936) The Complete Peerage of England
> Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal, s. and h., aged 10 in 1476. In 1477 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and Piers Courtenay, Dean of St. Stephen's, Westminster. On 18 Jan. 1477/8 he was made a knight, at the marriage of Richard, Duke of York, with Anne Mowbray, suo jure Countess of Norfolk, da. of John (Mowbray), Duke of Norfolk. In 1483 he took part in the funeral of Edward IV, and on 6 July in the Coronation of Richard III. On 5 Feb. 1488/9 livery of his estates was granted to him as Henry Lovel, s. and h. of William Lovel, Lord Morley. He was not sum. to Parl. He m., at Wingfield, Suffolk, Elizabeth, da. of John (de la Pole), Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, and da. of Richard (Plantagenet), Duke of York [by Cicely, da. of Ralph (Nevill), Earl of Westmorland]. He d. s.p., 13 June 1489, being slain at Dixmude in Flanders, and was bur. at Calais. Dower was assigned
to
> his widow 31 Dec. 1489. She was bur, at Hallingbury, Essex.
> Â
> henry and francis were first cousins.
> Â
> --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> To:
> Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 6:02 AM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
> My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: KristineW
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
>
> Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
>
> If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
>
> That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
>
> I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
>
> Kris
>
> --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> >
> > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > French
> > > word fordog.
> > >
> > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > in
> > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > Roses.
> > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > nor
> > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > among
> > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > faolchu.
> > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > any
> > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > >
> > > > Kris
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > man,
> > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > still
> > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > from
> > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > that
> > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > either
> > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Joan
> > > > > ---
> > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > issued.
> > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > The
> > > June
> > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > included
> > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > as
> > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > obviously
> > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > was in
> > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > that
> > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > Richard
> > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > u2nohoo@
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > the
> > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > been
> > > > > alive
> > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > the
> > > > > safe
> > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > whether
> > > she
> > > > > knew
> > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > that
> > > > > she
> > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > wanted
> > > to
> > > > > keep
> > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > York.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > that
> > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > Finalist
> > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > a
> > > > > question
> > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > five
> > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > forty-two
> > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > Jersey,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > other
> > > > > English
> > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > him
> > > > > back in
> > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
please note where henry died. a bit of research may prove or disprove if he was connected to the court of margaret. i do think there is a strong possiblity though, as he was married to her neice, elizabeth de la pole.
roslyn
--- On Sun, 1/2/11, KristineW <krisanne712@...> wrote:
From: KristineW <krisanne712@...>
Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
To:
Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 11:05 AM
After reading your post several times, it seems you're saying Domino(lord) Lovel was actually Henry Lovel, and not his cousin Francis. I have never heard of this, and I'm not sure if I agree with it. Does anyone else have an opinion?
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i think there may be some confusion because of the term "domino luvel."
> consider...
> Cokayne, George Edward (1936) The Complete Peerage of England
> Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal, s. and h., aged 10 in 1476. In 1477 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and Piers Courtenay, Dean of St. Stephen's, Westminster. On 18 Jan. 1477/8 he was made a knight, at the marriage of Richard, Duke of York, with Anne Mowbray, suo jure Countess of Norfolk, da. of John (Mowbray), Duke of Norfolk. In 1483 he took part in the funeral of Edward IV, and on 6 July in the Coronation of Richard III. On 5 Feb. 1488/9 livery of his estates was granted to him as Henry Lovel, s. and h. of William Lovel, Lord Morley. He was not sum. to Parl. He m., at Wingfield, Suffolk, Elizabeth, da. of John (de la Pole), Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, and da. of Richard (Plantagenet), Duke of York [by Cicely, da. of Ralph (Nevill), Earl of Westmorland]. He d. s.p., 13 June 1489, being slain at Dixmude in Flanders, and was bur. at Calais. Dower was assigned
to
> his widow 31 Dec. 1489. She was bur, at Hallingbury, Essex.
> Â
> henry and francis were first cousins.
> Â
> --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> To:
> Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 6:02 AM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
> My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: KristineW
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
>
> Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
>
> If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
>
> That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
>
> I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
>
> Kris
>
> --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> >
> > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > French
> > > word fordog.
> > >
> > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > in
> > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > Roses.
> > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > nor
> > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > among
> > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > faolchu.
> > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > any
> > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > >
> > > > Kris
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > man,
> > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > still
> > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > from
> > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > that
> > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > either
> > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Joan
> > > > > ---
> > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > issued.
> > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > The
> > > June
> > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > included
> > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > as
> > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > obviously
> > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > was in
> > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > that
> > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > Richard
> > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > u2nohoo@
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > the
> > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > been
> > > > > alive
> > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > the
> > > > > safe
> > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > whether
> > > she
> > > > > knew
> > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > that
> > > > > she
> > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > wanted
> > > to
> > > > > keep
> > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > York.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > that
> > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > Finalist
> > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > a
> > > > > question
> > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > five
> > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > forty-two
> > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > Jersey,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > other
> > > > > English
> > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > him
> > > > > back in
> > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-02 16:38:46
"Ireland Surname Origin:
A name given to a native of that island. Ireland signifies
West-land, from the Gaelic Iar, the West, and the Teutonic
land, Welsh, Llan, a clear place, a lawn."
http://www.searchforancestors.com/surnames/origin/i/ireland.php
However "de Ireland" could have been of a family with the
surname of "Ireland", yet which perhaps had no immediate
relevance to the country of Ireland.
Just a thought.
Paul Neville.
--- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
>
> If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
>
> That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
>
> I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
>
> Kris
>
> --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> >
> > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > French
> > > word fordog.
> > >
> > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > in
> > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > Roses.
> > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > nor
> > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > among
> > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > faolchu.
> > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > any
> > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > >
> > > > Kris
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > man,
> > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > still
> > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > from
> > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > that
> > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > either
> > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Joan
> > > > > ---
> > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > issued.
> > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > The
> > > June
> > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > included
> > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > as
> > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > obviously
> > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > was in
> > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > that
> > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > Richard
> > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > u2nohoo@
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > the
> > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > been
> > > > > alive
> > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > the
> > > > > safe
> > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > whether
> > > she
> > > > > knew
> > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > that
> > > > > she
> > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > wanted
> > > to
> > > > > keep
> > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > York.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > that
> > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > Finalist
> > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > a
> > > > > question
> > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > five
> > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > forty-two
> > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > Jersey,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > other
> > > > > English
> > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > him
> > > > > back in
> > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
A name given to a native of that island. Ireland signifies
West-land, from the Gaelic Iar, the West, and the Teutonic
land, Welsh, Llan, a clear place, a lawn."
http://www.searchforancestors.com/surnames/origin/i/ireland.php
However "de Ireland" could have been of a family with the
surname of "Ireland", yet which perhaps had no immediate
relevance to the country of Ireland.
Just a thought.
Paul Neville.
--- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
>
> If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
>
> That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
>
> I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
>
> Kris
>
> --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> >
> > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > French
> > > word fordog.
> > >
> > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > in
> > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > Roses.
> > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > nor
> > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > among
> > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > faolchu.
> > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > any
> > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > >
> > > > Kris
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > man,
> > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > still
> > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > from
> > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > that
> > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > either
> > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Joan
> > > > > ---
> > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > issued.
> > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > The
> > > June
> > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > included
> > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > as
> > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > obviously
> > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > was in
> > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > that
> > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > Richard
> > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > u2nohoo@
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > the
> > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > been
> > > > > alive
> > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > the
> > > > > safe
> > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > whether
> > > she
> > > > > knew
> > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > that
> > > > > she
> > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > wanted
> > > to
> > > > > keep
> > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > York.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > that
> > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > Finalist
> > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > a
> > > > > question
> > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > five
> > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > forty-two
> > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > Jersey,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > other
> > > > > English
> > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > him
> > > > > back in
> > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-02 18:02:30
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i am saying there is a possibility that henry is lord lovell vs francis who was presumed dead by the date of the safe conduct. i wish you success in locating the brampton extract. it may help clarify which lord lovell was where.
> Â
> please note where henry died. a bit of research may prove or disprove if he was connected to the court of margaret. i do think there is a strong possiblity though, as he was married to her neice, elizabeth de la pole.
> Â
> roslyn
And Elizabeth de la Pole's brother John was the leader of the Yorkist army at Stoke.
Would Henry Lovell be as likely to be called a Lord as Francis would?
Katy
>
> i am saying there is a possibility that henry is lord lovell vs francis who was presumed dead by the date of the safe conduct. i wish you success in locating the brampton extract. it may help clarify which lord lovell was where.
> Â
> please note where henry died. a bit of research may prove or disprove if he was connected to the court of margaret. i do think there is a strong possiblity though, as he was married to her neice, elizabeth de la pole.
> Â
> roslyn
And Elizabeth de la Pole's brother John was the leader of the Yorkist army at Stoke.
Would Henry Lovell be as likely to be called a Lord as Francis would?
Katy
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-02 19:17:20
yes, henry was known as...
Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal.
given the extract being discussed states surnames, it is possible the scots recorder gave henry his due of dignity by listing him as lord lovel. henry was after all, by marriage related to the last of the plantagenet kings and nephew in law of margaret of burgandy.
consider for instance, lord burghley, aka baron burghley, aka william cecil, was also referred to as lord cecil. most lords had several titles derived from lands they held.
also consider all the lord (de) greys who flourished in this era. baron ruthyn, lord lisle, lord wilton, etc. all different men, all called lord grey in one document or another.
if francis lovell aka viscount lovell was dead, it is entirely possible his cousin henry would or could be styled lord lovell by the scots and burgandians.
roslyn
--- On Sun, 1/2/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
To:
Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 1:02 PM
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i am saying there is a possibility that henry is lord lovell vs francis who was presumed dead by the date of the safe conduct. i wish you success in locating the brampton extract. it may help clarify which lord lovell was where.
> Â
> please note where henry died. a bit of research may prove or disprove if he was connected to the court of margaret. i do think there is a strong possiblity though, as he was married to her neice, elizabeth de la pole.
> Â
> roslyn
And Elizabeth de la Pole's brother John was the leader of the Yorkist army at Stoke.
Would Henry Lovell be as likely to be called a Lord as Francis would?
Katy
Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal.
given the extract being discussed states surnames, it is possible the scots recorder gave henry his due of dignity by listing him as lord lovel. henry was after all, by marriage related to the last of the plantagenet kings and nephew in law of margaret of burgandy.
consider for instance, lord burghley, aka baron burghley, aka william cecil, was also referred to as lord cecil. most lords had several titles derived from lands they held.
also consider all the lord (de) greys who flourished in this era. baron ruthyn, lord lisle, lord wilton, etc. all different men, all called lord grey in one document or another.
if francis lovell aka viscount lovell was dead, it is entirely possible his cousin henry would or could be styled lord lovell by the scots and burgandians.
roslyn
--- On Sun, 1/2/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
To:
Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 1:02 PM
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i am saying there is a possibility that henry is lord lovell vs francis who was presumed dead by the date of the safe conduct. i wish you success in locating the brampton extract. it may help clarify which lord lovell was where.
> Â
> please note where henry died. a bit of research may prove or disprove if he was connected to the court of margaret. i do think there is a strong possiblity though, as he was married to her neice, elizabeth de la pole.
> Â
> roslyn
And Elizabeth de la Pole's brother John was the leader of the Yorkist army at Stoke.
Would Henry Lovell be as likely to be called a Lord as Francis would?
Katy
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-02 22:29:57
This is very interesting. Thank you. Richard Ludelay is described as an Englishman.
I guess Ann Wroe never posts on this forum. I'd like to learn why she associates Francis Lovell with Richard Ludelay in The Perfect Prince.
--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> "Ireland Surname Origin:
> A name given to a native of that island. Ireland signifies
> West-land, from the Gaelic Iar, the West, and the Teutonic
> land, Welsh, Llan, a clear place, a lawn."
> http://www.searchforancestors.com/surnames/origin/i/ireland.php
>
> However "de Ireland" could have been of a family with the
> surname of "Ireland", yet which perhaps had no immediate
> relevance to the country of Ireland.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Paul Neville.
>
>
>
> --- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
> >
> > If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
> >
> > That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
> >
> > I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
> >
> > Kris
> >
> > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > >
> > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > > French
> > > > word fordog.
> > > >
> > > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > > in
> > > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > > Roses.
> > > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > > nor
> > > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > > among
> > > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > > faolchu.
> > > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > > any
> > > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > > >
> > > > > Kris
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > > man,
> > > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > > still
> > > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > > from
> > > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > > that
> > > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > > either
> > > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > > issued.
> > > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > > The
> > > > June
> > > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > > included
> > > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > > as
> > > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > > obviously
> > > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > > was in
> > > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > > that
> > > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > > Richard
> > > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > > u2nohoo@
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > > been
> > > > > > alive
> > > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > > the
> > > > > > safe
> > > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > > whether
> > > > she
> > > > > > knew
> > > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > > that
> > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > > wanted
> > > > to
> > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > > York.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > > Finalist
> > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > > a
> > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > > five
> > > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > > forty-two
> > > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > > Jersey,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > > other
> > > > > > English
> > > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > > him
> > > > > > back in
> > > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
I guess Ann Wroe never posts on this forum. I'd like to learn why she associates Francis Lovell with Richard Ludelay in The Perfect Prince.
--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> "Ireland Surname Origin:
> A name given to a native of that island. Ireland signifies
> West-land, from the Gaelic Iar, the West, and the Teutonic
> land, Welsh, Llan, a clear place, a lawn."
> http://www.searchforancestors.com/surnames/origin/i/ireland.php
>
> However "de Ireland" could have been of a family with the
> surname of "Ireland", yet which perhaps had no immediate
> relevance to the country of Ireland.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Paul Neville.
>
>
>
> --- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
> >
> > If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
> >
> > That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
> >
> > I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
> >
> > Kris
> >
> > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > >
> > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > > French
> > > > word fordog.
> > > >
> > > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > > in
> > > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > > Roses.
> > > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > > nor
> > > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > > among
> > > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > > faolchu.
> > > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > > any
> > > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > > >
> > > > > Kris
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > > man,
> > > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > > still
> > > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > > from
> > > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > > that
> > > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > > either
> > > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > > issued.
> > > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > > The
> > > > June
> > > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > > included
> > > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > > as
> > > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > > obviously
> > > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > > was in
> > > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > > that
> > > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > > Richard
> > > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > > u2nohoo@
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > > been
> > > > > > alive
> > > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > > the
> > > > > > safe
> > > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > > whether
> > > > she
> > > > > > knew
> > > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > > that
> > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > > wanted
> > > > to
> > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > > York.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > > Finalist
> > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > > a
> > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > > five
> > > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > > forty-two
> > > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > > Jersey,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > > other
> > > > > > English
> > > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > > him
> > > > > > back in
> > > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-02 23:59:34
--- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> This is very interesting. Thank you. Richard Ludelay is described as an Englishman.
>
> I guess Ann Wroe never posts on this forum. I'd like to learn why she associates Francis Lovell with Richard Ludelay in The Perfect Prince.
I haven't seen any post by her in this group. She has a Facebook account, though -- you could use it to ask her a question. You can tell which Ann Wroe is her by the photo and by her lists of "likes."
Katy
>
>
>
> This is very interesting. Thank you. Richard Ludelay is described as an Englishman.
>
> I guess Ann Wroe never posts on this forum. I'd like to learn why she associates Francis Lovell with Richard Ludelay in The Perfect Prince.
I haven't seen any post by her in this group. She has a Facebook account, though -- you could use it to ask her a question. You can tell which Ann Wroe is her by the photo and by her lists of "likes."
Katy
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-03 08:55:32
Ann Wroe used to post on here a few years ago.
----- Original Message -----
From: oregon_katy
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
--- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> This is very interesting. Thank you. Richard Ludelay is described as an Englishman.
>
> I guess Ann Wroe never posts on this forum. I'd like to learn why she associates Francis Lovell with Richard Ludelay in The Perfect Prince.
I haven't seen any post by her in this group. She has a Facebook account, though -- you could use it to ask her a question. You can tell which Ann Wroe is her by the photo and by her lists of "likes."
Katy
----- Original Message -----
From: oregon_katy
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
--- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> This is very interesting. Thank you. Richard Ludelay is described as an Englishman.
>
> I guess Ann Wroe never posts on this forum. I'd like to learn why she associates Francis Lovell with Richard Ludelay in The Perfect Prince.
I haven't seen any post by her in this group. She has a Facebook account, though -- you could use it to ask her a question. You can tell which Ann Wroe is her by the photo and by her lists of "likes."
Katy
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-03 13:58:58
Katy, you can find Ann Wroe on Library Thing
<http://www.librarything.com/> . You can join for free and it's not as
invasive as Facebook, which she's also on.--Joan
--- In , "oregon_katy"
<oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "KristineW"
krisanne712@ wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > This is very interesting. Thank you. Richard Ludelay is described as
an Englishman.
> >
> > I guess Ann Wroe never posts on this forum. I'd like to learn why
she associates Francis Lovell with Richard Ludelay in The Perfect
Prince.
>
> I haven't seen any post by her in this group. She has a Facebook
account, though -- you could use it to ask her a question. You can tell
which Ann Wroe is her by the photo and by her lists of "likes."
>
> Katy
>
<http://www.librarything.com/> . You can join for free and it's not as
invasive as Facebook, which she's also on.--Joan
--- In , "oregon_katy"
<oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "KristineW"
krisanne712@ wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > This is very interesting. Thank you. Richard Ludelay is described as
an Englishman.
> >
> > I guess Ann Wroe never posts on this forum. I'd like to learn why
she associates Francis Lovell with Richard Ludelay in The Perfect
Prince.
>
> I haven't seen any post by her in this group. She has a Facebook
account, though -- you could use it to ask her a question. You can tell
which Ann Wroe is her by the photo and by her lists of "likes."
>
> Katy
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-03 16:52:23
--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Katy, you can find Ann Wroe on Library Thing
> <http://www.librarything.com/> . You can join for free and it's not as
> invasive as Facebook, which she's also on.--Joan
Oh, good, but actually I am hoping that Kristine will contact her to ask about Richard Ludelay. And maybe see if she has any opinion on whether "Lord Luvel" could be Henry rather than Francis.
Over to you, Kristine.
Katy
>
> Katy, you can find Ann Wroe on Library Thing
> <http://www.librarything.com/> . You can join for free and it's not as
> invasive as Facebook, which she's also on.--Joan
Oh, good, but actually I am hoping that Kristine will contact her to ask about Richard Ludelay. And maybe see if she has any opinion on whether "Lord Luvel" could be Henry rather than Francis.
Over to you, Kristine.
Katy
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-03 23:05:01
I just sent Ann Wroe a message through Facebook. I also emailed someone else about the record stating Sir Edward Brampton saw (or was with) Francis Lovell on the continent. We'll see what happens. I'll be a little disappointed if I don't get answers!
Kris
--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > Katy, you can find Ann Wroe on Library Thing
> > <http://www.librarything.com/> . You can join for free and it's not as
> > invasive as Facebook, which she's also on.--Joan
>
>
> Oh, good, but actually I am hoping that Kristine will contact her to ask about Richard Ludelay. And maybe see if she has any opinion on whether "Lord Luvel" could be Henry rather than Francis.
>
> Over to you, Kristine.
>
> Katy
>
Kris
--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > Katy, you can find Ann Wroe on Library Thing
> > <http://www.librarything.com/> . You can join for free and it's not as
> > invasive as Facebook, which she's also on.--Joan
>
>
> Oh, good, but actually I am hoping that Kristine will contact her to ask about Richard Ludelay. And maybe see if she has any opinion on whether "Lord Luvel" could be Henry rather than Francis.
>
> Over to you, Kristine.
>
> Katy
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-04 00:50:20
--- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@...> wrote:
>
> After reading your post several times, it seems you're saying Domino(lord) Lovel was actually Henry Lovel, and not his cousin Francis. I have never heard of this, and I'm not sure if I agree with it. Does anyone else have an opinion?
Wasn't Henry Lovell always referred to as Lord Morley?
Marie
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > i think there may be some confusion because of the term "domino luvel."
> > consider...
> > Cokayne, George Edward (1936) The Complete Peerage of England
> > Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal, s. and h., aged 10 in 1476. In 1477 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and Piers Courtenay, Dean of St. Stephen's, Westminster. On 18 Jan. 1477/8 he was made a knight, at the marriage of Richard, Duke of York, with Anne Mowbray, suo jure Countess of Norfolk, da. of John (Mowbray), Duke of Norfolk. In 1483 he took part in the funeral of Edward IV, and on 6 July in the Coronation of Richard III. On 5 Feb. 1488/9 livery of his estates was granted to him as Henry Lovel, s. and h. of William Lovel, Lord Morley. He was not sum. to Parl. He m., at Wingfield, Suffolk, Elizabeth, da. of John (de la Pole), Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, and da. of Richard (Plantagenet), Duke of York [by Cicely, da. of Ralph (Nevill), Earl of Westmorland]. He d. s.p., 13 June 1489, being slain at Dixmude in Flanders, and was bur. at Calais. Dower was assigned to
> > his widow 31 Dec. 1489. She was bur, at Hallingbury, Essex.
> > Â
> > henry and francis were first cousins.
> > Â
> > --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > To:
> > Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 6:02 AM
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
> > My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: KristineW
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
> > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> >
> > Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
> >
> > If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
> >
> > That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
> >
> > I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
> >
> > Kris
> >
> > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > >
> > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > > French
> > > > word fordog.
> > > >
> > > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > > in
> > > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > > Roses.
> > > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > > nor
> > > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > > among
> > > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > > faolchu.
> > > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > > any
> > > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > > >
> > > > > Kris
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > > man,
> > > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > > still
> > > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > > from
> > > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > > that
> > > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > > either
> > > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > > issued.
> > > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > > The
> > > > June
> > > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > > included
> > > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > > as
> > > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > > obviously
> > > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > > was in
> > > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > > that
> > > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > > Richard
> > > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > > u2nohoo@
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > > been
> > > > > > alive
> > > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > > the
> > > > > > safe
> > > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > > whether
> > > > she
> > > > > > knew
> > > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > > that
> > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > > wanted
> > > > to
> > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > > York.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > > Finalist
> > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > > a
> > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > > five
> > > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > > forty-two
> > > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > > Jersey,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > > other
> > > > > > English
> > > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > > him
> > > > > > back in
> > > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> After reading your post several times, it seems you're saying Domino(lord) Lovel was actually Henry Lovel, and not his cousin Francis. I have never heard of this, and I'm not sure if I agree with it. Does anyone else have an opinion?
Wasn't Henry Lovell always referred to as Lord Morley?
Marie
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > i think there may be some confusion because of the term "domino luvel."
> > consider...
> > Cokayne, George Edward (1936) The Complete Peerage of England
> > Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal, s. and h., aged 10 in 1476. In 1477 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and Piers Courtenay, Dean of St. Stephen's, Westminster. On 18 Jan. 1477/8 he was made a knight, at the marriage of Richard, Duke of York, with Anne Mowbray, suo jure Countess of Norfolk, da. of John (Mowbray), Duke of Norfolk. In 1483 he took part in the funeral of Edward IV, and on 6 July in the Coronation of Richard III. On 5 Feb. 1488/9 livery of his estates was granted to him as Henry Lovel, s. and h. of William Lovel, Lord Morley. He was not sum. to Parl. He m., at Wingfield, Suffolk, Elizabeth, da. of John (de la Pole), Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, and da. of Richard (Plantagenet), Duke of York [by Cicely, da. of Ralph (Nevill), Earl of Westmorland]. He d. s.p., 13 June 1489, being slain at Dixmude in Flanders, and was bur. at Calais. Dower was assigned to
> > his widow 31 Dec. 1489. She was bur, at Hallingbury, Essex.
