Francis Lovell death
Francis Lovell death
2011-01-08 17:50:44
Hello all,
I came across something odd in *The commentaries, or Reports of Edmund
Plowden, Vol 2, *in Google Books, and would appreciate hearing what you
think about it.*
* Starting on page 477, there's a report of a case, a dispute over land at
Alveley, called *Nichols v. Nichols. *It was argued in the 17th & 18th years
of the reign of Elizabeth I. One of the parties claimed the land through a
deed dated 20 Jan in the 18th year of the reign of Edward IV, from "Francis
Lovel, Lord Lovel" to a Thomas Wright. The deed was to Wright for life, but
if Lovell died without heirs of his body, while Wright was still living, the
land went to Wright and his heirs forever.
Here's the odd part:
"... the same Francis ... the 1st Day of May, in the second Year of the
Reign of Lord Henry, late King of England, the Seventh, at London, in the
Parish of the blessed Mary of the Arches, in the Ward of Cheap, died without
Heirs of his Body begotten...."
London?!? Where's the Parish of blessed Mary of the Arches? Mary-le-bow?
And wouldn't that date be before Stoke, not to mention before the safe
conduct from James IV?
From what I can make out, no one --- opposing party or lawyers or judges
--- questioned that date of death for Francis. (It might have mattered, I
believe, depending upon when Wright died.) The decision turned on the effect
of the 1485 attainder of Francis.
Peggy
P.S. Info previously posted to American Branch group.
I came across something odd in *The commentaries, or Reports of Edmund
Plowden, Vol 2, *in Google Books, and would appreciate hearing what you
think about it.*
* Starting on page 477, there's a report of a case, a dispute over land at
Alveley, called *Nichols v. Nichols. *It was argued in the 17th & 18th years
of the reign of Elizabeth I. One of the parties claimed the land through a
deed dated 20 Jan in the 18th year of the reign of Edward IV, from "Francis
Lovel, Lord Lovel" to a Thomas Wright. The deed was to Wright for life, but
if Lovell died without heirs of his body, while Wright was still living, the
land went to Wright and his heirs forever.
Here's the odd part:
"... the same Francis ... the 1st Day of May, in the second Year of the
Reign of Lord Henry, late King of England, the Seventh, at London, in the
Parish of the blessed Mary of the Arches, in the Ward of Cheap, died without
Heirs of his Body begotten...."
London?!? Where's the Parish of blessed Mary of the Arches? Mary-le-bow?
And wouldn't that date be before Stoke, not to mention before the safe
conduct from James IV?
From what I can make out, no one --- opposing party or lawyers or judges
--- questioned that date of death for Francis. (It might have mattered, I
believe, depending upon when Wright died.) The decision turned on the effect
of the 1485 attainder of Francis.
Peggy
P.S. Info previously posted to American Branch group.
Re: Francis Lovell death
2011-01-09 12:28:23
This is extremely odd. I haven't been home much the past couple of days, but when I have a