> > Â
> > henry and francis were first cousins.
> > Â
> > --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > To:
> > Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 6:02 AM
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
> > My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: KristineW
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
> > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> >
> > Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
> >
> > If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
> >
> > That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
> >
> > I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
> >
> > Kris
> >
> > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > >
> > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > > French
> > > > word fordog.
> > > >
> > > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > > in
> > > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > > Roses.
> > > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > > nor
> > > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > > among
> > > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > > faolchu.
> > > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > > any
> > > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > > >
> > > > > Kris
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > > man,
> > > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > > still
> > > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > > from
> > > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > > that
> > > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > > either
> > > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > > issued.
> > > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > > The
> > > > June
> > > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > > included
> > > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > > as
> > > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > > obviously
> > > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > > was in
> > > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > > that
> > > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > > Richard
> > > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > > u2nohoo@
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > > been
> > > > > > alive
> > > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > > the
> > > > > > safe
> > > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > > whether
> > > > she
> > > > > > knew
> > > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > > that
> > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > > wanted
> > > > to
> > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > > York.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > > Finalist
> > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > > a
> > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > > five
> > > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > > forty-two
> > > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > > Jersey,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > > other
> > > > > > English
> > > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > > him
> > > > > > back in
> > > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-04 01:29:24
Is this who you mean? Henry Lovel was Lord of Morley, Hingham and Hockering. I don't know if he was called Lord Lovel as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Lovel,_8th_Baron_Morley
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@> wrote:
> >
> > After reading your post several times, it seems you're saying Domino(lord) Lovel was actually Henry Lovel, and not his cousin Francis. I have never heard of this, and I'm not sure if I agree with it. Does anyone else have an opinion?
>
> Wasn't Henry Lovell always referred to as Lord Morley?
>
> Marie
>
>
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > i think there may be some confusion because of the term "domino luvel."
> > > consider...
> > > Cokayne, George Edward (1936) The Complete Peerage of England
> > > Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal, s. and h., aged 10 in 1476. In 1477 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and Piers Courtenay, Dean of St. Stephen's, Westminster. On 18 Jan. 1477/8 he was made a knight, at the marriage of Richard, Duke of York, with Anne Mowbray, suo jure Countess of Norfolk, da. of John (Mowbray), Duke of Norfolk. In 1483 he took part in the funeral of Edward IV, and on 6 July in the Coronation of Richard III. On 5 Feb. 1488/9 livery of his estates was granted to him as Henry Lovel, s. and h. of William Lovel, Lord Morley. He was not sum. to Parl. He m., at Wingfield, Suffolk, Elizabeth, da. of John (de la Pole), Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, and da. of Richard (Plantagenet), Duke of York [by Cicely, da. of Ralph (Nevill), Earl of Westmorland]. He d. s.p., 13 June 1489, being slain at Dixmude in Flanders, and was bur. at Calais. Dower was assigned to
> > > his widow 31 Dec. 1489. She was bur, at Hallingbury, Essex.
> > > Â
> > > henry and francis were first cousins.
> > > Â
> > > --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > To:
> > > Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 6:02 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
> > > My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: KristineW
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > >
> > > Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
> > >
> > > If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
> > >
> > > That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
> > >
> > > I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
> > >
> > > Kris
> > >
> > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > > > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > > > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > > > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > > > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > > > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > > > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > > > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > > > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > > ---
> > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > > > French
> > > > > word fordog.
> > > > >
> > > > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > > > in
> > > > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > > > Roses.
> > > > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > > > nor
> > > > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > > > among
> > > > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > > > faolchu.
> > > > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > > > any
> > > > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kris
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > > > man,
> > > > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > > > still
> > > > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > > > from
> > > > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > > > either
> > > > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > > > issued.
> > > > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > > > The
> > > > > June
> > > > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > > > included
> > > > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > > > as
> > > > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > > > obviously
> > > > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > > > was in
> > > > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > > > that
> > > > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > > > u2nohoo@
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > > > been
> > > > > > > alive
> > > > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > safe
> > > > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > > > whether
> > > > > she
> > > > > > > knew
> > > > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > > > wanted
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > > > York.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > > > Finalist
> > > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > > > a
> > > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > > > five
> > > > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > > > forty-two
> > > > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > > > Jersey,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > > > other
> > > > > > > English
> > > > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > > > him
> > > > > > > back in
> > > > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Lovel,_8th_Baron_Morley
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@> wrote:
> >
> > After reading your post several times, it seems you're saying Domino(lord) Lovel was actually Henry Lovel, and not his cousin Francis. I have never heard of this, and I'm not sure if I agree with it. Does anyone else have an opinion?
>
> Wasn't Henry Lovell always referred to as Lord Morley?
>
> Marie
>
>
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > i think there may be some confusion because of the term "domino luvel."
> > > consider...
> > > Cokayne, George Edward (1936) The Complete Peerage of England
> > > Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal, s. and h., aged 10 in 1476. In 1477 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and Piers Courtenay, Dean of St. Stephen's, Westminster. On 18 Jan. 1477/8 he was made a knight, at the marriage of Richard, Duke of York, with Anne Mowbray, suo jure Countess of Norfolk, da. of John (Mowbray), Duke of Norfolk. In 1483 he took part in the funeral of Edward IV, and on 6 July in the Coronation of Richard III. On 5 Feb. 1488/9 livery of his estates was granted to him as Henry Lovel, s. and h. of William Lovel, Lord Morley. He was not sum. to Parl. He m., at Wingfield, Suffolk, Elizabeth, da. of John (de la Pole), Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, and da. of Richard (Plantagenet), Duke of York [by Cicely, da. of Ralph (Nevill), Earl of Westmorland]. He d. s.p., 13 June 1489, being slain at Dixmude in Flanders, and was bur. at Calais. Dower was assigned to
> > > his widow 31 Dec. 1489. She was bur, at Hallingbury, Essex.
> > > Â
> > > henry and francis were first cousins.
> > > Â
> > > --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > To:
> > > Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 6:02 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
> > > My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: KristineW
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > >
> > > Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
> > >
> > > If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
> > >
> > > That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
> > >
> > > I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
> > >
> > > Kris
> > >
> > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > > > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > > > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > > > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > > > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > > > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > > > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > > > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > > > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > > ---
> > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > > > French
> > > > > word fordog.
> > > > >
> > > > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > > > in
> > > > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > > > Roses.
> > > > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > > > nor
> > > > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > > > among
> > > > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > > > faolchu.
> > > > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > > > any
> > > > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kris
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > > > man,
> > > > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > > > still
> > > > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > > > from
> > > > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > > > either
> > > > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > > > issued.
> > > > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > > > The
> > > > > June
> > > > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > > > included
> > > > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > > > as
> > > > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > > > obviously
> > > > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > > > was in
> > > > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > > > that
> > > > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > > > u2nohoo@
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > > > been
> > > > > > > alive
> > > > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > safe
> > > > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > > > whether
> > > > > she
> > > > > > > knew
> > > > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > > > wanted
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > > > York.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > > > Finalist
> > > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > > > a
> > > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > > > five
> > > > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > > > forty-two
> > > > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > > > Jersey,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > > > other
> > > > > > > English
> > > > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > > > him
> > > > > > > back in
> > > > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-04 08:28:50
could be...but francis was attainted in 1485. his honours were forfeit. therefore, would he be still considered a lord, even if he survived? the record in question is recorded on unfriendly foreign soil. scotland and england were still quite uneasy with each other and would be for about another decade until h7 promised his daughter, margaret to the king of scots to seal the treaty of perpetual peace.
however, one must also consider that francis's cousin henry was also the 8th lord lovell as well as lord morley. the morley title was passed to henry via his mother. henry's lovell title was inherited following the paternal line. henry's father, william was the elder son of william the 7th lord lovell. francis's father was the younger son and styled john lord lovell of tichmarsh. his son francis was viscount lovell. francis died without issue. after his demise/disappearence, therefore it is possible that henry used lord lovell by hereditary right.
additonally, henry may have also intentionally presented himself to the scots as lord lovell to demonstrate his adherence to the house of york. the surname lovell in the waning decades of the 15thC was well connected to the plantagenets.
it is also open to conjecture that henry, lord lovell may have also wanted to avoid confusion with lord morley being heard as lord marly. marly is the name of two different french towns. the burgandian mission was to promote an english contender to the throne.
roslyn
--- On Mon, 1/3/11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
To:
Received: Monday, January 3, 2011, 7:50 PM
--- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@...> wrote:
>
> After reading your post several times, it seems you're saying Domino(lord) Lovel was actually Henry Lovel, and not his cousin Francis. I have never heard of this, and I'm not sure if I agree with it. Does anyone else have an opinion?
Wasn't Henry Lovell always referred to as Lord Morley?
Marie
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > i think there may be some confusion because of the term "domino luvel."
> > consider...
> > Cokayne, George Edward (1936) The Complete Peerage of England
> > Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal, s. and h., aged 10 in 1476. In 1477 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and Piers Courtenay, Dean of St. Stephen's, Westminster. On 18 Jan. 1477/8 he was made a knight, at the marriage of Richard, Duke of York, with Anne Mowbray, suo jure Countess of Norfolk, da. of John (Mowbray), Duke of Norfolk. In 1483 he took part in the funeral of Edward IV, and on 6 July in the Coronation of Richard III. On 5 Feb. 1488/9 livery of his estates was granted to him as Henry Lovel, s. and h. of William Lovel, Lord Morley. He was not sum. to Parl. He m., at Wingfield, Suffolk, Elizabeth, da. of John (de la Pole), Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, and da. of Richard (Plantagenet), Duke of York [by Cicely, da. of Ralph (Nevill), Earl of Westmorland]. He d. s.p., 13 June 1489, being slain at Dixmude in Flanders, and was bur. at Calais. Dower was assigned
to
> > his widow 31 Dec. 1489. She was bur, at Hallingbury, Essex.
> > Â
> > henry and francis were first cousins.
> > Â
> > --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > To:
> > Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 6:02 AM
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
> > My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: KristineW
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
> > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> >
> > Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
> >
> > If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
> >
> > That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
> >
> > I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
> >
> > Kris
> >
> > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > >
> > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > > French
> > > > word fordog.
> > > >
> > > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > > in
> > > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > > Roses.
> > > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > > nor
> > > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > > among
> > > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > > faolchu.
> > > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > > any
> > > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > > >
> > > > > Kris
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > > man,
> > > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > > still
> > > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > > from
> > > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > > that
> > > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > > either
> > > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > > issued.
> > > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > > The
> > > > June
> > > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > > included
> > > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > > as
> > > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > > obviously
> > > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > > was in
> > > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > > that
> > > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > > Richard
> > > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > > u2nohoo@
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > > been
> > > > > > alive
> > > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > > the
> > > > > > safe
> > > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > > whether
> > > > she
> > > > > > knew
> > > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > > that
> > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > > wanted
> > > > to
> > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > > York.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > > Finalist
> > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > > a
> > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > > five
> > > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > > forty-two
> > > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > > Jersey,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > > other
> > > > > > English
> > > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > > him
> > > > > > back in
> > > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
however, one must also consider that francis's cousin henry was also the 8th lord lovell as well as lord morley. the morley title was passed to henry via his mother. henry's lovell title was inherited following the paternal line. henry's father, william was the elder son of william the 7th lord lovell. francis's father was the younger son and styled john lord lovell of tichmarsh. his son francis was viscount lovell. francis died without issue. after his demise/disappearence, therefore it is possible that henry used lord lovell by hereditary right.
additonally, henry may have also intentionally presented himself to the scots as lord lovell to demonstrate his adherence to the house of york. the surname lovell in the waning decades of the 15thC was well connected to the plantagenets.
it is also open to conjecture that henry, lord lovell may have also wanted to avoid confusion with lord morley being heard as lord marly. marly is the name of two different french towns. the burgandian mission was to promote an english contender to the throne.
roslyn
--- On Mon, 1/3/11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
To:
Received: Monday, January 3, 2011, 7:50 PM
--- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@...> wrote:
>
> After reading your post several times, it seems you're saying Domino(lord) Lovel was actually Henry Lovel, and not his cousin Francis. I have never heard of this, and I'm not sure if I agree with it. Does anyone else have an opinion?
Wasn't Henry Lovell always referred to as Lord Morley?
Marie
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > i think there may be some confusion because of the term "domino luvel."
> > consider...
> > Cokayne, George Edward (1936) The Complete Peerage of England
> > Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal, s. and h., aged 10 in 1476. In 1477 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and Piers Courtenay, Dean of St. Stephen's, Westminster. On 18 Jan. 1477/8 he was made a knight, at the marriage of Richard, Duke of York, with Anne Mowbray, suo jure Countess of Norfolk, da. of John (Mowbray), Duke of Norfolk. In 1483 he took part in the funeral of Edward IV, and on 6 July in the Coronation of Richard III. On 5 Feb. 1488/9 livery of his estates was granted to him as Henry Lovel, s. and h. of William Lovel, Lord Morley. He was not sum. to Parl. He m., at Wingfield, Suffolk, Elizabeth, da. of John (de la Pole), Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, and da. of Richard (Plantagenet), Duke of York [by Cicely, da. of Ralph (Nevill), Earl of Westmorland]. He d. s.p., 13 June 1489, being slain at Dixmude in Flanders, and was bur. at Calais. Dower was assigned
to
> > his widow 31 Dec. 1489. She was bur, at Hallingbury, Essex.
> > Â
> > henry and francis were first cousins.
> > Â
> > --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > To:
> > Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 6:02 AM
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
> > My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: KristineW
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
> > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> >
> > Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
> >
> > If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
> >
> > That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
> >
> > I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
> >
> > Kris
> >
> > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > >
> > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > > French
> > > > word fordog.
> > > >
> > > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > > in
> > > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > > Roses.
> > > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > > nor
> > > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > > among
> > > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > > faolchu.
> > > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > > any
> > > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > > >
> > > > > Kris
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > > man,
> > > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > > still
> > > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > > from
> > > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > > that
> > > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > > either
> > > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > > issued.
> > > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > > The
> > > > June
> > > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > > included
> > > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > > as
> > > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > > obviously
> > > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > > was in
> > > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > > that
> > > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > > Richard
> > > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > > u2nohoo@
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > > been
> > > > > > alive
> > > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > > the
> > > > > > safe
> > > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > > whether
> > > > she
> > > > > > knew
> > > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > > that
> > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > > wanted
> > > > to
> > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > > York.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > > Finalist
> > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > > a
> > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > > five
> > > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > > forty-two
> > > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > > Jersey,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > > other
> > > > > > English
> > > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > > him
> > > > > > back in
> > > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-04 12:58:07
Hi all,
First a few thoughts on the possibility that the Lord Lovell referred to was Morley:-
a) I didn't realise Morley was also recognised as Lord Lovell in his own time. How did that square with Francis also being Lord Lovell? As Roslyn observes, Francis died under attainder, so his honours could not have been inherited.
b) States harbouring refugees from the Wars of the Roses always continued to use their titles, whether or not they had been attainted by their enemies at home.
c)Morley was certainly in the south of England (with the court) in April and December 1488, and was granted livery of his estates the following Frebruary.
d) The Lovell name was not specifically Yorkist at this time. One of Henry VII's most ardent supporters, one of the most important 'new men' of the early Tudor period, was Sir Thomas Lovell of Barton Bendish.
d) The June 1488 safeconduct - the one mentioning Lord Luvel - was specifically for political refugees for England, and Lord Morley did not fall into that camp. The previous month a visitor to York had allegedly told people that Sir Thomas Broughton had lately landed at Ravenglass on the Cumbrian coast, although when questioned about it he denied it.
Thanks for drawing my attention to the November safeconduct. I'd not seen the text of it before and it confirms my suspicion that a lot of the Yorkists who disappeared after Stoke had taken refuge in Ireland. In English:-
"The King has granted a conduct to Richard Hardilstoun, knight, and Richard Ludelay from Ireland, Englishmen, and 40 persons with them, etc, in due form - at the instance of the Lady Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy."
So it's not necessarily an embassy, just more political refugees.
I think Richard Hardilstoun, knight, probably is Harleston, though it is worth bearing in mind that the Huddlestones of the North-West of England were diedhard Yorkists too. Sir Richad Huddlestone had died shortly before Bosworth, however, and his heir Richard may have been young and was not recognised as a knight in England. But then nor was Harleston.
Richard Harleston had been attainted after Stoke, but there was nobody with a name anything like Ludelay amongst the 1487 attaintees. I don't think this was Lovell - his safeconduct was still in force. My mum's a native Irish speaker, and I don't think there can be any Gaelic translation involved either. Not only does Ludelay not have anything in common with the Gaelic words for dog - cu, gadhar or madadh/madra - but all Gaelic surnames are patronymics. Nor do I think "de Ireland" is the surname here because it would leave us with a man with two first names, which would be anachronistic.
Know what I think? I think this man may have been an Audley, or possibly a Dudley. It might be worth taking a look at the original. I once ordered a copy of the June safeconduct and it worked very well. I'm not likely to be ordering a copy myself within the next few years, but if anyone else were to I would be quite happy to tae a look.
My own opinion about Lovell is that he did survive Stoke, although it's hard to prove it. I have a note that, according to the York records "the Lord Lovell was discomfited and fled, with Sir Thomas Broughton and many other". And that does fit in very well with the pair of them showing up together on this safeconduct a year later. All official documents refer to Lovell as attainted rather than dead for several years.
According to an article by Shelagh O'Connor in Ricardian no 96, on 16 July 1491 the Mayor of York wrote to Sir Richard Tunstall: "Sir, I have taken a simple and pure person and committed him to prison, the which went about here in your city and showed and uttered to diverse persons within the same that he spake with the Lord Lovell and Sir Thomas Broughton in Scotland, howbeit afore me he denieth that he never so said ne showed, and what your mastership thinks I should do further herein, I pray you send me word. . . "
A lot of Yorkists fade away into shadowy figures after Stoke and probably died in exile over the next few years. Lovell and Broughton may have declined the offer to take part in a conspiracy in favour of Edward IV's younger son.
Sir Thomas Broughton likewise faded out of history, and legend in his home area of Witherslack at the bottom end of the Lake District had it that he returned there and was hidden by fed by his former tenants, and what was allegedly his grave was still being pointed out a couple of hundred years later.
Marie
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> could be...but francis was attainted in 1485. his honours were forfeit. therefore, would he be still considered a lord, even if he survived? the record in question is recorded on unfriendly foreign soil. scotland and england were still quite uneasy with each other and would be for about another decade until h7 promised his daughter, margaret to the king of scots to seal the treaty of perpetual peace.
> Â
> however, one must also consider that francis's cousin henry was also the 8th lord lovell as well as lord morley. the morley title was passed to henry via his mother. henry's lovell title was inherited following the paternal line. henry's father, william was the elder son of william the 7th lord lovell. francis's father was the younger son and styled john lord lovell of tichmarsh. his son francis was viscount lovell. francis died without issue. after his demise/disappearence, therefore it is possible that henry used lord lovell by hereditary right.
> Â
> additonally, henry may have also intentionally presented himself to the scots as lord lovell to demonstrate his adherence to the house of york. the surname lovell in the waning decades of the 15thC was well connected to the plantagenets.
> Â
> it is also open to conjecture that henry, lord lovell may have also wanted to avoid confusion with lord morley being heard as lord marly. marly is the name of two different french towns. the burgandian mission was to promote an english contender to the throne.Â
> Â
> roslyn
> --- On Mon, 1/3/11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> To:
> Received: Monday, January 3, 2011, 7:50 PM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@> wrote:
> >
> > After reading your post several times, it seems you're saying Domino(lord) Lovel was actually Henry Lovel, and not his cousin Francis. I have never heard of this, and I'm not sure if I agree with it. Does anyone else have an opinion?
>
> Wasn't Henry Lovell always referred to as Lord Morley?
>
> Marie
>
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > i think there may be some confusion because of the term "domino luvel."
> > > consider...
> > > Cokayne, George Edward (1936) The Complete Peerage of England
> > > Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal, s. and h., aged 10 in 1476. In 1477 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and Piers Courtenay, Dean of St. Stephen's, Westminster. On 18 Jan. 1477/8 he was made a knight, at the marriage of Richard, Duke of York, with Anne Mowbray, suo jure Countess of Norfolk, da. of John (Mowbray), Duke of Norfolk. In 1483 he took part in the funeral of Edward IV, and on 6 July in the Coronation of Richard III. On 5 Feb. 1488/9 livery of his estates was granted to him as Henry Lovel, s. and h. of William Lovel, Lord Morley. He was not sum. to Parl. He m., at Wingfield, Suffolk, Elizabeth, da. of John (de la Pole), Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, and da. of Richard (Plantagenet), Duke of York [by Cicely, da. of Ralph (Nevill), Earl of Westmorland]. He d. s.p., 13 June 1489, being slain at Dixmude in Flanders, and was bur. at Calais. Dower was assigned
> to
> > > his widow 31 Dec. 1489. She was bur, at Hallingbury, Essex.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > henry and francis were first cousins.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > To:
> > > Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 6:02 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
> > > My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: KristineW
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > >
> > > Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
> > >
> > > If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
> > >
> > > That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
> > >
> > > I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
> > >
> > > Kris
> > >
> > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > > > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > > > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > > > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > > > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > > > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > > > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > > > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > > > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > > ---
> > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > > > French
> > > > > word fordog.
> > > > >
> > > > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > > > in
> > > > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > > > Roses.
> > > > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > > > nor
> > > > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > > > among
> > > > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > > > faolchu.
> > > > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > > > any
> > > > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kris
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > > > man,
> > > > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > > > still
> > > > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > > > from
> > > > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > > > either
> > > > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > > > issued.
> > > > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > > > The
> > > > > June
> > > > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > > > included
> > > > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > > > as
> > > > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > > > obviously
> > > > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > > > was in
> > > > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > > > that
> > > > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > > > u2nohoo@
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > > > been
> > > > > > > alive
> > > > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > safe
> > > > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > > > whether
> > > > > she
> > > > > > > knew
> > > > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > > > wanted
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > > > York.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > > > Finalist
> > > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > > > a
> > > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > > > five
> > > > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > > > forty-two
> > > > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > > > Jersey,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > > > other
> > > > > > > English
> > > > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > > > him
> > > > > > > back in
> > > > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
First a few thoughts on the possibility that the Lord Lovell referred to was Morley:-
a) I didn't realise Morley was also recognised as Lord Lovell in his own time. How did that square with Francis also being Lord Lovell? As Roslyn observes, Francis died under attainder, so his honours could not have been inherited.
b) States harbouring refugees from the Wars of the Roses always continued to use their titles, whether or not they had been attainted by their enemies at home.
c)Morley was certainly in the south of England (with the court) in April and December 1488, and was granted livery of his estates the following Frebruary.
d) The Lovell name was not specifically Yorkist at this time. One of Henry VII's most ardent supporters, one of the most important 'new men' of the early Tudor period, was Sir Thomas Lovell of Barton Bendish.
d) The June 1488 safeconduct - the one mentioning Lord Luvel - was specifically for political refugees for England, and Lord Morley did not fall into that camp. The previous month a visitor to York had allegedly told people that Sir Thomas Broughton had lately landed at Ravenglass on the Cumbrian coast, although when questioned about it he denied it.
Thanks for drawing my attention to the November safeconduct. I'd not seen the text of it before and it confirms my suspicion that a lot of the Yorkists who disappeared after Stoke had taken refuge in Ireland. In English:-
"The King has granted a conduct to Richard Hardilstoun, knight, and Richard Ludelay from Ireland, Englishmen, and 40 persons with them, etc, in due form - at the instance of the Lady Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy."
So it's not necessarily an embassy, just more political refugees.
I think Richard Hardilstoun, knight, probably is Harleston, though it is worth bearing in mind that the Huddlestones of the North-West of England were diedhard Yorkists too. Sir Richad Huddlestone had died shortly before Bosworth, however, and his heir Richard may have been young and was not recognised as a knight in England. But then nor was Harleston.
Richard Harleston had been attainted after Stoke, but there was nobody with a name anything like Ludelay amongst the 1487 attaintees. I don't think this was Lovell - his safeconduct was still in force. My mum's a native Irish speaker, and I don't think there can be any Gaelic translation involved either. Not only does Ludelay not have anything in common with the Gaelic words for dog - cu, gadhar or madadh/madra - but all Gaelic surnames are patronymics. Nor do I think "de Ireland" is the surname here because it would leave us with a man with two first names, which would be anachronistic.
Know what I think? I think this man may have been an Audley, or possibly a Dudley. It might be worth taking a look at the original. I once ordered a copy of the June safeconduct and it worked very well. I'm not likely to be ordering a copy myself within the next few years, but if anyone else were to I would be quite happy to tae a look.
My own opinion about Lovell is that he did survive Stoke, although it's hard to prove it. I have a note that, according to the York records "the Lord Lovell was discomfited and fled, with Sir Thomas Broughton and many other". And that does fit in very well with the pair of them showing up together on this safeconduct a year later. All official documents refer to Lovell as attainted rather than dead for several years.
According to an article by Shelagh O'Connor in Ricardian no 96, on 16 July 1491 the Mayor of York wrote to Sir Richard Tunstall: "Sir, I have taken a simple and pure person and committed him to prison, the which went about here in your city and showed and uttered to diverse persons within the same that he spake with the Lord Lovell and Sir Thomas Broughton in Scotland, howbeit afore me he denieth that he never so said ne showed, and what your mastership thinks I should do further herein, I pray you send me word. . . "
A lot of Yorkists fade away into shadowy figures after Stoke and probably died in exile over the next few years. Lovell and Broughton may have declined the offer to take part in a conspiracy in favour of Edward IV's younger son.
Sir Thomas Broughton likewise faded out of history, and legend in his home area of Witherslack at the bottom end of the Lake District had it that he returned there and was hidden by fed by his former tenants, and what was allegedly his grave was still being pointed out a couple of hundred years later.
Marie
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> could be...but francis was attainted in 1485. his honours were forfeit. therefore, would he be still considered a lord, even if he survived? the record in question is recorded on unfriendly foreign soil. scotland and england were still quite uneasy with each other and would be for about another decade until h7 promised his daughter, margaret to the king of scots to seal the treaty of perpetual peace.
> Â
> however, one must also consider that francis's cousin henry was also the 8th lord lovell as well as lord morley. the morley title was passed to henry via his mother. henry's lovell title was inherited following the paternal line. henry's father, william was the elder son of william the 7th lord lovell. francis's father was the younger son and styled john lord lovell of tichmarsh. his son francis was viscount lovell. francis died without issue. after his demise/disappearence, therefore it is possible that henry used lord lovell by hereditary right.
> Â
> additonally, henry may have also intentionally presented himself to the scots as lord lovell to demonstrate his adherence to the house of york. the surname lovell in the waning decades of the 15thC was well connected to the plantagenets.
> Â
> it is also open to conjecture that henry, lord lovell may have also wanted to avoid confusion with lord morley being heard as lord marly. marly is the name of two different french towns. the burgandian mission was to promote an english contender to the throne.Â
> Â
> roslyn
> --- On Mon, 1/3/11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> To:
> Received: Monday, January 3, 2011, 7:50 PM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@> wrote:
> >
> > After reading your post several times, it seems you're saying Domino(lord) Lovel was actually Henry Lovel, and not his cousin Francis. I have never heard of this, and I'm not sure if I agree with it. Does anyone else have an opinion?
>
> Wasn't Henry Lovell always referred to as Lord Morley?
>
> Marie
>
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > i think there may be some confusion because of the term "domino luvel."
> > > consider...
> > > Cokayne, George Edward (1936) The Complete Peerage of England
> > > Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal, s. and h., aged 10 in 1476. In 1477 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and Piers Courtenay, Dean of St. Stephen's, Westminster. On 18 Jan. 1477/8 he was made a knight, at the marriage of Richard, Duke of York, with Anne Mowbray, suo jure Countess of Norfolk, da. of John (Mowbray), Duke of Norfolk. In 1483 he took part in the funeral of Edward IV, and on 6 July in the Coronation of Richard III. On 5 Feb. 1488/9 livery of his estates was granted to him as Henry Lovel, s. and h. of William Lovel, Lord Morley. He was not sum. to Parl. He m., at Wingfield, Suffolk, Elizabeth, da. of John (de la Pole), Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, and da. of Richard (Plantagenet), Duke of York [by Cicely, da. of Ralph (Nevill), Earl of Westmorland]. He d. s.p., 13 June 1489, being slain at Dixmude in Flanders, and was bur. at Calais. Dower was assigned
> to
> > > his widow 31 Dec. 1489. She was bur, at Hallingbury, Essex.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > henry and francis were first cousins.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > To:
> > > Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 6:02 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
> > > My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: KristineW
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > >
> > > Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
> > >
> > > If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
> > >
> > > That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
> > >
> > > I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
> > >
> > > Kris
> > >
> > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > > > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > > > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > > > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > > > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > > > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > > > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > > > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > > > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > > ---
> > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > > > French
> > > > > word fordog.
> > > > >
> > > > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > > > in
> > > > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > > > Roses.
> > > > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > > > nor
> > > > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > > > among
> > > > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > > > faolchu.
> > > > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > > > any
> > > > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kris
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > > > man,
> > > > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > > > still
> > > > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > > > from
> > > > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > > > either
> > > > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > > > issued.
> > > > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > > > The
> > > > > June
> > > > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > > > included
> > > > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > > > as
> > > > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > > > obviously
> > > > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > > > was in
> > > > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > > > that
> > > > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > > > u2nohoo@
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > > > been
> > > > > > > alive
> > > > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > safe
> > > > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > > > whether
> > > > > she
> > > > > > > knew
> > > > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > > > wanted
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > > > York.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > > > Finalist
> > > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > > > a
> > > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > > > five
> > > > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > > > forty-two
> > > > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > > > Jersey,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > > > other
> > > > > > > English
> > > > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > > > him
> > > > > > > back in
> > > > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-04 14:24:39
> d) The June 1488 safeconduct - the one mentioning Lord Luvel - was specifically for political refugees for England,
I meant 'from England', of course.
I meant 'from England', of course.
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-04 21:39:01
I've been emailing a woman named Vicki who pointed out a third reference to "Luvell" in the RMS. It's entry number 1033, page 213, and dated 1471. The people listed in that safe passage are:
Alisie Domine Fithzhuche
Francisco Domino Luvell
Richardo Domino Latimere
Ricardo Fithzhuche
Though this entry is from the 1470s, if this safe passage was taken advantage of, Lovell was in Scotland before and may have developed political, or even family connections. Alisie Fithzhuche was probably Alice Fitzhugh, Lovell's mother-in-law. Ricardo Fithzhuche may have been her son. Both Francis Lovell and Richard Fitzhugh would have been teenagers at the time.
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> First a few thoughts on the possibility that the Lord Lovell referred to was Morley:-
> a) I didn't realise Morley was also recognised as Lord Lovell in his own time. How did that square with Francis also being Lord Lovell? As Roslyn observes, Francis died under attainder, so his honours could not have been inherited.
> b) States harbouring refugees from the Wars of the Roses always continued to use their titles, whether or not they had been attainted by their enemies at home.
> c)Morley was certainly in the south of England (with the court) in April and December 1488, and was granted livery of his estates the following Frebruary.
> d) The Lovell name was not specifically Yorkist at this time. One of Henry VII's most ardent supporters, one of the most important 'new men' of the early Tudor period, was Sir Thomas Lovell of Barton Bendish.
> d) The June 1488 safeconduct - the one mentioning Lord Luvel - was specifically for political refugees for England, and Lord Morley did not fall into that camp. The previous month a visitor to York had allegedly told people that Sir Thomas Broughton had lately landed at Ravenglass on the Cumbrian coast, although when questioned about it he denied it.
>
> Thanks for drawing my attention to the November safeconduct. I'd not seen the text of it before and it confirms my suspicion that a lot of the Yorkists who disappeared after Stoke had taken refuge in Ireland. In English:-
> "The King has granted a conduct to Richard Hardilstoun, knight, and Richard Ludelay from Ireland, Englishmen, and 40 persons with them, etc, in due form - at the instance of the Lady Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy."
> So it's not necessarily an embassy, just more political refugees.
> I think Richard Hardilstoun, knight, probably is Harleston, though it is worth bearing in mind that the Huddlestones of the North-West of England were diedhard Yorkists too. Sir Richad Huddlestone had died shortly before Bosworth, however, and his heir Richard may have been young and was not recognised as a knight in England. But then nor was Harleston.
> Richard Harleston had been attainted after Stoke, but there was nobody with a name anything like Ludelay amongst the 1487 attaintees. I don't think this was Lovell - his safeconduct was still in force. My mum's a native Irish speaker, and I don't think there can be any Gaelic translation involved either. Not only does Ludelay not have anything in common with the Gaelic words for dog - cu, gadhar or madadh/madra - but all Gaelic surnames are patronymics. Nor do I think "de Ireland" is the surname here because it would leave us with a man with two first names, which would be anachronistic.
> Know what I think? I think this man may have been an Audley, or possibly a Dudley. It might be worth taking a look at the original. I once ordered a copy of the June safeconduct and it worked very well. I'm not likely to be ordering a copy myself within the next few years, but if anyone else were to I would be quite happy to tae a look.
>
> My own opinion about Lovell is that he did survive Stoke, although it's hard to prove it. I have a note that, according to the York records "the Lord Lovell was discomfited and fled, with Sir Thomas Broughton and many other". And that does fit in very well with the pair of them showing up together on this safeconduct a year later. All official documents refer to Lovell as attainted rather than dead for several years.
> According to an article by Shelagh O'Connor in Ricardian no 96, on 16 July 1491 the Mayor of York wrote to Sir Richard Tunstall: "Sir, I have taken a simple and pure person and committed him to prison, the which went about here in your city and showed and uttered to diverse persons within the same that he spake with the Lord Lovell and Sir Thomas Broughton in Scotland, howbeit afore me he denieth that he never so said ne showed, and what your mastership thinks I should do further herein, I pray you send me word. . . "
>
> A lot of Yorkists fade away into shadowy figures after Stoke and probably died in exile over the next few years. Lovell and Broughton may have declined the offer to take part in a conspiracy in favour of Edward IV's younger son.
> Sir Thomas Broughton likewise faded out of history, and legend in his home area of Witherslack at the bottom end of the Lake District had it that he returned there and was hidden by fed by his former tenants, and what was allegedly his grave was still being pointed out a couple of hundred years later.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > could be...but francis was attainted in 1485. his honours were forfeit. therefore, would he be still considered a lord, even if he survived? the record in question is recorded on unfriendly foreign soil. scotland and england were still quite uneasy with each other and would be for about another decade until h7 promised his daughter, margaret to the king of scots to seal the treaty of perpetual peace.
> > Â
> > however, one must also consider that francis's cousin henry was also the 8th lord lovell as well as lord morley. the morley title was passed to henry via his mother. henry's lovell title was inherited following the paternal line. henry's father, william was the elder son of william the 7th lord lovell. francis's father was the younger son and styled john lord lovell of tichmarsh. his son francis was viscount lovell. francis died without issue. after his demise/disappearence, therefore it is possible that henry used lord lovell by hereditary right.
> > Â
> > additonally, henry may have also intentionally presented himself to the scots as lord lovell to demonstrate his adherence to the house of york. the surname lovell in the waning decades of the 15thC was well connected to the plantagenets.
> > Â
> > it is also open to conjecture that henry, lord lovell may have also wanted to avoid confusion with lord morley being heard as lord marly. marly is the name of two different french towns. the burgandian mission was to promote an english contender to the throne.Â
> > Â
> > roslyn
> > --- On Mon, 1/3/11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > To:
> > Received: Monday, January 3, 2011, 7:50 PM
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > >
> > > After reading your post several times, it seems you're saying Domino(lord) Lovel was actually Henry Lovel, and not his cousin Francis. I have never heard of this, and I'm not sure if I agree with it. Does anyone else have an opinion?
> >
> > Wasn't Henry Lovell always referred to as Lord Morley?
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > > --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > i think there may be some confusion because of the term "domino luvel."
> > > > consider...
> > > > Cokayne, George Edward (1936) The Complete Peerage of England
> > > > Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal, s. and h., aged 10 in 1476. In 1477 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and Piers Courtenay, Dean of St. Stephen's, Westminster. On 18 Jan. 1477/8 he was made a knight, at the marriage of Richard, Duke of York, with Anne Mowbray, suo jure Countess of Norfolk, da. of John (Mowbray), Duke of Norfolk. In 1483 he took part in the funeral of Edward IV, and on 6 July in the Coronation of Richard III. On 5 Feb. 1488/9 livery of his estates was granted to him as Henry Lovel, s. and h. of William Lovel, Lord Morley. He was not sum. to Parl. He m., at Wingfield, Suffolk, Elizabeth, da. of John (de la Pole), Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, and da. of Richard (Plantagenet), Duke of York [by Cicely, da. of Ralph (Nevill), Earl of Westmorland]. He d. s.p., 13 June 1489, being slain at Dixmude in Flanders, and was bur. at Calais. Dower was assigned
> > to
> > > > his widow 31 Dec. 1489. She was bur, at Hallingbury, Essex.
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > > henry and francis were first cousins.
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > > --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > > To:
> > > > Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 6:02 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
> > > > My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: KristineW
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > >
> > > > Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
> > > >
> > > > If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
> > > >
> > > > That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
> > > >
> > > > Kris
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > > > > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > > > > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > > > > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > > > > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > > > > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > > > > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > > > > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > > > > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> > > > >
> > > > > Joan
> > > > > ---
> > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > > > > French
> > > > > > word fordog.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > > > > in
> > > > > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > > > > Roses.
> > > > > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > > > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > > > > nor
> > > > > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > > > > among
> > > > > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > > > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > > > > faolchu.
> > > > > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > > > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > > > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > > > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > > > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > > > > any
> > > > > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > > > > man,
> > > > > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > > > > still
> > > > > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > > > > either
> > > > > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > > > > issued.
> > > > > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > June
> > > > > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > > > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > > > > obviously
> > > > > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > > > > was in
> > > > > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > > > > u2nohoo@
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > alive
> > > > > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > safe
> > > > > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > > > > whether
> > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > knew
> > > > > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > > > > wanted
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > > > > York.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > > > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > > > > Finalist
> > > > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > > > > five
> > > > > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > > > > forty-two
> > > > > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > > > > Jersey,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > > > > other
> > > > > > > > English
> > > > > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > > > > him
> > > > > > > > back in
> > > > > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Alisie Domine Fithzhuche
Francisco Domino Luvell
Richardo Domino Latimere
Ricardo Fithzhuche
Though this entry is from the 1470s, if this safe passage was taken advantage of, Lovell was in Scotland before and may have developed political, or even family connections. Alisie Fithzhuche was probably Alice Fitzhugh, Lovell's mother-in-law. Ricardo Fithzhuche may have been her son. Both Francis Lovell and Richard Fitzhugh would have been teenagers at the time.
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> First a few thoughts on the possibility that the Lord Lovell referred to was Morley:-
> a) I didn't realise Morley was also recognised as Lord Lovell in his own time. How did that square with Francis also being Lord Lovell? As Roslyn observes, Francis died under attainder, so his honours could not have been inherited.
> b) States harbouring refugees from the Wars of the Roses always continued to use their titles, whether or not they had been attainted by their enemies at home.
> c)Morley was certainly in the south of England (with the court) in April and December 1488, and was granted livery of his estates the following Frebruary.
> d) The Lovell name was not specifically Yorkist at this time. One of Henry VII's most ardent supporters, one of the most important 'new men' of the early Tudor period, was Sir Thomas Lovell of Barton Bendish.
> d) The June 1488 safeconduct - the one mentioning Lord Luvel - was specifically for political refugees for England, and Lord Morley did not fall into that camp. The previous month a visitor to York had allegedly told people that Sir Thomas Broughton had lately landed at Ravenglass on the Cumbrian coast, although when questioned about it he denied it.
>
> Thanks for drawing my attention to the November safeconduct. I'd not seen the text of it before and it confirms my suspicion that a lot of the Yorkists who disappeared after Stoke had taken refuge in Ireland. In English:-
> "The King has granted a conduct to Richard Hardilstoun, knight, and Richard Ludelay from Ireland, Englishmen, and 40 persons with them, etc, in due form - at the instance of the Lady Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy."
> So it's not necessarily an embassy, just more political refugees.
> I think Richard Hardilstoun, knight, probably is Harleston, though it is worth bearing in mind that the Huddlestones of the North-West of England were diedhard Yorkists too. Sir Richad Huddlestone had died shortly before Bosworth, however, and his heir Richard may have been young and was not recognised as a knight in England. But then nor was Harleston.
> Richard Harleston had been attainted after Stoke, but there was nobody with a name anything like Ludelay amongst the 1487 attaintees. I don't think this was Lovell - his safeconduct was still in force. My mum's a native Irish speaker, and I don't think there can be any Gaelic translation involved either. Not only does Ludelay not have anything in common with the Gaelic words for dog - cu, gadhar or madadh/madra - but all Gaelic surnames are patronymics. Nor do I think "de Ireland" is the surname here because it would leave us with a man with two first names, which would be anachronistic.
> Know what I think? I think this man may have been an Audley, or possibly a Dudley. It might be worth taking a look at the original. I once ordered a copy of the June safeconduct and it worked very well. I'm not likely to be ordering a copy myself within the next few years, but if anyone else were to I would be quite happy to tae a look.
>
> My own opinion about Lovell is that he did survive Stoke, although it's hard to prove it. I have a note that, according to the York records "the Lord Lovell was discomfited and fled, with Sir Thomas Broughton and many other". And that does fit in very well with the pair of them showing up together on this safeconduct a year later. All official documents refer to Lovell as attainted rather than dead for several years.
> According to an article by Shelagh O'Connor in Ricardian no 96, on 16 July 1491 the Mayor of York wrote to Sir Richard Tunstall: "Sir, I have taken a simple and pure person and committed him to prison, the which went about here in your city and showed and uttered to diverse persons within the same that he spake with the Lord Lovell and Sir Thomas Broughton in Scotland, howbeit afore me he denieth that he never so said ne showed, and what your mastership thinks I should do further herein, I pray you send me word. . . "
>
> A lot of Yorkists fade away into shadowy figures after Stoke and probably died in exile over the next few years. Lovell and Broughton may have declined the offer to take part in a conspiracy in favour of Edward IV's younger son.
> Sir Thomas Broughton likewise faded out of history, and legend in his home area of Witherslack at the bottom end of the Lake District had it that he returned there and was hidden by fed by his former tenants, and what was allegedly his grave was still being pointed out a couple of hundred years later.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > could be...but francis was attainted in 1485. his honours were forfeit. therefore, would he be still considered a lord, even if he survived? the record in question is recorded on unfriendly foreign soil. scotland and england were still quite uneasy with each other and would be for about another decade until h7 promised his daughter, margaret to the king of scots to seal the treaty of perpetual peace.
> > Â
> > however, one must also consider that francis's cousin henry was also the 8th lord lovell as well as lord morley. the morley title was passed to henry via his mother. henry's lovell title was inherited following the paternal line. henry's father, william was the elder son of william the 7th lord lovell. francis's father was the younger son and styled john lord lovell of tichmarsh. his son francis was viscount lovell. francis died without issue. after his demise/disappearence, therefore it is possible that henry used lord lovell by hereditary right.
> > Â
> > additonally, henry may have also intentionally presented himself to the scots as lord lovell to demonstrate his adherence to the house of york. the surname lovell in the waning decades of the 15thC was well connected to the plantagenets.
> > Â
> > it is also open to conjecture that henry, lord lovell may have also wanted to avoid confusion with lord morley being heard as lord marly. marly is the name of two different french towns. the burgandian mission was to promote an english contender to the throne.Â
> > Â
> > roslyn
> > --- On Mon, 1/3/11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > To:
> > Received: Monday, January 3, 2011, 7:50 PM
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > >
> > > After reading your post several times, it seems you're saying Domino(lord) Lovel was actually Henry Lovel, and not his cousin Francis. I have never heard of this, and I'm not sure if I agree with it. Does anyone else have an opinion?
> >
> > Wasn't Henry Lovell always referred to as Lord Morley?
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > > --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > i think there may be some confusion because of the term "domino luvel."
> > > > consider...
> > > > Cokayne, George Edward (1936) The Complete Peerage of England
> > > > Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal, s. and h., aged 10 in 1476. In 1477 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and Piers Courtenay, Dean of St. Stephen's, Westminster. On 18 Jan. 1477/8 he was made a knight, at the marriage of Richard, Duke of York, with Anne Mowbray, suo jure Countess of Norfolk, da. of John (Mowbray), Duke of Norfolk. In 1483 he took part in the funeral of Edward IV, and on 6 July in the Coronation of Richard III. On 5 Feb. 1488/9 livery of his estates was granted to him as Henry Lovel, s. and h. of William Lovel, Lord Morley. He was not sum. to Parl. He m., at Wingfield, Suffolk, Elizabeth, da. of John (de la Pole), Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, and da. of Richard (Plantagenet), Duke of York [by Cicely, da. of Ralph (Nevill), Earl of Westmorland]. He d. s.p., 13 June 1489, being slain at Dixmude in Flanders, and was bur. at Calais. Dower was assigned
> > to
> > > > his widow 31 Dec. 1489. She was bur, at Hallingbury, Essex.
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > > henry and francis were first cousins.
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > > --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > > To:
> > > > Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 6:02 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
> > > > My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: KristineW
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > >
> > > > Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
> > > >
> > > > If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
> > > >
> > > > That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
> > > >
> > > > Kris
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > > > > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > > > > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > > > > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > > > > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > > > > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > > > > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > > > > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > > > > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> > > > >
> > > > > Joan
> > > > > ---
> > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > > > > French
> > > > > > word fordog.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > > > > in
> > > > > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > > > > Roses.
> > > > > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > > > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > > > > nor
> > > > > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > > > > among
> > > > > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > > > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > > > > faolchu.
> > > > > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > > > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > > > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > > > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > > > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > > > > any
> > > > > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > > > > man,
> > > > > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > > > > still
> > > > > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > > > > either
> > > > > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > > > > issued.
> > > > > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > June
> > > > > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > > > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > > > > obviously
> > > > > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > > > > was in
> > > > > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > > > > u2nohoo@
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > alive
> > > > > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > safe
> > > > > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > > > > whether
> > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > knew
> > > > > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > > > > wanted
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > > > > York.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > > > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > > > > Finalist
> > > > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > > > > five
> > > > > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > > > > forty-two
> > > > > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > > > > Jersey,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > > > > other
> > > > > > > > English
> > > > > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > > > > him
> > > > > > > > back in
> > > > > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-05 17:07:53
on june 11, 1488 king james iv became king after defeating his father. could this safe conduct have been for "english allies" who helped defeat his father? is it possible that margaret provided mercenaries to j4's cause? would burgandy have an interest in changing the scottish rulership? what was burgandy's relationship with james iii? good or difficult?
did the change of the scots king assist margaret with disrupting the tudor rule?
francis was called lord lovell AND viscount lovell. francis was a higher rank than his cousin henry. both men held several lordships, mostly inherited from mothers and/or grandmothers who were the sole or joint heiress of their ancestors. quite simply francis's father, john had married better than henry's father, william. rank has its priviledges. francis obviously got to choose the lord lovell, and henry appears happy to be known as lord moreley..but did he take back the lovell surname after 1485? perhaps there is a surviving document to two that does clearly indicate he did indeed use "lord lovell".
the lovells were staunch lancasterians prior to edward iv. both francis and henry were richard's henchmen when he was in the north. a term that does not carry the same meaning as it does today.
i believe the lovell surname became strongly connected to the yorkist side because of colingbourne's poem. despite not having the internet, these people could still communicate fairly rapidly over great distances. they used a system that was akin to the forerunner of the better known american pony express. foreign rulers would have had a keen interest with regards to the goings on in london and the british crown. messages would have been dispatched by london/court spies to the assorted foreign rules. the disruption in london and allusion to the hog would have been great and amusing gossip. if the poem had not gained "recognition" it would very be unknow to us today, and collingbourne would have very likely escaped execution.
i do love your plausible interpretation of ludelay. i think looking for an audley or dudley named richard in 1488 could possibly solve the mystery of ludelay from ireland.
roslyn
--- On Tue, 1/4/11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 4, 2011, 7:58 AM
Hi all,
First a few thoughts on the possibility that the Lord Lovell referred to was Morley:-
a) I didn't realise Morley was also recognised as Lord Lovell in his own time. How did that square with Francis also being Lord Lovell? As Roslyn observes, Francis died under attainder, so his honours could not have been inherited.
b) States harbouring refugees from the Wars of the Roses always continued to use their titles, whether or not they had been attainted by their enemies at home.
c)Morley was certainly in the south of England (with the court) in April and December 1488, and was granted livery of his estates the following Frebruary.
d) The Lovell name was not specifically Yorkist at this time. One of Henry VII's most ardent supporters, one of the most important 'new men' of the early Tudor period, was Sir Thomas Lovell of Barton Bendish.
d) The June 1488 safeconduct - the one mentioning Lord Luvel - was specifically for political refugees for England, and Lord Morley did not fall into that camp. The previous month a visitor to York had allegedly told people that Sir Thomas Broughton had lately landed at Ravenglass on the Cumbrian coast, although when questioned about it he denied it.
Thanks for drawing my attention to the November safeconduct. I'd not seen the text of it before and it confirms my suspicion that a lot of the Yorkists who disappeared after Stoke had taken refuge in Ireland. In English:-
"The King has granted a conduct to Richard Hardilstoun, knight, and Richard Ludelay from Ireland, Englishmen, and 40 persons with them, etc, in due form - at the instance of the Lady Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy."
So it's not necessarily an embassy, just more political refugees.
I think Richard Hardilstoun, knight, probably is Harleston, though it is worth bearing in mind that the Huddlestones of the North-West of England were diedhard Yorkists too. Sir Richad Huddlestone had died shortly before Bosworth, however, and his heir Richard may have been young and was not recognised as a knight in England. But then nor was Harleston.
Richard Harleston had been attainted after Stoke, but there was nobody with a name anything like Ludelay amongst the 1487 attaintees. I don't think this was Lovell - his safeconduct was still in force. My mum's a native Irish speaker, and I don't think there can be any Gaelic translation involved either. Not only does Ludelay not have anything in common with the Gaelic words for dog - cu, gadhar or madadh/madra - but all Gaelic surnames are patronymics. Nor do I think "de Ireland" is the surname here because it would leave us with a man with two first names, which would be anachronistic.
Know what I think? I think this man may have been an Audley, or possibly a Dudley. It might be worth taking a look at the original. I once ordered a copy of the June safeconduct and it worked very well. I'm not likely to be ordering a copy myself within the next few years, but if anyone else were to I would be quite happy to tae a look.
My own opinion about Lovell is that he did survive Stoke, although it's hard to prove it. I have a note that, according to the York records "the Lord Lovell was discomfited and fled, with Sir Thomas Broughton and many other". And that does fit in very well with the pair of them showing up together on this safeconduct a year later. All official documents refer to Lovell as attainted rather than dead for several years.
According to an article by Shelagh O'Connor in Ricardian no 96, on 16 July 1491 the Mayor of York wrote to Sir Richard Tunstall: "Sir, I have taken a simple and pure person and committed him to prison, the which went about here in your city and showed and uttered to diverse persons within the same that he spake with the Lord Lovell and Sir Thomas Broughton in Scotland, howbeit afore me he denieth that he never so said ne showed, and what your mastership thinks I should do further herein, I pray you send me word. . . "
A lot of Yorkists fade away into shadowy figures after Stoke and probably died in exile over the next few years. Lovell and Broughton may have declined the offer to take part in a conspiracy in favour of Edward IV's younger son.
Sir Thomas Broughton likewise faded out of history, and legend in his home area of Witherslack at the bottom end of the Lake District had it that he returned there and was hidden by fed by his former tenants, and what was allegedly his grave was still being pointed out a couple of hundred years later.
Marie
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> could be...but francis was attainted in 1485. his honours were forfeit. therefore, would he be still considered a lord, even if he survived? the record in question is recorded on unfriendly foreign soil. scotland and england were still quite uneasy with each other and would be for about another decade until h7 promised his daughter, margaret to the king of scots to seal the treaty of perpetual peace.
> Â
> however, one must also consider that francis's cousin henry was also the 8th lord lovell as well as lord morley. the morley title was passed to henry via his mother. henry's lovell title was inherited following the paternal line. henry's father, william was the elder son of william the 7th lord lovell. francis's father was the younger son and styled john lord lovell of tichmarsh. his son francis was viscount lovell. francis died without issue. after his demise/disappearence, therefore it is possible that henry used lord lovell by hereditary right.
> Â
> additonally, henry may have also intentionally presented himself to the scots as lord lovell to demonstrate his adherence to the house of york. the surname lovell in the waning decades of the 15thC was well connected to the plantagenets.
> Â
> it is also open to conjecture that henry, lord lovell may have also wanted to avoid confusion with lord morley being heard as lord marly. marly is the name of two different french towns. the burgandian mission was to promote an english contender to the throne.Â
> Â
> roslyn
> --- On Mon, 1/3/11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> To:
> Received: Monday, January 3, 2011, 7:50 PM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@> wrote:
> >
> > After reading your post several times, it seems you're saying Domino(lord) Lovel was actually Henry Lovel, and not his cousin Francis. I have never heard of this, and I'm not sure if I agree with it. Does anyone else have an opinion?
>
> Wasn't Henry Lovell always referred to as Lord Morley?
>
> Marie
>
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > i think there may be some confusion because of the term "domino luvel."
> > > consider...
> > > Cokayne, George Edward (1936) The Complete Peerage of England
> > > Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal, s. and h., aged 10 in 1476. In 1477 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and Piers Courtenay, Dean of St. Stephen's, Westminster. On 18 Jan. 1477/8 he was made a knight, at the marriage of Richard, Duke of York, with Anne Mowbray, suo jure Countess of Norfolk, da. of John (Mowbray), Duke of Norfolk. In 1483 he took part in the funeral of Edward IV, and on 6 July in the Coronation of Richard III. On 5 Feb. 1488/9 livery of his estates was granted to him as Henry Lovel, s. and h. of William Lovel, Lord Morley. He was not sum. to Parl. He m., at Wingfield, Suffolk, Elizabeth, da. of John (de la Pole), Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, and da. of Richard (Plantagenet), Duke of York [by Cicely, da. of Ralph (Nevill), Earl of Westmorland]. He d. s.p., 13 June 1489, being slain at Dixmude in Flanders, and was bur. at Calais. Dower was
assigned
> to
> > > his widow 31 Dec. 1489. She was bur, at Hallingbury, Essex.
> > > ÃÂ
> > > henry and francis were first cousins.
> > > ÃÂ
> > > --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > To:
> > > Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 6:02 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
> > > My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: KristineW
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > >
> > > Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
> > >
> > > If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
> > >
> > > That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
> > >
> > > I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
> > >
> > > Kris
> > >
> > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > > > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > > > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > > > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > > > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > > > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > > > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > > > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > > > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > > ---
> > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > > > French
> > > > > word fordog.
> > > > >
> > > > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > > > in
> > > > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > > > Roses.
> > > > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > > > nor
> > > > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > > > among
> > > > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > > > faolchu.
> > > > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > > > any
> > > > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kris
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > > > man,
> > > > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > > > still
> > > > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > > > from
> > > > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > > > either
> > > > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > > > issued.
> > > > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > > > The
> > > > > June
> > > > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > > > included
> > > > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > > > as
> > > > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > > > obviously
> > > > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > > > was in
> > > > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > > > that
> > > > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > > > u2nohoo@
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > > > been
> > > > > > > alive
> > > > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > safe
> > > > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > > > whether
> > > > > she
> > > > > > > knew
> > > > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > > > wanted
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > > > York.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > > > Finalist
> > > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > > > a
> > > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > > > five
> > > > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > > > forty-two
> > > > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > > > Jersey,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > > > other
> > > > > > > English
> > > > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > > > him
> > > > > > > back in
> > > > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
did the change of the scots king assist margaret with disrupting the tudor rule?
francis was called lord lovell AND viscount lovell. francis was a higher rank than his cousin henry. both men held several lordships, mostly inherited from mothers and/or grandmothers who were the sole or joint heiress of their ancestors. quite simply francis's father, john had married better than henry's father, william. rank has its priviledges. francis obviously got to choose the lord lovell, and henry appears happy to be known as lord moreley..but did he take back the lovell surname after 1485? perhaps there is a surviving document to two that does clearly indicate he did indeed use "lord lovell".
the lovells were staunch lancasterians prior to edward iv. both francis and henry were richard's henchmen when he was in the north. a term that does not carry the same meaning as it does today.
i believe the lovell surname became strongly connected to the yorkist side because of colingbourne's poem. despite not having the internet, these people could still communicate fairly rapidly over great distances. they used a system that was akin to the forerunner of the better known american pony express. foreign rulers would have had a keen interest with regards to the goings on in london and the british crown. messages would have been dispatched by london/court spies to the assorted foreign rules. the disruption in london and allusion to the hog would have been great and amusing gossip. if the poem had not gained "recognition" it would very be unknow to us today, and collingbourne would have very likely escaped execution.
i do love your plausible interpretation of ludelay. i think looking for an audley or dudley named richard in 1488 could possibly solve the mystery of ludelay from ireland.
roslyn
--- On Tue, 1/4/11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 4, 2011, 7:58 AM
Hi all,
First a few thoughts on the possibility that the Lord Lovell referred to was Morley:-
a) I didn't realise Morley was also recognised as Lord Lovell in his own time. How did that square with Francis also being Lord Lovell? As Roslyn observes, Francis died under attainder, so his honours could not have been inherited.
b) States harbouring refugees from the Wars of the Roses always continued to use their titles, whether or not they had been attainted by their enemies at home.
c)Morley was certainly in the south of England (with the court) in April and December 1488, and was granted livery of his estates the following Frebruary.
d) The Lovell name was not specifically Yorkist at this time. One of Henry VII's most ardent supporters, one of the most important 'new men' of the early Tudor period, was Sir Thomas Lovell of Barton Bendish.
d) The June 1488 safeconduct - the one mentioning Lord Luvel - was specifically for political refugees for England, and Lord Morley did not fall into that camp. The previous month a visitor to York had allegedly told people that Sir Thomas Broughton had lately landed at Ravenglass on the Cumbrian coast, although when questioned about it he denied it.
Thanks for drawing my attention to the November safeconduct. I'd not seen the text of it before and it confirms my suspicion that a lot of the Yorkists who disappeared after Stoke had taken refuge in Ireland. In English:-
"The King has granted a conduct to Richard Hardilstoun, knight, and Richard Ludelay from Ireland, Englishmen, and 40 persons with them, etc, in due form - at the instance of the Lady Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy."
So it's not necessarily an embassy, just more political refugees.
I think Richard Hardilstoun, knight, probably is Harleston, though it is worth bearing in mind that the Huddlestones of the North-West of England were diedhard Yorkists too. Sir Richad Huddlestone had died shortly before Bosworth, however, and his heir Richard may have been young and was not recognised as a knight in England. But then nor was Harleston.
Richard Harleston had been attainted after Stoke, but there was nobody with a name anything like Ludelay amongst the 1487 attaintees. I don't think this was Lovell - his safeconduct was still in force. My mum's a native Irish speaker, and I don't think there can be any Gaelic translation involved either. Not only does Ludelay not have anything in common with the Gaelic words for dog - cu, gadhar or madadh/madra - but all Gaelic surnames are patronymics. Nor do I think "de Ireland" is the surname here because it would leave us with a man with two first names, which would be anachronistic.
Know what I think? I think this man may have been an Audley, or possibly a Dudley. It might be worth taking a look at the original. I once ordered a copy of the June safeconduct and it worked very well. I'm not likely to be ordering a copy myself within the next few years, but if anyone else were to I would be quite happy to tae a look.
My own opinion about Lovell is that he did survive Stoke, although it's hard to prove it. I have a note that, according to the York records "the Lord Lovell was discomfited and fled, with Sir Thomas Broughton and many other". And that does fit in very well with the pair of them showing up together on this safeconduct a year later. All official documents refer to Lovell as attainted rather than dead for several years.
According to an article by Shelagh O'Connor in Ricardian no 96, on 16 July 1491 the Mayor of York wrote to Sir Richard Tunstall: "Sir, I have taken a simple and pure person and committed him to prison, the which went about here in your city and showed and uttered to diverse persons within the same that he spake with the Lord Lovell and Sir Thomas Broughton in Scotland, howbeit afore me he denieth that he never so said ne showed, and what your mastership thinks I should do further herein, I pray you send me word. . . "
A lot of Yorkists fade away into shadowy figures after Stoke and probably died in exile over the next few years. Lovell and Broughton may have declined the offer to take part in a conspiracy in favour of Edward IV's younger son.
Sir Thomas Broughton likewise faded out of history, and legend in his home area of Witherslack at the bottom end of the Lake District had it that he returned there and was hidden by fed by his former tenants, and what was allegedly his grave was still being pointed out a couple of hundred years later.
Marie
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> could be...but francis was attainted in 1485. his honours were forfeit. therefore, would he be still considered a lord, even if he survived? the record in question is recorded on unfriendly foreign soil. scotland and england were still quite uneasy with each other and would be for about another decade until h7 promised his daughter, margaret to the king of scots to seal the treaty of perpetual peace.
> Â
> however, one must also consider that francis's cousin henry was also the 8th lord lovell as well as lord morley. the morley title was passed to henry via his mother. henry's lovell title was inherited following the paternal line. henry's father, william was the elder son of william the 7th lord lovell. francis's father was the younger son and styled john lord lovell of tichmarsh. his son francis was viscount lovell. francis died without issue. after his demise/disappearence, therefore it is possible that henry used lord lovell by hereditary right.
> Â
> additonally, henry may have also intentionally presented himself to the scots as lord lovell to demonstrate his adherence to the house of york. the surname lovell in the waning decades of the 15thC was well connected to the plantagenets.
> Â
> it is also open to conjecture that henry, lord lovell may have also wanted to avoid confusion with lord morley being heard as lord marly. marly is the name of two different french towns. the burgandian mission was to promote an english contender to the throne.Â
> Â
> roslyn
> --- On Mon, 1/3/11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> To:
> Received: Monday, January 3, 2011, 7:50 PM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@> wrote:
> >
> > After reading your post several times, it seems you're saying Domino(lord) Lovel was actually Henry Lovel, and not his cousin Francis. I have never heard of this, and I'm not sure if I agree with it. Does anyone else have an opinion?
>
> Wasn't Henry Lovell always referred to as Lord Morley?
>
> Marie
>
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > i think there may be some confusion because of the term "domino luvel."
> > > consider...
> > > Cokayne, George Edward (1936) The Complete Peerage of England
> > > Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal, s. and h., aged 10 in 1476. In 1477 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and Piers Courtenay, Dean of St. Stephen's, Westminster. On 18 Jan. 1477/8 he was made a knight, at the marriage of Richard, Duke of York, with Anne Mowbray, suo jure Countess of Norfolk, da. of John (Mowbray), Duke of Norfolk. In 1483 he took part in the funeral of Edward IV, and on 6 July in the Coronation of Richard III. On 5 Feb. 1488/9 livery of his estates was granted to him as Henry Lovel, s. and h. of William Lovel, Lord Morley. He was not sum. to Parl. He m., at Wingfield, Suffolk, Elizabeth, da. of John (de la Pole), Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, and da. of Richard (Plantagenet), Duke of York [by Cicely, da. of Ralph (Nevill), Earl of Westmorland]. He d. s.p., 13 June 1489, being slain at Dixmude in Flanders, and was bur. at Calais. Dower was
assigned
> to
> > > his widow 31 Dec. 1489. She was bur, at Hallingbury, Essex.
> > > ÃÂ
> > > henry and francis were first cousins.
> > > ÃÂ
> > > --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > To:
> > > Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 6:02 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
> > > My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: KristineW
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > >
> > > Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
> > >
> > > If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
> > >
> > > That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
> > >
> > > I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
> > >
> > > Kris
> > >
> > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > > > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > > > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > > > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > > > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > > > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > > > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > > > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > > > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > > ---
> > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > > > French
> > > > > word fordog.
> > > > >
> > > > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > > > in
> > > > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > > > Roses.
> > > > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > > > nor
> > > > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > > > among
> > > > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > > > faolchu.
> > > > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > > > any
> > > > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kris
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > > > man,
> > > > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > > > still
> > > > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > > > from
> > > > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > > > either
> > > > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > > > issued.
> > > > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > > > The
> > > > > June
> > > > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > > > included
> > > > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > > > as
> > > > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > > > obviously
> > > > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > > > was in
> > > > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > > > that
> > > > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > > > u2nohoo@
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > > > been
> > > > > > > alive
> > > > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > safe
> > > > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > > > whether
> > > > > she
> > > > > > > knew
> > > > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > > > wanted
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > > > York.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > > > Finalist
> > > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > > > a
> > > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > > > five
> > > > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > > > forty-two
> > > > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > > > Jersey,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > > > other
> > > > > > > English
> > > > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > > > him
> > > > > > > back in
> > > > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-05 18:47:03
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
> Richard Harleston had been attainted after Stoke, but there was nobody with a name anything like Ludelay amongst the 1487 attaintees. I don't think this was Lovell - his safeconduct was still in force. My mum's a native Irish speaker, and I don't think there can be any Gaelic translation involved either. Not only does Ludelay not have anything in common with the Gaelic words for dog - cu, gadhar or madadh/madra - but all Gaelic surnames are patronymics. Nor do I think "de Ireland" is the surname here because it would leave us with a man with two first names, which would be anachronistic.
> Know what I think? I think this man may have been an Audley, or possibly a Dudley. It might be worth taking a look at the original.
Marie
I looked for a Richard Dudley by googling the name, and in a family geneology (ttp://www.joelrobinson.com/rountree/dudley.html) I find a man who lived in about the right time. He crops up in the tree of the Lords Dudley, whose surname was Sutton, but for whatever reason, he assumed the Dudley name as surname and at some point in his life he becomes Richard Dudley. It's number 16 in this list.
And in The Peerage (http://www.thepeerage.com/p37658.htm#i376578)
under Sir Richard le Fisher I find that he was also known as Richard Dudley. I think this Richard Dudley was too early to be the safe conduct guy, but maybe he had sons or grandsons who also went by Dudley. A footnote leads me to Burke's Peerage, but I don't have access to that.
My superficial riffle through the Internet didn't turn up any suitable Richard Audley.
Katy
> Richard Harleston had been attainted after Stoke, but there was nobody with a name anything like Ludelay amongst the 1487 attaintees. I don't think this was Lovell - his safeconduct was still in force. My mum's a native Irish speaker, and I don't think there can be any Gaelic translation involved either. Not only does Ludelay not have anything in common with the Gaelic words for dog - cu, gadhar or madadh/madra - but all Gaelic surnames are patronymics. Nor do I think "de Ireland" is the surname here because it would leave us with a man with two first names, which would be anachronistic.
> Know what I think? I think this man may have been an Audley, or possibly a Dudley. It might be worth taking a look at the original.
Marie
I looked for a Richard Dudley by googling the name, and in a family geneology (ttp://www.joelrobinson.com/rountree/dudley.html) I find a man who lived in about the right time. He crops up in the tree of the Lords Dudley, whose surname was Sutton, but for whatever reason, he assumed the Dudley name as surname and at some point in his life he becomes Richard Dudley. It's number 16 in this list.
And in The Peerage (http://www.thepeerage.com/p37658.htm#i376578)
under Sir Richard le Fisher I find that he was also known as Richard Dudley. I think this Richard Dudley was too early to be the safe conduct guy, but maybe he had sons or grandsons who also went by Dudley. A footnote leads me to Burke's Peerage, but I don't have access to that.
My superficial riffle through the Internet didn't turn up any suitable Richard Audley.
Katy
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-05 18:54:42
--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> I looked for a Richard Dudley by googling the name, and in a family geneology (ttp://www.joelrobinson.com/rountree/dudley.html) I find a man who lived in about the right time. He crops up in the tree of the Lords Dudley, whose surname was Sutton, but for whatever reason, he assumed the Dudley name as surname and at some point in his life he becomes Richard Dudley. It's number 16 in this list.
>
> And in The Peerage (http://www.thepeerage.com/p37658.htm#i376578)
> under Sir Richard le Fisher I find that he was also known as Richard Dudley. I think this Richard Dudley was too early to be the safe conduct guy, but maybe he had sons or grandsons who also went by Dudley. A footnote leads me to Burke's Peerage, but I don't have access to that.
>
> My superficial riffle through the Internet didn't turn up any suitable Richard Audley.
>
> Katy
PS -- I looked under Ludley, and in the Peerag(http://www.thepeerage.com/p37495.htm#i374942) I found a Willliam Ludley who hailed from Middleham. I couldn't find a date for his life, but his daughter Elizabeth married Sir Robert Knyvett, and that was in the 1600s. Too late for our guy, but perhaps it establishes that a family named Ludley lived in Richard's home area.
Katy
>
> I looked for a Richard Dudley by googling the name, and in a family geneology (ttp://www.joelrobinson.com/rountree/dudley.html) I find a man who lived in about the right time. He crops up in the tree of the Lords Dudley, whose surname was Sutton, but for whatever reason, he assumed the Dudley name as surname and at some point in his life he becomes Richard Dudley. It's number 16 in this list.
>
> And in The Peerage (http://www.thepeerage.com/p37658.htm#i376578)
> under Sir Richard le Fisher I find that he was also known as Richard Dudley. I think this Richard Dudley was too early to be the safe conduct guy, but maybe he had sons or grandsons who also went by Dudley. A footnote leads me to Burke's Peerage, but I don't have access to that.
>
> My superficial riffle through the Internet didn't turn up any suitable Richard Audley.
>
> Katy
PS -- I looked under Ludley, and in the Peerag(http://www.thepeerage.com/p37495.htm#i374942) I found a Willliam Ludley who hailed from Middleham. I couldn't find a date for his life, but his daughter Elizabeth married Sir Robert Knyvett, and that was in the 1600s. Too late for our guy, but perhaps it establishes that a family named Ludley lived in Richard's home area.
Katy
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-05 21:23:04
> PS -- I looked under Ludley, and in the Peerag(http://www.thepeerage.com/p37495.htm#i374942) I found a Willliam Ludley who hailed from Middleham. I couldn't find a date for his life, but his daughter Elizabeth married Sir Robert Knyvett, and that was in the 1600s. Too late for our guy, but perhaps it establishes that a family named Ludley lived in Richard's home area.
>
> Katy
>
Thank you, Katy! That is amazing. Both Dudley and Audley were used by the families as surnames in our period as well as the family title, even though the official surname was something else in both cases. But Ludleys from Middleham are much more plausible. They must have been of a certain status to have intermarried with the Knyvetts so hopefully it will be possible to track down 15th century ones.
Marie
>
> Katy
>
Thank you, Katy! That is amazing. Both Dudley and Audley were used by the families as surnames in our period as well as the family title, even though the official surname was something else in both cases. But Ludleys from Middleham are much more plausible. They must have been of a certain status to have intermarried with the Knyvetts so hopefully it will be possible to track down 15th century ones.
Marie
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-05 21:38:45
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> on june 11, 1488 king james iv became king after defeating his father. could this safe conduct have been for "english allies" who helped defeat his father?
Not really. The safeconduct suggests they had not yet entered Scotland.
is it possible that margaret provided mercenaries to j4's cause? would burgandy have an interest in changing the scottish rulership? what was burgandy's relationship with james iii? good or difficult?
> did the change of the scots king assist margaret with disrupting the tudor rule?
> Â
> francis was called lord lovell AND viscount lovell. francis was a higher rank than his cousin henry. both men held several lordships, mostly inherited from mothers and/or grandmothers who were the sole or joint heiress of their ancestors. quite simply francis's father, john had married better than henry's father, william. rank has its priviledges. francis obviously got to choose the lord lovell, and henry appears happy to be known as lord moreley..but did he take back the lovell surname after 1485? perhaps there is a surviving document to two that does clearly indicate he did indeed use "lord lovell".
There is some confusion here. The main points are these:-
a) Lovell was first and foremost the family surname. Both Francis and his cousin Henry were Lovells by surname.
b)"Lord" is not a rank as such, though in those days barons were the only rank generally referred to as "Lord" instead of by their actual title (in more recent centuries all holders of noble titles have tended to shorten it to "Lord" for daily purposes).
c) Francis' father had been Baron Lovell, and on his death in the 1460s, therefore, Francis inherited that title as the only son. He remained Baron Lovell until January 1483, when he was created Viscount Lovell. This was, as I understand it, an elevation of an existing honour, and did not free up the barony for passing on to other family members.
d) Cousin Henry was Henry Lovell, Baron Morley. He might be called Henry Lovell, or Lord Morley, but not Lord Lovell.
> Â
> the lovells were staunch lancasterians prior to edward iv. both francis and henry were richard's henchmen when he was in the north. a term that does not carry the same meaning as it does today.
> Â
> i believe the lovell surname became strongly connected to the yorkist side because of colingbourne's poem. despite not having the internet, these people could still communicate fairly rapidly over great distances. they used a system that was akin to the forerunner of the better known american pony express. foreign rulers would have had a keen interest with regards to the goings on in london and the british crown. messages would have been dispatched by london/court spies to the assorted foreign rules. the disruption in london and allusion to the hog would have been great and amusing gossip. if the poem had not gained "recognition" it would very be unknow to us today, and collingbourne would have very likely escaped execution.
You are forgetting Sir Thomas Lovell, Henry VII's ubiquitous axe-faced factotum - not related to Francis' family so far as anyone has been able to work out the genealogy.
> Â
> i do love your plausible interpretation of ludelay. i think looking for an audley or dudley named richard in 1488 could possibly solve the mystery of ludelay from ireland.
I'm flattered. I was quite taken with it myself, but it looks as though it may have been wrong.
Marie.
>
>
> on june 11, 1488 king james iv became king after defeating his father. could this safe conduct have been for "english allies" who helped defeat his father?
Not really. The safeconduct suggests they had not yet entered Scotland.
is it possible that margaret provided mercenaries to j4's cause? would burgandy have an interest in changing the scottish rulership? what was burgandy's relationship with james iii? good or difficult?
> did the change of the scots king assist margaret with disrupting the tudor rule?
> Â
> francis was called lord lovell AND viscount lovell. francis was a higher rank than his cousin henry. both men held several lordships, mostly inherited from mothers and/or grandmothers who were the sole or joint heiress of their ancestors. quite simply francis's father, john had married better than henry's father, william. rank has its priviledges. francis obviously got to choose the lord lovell, and henry appears happy to be known as lord moreley..but did he take back the lovell surname after 1485? perhaps there is a surviving document to two that does clearly indicate he did indeed use "lord lovell".
There is some confusion here. The main points are these:-
a) Lovell was first and foremost the family surname. Both Francis and his cousin Henry were Lovells by surname.
b)"Lord" is not a rank as such, though in those days barons were the only rank generally referred to as "Lord" instead of by their actual title (in more recent centuries all holders of noble titles have tended to shorten it to "Lord" for daily purposes).
c) Francis' father had been Baron Lovell, and on his death in the 1460s, therefore, Francis inherited that title as the only son. He remained Baron Lovell until January 1483, when he was created Viscount Lovell. This was, as I understand it, an elevation of an existing honour, and did not free up the barony for passing on to other family members.
d) Cousin Henry was Henry Lovell, Baron Morley. He might be called Henry Lovell, or Lord Morley, but not Lord Lovell.
> Â
> the lovells were staunch lancasterians prior to edward iv. both francis and henry were richard's henchmen when he was in the north. a term that does not carry the same meaning as it does today.
> Â
> i believe the lovell surname became strongly connected to the yorkist side because of colingbourne's poem. despite not having the internet, these people could still communicate fairly rapidly over great distances. they used a system that was akin to the forerunner of the better known american pony express. foreign rulers would have had a keen interest with regards to the goings on in london and the british crown. messages would have been dispatched by london/court spies to the assorted foreign rules. the disruption in london and allusion to the hog would have been great and amusing gossip. if the poem had not gained "recognition" it would very be unknow to us today, and collingbourne would have very likely escaped execution.
You are forgetting Sir Thomas Lovell, Henry VII's ubiquitous axe-faced factotum - not related to Francis' family so far as anyone has been able to work out the genealogy.
> Â
> i do love your plausible interpretation of ludelay. i think looking for an audley or dudley named richard in 1488 could possibly solve the mystery of ludelay from ireland.
I'm flattered. I was quite taken with it myself, but it looks as though it may have been wrong.
Marie.
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-06 00:31:10
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> > PS -- I looked under Ludley, and in the Peerag(http://www.thepeerage.com/p37495.htm#i374942) I found a Willliam Ludley who hailed from Middleham. I couldn't find a date for his life, but his daughter Elizabeth married Sir Robert Knyvett, and that was in the 1600s. Too late for our guy, but perhaps it establishes that a family named Ludley lived in Richard's home area.
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
>
> Thank you, Katy! That is amazing. Both Dudley and Audley were used by the families as surnames in our period as well as the family title, even though the official surname was something else in both cases. But Ludleys from Middleham are much more plausible. They must have been of a certain status to have intermarried with the Knyvetts so hopefully it will be possible to track down 15th century ones.
>
> Marie
>
By the way this Peerage (http://www.thepeerage.com/pd330.htm) also indexes surnames by location, such as Yorkshire.
Katy
>
> > PS -- I looked under Ludley, and in the Peerag(http://www.thepeerage.com/p37495.htm#i374942) I found a Willliam Ludley who hailed from Middleham. I couldn't find a date for his life, but his daughter Elizabeth married Sir Robert Knyvett, and that was in the 1600s. Too late for our guy, but perhaps it establishes that a family named Ludley lived in Richard's home area.
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
>
> Thank you, Katy! That is amazing. Both Dudley and Audley were used by the families as surnames in our period as well as the family title, even though the official surname was something else in both cases. But Ludleys from Middleham are much more plausible. They must have been of a certain status to have intermarried with the Knyvetts so hopefully it will be possible to track down 15th century ones.
>
> Marie
>
By the way this Peerage (http://www.thepeerage.com/pd330.htm) also indexes surnames by location, such as Yorkshire.
Katy
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-06 01:41:03
In Paul Murray Kendall's Richard the Third I found mention of a Lord Audeley. On researching a bit, I learned he was named John Tuchet, 6th Baron Audley (Audeley?) and was born 1423 and died 1490. He married Ann Echingham and had seven children. In the year 1484, he was made Lord Treasurer and Commissioner of array by Richard the Third.
John Tuchet's son James was executed in June 1497 at Tower Hill for being involved in the Cornish Black Heath Rebellion.
I have not yet discovered the names of John Tuchet's other six children. Maybe one of them was named Richard. If so, he could be our Richard Ludelay, Englishman. But than again, maybe not.
Kris
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> on june 11, 1488 king james iv became king after defeating his father. could this safe conduct have been for "english allies" who helped defeat his father? is it possible that margaret provided mercenaries to j4's cause? would burgandy have an interest in changing the scottish rulership? what was burgandy's relationship with james iii? good or difficult?
> did the change of the scots king assist margaret with disrupting the tudor rule?
> Â
> francis was called lord lovell AND viscount lovell. francis was a higher rank than his cousin henry. both men held several lordships, mostly inherited from mothers and/or grandmothers who were the sole or joint heiress of their ancestors. quite simply francis's father, john had married better than henry's father, william. rank has its priviledges. francis obviously got to choose the lord lovell, and henry appears happy to be known as lord moreley..but did he take back the lovell surname after 1485? perhaps there is a surviving document to two that does clearly indicate he did indeed use "lord lovell".
> Â
> the lovells were staunch lancasterians prior to edward iv. both francis and henry were richard's henchmen when he was in the north. a term that does not carry the same meaning as it does today.
> Â
> i believe the lovell surname became strongly connected to the yorkist side because of colingbourne's poem. despite not having the internet, these people could still communicate fairly rapidly over great distances. they used a system that was akin to the forerunner of the better known american pony express. foreign rulers would have had a keen interest with regards to the goings on in london and the british crown. messages would have been dispatched by london/court spies to the assorted foreign rules. the disruption in london and allusion to the hog would have been great and amusing gossip. if the poem had not gained "recognition" it would very be unknow to us today, and collingbourne would have very likely escaped execution.
> Â
> i do love your plausible interpretation of ludelay. i think looking for an audley or dudley named richard in 1488 could possibly solve the mystery of ludelay from ireland.
> Â
> roslyn
>
> --- On Tue, 1/4/11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, January 4, 2011, 7:58 AM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> First a few thoughts on the possibility that the Lord Lovell referred to was Morley:-
> a) I didn't realise Morley was also recognised as Lord Lovell in his own time. How did that square with Francis also being Lord Lovell? As Roslyn observes, Francis died under attainder, so his honours could not have been inherited.
> b) States harbouring refugees from the Wars of the Roses always continued to use their titles, whether or not they had been attainted by their enemies at home.
> c)Morley was certainly in the south of England (with the court) in April and December 1488, and was granted livery of his estates the following Frebruary.
> d) The Lovell name was not specifically Yorkist at this time. One of Henry VII's most ardent supporters, one of the most important 'new men' of the early Tudor period, was Sir Thomas Lovell of Barton Bendish.
> d) The June 1488 safeconduct - the one mentioning Lord Luvel - was specifically for political refugees for England, and Lord Morley did not fall into that camp. The previous month a visitor to York had allegedly told people that Sir Thomas Broughton had lately landed at Ravenglass on the Cumbrian coast, although when questioned about it he denied it.
>
> Thanks for drawing my attention to the November safeconduct. I'd not seen the text of it before and it confirms my suspicion that a lot of the Yorkists who disappeared after Stoke had taken refuge in Ireland. In English:-
> "The King has granted a conduct to Richard Hardilstoun, knight, and Richard Ludelay from Ireland, Englishmen, and 40 persons with them, etc, in due form - at the instance of the Lady Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy."
> So it's not necessarily an embassy, just more political refugees.
> I think Richard Hardilstoun, knight, probably is Harleston, though it is worth bearing in mind that the Huddlestones of the North-West of England were diedhard Yorkists too. Sir Richad Huddlestone had died shortly before Bosworth, however, and his heir Richard may have been young and was not recognised as a knight in England. But then nor was Harleston.
> Richard Harleston had been attainted after Stoke, but there was nobody with a name anything like Ludelay amongst the 1487 attaintees. I don't think this was Lovell - his safeconduct was still in force. My mum's a native Irish speaker, and I don't think there can be any Gaelic translation involved either. Not only does Ludelay not have anything in common with the Gaelic words for dog - cu, gadhar or madadh/madra - but all Gaelic surnames are patronymics. Nor do I think "de Ireland" is the surname here because it would leave us with a man with two first names, which would be anachronistic.
> Know what I think? I think this man may have been an Audley, or possibly a Dudley. It might be worth taking a look at the original. I once ordered a copy of the June safeconduct and it worked very well. I'm not likely to be ordering a copy myself within the next few years, but if anyone else were to I would be quite happy to tae a look.
>
> My own opinion about Lovell is that he did survive Stoke, although it's hard to prove it. I have a note that, according to the York records "the Lord Lovell was discomfited and fled, with Sir Thomas Broughton and many other". And that does fit in very well with the pair of them showing up together on this safeconduct a year later. All official documents refer to Lovell as attainted rather than dead for several years.
> According to an article by Shelagh O'Connor in Ricardian no 96, on 16 July 1491 the Mayor of York wrote to Sir Richard Tunstall: "Sir, I have taken a simple and pure person and committed him to prison, the which went about here in your city and showed and uttered to diverse persons within the same that he spake with the Lord Lovell and Sir Thomas Broughton in Scotland, howbeit afore me he denieth that he never so said ne showed, and what your mastership thinks I should do further herein, I pray you send me word. . . "
>
> A lot of Yorkists fade away into shadowy figures after Stoke and probably died in exile over the next few years. Lovell and Broughton may have declined the offer to take part in a conspiracy in favour of Edward IV's younger son.
> Sir Thomas Broughton likewise faded out of history, and legend in his home area of Witherslack at the bottom end of the Lake District had it that he returned there and was hidden by fed by his former tenants, and what was allegedly his grave was still being pointed out a couple of hundred years later.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > could be...but francis was attainted in 1485. his honours were forfeit. therefore, would he be still considered a lord, even if he survived? the record in question is recorded on unfriendly foreign soil. scotland and england were still quite uneasy with each other and would be for about another decade until h7 promised his daughter, margaret to the king of scots to seal the treaty of perpetual peace.
> > ÂÂ
> > however, one must also consider that francis's cousin henry was also the 8th lord lovell as well as lord morley. the morley title was passed to henry via his mother. henry's lovell title was inherited following the paternal line. henry's father, william was the elder son of william the 7th lord lovell. francis's father was the younger son and styled john lord lovell of tichmarsh. his son francis was viscount lovell. francis died without issue. after his demise/disappearence, therefore it is possible that henry used lord lovell by hereditary right.
> > ÂÂ
> > additonally, henry may have also intentionally presented himself to the scots as lord lovell to demonstrate his adherence to the house of york. the surname lovell in the waning decades of the 15thC was well connected to the plantagenets.
> > ÂÂ
> > it is also open to conjecture that henry, lord lovell may have also wanted to avoid confusion with lord morley being heard as lord marly. marly is the name of two different french towns. the burgandian mission was to promote an english contender to the throne.ÂÂ
> > ÂÂ
> > roslyn
> > --- On Mon, 1/3/11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > To:
> > Received: Monday, January 3, 2011, 7:50 PM
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > >
> > > After reading your post several times, it seems you're saying Domino(lord) Lovel was actually Henry Lovel, and not his cousin Francis. I have never heard of this, and I'm not sure if I agree with it. Does anyone else have an opinion?
> >
> > Wasn't Henry Lovell always referred to as Lord Morley?
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > > --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > i think there may be some confusion because of the term "domino luvel."
> > > > consider...
> > > > Cokayne, George Edward (1936) The Complete Peerage of England
> > > > Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal, s. and h., aged 10 in 1476. In 1477 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and Piers Courtenay, Dean of St. Stephen's, Westminster. On 18 Jan. 1477/8 he was made a knight, at the marriage of Richard, Duke of York, with Anne Mowbray, suo jure Countess of Norfolk, da. of John (Mowbray), Duke of Norfolk. In 1483 he took part in the funeral of Edward IV, and on 6 July in the Coronation of Richard III. On 5 Feb. 1488/9 livery of his estates was granted to him as Henry Lovel, s. and h. of William Lovel, Lord Morley. He was not sum. to Parl. He m., at Wingfield, Suffolk, Elizabeth, da. of John (de la Pole), Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, and da. of Richard (Plantagenet), Duke of York [by Cicely, da. of Ralph (Nevill), Earl of Westmorland]. He d. s.p., 13 June 1489, being slain at Dixmude in Flanders, and was bur. at Calais. Dower was
> assigned
> > to
> > > > his widow 31 Dec. 1489. She was bur, at Hallingbury, Essex.
> > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > > henry and francis were first cousins.
> > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > > --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > > To:
> > > > Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 6:02 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
> > > > My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: KristineW
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > >
> > > > Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
> > > >
> > > > If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
> > > >
> > > > That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
> > > >
> > > > Kris
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > > > > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > > > > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > > > > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > > > > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > > > > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > > > > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > > > > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > > > > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> > > > >
> > > > > Joan
> > > > > ---
> > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > > > > French
> > > > > > word fordog.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > > > > in
> > > > > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > > > > Roses.
> > > > > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > > > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > > > > nor
> > > > > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > > > > among
> > > > > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > > > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > > > > faolchu.
> > > > > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > > > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > > > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > > > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > > > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > > > > any
> > > > > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > > > > man,
> > > > > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > > > > still
> > > > > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > > > > either
> > > > > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > > > > issued.
> > > > > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > June
> > > > > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > > > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > > > > obviously
> > > > > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > > > > was in
> > > > > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > > > > u2nohoo@
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > alive
> > > > > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > safe
> > > > > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > > > > whether
> > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > knew
> > > > > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > > > > wanted
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > > > > York.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > > > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > > > > Finalist
> > > > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > > > > five
> > > > > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > > > > forty-two
> > > > > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > > > > Jersey,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > > > > other
> > > > > > > > English
> > > > > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > > > > him
> > > > > > > > back in
> > > > > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
John Tuchet's son James was executed in June 1497 at Tower Hill for being involved in the Cornish Black Heath Rebellion.
I have not yet discovered the names of John Tuchet's other six children. Maybe one of them was named Richard. If so, he could be our Richard Ludelay, Englishman. But than again, maybe not.
Kris
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> on june 11, 1488 king james iv became king after defeating his father. could this safe conduct have been for "english allies" who helped defeat his father? is it possible that margaret provided mercenaries to j4's cause? would burgandy have an interest in changing the scottish rulership? what was burgandy's relationship with james iii? good or difficult?
> did the change of the scots king assist margaret with disrupting the tudor rule?
> Â
> francis was called lord lovell AND viscount lovell. francis was a higher rank than his cousin henry. both men held several lordships, mostly inherited from mothers and/or grandmothers who were the sole or joint heiress of their ancestors. quite simply francis's father, john had married better than henry's father, william. rank has its priviledges. francis obviously got to choose the lord lovell, and henry appears happy to be known as lord moreley..but did he take back the lovell surname after 1485? perhaps there is a surviving document to two that does clearly indicate he did indeed use "lord lovell".
> Â
> the lovells were staunch lancasterians prior to edward iv. both francis and henry were richard's henchmen when he was in the north. a term that does not carry the same meaning as it does today.
> Â
> i believe the lovell surname became strongly connected to the yorkist side because of colingbourne's poem. despite not having the internet, these people could still communicate fairly rapidly over great distances. they used a system that was akin to the forerunner of the better known american pony express. foreign rulers would have had a keen interest with regards to the goings on in london and the british crown. messages would have been dispatched by london/court spies to the assorted foreign rules. the disruption in london and allusion to the hog would have been great and amusing gossip. if the poem had not gained "recognition" it would very be unknow to us today, and collingbourne would have very likely escaped execution.
> Â
> i do love your plausible interpretation of ludelay. i think looking for an audley or dudley named richard in 1488 could possibly solve the mystery of ludelay from ireland.
> Â
> roslyn
>
> --- On Tue, 1/4/11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, January 4, 2011, 7:58 AM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> First a few thoughts on the possibility that the Lord Lovell referred to was Morley:-
> a) I didn't realise Morley was also recognised as Lord Lovell in his own time. How did that square with Francis also being Lord Lovell? As Roslyn observes, Francis died under attainder, so his honours could not have been inherited.
> b) States harbouring refugees from the Wars of the Roses always continued to use their titles, whether or not they had been attainted by their enemies at home.
> c)Morley was certainly in the south of England (with the court) in April and December 1488, and was granted livery of his estates the following Frebruary.
> d) The Lovell name was not specifically Yorkist at this time. One of Henry VII's most ardent supporters, one of the most important 'new men' of the early Tudor period, was Sir Thomas Lovell of Barton Bendish.
> d) The June 1488 safeconduct - the one mentioning Lord Luvel - was specifically for political refugees for England, and Lord Morley did not fall into that camp. The previous month a visitor to York had allegedly told people that Sir Thomas Broughton had lately landed at Ravenglass on the Cumbrian coast, although when questioned about it he denied it.
>
> Thanks for drawing my attention to the November safeconduct. I'd not seen the text of it before and it confirms my suspicion that a lot of the Yorkists who disappeared after Stoke had taken refuge in Ireland. In English:-
> "The King has granted a conduct to Richard Hardilstoun, knight, and Richard Ludelay from Ireland, Englishmen, and 40 persons with them, etc, in due form - at the instance of the Lady Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy."
> So it's not necessarily an embassy, just more political refugees.
> I think Richard Hardilstoun, knight, probably is Harleston, though it is worth bearing in mind that the Huddlestones of the North-West of England were diedhard Yorkists too. Sir Richad Huddlestone had died shortly before Bosworth, however, and his heir Richard may have been young and was not recognised as a knight in England. But then nor was Harleston.
> Richard Harleston had been attainted after Stoke, but there was nobody with a name anything like Ludelay amongst the 1487 attaintees. I don't think this was Lovell - his safeconduct was still in force. My mum's a native Irish speaker, and I don't think there can be any Gaelic translation involved either. Not only does Ludelay not have anything in common with the Gaelic words for dog - cu, gadhar or madadh/madra - but all Gaelic surnames are patronymics. Nor do I think "de Ireland" is the surname here because it would leave us with a man with two first names, which would be anachronistic.
> Know what I think? I think this man may have been an Audley, or possibly a Dudley. It might be worth taking a look at the original. I once ordered a copy of the June safeconduct and it worked very well. I'm not likely to be ordering a copy myself within the next few years, but if anyone else were to I would be quite happy to tae a look.
>
> My own opinion about Lovell is that he did survive Stoke, although it's hard to prove it. I have a note that, according to the York records "the Lord Lovell was discomfited and fled, with Sir Thomas Broughton and many other". And that does fit in very well with the pair of them showing up together on this safeconduct a year later. All official documents refer to Lovell as attainted rather than dead for several years.
> According to an article by Shelagh O'Connor in Ricardian no 96, on 16 July 1491 the Mayor of York wrote to Sir Richard Tunstall: "Sir, I have taken a simple and pure person and committed him to prison, the which went about here in your city and showed and uttered to diverse persons within the same that he spake with the Lord Lovell and Sir Thomas Broughton in Scotland, howbeit afore me he denieth that he never so said ne showed, and what your mastership thinks I should do further herein, I pray you send me word. . . "
>
> A lot of Yorkists fade away into shadowy figures after Stoke and probably died in exile over the next few years. Lovell and Broughton may have declined the offer to take part in a conspiracy in favour of Edward IV's younger son.
> Sir Thomas Broughton likewise faded out of history, and legend in his home area of Witherslack at the bottom end of the Lake District had it that he returned there and was hidden by fed by his former tenants, and what was allegedly his grave was still being pointed out a couple of hundred years later.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > could be...but francis was attainted in 1485. his honours were forfeit. therefore, would he be still considered a lord, even if he survived? the record in question is recorded on unfriendly foreign soil. scotland and england were still quite uneasy with each other and would be for about another decade until h7 promised his daughter, margaret to the king of scots to seal the treaty of perpetual peace.
> > ÂÂ
> > however, one must also consider that francis's cousin henry was also the 8th lord lovell as well as lord morley. the morley title was passed to henry via his mother. henry's lovell title was inherited following the paternal line. henry's father, william was the elder son of william the 7th lord lovell. francis's father was the younger son and styled john lord lovell of tichmarsh. his son francis was viscount lovell. francis died without issue. after his demise/disappearence, therefore it is possible that henry used lord lovell by hereditary right.
> > ÂÂ
> > additonally, henry may have also intentionally presented himself to the scots as lord lovell to demonstrate his adherence to the house of york. the surname lovell in the waning decades of the 15thC was well connected to the plantagenets.
> > ÂÂ
> > it is also open to conjecture that henry, lord lovell may have also wanted to avoid confusion with lord morley being heard as lord marly. marly is the name of two different french towns. the burgandian mission was to promote an english contender to the throne.ÂÂ
> > ÂÂ
> > roslyn
> > --- On Mon, 1/3/11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > To:
> > Received: Monday, January 3, 2011, 7:50 PM
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > >
> > > After reading your post several times, it seems you're saying Domino(lord) Lovel was actually Henry Lovel, and not his cousin Francis. I have never heard of this, and I'm not sure if I agree with it. Does anyone else have an opinion?
> >
> > Wasn't Henry Lovell always referred to as Lord Morley?
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > > --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > i think there may be some confusion because of the term "domino luvel."
> > > > consider...
> > > > Cokayne, George Edward (1936) The Complete Peerage of England
> > > > Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal, s. and h., aged 10 in 1476. In 1477 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and Piers Courtenay, Dean of St. Stephen's, Westminster. On 18 Jan. 1477/8 he was made a knight, at the marriage of Richard, Duke of York, with Anne Mowbray, suo jure Countess of Norfolk, da. of John (Mowbray), Duke of Norfolk. In 1483 he took part in the funeral of Edward IV, and on 6 July in the Coronation of Richard III. On 5 Feb. 1488/9 livery of his estates was granted to him as Henry Lovel, s. and h. of William Lovel, Lord Morley. He was not sum. to Parl. He m., at Wingfield, Suffolk, Elizabeth, da. of John (de la Pole), Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, and da. of Richard (Plantagenet), Duke of York [by Cicely, da. of Ralph (Nevill), Earl of Westmorland]. He d. s.p., 13 June 1489, being slain at Dixmude in Flanders, and was bur. at Calais. Dower was
> assigned
> > to
> > > > his widow 31 Dec. 1489. She was bur, at Hallingbury, Essex.
> > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > > henry and francis were first cousins.
> > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > > --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > > To:
> > > > Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 6:02 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
> > > > My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: KristineW
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > >
> > > > Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
> > > >
> > > > If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
> > > >
> > > > That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
> > > >
> > > > Kris
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > > > > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > > > > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > > > > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > > > > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > > > > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > > > > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > > > > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > > > > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> > > > >
> > > > > Joan
> > > > > ---
> > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > > > > French
> > > > > > word fordog.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > > > > in
> > > > > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > > > > Roses.
> > > > > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > > > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > > > > nor
> > > > > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > > > > among
> > > > > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > > > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > > > > faolchu.
> > > > > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > > > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > > > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > > > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > > > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > > > > any
> > > > > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > > > > man,
> > > > > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > > > > still
> > > > > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > > > > either
> > > > > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > > > > issued.
> > > > > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > June
> > > > > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > > > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > > > > obviously
> > > > > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > > > > was in
> > > > > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > > > > u2nohoo@
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > alive
> > > > > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > safe
> > > > > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > > > > whether
> > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > knew
> > > > > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > > > > wanted
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > > > > York.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > > > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > > > > Finalist
> > > > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > > > > five
> > > > > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > > > > forty-two
> > > > > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > > > > Jersey,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > > > > other
> > > > > > > > English
> > > > > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > > > > him
> > > > > > > > back in
> > > > > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-06 01:46:16
I just read some of the other posts and I see the Audley connection was already made. At least we're all on the same page!
--- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> In Paul Murray Kendall's Richard the Third I found mention of a Lord Audeley. On researching a bit, I learned he was named John Tuchet, 6th Baron Audley (Audeley?) and was born 1423 and died 1490. He married Ann Echingham and had seven children. In the year 1484, he was made Lord Treasurer and Commissioner of array by Richard the Third.
>
> John Tuchet's son James was executed in June 1497 at Tower Hill for being involved in the Cornish Black Heath Rebellion.
>
> I have not yet discovered the names of John Tuchet's other six children. Maybe one of them was named Richard. If so, he could be our Richard Ludelay, Englishman. But than again, maybe not.
>
> Kris
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > on june 11, 1488 king james iv became king after defeating his father. could this safe conduct have been for "english allies" who helped defeat his father? is it possible that margaret provided mercenaries to j4's cause? would burgandy have an interest in changing the scottish rulership? what was burgandy's relationship with james iii? good or difficult?
> > did the change of the scots king assist margaret with disrupting the tudor rule?
> > Â
> > francis was called lord lovell AND viscount lovell. francis was a higher rank than his cousin henry. both men held several lordships, mostly inherited from mothers and/or grandmothers who were the sole or joint heiress of their ancestors. quite simply francis's father, john had married better than henry's father, william. rank has its priviledges. francis obviously got to choose the lord lovell, and henry appears happy to be known as lord moreley..but did he take back the lovell surname after 1485? perhaps there is a surviving document to two that does clearly indicate he did indeed use "lord lovell".
> > Â
> > the lovells were staunch lancasterians prior to edward iv. both francis and henry were richard's henchmen when he was in the north. a term that does not carry the same meaning as it does today.
> > Â
> > i believe the lovell surname became strongly connected to the yorkist side because of colingbourne's poem. despite not having the internet, these people could still communicate fairly rapidly over great distances. they used a system that was akin to the forerunner of the better known american pony express. foreign rulers would have had a keen interest with regards to the goings on in london and the british crown. messages would have been dispatched by london/court spies to the assorted foreign rules. the disruption in london and allusion to the hog would have been great and amusing gossip. if the poem had not gained "recognition" it would very be unknow to us today, and collingbourne would have very likely escaped execution.
> > Â
> > i do love your plausible interpretation of ludelay. i think looking for an audley or dudley named richard in 1488 could possibly solve the mystery of ludelay from ireland.
> > Â
> > roslyn
> >
> > --- On Tue, 1/4/11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > To:
> > Received: Tuesday, January 4, 2011, 7:58 AM
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > First a few thoughts on the possibility that the Lord Lovell referred to was Morley:-
> > a) I didn't realise Morley was also recognised as Lord Lovell in his own time. How did that square with Francis also being Lord Lovell? As Roslyn observes, Francis died under attainder, so his honours could not have been inherited.
> > b) States harbouring refugees from the Wars of the Roses always continued to use their titles, whether or not they had been attainted by their enemies at home.
> > c)Morley was certainly in the south of England (with the court) in April and December 1488, and was granted livery of his estates the following Frebruary.
> > d) The Lovell name was not specifically Yorkist at this time. One of Henry VII's most ardent supporters, one of the most important 'new men' of the early Tudor period, was Sir Thomas Lovell of Barton Bendish.
> > d) The June 1488 safeconduct - the one mentioning Lord Luvel - was specifically for political refugees for England, and Lord Morley did not fall into that camp. The previous month a visitor to York had allegedly told people that Sir Thomas Broughton had lately landed at Ravenglass on the Cumbrian coast, although when questioned about it he denied it.
> >
> > Thanks for drawing my attention to the November safeconduct. I'd not seen the text of it before and it confirms my suspicion that a lot of the Yorkists who disappeared after Stoke had taken refuge in Ireland. In English:-
> > "The King has granted a conduct to Richard Hardilstoun, knight, and Richard Ludelay from Ireland, Englishmen, and 40 persons with them, etc, in due form - at the instance of the Lady Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy."
> > So it's not necessarily an embassy, just more political refugees.
> > I think Richard Hardilstoun, knight, probably is Harleston, though it is worth bearing in mind that the Huddlestones of the North-West of England were diedhard Yorkists too. Sir Richad Huddlestone had died shortly before Bosworth, however, and his heir Richard may have been young and was not recognised as a knight in England. But then nor was Harleston.
> > Richard Harleston had been attainted after Stoke, but there was nobody with a name anything like Ludelay amongst the 1487 attaintees. I don't think this was Lovell - his safeconduct was still in force. My mum's a native Irish speaker, and I don't think there can be any Gaelic translation involved either. Not only does Ludelay not have anything in common with the Gaelic words for dog - cu, gadhar or madadh/madra - but all Gaelic surnames are patronymics. Nor do I think "de Ireland" is the surname here because it would leave us with a man with two first names, which would be anachronistic.
> > Know what I think? I think this man may have been an Audley, or possibly a Dudley. It might be worth taking a look at the original. I once ordered a copy of the June safeconduct and it worked very well. I'm not likely to be ordering a copy myself within the next few years, but if anyone else were to I would be quite happy to tae a look.
> >
> > My own opinion about Lovell is that he did survive Stoke, although it's hard to prove it. I have a note that, according to the York records "the Lord Lovell was discomfited and fled, with Sir Thomas Broughton and many other". And that does fit in very well with the pair of them showing up together on this safeconduct a year later. All official documents refer to Lovell as attainted rather than dead for several years.
> > According to an article by Shelagh O'Connor in Ricardian no 96, on 16 July 1491 the Mayor of York wrote to Sir Richard Tunstall: "Sir, I have taken a simple and pure person and committed him to prison, the which went about here in your city and showed and uttered to diverse persons within the same that he spake with the Lord Lovell and Sir Thomas Broughton in Scotland, howbeit afore me he denieth that he never so said ne showed, and what your mastership thinks I should do further herein, I pray you send me word. . . "
> >
> > A lot of Yorkists fade away into shadowy figures after Stoke and probably died in exile over the next few years. Lovell and Broughton may have declined the offer to take part in a conspiracy in favour of Edward IV's younger son.
> > Sir Thomas Broughton likewise faded out of history, and legend in his home area of Witherslack at the bottom end of the Lake District had it that he returned there and was hidden by fed by his former tenants, and what was allegedly his grave was still being pointed out a couple of hundred years later.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > could be...but francis was attainted in 1485. his honours were forfeit. therefore, would he be still considered a lord, even if he survived? the record in question is recorded on unfriendly foreign soil. scotland and england were still quite uneasy with each other and would be for about another decade until h7 promised his daughter, margaret to the king of scots to seal the treaty of perpetual peace.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > however, one must also consider that francis's cousin henry was also the 8th lord lovell as well as lord morley. the morley title was passed to henry via his mother. henry's lovell title was inherited following the paternal line. henry's father, william was the elder son of william the 7th lord lovell. francis's father was the younger son and styled john lord lovell of tichmarsh. his son francis was viscount lovell. francis died without issue. after his demise/disappearence, therefore it is possible that henry used lord lovell by hereditary right.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > additonally, henry may have also intentionally presented himself to the scots as lord lovell to demonstrate his adherence to the house of york. the surname lovell in the waning decades of the 15thC was well connected to the plantagenets.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > it is also open to conjecture that henry, lord lovell may have also wanted to avoid confusion with lord morley being heard as lord marly. marly is the name of two different french towns. the burgandian mission was to promote an english contender to the throne.ÂÂ
> > > ÂÂ
> > > roslyn
> > > --- On Mon, 1/3/11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > To:
> > > Received: Monday, January 3, 2011, 7:50 PM
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > After reading your post several times, it seems you're saying Domino(lord) Lovel was actually Henry Lovel, and not his cousin Francis. I have never heard of this, and I'm not sure if I agree with it. Does anyone else have an opinion?
> > >
> > > Wasn't Henry Lovell always referred to as Lord Morley?
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > i think there may be some confusion because of the term "domino luvel."
> > > > > consider...
> > > > > Cokayne, George Edward (1936) The Complete Peerage of England
> > > > > Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal, s. and h., aged 10 in 1476. In 1477 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and Piers Courtenay, Dean of St. Stephen's, Westminster. On 18 Jan. 1477/8 he was made a knight, at the marriage of Richard, Duke of York, with Anne Mowbray, suo jure Countess of Norfolk, da. of John (Mowbray), Duke of Norfolk. In 1483 he took part in the funeral of Edward IV, and on 6 July in the Coronation of Richard III. On 5 Feb. 1488/9 livery of his estates was granted to him as Henry Lovel, s. and h. of William Lovel, Lord Morley. He was not sum. to Parl. He m., at Wingfield, Suffolk, Elizabeth, da. of John (de la Pole), Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, and da. of Richard (Plantagenet), Duke of York [by Cicely, da. of Ralph (Nevill), Earl of Westmorland]. He d. s.p., 13 June 1489, being slain at Dixmude in Flanders, and was bur. at Calais. Dower was
> > assigned
> > > to
> > > > > his widow 31 Dec. 1489. She was bur, at Hallingbury, Essex.
> > > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > > > henry and francis were first cousins.
> > > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > > > --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 6:02 AM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
> > > > > My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: KristineW
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > > >
> > > > > Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
> > > > >
> > > > > I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kris
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > > > > > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > > > > > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > > > > > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > > > > > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > > > > > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > > > > > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > > > > > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > > > > > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > > > > > French
> > > > > > > word fordog.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > > > > > Roses.
> > > > > > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > > > > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > > > > > nor
> > > > > > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > > > > > among
> > > > > > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > > > > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > > > > > faolchu.
> > > > > > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > > > > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > > > > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > > > > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > > > > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > > > > > man,
> > > > > > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > > > > > either
> > > > > > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > > > > > issued.
> > > > > > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > June
> > > > > > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > > > > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > > > > > obviously
> > > > > > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > > > > > was in
> > > > > > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > > > > > u2nohoo@
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > alive
> > > > > > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > safe
> > > > > > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > > knew
> > > > > > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > > > > > wanted
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > > > > > York.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > > > > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > > > > > Finalist
> > > > > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > > > > > five
> > > > > > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > > > > > forty-two
> > > > > > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > > > > > Jersey,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > English
> > > > > > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > > > > > him
> > > > > > > > > back in
> > > > > > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> In Paul Murray Kendall's Richard the Third I found mention of a Lord Audeley. On researching a bit, I learned he was named John Tuchet, 6th Baron Audley (Audeley?) and was born 1423 and died 1490. He married Ann Echingham and had seven children. In the year 1484, he was made Lord Treasurer and Commissioner of array by Richard the Third.
>
> John Tuchet's son James was executed in June 1497 at Tower Hill for being involved in the Cornish Black Heath Rebellion.
>
> I have not yet discovered the names of John Tuchet's other six children. Maybe one of them was named Richard. If so, he could be our Richard Ludelay, Englishman. But than again, maybe not.
>
> Kris
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > on june 11, 1488 king james iv became king after defeating his father. could this safe conduct have been for "english allies" who helped defeat his father? is it possible that margaret provided mercenaries to j4's cause? would burgandy have an interest in changing the scottish rulership? what was burgandy's relationship with james iii? good or difficult?
> > did the change of the scots king assist margaret with disrupting the tudor rule?
> > Â
> > francis was called lord lovell AND viscount lovell. francis was a higher rank than his cousin henry. both men held several lordships, mostly inherited from mothers and/or grandmothers who were the sole or joint heiress of their ancestors. quite simply francis's father, john had married better than henry's father, william. rank has its priviledges. francis obviously got to choose the lord lovell, and henry appears happy to be known as lord moreley..but did he take back the lovell surname after 1485? perhaps there is a surviving document to two that does clearly indicate he did indeed use "lord lovell".
> > Â
> > the lovells were staunch lancasterians prior to edward iv. both francis and henry were richard's henchmen when he was in the north. a term that does not carry the same meaning as it does today.
> > Â
> > i believe the lovell surname became strongly connected to the yorkist side because of colingbourne's poem. despite not having the internet, these people could still communicate fairly rapidly over great distances. they used a system that was akin to the forerunner of the better known american pony express. foreign rulers would have had a keen interest with regards to the goings on in london and the british crown. messages would have been dispatched by london/court spies to the assorted foreign rules. the disruption in london and allusion to the hog would have been great and amusing gossip. if the poem had not gained "recognition" it would very be unknow to us today, and collingbourne would have very likely escaped execution.
> > Â
> > i do love your plausible interpretation of ludelay. i think looking for an audley or dudley named richard in 1488 could possibly solve the mystery of ludelay from ireland.
> > Â
> > roslyn
> >
> > --- On Tue, 1/4/11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > To:
> > Received: Tuesday, January 4, 2011, 7:58 AM
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > First a few thoughts on the possibility that the Lord Lovell referred to was Morley:-
> > a) I didn't realise Morley was also recognised as Lord Lovell in his own time. How did that square with Francis also being Lord Lovell? As Roslyn observes, Francis died under attainder, so his honours could not have been inherited.
> > b) States harbouring refugees from the Wars of the Roses always continued to use their titles, whether or not they had been attainted by their enemies at home.
> > c)Morley was certainly in the south of England (with the court) in April and December 1488, and was granted livery of his estates the following Frebruary.
> > d) The Lovell name was not specifically Yorkist at this time. One of Henry VII's most ardent supporters, one of the most important 'new men' of the early Tudor period, was Sir Thomas Lovell of Barton Bendish.
> > d) The June 1488 safeconduct - the one mentioning Lord Luvel - was specifically for political refugees for England, and Lord Morley did not fall into that camp. The previous month a visitor to York had allegedly told people that Sir Thomas Broughton had lately landed at Ravenglass on the Cumbrian coast, although when questioned about it he denied it.
> >
> > Thanks for drawing my attention to the November safeconduct. I'd not seen the text of it before and it confirms my suspicion that a lot of the Yorkists who disappeared after Stoke had taken refuge in Ireland. In English:-
> > "The King has granted a conduct to Richard Hardilstoun, knight, and Richard Ludelay from Ireland, Englishmen, and 40 persons with them, etc, in due form - at the instance of the Lady Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy."
> > So it's not necessarily an embassy, just more political refugees.
> > I think Richard Hardilstoun, knight, probably is Harleston, though it is worth bearing in mind that the Huddlestones of the North-West of England were diedhard Yorkists too. Sir Richad Huddlestone had died shortly before Bosworth, however, and his heir Richard may have been young and was not recognised as a knight in England. But then nor was Harleston.
> > Richard Harleston had been attainted after Stoke, but there was nobody with a name anything like Ludelay amongst the 1487 attaintees. I don't think this was Lovell - his safeconduct was still in force. My mum's a native Irish speaker, and I don't think there can be any Gaelic translation involved either. Not only does Ludelay not have anything in common with the Gaelic words for dog - cu, gadhar or madadh/madra - but all Gaelic surnames are patronymics. Nor do I think "de Ireland" is the surname here because it would leave us with a man with two first names, which would be anachronistic.
> > Know what I think? I think this man may have been an Audley, or possibly a Dudley. It might be worth taking a look at the original. I once ordered a copy of the June safeconduct and it worked very well. I'm not likely to be ordering a copy myself within the next few years, but if anyone else were to I would be quite happy to tae a look.
> >
> > My own opinion about Lovell is that he did survive Stoke, although it's hard to prove it. I have a note that, according to the York records "the Lord Lovell was discomfited and fled, with Sir Thomas Broughton and many other". And that does fit in very well with the pair of them showing up together on this safeconduct a year later. All official documents refer to Lovell as attainted rather than dead for several years.
> > According to an article by Shelagh O'Connor in Ricardian no 96, on 16 July 1491 the Mayor of York wrote to Sir Richard Tunstall: "Sir, I have taken a simple and pure person and committed him to prison, the which went about here in your city and showed and uttered to diverse persons within the same that he spake with the Lord Lovell and Sir Thomas Broughton in Scotland, howbeit afore me he denieth that he never so said ne showed, and what your mastership thinks I should do further herein, I pray you send me word. . . "
> >
> > A lot of Yorkists fade away into shadowy figures after Stoke and probably died in exile over the next few years. Lovell and Broughton may have declined the offer to take part in a conspiracy in favour of Edward IV's younger son.
> > Sir Thomas Broughton likewise faded out of history, and legend in his home area of Witherslack at the bottom end of the Lake District had it that he returned there and was hidden by fed by his former tenants, and what was allegedly his grave was still being pointed out a couple of hundred years later.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > could be...but francis was attainted in 1485. his honours were forfeit. therefore, would he be still considered a lord, even if he survived? the record in question is recorded on unfriendly foreign soil. scotland and england were still quite uneasy with each other and would be for about another decade until h7 promised his daughter, margaret to the king of scots to seal the treaty of perpetual peace.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > however, one must also consider that francis's cousin henry was also the 8th lord lovell as well as lord morley. the morley title was passed to henry via his mother. henry's lovell title was inherited following the paternal line. henry's father, william was the elder son of william the 7th lord lovell. francis's father was the younger son and styled john lord lovell of tichmarsh. his son francis was viscount lovell. francis died without issue. after his demise/disappearence, therefore it is possible that henry used lord lovell by hereditary right.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > additonally, henry may have also intentionally presented himself to the scots as lord lovell to demonstrate his adherence to the house of york. the surname lovell in the waning decades of the 15thC was well connected to the plantagenets.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > it is also open to conjecture that henry, lord lovell may have also wanted to avoid confusion with lord morley being heard as lord marly. marly is the name of two different french towns. the burgandian mission was to promote an english contender to the throne.ÂÂ
> > > ÂÂ
> > > roslyn
> > > --- On Mon, 1/3/11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > To:
> > > Received: Monday, January 3, 2011, 7:50 PM
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > After reading your post several times, it seems you're saying Domino(lord) Lovel was actually Henry Lovel, and not his cousin Francis. I have never heard of this, and I'm not sure if I agree with it. Does anyone else have an opinion?
> > >
> > > Wasn't Henry Lovell always referred to as Lord Morley?
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > i think there may be some confusion because of the term "domino luvel."
> > > > > consider...
> > > > > Cokayne, George Edward (1936) The Complete Peerage of England
> > > > > Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal, s. and h., aged 10 in 1476. In 1477 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and Piers Courtenay, Dean of St. Stephen's, Westminster. On 18 Jan. 1477/8 he was made a knight, at the marriage of Richard, Duke of York, with Anne Mowbray, suo jure Countess of Norfolk, da. of John (Mowbray), Duke of Norfolk. In 1483 he took part in the funeral of Edward IV, and on 6 July in the Coronation of Richard III. On 5 Feb. 1488/9 livery of his estates was granted to him as Henry Lovel, s. and h. of William Lovel, Lord Morley. He was not sum. to Parl. He m., at Wingfield, Suffolk, Elizabeth, da. of John (de la Pole), Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, and da. of Richard (Plantagenet), Duke of York [by Cicely, da. of Ralph (Nevill), Earl of Westmorland]. He d. s.p., 13 June 1489, being slain at Dixmude in Flanders, and was bur. at Calais. Dower was
> > assigned
> > > to
> > > > > his widow 31 Dec. 1489. She was bur, at Hallingbury, Essex.
> > > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > > > henry and francis were first cousins.
> > > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > > > --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 6:02 AM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
> > > > > My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: KristineW
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > > >
> > > > > Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
> > > > >
> > > > > I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kris
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > > > > > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > > > > > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > > > > > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > > > > > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > > > > > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > > > > > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > > > > > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > > > > > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > > > > > French
> > > > > > > word fordog.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > > > > > Roses.
> > > > > > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > > > > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > > > > > nor
> > > > > > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > > > > > among
> > > > > > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > > > > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > > > > > faolchu.
> > > > > > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > > > > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > > > > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > > > > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > > > > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > > > > > man,
> > > > > > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > > > > > either
> > > > > > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > > > > > issued.
> > > > > > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > June
> > > > > > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > > > > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > > > > > obviously
> > > > > > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > > > > > was in
> > > > > > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > > > > > u2nohoo@
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > alive
> > > > > > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > safe
> > > > > > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > > knew
> > > > > > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > > > > > wanted
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > > > > > York.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > > > > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > > > > > Finalist
> > > > > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > > > > > five
> > > > > > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > > > > > forty-two
> > > > > > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > > > > > Jersey,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > English
> > > > > > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > > > > > him
> > > > > > > > > back in
> > > > > > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-06 02:38:03
One last post. As far as I can tell, James Tuchet, Lord Audley had an older brother named Edward, and a younger brother named John. There doesn't seem to be any Richards. They must have had four sisters. This research thing is habit forming.
The Ludley Family sounds promising.
Kris
--- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> I just read some of the other posts and I see the Audley connection was already made. At least we're all on the same page!
>
> --- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > In Paul Murray Kendall's Richard the Third I found mention of a Lord Audeley. On researching a bit, I learned he was named John Tuchet, 6th Baron Audley (Audeley?) and was born 1423 and died 1490. He married Ann Echingham and had seven children. In the year 1484, he was made Lord Treasurer and Commissioner of array by Richard the Third.
> >
> > John Tuchet's son James was executed in June 1497 at Tower Hill for being involved in the Cornish Black Heath Rebellion.
> >
> > I have not yet discovered the names of John Tuchet's other six children. Maybe one of them was named Richard. If so, he could be our Richard Ludelay, Englishman. But than again, maybe not.
> >
> > Kris
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > on june 11, 1488 king james iv became king after defeating his father. could this safe conduct have been for "english allies" who helped defeat his father? is it possible that margaret provided mercenaries to j4's cause? would burgandy have an interest in changing the scottish rulership? what was burgandy's relationship with james iii? good or difficult?
> > > did the change of the scots king assist margaret with disrupting the tudor rule?
> > > Â
> > > francis was called lord lovell AND viscount lovell. francis was a higher rank than his cousin henry. both men held several lordships, mostly inherited from mothers and/or grandmothers who were the sole or joint heiress of their ancestors. quite simply francis's father, john had married better than henry's father, william. rank has its priviledges. francis obviously got to choose the lord lovell, and henry appears happy to be known as lord moreley..but did he take back the lovell surname after 1485? perhaps there is a surviving document to two that does clearly indicate he did indeed use "lord lovell".
> > > Â
> > > the lovells were staunch lancasterians prior to edward iv. both francis and henry were richard's henchmen when he was in the north. a term that does not carry the same meaning as it does today.
> > > Â
> > > i believe the lovell surname became strongly connected to the yorkist side because of colingbourne's poem. despite not having the internet, these people could still communicate fairly rapidly over great distances. they used a system that was akin to the forerunner of the better known american pony express. foreign rulers would have had a keen interest with regards to the goings on in london and the british crown. messages would have been dispatched by london/court spies to the assorted foreign rules. the disruption in london and allusion to the hog would have been great and amusing gossip. if the poem had not gained "recognition" it would very be unknow to us today, and collingbourne would have very likely escaped execution.
> > > Â
> > > i do love your plausible interpretation of ludelay. i think looking for an audley or dudley named richard in 1488 could possibly solve the mystery of ludelay from ireland.
> > > Â
> > > roslyn
> > >
> > > --- On Tue, 1/4/11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > To:
> > > Received: Tuesday, January 4, 2011, 7:58 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > First a few thoughts on the possibility that the Lord Lovell referred to was Morley:-
> > > a) I didn't realise Morley was also recognised as Lord Lovell in his own time. How did that square with Francis also being Lord Lovell? As Roslyn observes, Francis died under attainder, so his honours could not have been inherited.
> > > b) States harbouring refugees from the Wars of the Roses always continued to use their titles, whether or not they had been attainted by their enemies at home.
> > > c)Morley was certainly in the south of England (with the court) in April and December 1488, and was granted livery of his estates the following Frebruary.
> > > d) The Lovell name was not specifically Yorkist at this time. One of Henry VII's most ardent supporters, one of the most important 'new men' of the early Tudor period, was Sir Thomas Lovell of Barton Bendish.
> > > d) The June 1488 safeconduct - the one mentioning Lord Luvel - was specifically for political refugees for England, and Lord Morley did not fall into that camp. The previous month a visitor to York had allegedly told people that Sir Thomas Broughton had lately landed at Ravenglass on the Cumbrian coast, although when questioned about it he denied it.
> > >
> > > Thanks for drawing my attention to the November safeconduct. I'd not seen the text of it before and it confirms my suspicion that a lot of the Yorkists who disappeared after Stoke had taken refuge in Ireland. In English:-
> > > "The King has granted a conduct to Richard Hardilstoun, knight, and Richard Ludelay from Ireland, Englishmen, and 40 persons with them, etc, in due form - at the instance of the Lady Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy."
> > > So it's not necessarily an embassy, just more political refugees.
> > > I think Richard Hardilstoun, knight, probably is Harleston, though it is worth bearing in mind that the Huddlestones of the North-West of England were diedhard Yorkists too. Sir Richad Huddlestone had died shortly before Bosworth, however, and his heir Richard may have been young and was not recognised as a knight in England. But then nor was Harleston.
> > > Richard Harleston had been attainted after Stoke, but there was nobody with a name anything like Ludelay amongst the 1487 attaintees. I don't think this was Lovell - his safeconduct was still in force. My mum's a native Irish speaker, and I don't think there can be any Gaelic translation involved either. Not only does Ludelay not have anything in common with the Gaelic words for dog - cu, gadhar or madadh/madra - but all Gaelic surnames are patronymics. Nor do I think "de Ireland" is the surname here because it would leave us with a man with two first names, which would be anachronistic.
> > > Know what I think? I think this man may have been an Audley, or possibly a Dudley. It might be worth taking a look at the original. I once ordered a copy of the June safeconduct and it worked very well. I'm not likely to be ordering a copy myself within the next few years, but if anyone else were to I would be quite happy to tae a look.
> > >
> > > My own opinion about Lovell is that he did survive Stoke, although it's hard to prove it. I have a note that, according to the York records "the Lord Lovell was discomfited and fled, with Sir Thomas Broughton and many other". And that does fit in very well with the pair of them showing up together on this safeconduct a year later. All official documents refer to Lovell as attainted rather than dead for several years.
> > > According to an article by Shelagh O'Connor in Ricardian no 96, on 16 July 1491 the Mayor of York wrote to Sir Richard Tunstall: "Sir, I have taken a simple and pure person and committed him to prison, the which went about here in your city and showed and uttered to diverse persons within the same that he spake with the Lord Lovell and Sir Thomas Broughton in Scotland, howbeit afore me he denieth that he never so said ne showed, and what your mastership thinks I should do further herein, I pray you send me word. . . "
> > >
> > > A lot of Yorkists fade away into shadowy figures after Stoke and probably died in exile over the next few years. Lovell and Broughton may have declined the offer to take part in a conspiracy in favour of Edward IV's younger son.
> > > Sir Thomas Broughton likewise faded out of history, and legend in his home area of Witherslack at the bottom end of the Lake District had it that he returned there and was hidden by fed by his former tenants, and what was allegedly his grave was still being pointed out a couple of hundred years later.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > could be...but francis was attainted in 1485. his honours were forfeit. therefore, would he be still considered a lord, even if he survived? the record in question is recorded on unfriendly foreign soil. scotland and england were still quite uneasy with each other and would be for about another decade until h7 promised his daughter, margaret to the king of scots to seal the treaty of perpetual peace.
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > > however, one must also consider that francis's cousin henry was also the 8th lord lovell as well as lord morley. the morley title was passed to henry via his mother. henry's lovell title was inherited following the paternal line. henry's father, william was the elder son of william the 7th lord lovell. francis's father was the younger son and styled john lord lovell of tichmarsh. his son francis was viscount lovell. francis died without issue. after his demise/disappearence, therefore it is possible that henry used lord lovell by hereditary right.
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > > additonally, henry may have also intentionally presented himself to the scots as lord lovell to demonstrate his adherence to the house of york. the surname lovell in the waning decades of the 15thC was well connected to the plantagenets.
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > > it is also open to conjecture that henry, lord lovell may have also wanted to avoid confusion with lord morley being heard as lord marly. marly is the name of two different french towns. the burgandian mission was to promote an english contender to the throne.ÂÂ
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > > roslyn
> > > > --- On Mon, 1/3/11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > > To:
> > > > Received: Monday, January 3, 2011, 7:50 PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > After reading your post several times, it seems you're saying Domino(lord) Lovel was actually Henry Lovel, and not his cousin Francis. I have never heard of this, and I'm not sure if I agree with it. Does anyone else have an opinion?
> > > >
> > > > Wasn't Henry Lovell always referred to as Lord Morley?
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > i think there may be some confusion because of the term "domino luvel."
> > > > > > consider...
> > > > > > Cokayne, George Edward (1936) The Complete Peerage of England
> > > > > > Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal, s. and h., aged 10 in 1476. In 1477 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and Piers Courtenay, Dean of St. Stephen's, Westminster. On 18 Jan. 1477/8 he was made a knight, at the marriage of Richard, Duke of York, with Anne Mowbray, suo jure Countess of Norfolk, da. of John (Mowbray), Duke of Norfolk. In 1483 he took part in the funeral of Edward IV, and on 6 July in the Coronation of Richard III. On 5 Feb. 1488/9 livery of his estates was granted to him as Henry Lovel, s. and h. of William Lovel, Lord Morley. He was not sum. to Parl. He m., at Wingfield, Suffolk, Elizabeth, da. of John (de la Pole), Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, and da. of Richard (Plantagenet), Duke of York [by Cicely, da. of Ralph (Nevill), Earl of Westmorland]. He d. s.p., 13 June 1489, being slain at Dixmude in Flanders, and was bur. at Calais. Dower was
> > > assigned
> > > > to
> > > > > > his widow 31 Dec. 1489. She was bur, at Hallingbury, Essex.
> > > > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > > > > henry and francis were first cousins.
> > > > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > > > > --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 6:02 AM
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
> > > > > > My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: KristineW
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kris
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > > > > > > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > > > > > > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > > > > > > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > > > > > > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > > > > > > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > > > > > > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > > > > > > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > > > > > > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > > > > > > French
> > > > > > > > word fordog.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > > > > > > Roses.
> > > > > > > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > > > > > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > > > > > > nor
> > > > > > > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > > > > > > among
> > > > > > > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > > > > > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > > > > > > faolchu.
> > > > > > > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > > > > > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > > > > > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > > > > > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > > > > > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > > > > > > man,
> > > > > > > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > > > > > > either
> > > > > > > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > > > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > > > > > > issued.
> > > > > > > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > June
> > > > > > > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > > > > > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > > > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > > > > > > obviously
> > > > > > > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > > > > > > was in
> > > > > > > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > > > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > > > > > > u2nohoo@
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > alive
> > > > > > > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > safe
> > > > > > > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > > > knew
> > > > > > > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > > > > > > wanted
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > > > > > > York.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > > > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > > > > > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > > > > > > Finalist
> > > > > > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > > > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > > > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > > > > > > five
> > > > > > > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > > > > > > forty-two
> > > > > > > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > > > > > > Jersey,
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > > > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > English
> > > > > > > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > > > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > > > > > > him
> > > > > > > > > > back in
> > > > > > > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
The Ludley Family sounds promising.
Kris
--- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> I just read some of the other posts and I see the Audley connection was already made. At least we're all on the same page!
>
> --- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > In Paul Murray Kendall's Richard the Third I found mention of a Lord Audeley. On researching a bit, I learned he was named John Tuchet, 6th Baron Audley (Audeley?) and was born 1423 and died 1490. He married Ann Echingham and had seven children. In the year 1484, he was made Lord Treasurer and Commissioner of array by Richard the Third.
> >
> > John Tuchet's son James was executed in June 1497 at Tower Hill for being involved in the Cornish Black Heath Rebellion.
> >
> > I have not yet discovered the names of John Tuchet's other six children. Maybe one of them was named Richard. If so, he could be our Richard Ludelay, Englishman. But than again, maybe not.
> >
> > Kris
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > on june 11, 1488 king james iv became king after defeating his father. could this safe conduct have been for "english allies" who helped defeat his father? is it possible that margaret provided mercenaries to j4's cause? would burgandy have an interest in changing the scottish rulership? what was burgandy's relationship with james iii? good or difficult?
> > > did the change of the scots king assist margaret with disrupting the tudor rule?
> > > Â
> > > francis was called lord lovell AND viscount lovell. francis was a higher rank than his cousin henry. both men held several lordships, mostly inherited from mothers and/or grandmothers who were the sole or joint heiress of their ancestors. quite simply francis's father, john had married better than henry's father, william. rank has its priviledges. francis obviously got to choose the lord lovell, and henry appears happy to be known as lord moreley..but did he take back the lovell surname after 1485? perhaps there is a surviving document to two that does clearly indicate he did indeed use "lord lovell".
> > > Â
> > > the lovells were staunch lancasterians prior to edward iv. both francis and henry were richard's henchmen when he was in the north. a term that does not carry the same meaning as it does today.
> > > Â
> > > i believe the lovell surname became strongly connected to the yorkist side because of colingbourne's poem. despite not having the internet, these people could still communicate fairly rapidly over great distances. they used a system that was akin to the forerunner of the better known american pony express. foreign rulers would have had a keen interest with regards to the goings on in london and the british crown. messages would have been dispatched by london/court spies to the assorted foreign rules. the disruption in london and allusion to the hog would have been great and amusing gossip. if the poem had not gained "recognition" it would very be unknow to us today, and collingbourne would have very likely escaped execution.
> > > Â
> > > i do love your plausible interpretation of ludelay. i think looking for an audley or dudley named richard in 1488 could possibly solve the mystery of ludelay from ireland.
> > > Â
> > > roslyn
> > >
> > > --- On Tue, 1/4/11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > To:
> > > Received: Tuesday, January 4, 2011, 7:58 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > First a few thoughts on the possibility that the Lord Lovell referred to was Morley:-
> > > a) I didn't realise Morley was also recognised as Lord Lovell in his own time. How did that square with Francis also being Lord Lovell? As Roslyn observes, Francis died under attainder, so his honours could not have been inherited.
> > > b) States harbouring refugees from the Wars of the Roses always continued to use their titles, whether or not they had been attainted by their enemies at home.
> > > c)Morley was certainly in the south of England (with the court) in April and December 1488, and was granted livery of his estates the following Frebruary.
> > > d) The Lovell name was not specifically Yorkist at this time. One of Henry VII's most ardent supporters, one of the most important 'new men' of the early Tudor period, was Sir Thomas Lovell of Barton Bendish.
> > > d) The June 1488 safeconduct - the one mentioning Lord Luvel - was specifically for political refugees for England, and Lord Morley did not fall into that camp. The previous month a visitor to York had allegedly told people that Sir Thomas Broughton had lately landed at Ravenglass on the Cumbrian coast, although when questioned about it he denied it.
> > >
> > > Thanks for drawing my attention to the November safeconduct. I'd not seen the text of it before and it confirms my suspicion that a lot of the Yorkists who disappeared after Stoke had taken refuge in Ireland. In English:-
> > > "The King has granted a conduct to Richard Hardilstoun, knight, and Richard Ludelay from Ireland, Englishmen, and 40 persons with them, etc, in due form - at the instance of the Lady Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy."
> > > So it's not necessarily an embassy, just more political refugees.
> > > I think Richard Hardilstoun, knight, probably is Harleston, though it is worth bearing in mind that the Huddlestones of the North-West of England were diedhard Yorkists too. Sir Richad Huddlestone had died shortly before Bosworth, however, and his heir Richard may have been young and was not recognised as a knight in England. But then nor was Harleston.
> > > Richard Harleston had been attainted after Stoke, but there was nobody with a name anything like Ludelay amongst the 1487 attaintees. I don't think this was Lovell - his safeconduct was still in force. My mum's a native Irish speaker, and I don't think there can be any Gaelic translation involved either. Not only does Ludelay not have anything in common with the Gaelic words for dog - cu, gadhar or madadh/madra - but all Gaelic surnames are patronymics. Nor do I think "de Ireland" is the surname here because it would leave us with a man with two first names, which would be anachronistic.
> > > Know what I think? I think this man may have been an Audley, or possibly a Dudley. It might be worth taking a look at the original. I once ordered a copy of the June safeconduct and it worked very well. I'm not likely to be ordering a copy myself within the next few years, but if anyone else were to I would be quite happy to tae a look.
> > >
> > > My own opinion about Lovell is that he did survive Stoke, although it's hard to prove it. I have a note that, according to the York records "the Lord Lovell was discomfited and fled, with Sir Thomas Broughton and many other". And that does fit in very well with the pair of them showing up together on this safeconduct a year later. All official documents refer to Lovell as attainted rather than dead for several years.
> > > According to an article by Shelagh O'Connor in Ricardian no 96, on 16 July 1491 the Mayor of York wrote to Sir Richard Tunstall: "Sir, I have taken a simple and pure person and committed him to prison, the which went about here in your city and showed and uttered to diverse persons within the same that he spake with the Lord Lovell and Sir Thomas Broughton in Scotland, howbeit afore me he denieth that he never so said ne showed, and what your mastership thinks I should do further herein, I pray you send me word. . . "
> > >
> > > A lot of Yorkists fade away into shadowy figures after Stoke and probably died in exile over the next few years. Lovell and Broughton may have declined the offer to take part in a conspiracy in favour of Edward IV's younger son.
> > > Sir Thomas Broughton likewise faded out of history, and legend in his home area of Witherslack at the bottom end of the Lake District had it that he returned there and was hidden by fed by his former tenants, and what was allegedly his grave was still being pointed out a couple of hundred years later.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > could be...but francis was attainted in 1485. his honours were forfeit. therefore, would he be still considered a lord, even if he survived? the record in question is recorded on unfriendly foreign soil. scotland and england were still quite uneasy with each other and would be for about another decade until h7 promised his daughter, margaret to the king of scots to seal the treaty of perpetual peace.
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > > however, one must also consider that francis's cousin henry was also the 8th lord lovell as well as lord morley. the morley title was passed to henry via his mother. henry's lovell title was inherited following the paternal line. henry's father, william was the elder son of william the 7th lord lovell. francis's father was the younger son and styled john lord lovell of tichmarsh. his son francis was viscount lovell. francis died without issue. after his demise/disappearence, therefore it is possible that henry used lord lovell by hereditary right.
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > > additonally, henry may have also intentionally presented himself to the scots as lord lovell to demonstrate his adherence to the house of york. the surname lovell in the waning decades of the 15thC was well connected to the plantagenets.
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > > it is also open to conjecture that henry, lord lovell may have also wanted to avoid confusion with lord morley being heard as lord marly. marly is the name of two different french towns. the burgandian mission was to promote an english contender to the throne.ÂÂ
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > > roslyn
> > > > --- On Mon, 1/3/11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > > To:
> > > > Received: Monday, January 3, 2011, 7:50 PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > After reading your post several times, it seems you're saying Domino(lord) Lovel was actually Henry Lovel, and not his cousin Francis. I have never heard of this, and I'm not sure if I agree with it. Does anyone else have an opinion?
> > > >
> > > > Wasn't Henry Lovell always referred to as Lord Morley?
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > i think there may be some confusion because of the term "domino luvel."
> > > > > > consider...
> > > > > > Cokayne, George Edward (1936) The Complete Peerage of England
> > > > > > Henry (Lovel), Lord Morley and de jure Lord Marshal, s. and h., aged 10 in 1476. In 1477 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and Piers Courtenay, Dean of St. Stephen's, Westminster. On 18 Jan. 1477/8 he was made a knight, at the marriage of Richard, Duke of York, with Anne Mowbray, suo jure Countess of Norfolk, da. of John (Mowbray), Duke of Norfolk. In 1483 he took part in the funeral of Edward IV, and on 6 July in the Coronation of Richard III. On 5 Feb. 1488/9 livery of his estates was granted to him as Henry Lovel, s. and h. of William Lovel, Lord Morley. He was not sum. to Parl. He m., at Wingfield, Suffolk, Elizabeth, da. of John (de la Pole), Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, and da. of Richard (Plantagenet), Duke of York [by Cicely, da. of Ralph (Nevill), Earl of Westmorland]. He d. s.p., 13 June 1489, being slain at Dixmude in Flanders, and was bur. at Calais. Dower was
> > > assigned
> > > > to
> > > > > > his widow 31 Dec. 1489. She was bur, at Hallingbury, Essex.
> > > > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > > > > henry and francis were first cousins.
> > > > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > > > > --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 6:02 AM
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We seem to proved Lovell's survival in the early part of 1488, if this document is correct - why would he be on a "safe conduct" pass if he were dead.
> > > > > > My only reservation is that the year began on 25 March in those days and some modern historians/ genealogists confuse the years. One database has Lord Hadham (executed 9 March 1648/9) as dying in 1648 - but he was at the siege of Colchester that summer and that is why he was executed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: KristineW
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:17 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lovell, or Lovel, means little wolf.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you take the Ludelay name apart, Lude means fighter or warrior in Germanic, and Lay means "from the meadow in English. Taken together, Ludelay could mean warrior from the meadow. Unless this was a reference to Bosworth, it probably means nothing. I'd still like to know who Richard Ludelay de Ireland was. He seemed to come out of nowhere.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's the reference about the safe passage I found earlier.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I suspect Perkin Warbeck may have been Richard of York as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kris
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I did a google search for Richard Ludelay and most references pointed to
> > > > > > > events having to do with James IV of Scotland and Perkin Warbeck, who
> > > > > > > Margaret was promoting as Richard of York. So it's entirely plausible
> > > > > > > that Ludelay is someone else who is helping the man who he thinks is the
> > > > > > > younger prince. BTW, I think it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck
> > > > > > > was Richard of York and that the "confession" was forced out of him so
> > > > > > > that his wife and son would be able to live out their lives as they
> > > > > > > chose, rather than being imprisoned by Henry. Anyway, here's a reference
> > > > > > > that the search turned up: (http://tinyurl.com/24md6s4).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From what I understand, the Lovel is a derivation of the medieval
> > > > > > > French
> > > > > > > > word fordog.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > David Baldwin lists both the rebels and those fighting for Henry VII
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > his recent book, "Stoke Field: The Last Battle of the Wars of the
> > > > > > > Roses.
> > > > > > > > Richard Harliston is listed among the attainted rebels, but Richard
> > > > > > > > Ludelay is not. Neither is Ludelay listed in those getting a pardon,
> > > > > > > nor
> > > > > > > > in "others" where we do find Elizabeth Woodville and Francis Lovel
> > > > > > > among
> > > > > > > > others. (Baldwin's reference is Parliamentary Rolls.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I was wondering about an assumed name myself. Apparently, the Gaelic
> > > > > > > > words for dog are madra and gadhar, and for wolf, mac tire and
> > > > > > > faolchu.
> > > > > > > > At least that's what I found in the online dictionary I visited. The
> > > > > > > > Latin for wolf is Lupus. Ludelay looks more French to me. The entire
> > > > > > > > name seems very Norman French. De Ireland means "of Ireland." Ludelay
> > > > > > > > must mean something. I tried doing a search on the Ludelay surname and
> > > > > > > > found nothing. As I enjoy puzzles, I'll keep looking. Do you know of
> > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > other references to Richard Ludelay of Ireland?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The only thing that comes to mind is that Lovell, being a wanted
> > > > > > > > man,
> > > > > > > > > > would have wanted to keep his identity secret, assuming he was
> > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > alive. Maybe he changed his name. Does Ludelay translate to dog
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > Gaelic? His ending up in Ireland would have made sense.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Lacking any other evidence, I think that the only thing we know is
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > Francis Lovell was never heard from again after Stoke. So, he
> > > > > > > either
> > > > > > > > > > didn't survive much past that battle, or he was able to get out of
> > > > > > > > > > England and change his identity.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> > > > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> > > > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > In looking at the RMS, there were two separate safe conducts
> > > > > > > > issued.
> > > > > > > > > > The first on June 19, 1488, and the second on November 4, 1488.
> > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > June
> > > > > > > > > > 19th entry definitely lists "Domino Luvel" (RMS, nos. 1738) as
> > > > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > > > in the safe conduct, while the November 4th names "Ricardo
> > > > > > > > Hardilstoun,
> > > > > > > > > > militi, et Ricardo Ludelay de Ireland, Anglicis" (RMS, nos. 1798)
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > part of an arriving embassy. Though Ricardo Hardilstoun is
> > > > > > > obviously
> > > > > > > > > > Richard Harliston, I don't understand how Ann Wroe can say Lovell
> > > > > > > > was in
> > > > > > > > > > the embassy. I know the spelling of names was often creative at
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > time, but there's a big difference between Francis Lovell and
> > > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > > > Ludelay. Do you have any thoughts about this?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > RMS Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum 1424-1513, ed. James
> > > > > > > > > > Balflour Paul(Edinburgh, 1882)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "joansr3"
> > > > > > > u2nohoo@
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > From what I understand, Lovel was never heard from again after
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > battle of Stoke and that the only evidence that he might have
> > > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > alive
> > > > > > > > > > > > in 1488 was that safe conduct. It's possible that Margaret got
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > safe
> > > > > > > > > > > > conduct for all those whom she supported, regardless of
> > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > > > knew
> > > > > > > > > > > > of their whereabouts or whether they were still living--only
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > > > > > had no evidence that they were dead. She also might have
> > > > > > > wanted
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > Henry off balance while she was campaigning for Richard of
> > > > > > > York.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, in 1508, an inquisition was held to determine Lovel's
> > > > > > > > > > disposition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > The jury found that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > time, not having proof of his death.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the
> > > > > > > > 21st-century
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction
> > > > > > > Finalist
> > > > > > > > > > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > > > > > > > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > > > > > ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "KristineW"
> > > > > > > > > > > > <krisanne712@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've been reading Ann Wroe's The Perfect Prince, and I have
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > > > > > about Margaret of Burgandy's embassy of Yorkists she sent to
> > > > > > > > > > Scotland in
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1488. Wroe writes:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > By 1488 Margaret was also in secret negotiations and
> > > > > > > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > > > with James IV of Scotland. On November 4th of that year, only
> > > > > > > > five
> > > > > > > > > > > > months after the young king's accession, an embassy of
> > > > > > > forty-two
> > > > > > > > > > exiled
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yorkists - including Richard Harliston, a former governor of
> > > > > > > > Jersey,
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > the undrowned Lovell - was sent by Margaret to see him.
> > > > > > > > > > Safe-conducts
> > > > > > > > > > > > had been granted both to them and, provisionally, to "all
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > English
> > > > > > > > > > > > persons whom they may draw to their cause." (p.91)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > My question is in regard to Francis Lovell. I've always read
> > > > > > > > > > Lovell
> > > > > > > > > > > > was never seen again after the Battle of Stoke, yet Wroe has
> > > > > > > him
> > > > > > > > > > back in
> > > > > > > > > > > > Burgandy by 1488. Is Wroe correct about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-06 03:15:33
Katy, this is a fab site. Thanks for finding it and then sharing it with
us. Joan
--- In , "oregon_katy"
<oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003
no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > > PS -- I looked under Ludley, and in the
Peerag(http://www.thepeerage.com/p37495.htm#i374942) I found a
Willliam Ludley who hailed from Middleham. I couldn't find a date for
his life, but his daughter Elizabeth married Sir Robert Knyvett, and
that was in the 1600s. Too late for our guy, but perhaps it
establishes that a family named Ludley lived in Richard's home area.
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> >
> >
> > Thank you, Katy! That is amazing. Both Dudley and Audley were used
by the families as surnames in our period as well as the family title,
even though the official surname was something else in both cases. But
Ludleys from Middleham are much more plausible. They must have been of a
certain status to have intermarried with the Knyvetts so hopefully it
will be possible to track down 15th century ones.
> >
> > Marie
> >
>
>
>
> By the way this Peerage (http://www.thepeerage.com/pd330.htm) also
indexes surnames by location, such as Yorkshire.
>
> Katy
>
us. Joan
--- In , "oregon_katy"
<oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003
no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > > PS -- I looked under Ludley, and in the
Peerag(http://www.thepeerage.com/p37495.htm#i374942) I found a
Willliam Ludley who hailed from Middleham. I couldn't find a date for
his life, but his daughter Elizabeth married Sir Robert Knyvett, and
that was in the 1600s. Too late for our guy, but perhaps it
establishes that a family named Ludley lived in Richard's home area.
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> >
> >
> > Thank you, Katy! That is amazing. Both Dudley and Audley were used
by the families as surnames in our period as well as the family title,
even though the official surname was something else in both cases. But
Ludleys from Middleham are much more plausible. They must have been of a
certain status to have intermarried with the Knyvetts so hopefully it
will be possible to track down 15th century ones.
> >
> > Marie
> >
>
>
>
> By the way this Peerage (http://www.thepeerage.com/pd330.htm) also
indexes surnames by location, such as Yorkshire.
>
> Katy
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-06 13:39:00
For what it's worth, I haven't heard anything back from Ann Wroe. I probably won't. I suspect she either confused the two safe passages, or was the victim of wishful thinking
Katy and I seem to be finding all the same information simultaneously.
The Tuchet, Knyvett and Echingham families are found in the north. There could easily have been a Richard Ludley, but so far we haven't found him.
Kris
--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Katy, this is a fab site. Thanks for finding it and then sharing it with
> us. Joan
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy"
> <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> no_reply@ wrote:
> > >
> > > > PS -- I looked under Ludley, and in the
> Peerag(http://www.thepeerage.com/p37495.htm#i374942) I found a
> Willliam Ludley who hailed from Middleham. I couldn't find a date for
> his life, but his daughter Elizabeth married Sir Robert Knyvett, and
> that was in the 1600s. Too late for our guy, but perhaps it
> establishes that a family named Ludley lived in Richard's home area.
> > > >
> > > > Katy
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you, Katy! That is amazing. Both Dudley and Audley were used
> by the families as surnames in our period as well as the family title,
> even though the official surname was something else in both cases. But
> Ludleys from Middleham are much more plausible. They must have been of a
> certain status to have intermarried with the Knyvetts so hopefully it
> will be possible to track down 15th century ones.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > By the way this Peerage (http://www.thepeerage.com/pd330.htm) also
> indexes surnames by location, such as Yorkshire.
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
Katy and I seem to be finding all the same information simultaneously.
The Tuchet, Knyvett and Echingham families are found in the north. There could easily have been a Richard Ludley, but so far we haven't found him.
Kris
--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Katy, this is a fab site. Thanks for finding it and then sharing it with
> us. Joan
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy"
> <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> no_reply@ wrote:
> > >
> > > > PS -- I looked under Ludley, and in the
> Peerag(http://www.thepeerage.com/p37495.htm#i374942) I found a
> Willliam Ludley who hailed from Middleham. I couldn't find a date for
> his life, but his daughter Elizabeth married Sir Robert Knyvett, and
> that was in the 1600s. Too late for our guy, but perhaps it
> establishes that a family named Ludley lived in Richard's home area.
> > > >
> > > > Katy
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you, Katy! That is amazing. Both Dudley and Audley were used
> by the families as surnames in our period as well as the family title,
> even though the official surname was something else in both cases. But
> Ludleys from Middleham are much more plausible. They must have been of a
> certain status to have intermarried with the Knyvetts so hopefully it
> will be possible to track down 15th century ones.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > By the way this Peerage (http://www.thepeerage.com/pd330.htm) also
> indexes surnames by location, such as Yorkshire.
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-06 16:56:37
Kris,
I wouldn't be at all surprised if you do hear from her, but it may take
a couple of weeks or so. I imagine she's pretty busy in her professional
capacities.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
--- In , "KristineW"
<krisanne712@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> For what it's worth, I haven't heard anything back from Ann Wroe. I
probably won't. I suspect she either confused the two safe passages, or
was the victim of wishful thinking
>
> Katy and I seem to be finding all the same information simultaneously.
> The Tuchet, Knyvett and Echingham families are found in the north.
There could easily have been a Richard Ludley, but so far we haven't
found him.
>
> Kris
>
> --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
wrote:
> >
> > Katy, this is a fab site. Thanks for finding it and then sharing it
with
> > us. Joan
> >
> > --- In , "oregon_katy"
> > <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > no_reply@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > PS -- I looked under Ludley, and in the
> > Peerag(http://www.thepeerage.com/p37495.htm#i374942) I found a
> > Willliam Ludley who hailed from Middleham. I couldn't find a date
for
> > his life, but his daughter Elizabeth married Sir Robert Knyvett, and
> > that was in the 1600s. Too late for our guy, but perhaps it
> > establishes that a family named Ludley lived in Richard's home area.
> > > > >
> > > > > Katy
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you, Katy! That is amazing. Both Dudley and Audley were
used
> > by the families as surnames in our period as well as the family
title,
> > even though the official surname was something else in both cases.
But
> > Ludleys from Middleham are much more plausible. They must have been
of a
> > certain status to have intermarried with the Knyvetts so hopefully
it
> > will be possible to track down 15th century ones.
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > By the way this Peerage (http://www.thepeerage.com/pd330.htm) also
> > indexes surnames by location, such as Yorkshire.
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> >
>
I wouldn't be at all surprised if you do hear from her, but it may take
a couple of weeks or so. I imagine she's pretty busy in her professional
capacities.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
--- In , "KristineW"
<krisanne712@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> For what it's worth, I haven't heard anything back from Ann Wroe. I
probably won't. I suspect she either confused the two safe passages, or
was the victim of wishful thinking
>
> Katy and I seem to be finding all the same information simultaneously.
> The Tuchet, Knyvett and Echingham families are found in the north.
There could easily have been a Richard Ludley, but so far we haven't
found him.
>
> Kris
>
> --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
wrote:
> >
> > Katy, this is a fab site. Thanks for finding it and then sharing it
with
> > us. Joan
> >
> > --- In , "oregon_katy"
> > <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > no_reply@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > PS -- I looked under Ludley, and in the
> > Peerag(http://www.thepeerage.com/p37495.htm#i374942) I found a
> > Willliam Ludley who hailed from Middleham. I couldn't find a date
for
> > his life, but his daughter Elizabeth married Sir Robert Knyvett, and
> > that was in the 1600s. Too late for our guy, but perhaps it
> > establishes that a family named Ludley lived in Richard's home area.
> > > > >
> > > > > Katy
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you, Katy! That is amazing. Both Dudley and Audley were
used
> > by the families as surnames in our period as well as the family
title,
> > even though the official surname was something else in both cases.
But
> > Ludleys from Middleham are much more plausible. They must have been
of a
> > certain status to have intermarried with the Knyvetts so hopefully
it
> > will be possible to track down 15th century ones.
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > By the way this Peerage (http://www.thepeerage.com/pd330.htm) also
> > indexes surnames by location, such as Yorkshire.
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> >
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-06 17:38:43
--- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@...> wrote:
> Katy and I seem to be finding all the same information simultaneously.
> The Tuchet, Knyvett and Echingham families are found in the north. There could easily have been a Richard Ludley, but so far we haven't found him.
>
> Kris
Bless Dame Elizabeth for her upward marriage into the Knyvetts, a name that figures more prominently in history, or we might not have known about this Ludley family from, how fortuitously, Middleham. I will raise a glass of iced tea of to her today.
Katy
> Katy and I seem to be finding all the same information simultaneously.
> The Tuchet, Knyvett and Echingham families are found in the north. There could easily have been a Richard Ludley, but so far we haven't found him.
>
> Kris
Bless Dame Elizabeth for her upward marriage into the Knyvetts, a name that figures more prominently in history, or we might not have known about this Ludley family from, how fortuitously, Middleham. I will raise a glass of iced tea of to her today.
Katy
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-07 12:48:51
I wonder if she's writing another book, and if so, what's it's about. I'd like to read D.M. Kleyn's Richard of England, but the last time I checked, Amazon only had two copies, and the cheapest was $119.99. Yikes! None of my local, or academic libraries have a copy. I read in the Richard the Third Society of NSW's website that John Ashdown-Hill was writing another book. They don't know what is's about though.
--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Kris,
>
> I wouldn't be at all surprised if you do hear from her, but it may take
> a couple of weeks or so. I imagine she's pretty busy in her professional
> capacities.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
>
> --- In , "KristineW"
> <krisanne712@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > For what it's worth, I haven't heard anything back from Ann Wroe. I
> probably won't. I suspect she either confused the two safe passages, or
> was the victim of wishful thinking
> >
> > Katy and I seem to be finding all the same information simultaneously.
> > The Tuchet, Knyvett and Echingham families are found in the north.
> There could easily have been a Richard Ludley, but so far we haven't
> found him.
> >
> > Kris
> >
> > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Katy, this is a fab site. Thanks for finding it and then sharing it
> with
> > > us. Joan
> > >
> > > --- In , "oregon_katy"
> > > <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > > no_reply@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > PS -- I looked under Ludley, and in the
> > > Peerag(http://www.thepeerage.com/p37495.htm#i374942) I found a
> > > Willliam Ludley who hailed from Middleham. I couldn't find a date
> for
> > > his life, but his daughter Elizabeth married Sir Robert Knyvett, and
> > > that was in the 1600s. Too late for our guy, but perhaps it
> > > establishes that a family named Ludley lived in Richard's home area.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Katy
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you, Katy! That is amazing. Both Dudley and Audley were
> used
> > > by the families as surnames in our period as well as the family
> title,
> > > even though the official surname was something else in both cases.
> But
> > > Ludleys from Middleham are much more plausible. They must have been
> of a
> > > certain status to have intermarried with the Knyvetts so hopefully
> it
> > > will be possible to track down 15th century ones.
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > By the way this Peerage (http://www.thepeerage.com/pd330.htm) also
> > > indexes surnames by location, such as Yorkshire.
> > > >
> > > > Katy
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Kris,
>
> I wouldn't be at all surprised if you do hear from her, but it may take
> a couple of weeks or so. I imagine she's pretty busy in her professional
> capacities.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
>
> --- In , "KristineW"
> <krisanne712@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > For what it's worth, I haven't heard anything back from Ann Wroe. I
> probably won't. I suspect she either confused the two safe passages, or
> was the victim of wishful thinking
> >
> > Katy and I seem to be finding all the same information simultaneously.
> > The Tuchet, Knyvett and Echingham families are found in the north.
> There could easily have been a Richard Ludley, but so far we haven't
> found him.
> >
> > Kris
> >
> > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Katy, this is a fab site. Thanks for finding it and then sharing it
> with
> > > us. Joan
> > >
> > > --- In , "oregon_katy"
> > > <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > > no_reply@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > PS -- I looked under Ludley, and in the
> > > Peerag(http://www.thepeerage.com/p37495.htm#i374942) I found a
> > > Willliam Ludley who hailed from Middleham. I couldn't find a date
> for
> > > his life, but his daughter Elizabeth married Sir Robert Knyvett, and
> > > that was in the 1600s. Too late for our guy, but perhaps it
> > > establishes that a family named Ludley lived in Richard's home area.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Katy
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you, Katy! That is amazing. Both Dudley and Audley were
> used
> > > by the families as surnames in our period as well as the family
> title,
> > > even though the official surname was something else in both cases.
> But
> > > Ludleys from Middleham are much more plausible. They must have been
> of a
> > > certain status to have intermarried with the Knyvetts so hopefully
> it
> > > will be possible to track down 15th century ones.
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > By the way this Peerage (http://www.thepeerage.com/pd330.htm) also
> > > indexes surnames by location, such as Yorkshire.
> > > >
> > > > Katy
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-07 16:52:54
--- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@...> wrote:
I'd like to read D.M. Kleyn's Richard of England, but the last time I checked, Amazon only had two copies, and the cheapest was $119.99. Yikes! None of my local, or academic libraries have a copy. I read in the Richard the Third Society of NSW's website that John Ashdown-Hill was writing another book. They don't know what is's about though.
> > Kris
I find that AddALL ( http://www.addall.com/) works well. It searches for books by title or author, in quite a few places, and lists them, including price.
Katy
I'd like to read D.M. Kleyn's Richard of England, but the last time I checked, Amazon only had two copies, and the cheapest was $119.99. Yikes! None of my local, or academic libraries have a copy. I read in the Richard the Third Society of NSW's website that John Ashdown-Hill was writing another book. They don't know what is's about though.
> > Kris
I find that AddALL ( http://www.addall.com/) works well. It searches for books by title or author, in quite a few places, and lists them, including price.
Katy
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-07 19:02:51
Katy, have you tried putting in a request for the library to get the
book through ILL? I use that service all the time and it effectively
makes my local library the size of the US and gives me access to
university and college libraries that I wouldn't ordinarily have access
to not being a student.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
--- In , "oregon_katy"
<oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "KristineW"
krisanne712@ wrote:
>
> I'd like to read D.M. Kleyn's Richard of England, but the last time I
checked, Amazon only had two copies, and the cheapest was $119.99.
Yikes! None of my local, or academic libraries have a copy. I read in
the Richard the Third Society of NSW's website that John Ashdown-Hill
was writing another book. They don't know what is's about though.
>
>
> > > Kris
>
>
> I find that AddALL ( http://www.addall.com/) works well. It
searches for books by title or author, in quite a few places, and lists
them, including price.
>
> Katy
>
book through ILL? I use that service all the time and it effectively
makes my local library the size of the US and gives me access to
university and college libraries that I wouldn't ordinarily have access
to not being a student.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
--- In , "oregon_katy"
<oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "KristineW"
krisanne712@ wrote:
>
> I'd like to read D.M. Kleyn's Richard of England, but the last time I
checked, Amazon only had two copies, and the cheapest was $119.99.
Yikes! None of my local, or academic libraries have a copy. I read in
the Richard the Third Society of NSW's website that John Ashdown-Hill
was writing another book. They don't know what is's about though.
>
>
> > > Kris
>
>
> I find that AddALL ( http://www.addall.com/) works well. It
searches for books by title or author, in quite a few places, and lists
them, including price.
>
> Katy
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-07 22:55:25
Thank you Joan. I'll ask about that at my library.
Kris(not Katy) :)
--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Katy, have you tried putting in a request for the library to get the
> book through ILL? I use that service all the time and it effectively
> makes my local library the size of the US and gives me access to
> university and college libraries that I wouldn't ordinarily have access
> to not being a student.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy"
> <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "KristineW"
> krisanne712@ wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to read D.M. Kleyn's Richard of England, but the last time I
> checked, Amazon only had two copies, and the cheapest was $119.99.
> Yikes! None of my local, or academic libraries have a copy. I read in
> the Richard the Third Society of NSW's website that John Ashdown-Hill
> was writing another book. They don't know what is's about though.
> >
> >
> > > > Kris
> >
> >
> > I find that AddALL ( http://www.addall.com/) works well. It
> searches for books by title or author, in quite a few places, and lists
> them, including price.
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
Kris(not Katy) :)
--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Katy, have you tried putting in a request for the library to get the
> book through ILL? I use that service all the time and it effectively
> makes my local library the size of the US and gives me access to
> university and college libraries that I wouldn't ordinarily have access
> to not being a student.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy"
> <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "KristineW"
> krisanne712@ wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to read D.M. Kleyn's Richard of England, but the last time I
> checked, Amazon only had two copies, and the cheapest was $119.99.
> Yikes! None of my local, or academic libraries have a copy. I read in
> the Richard the Third Society of NSW's website that John Ashdown-Hill
> was writing another book. They don't know what is's about though.
> >
> >
> > > > Kris
> >
> >
> > I find that AddALL ( http://www.addall.com/) works well. It
> searches for books by title or author, in quite a few places, and lists
> them, including price.
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
Re: Margaret of Burgandy's Embassy to Scotland and Francis Lovell
2011-01-18 04:55:05
--- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> I just read some of the other posts and I see the Audley connection was already made. At least we're all on the same page!
I discovered that there is also a De Audley family.
http://www.geneajourney.com/audley.html
Katy
>
>
>
> I just read some of the other posts and I see the Audley connection was already made. At least we're all on the same page!
I discovered that there is also a De Audley family.
http://www.geneajourney.com/audley.html
Katy
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.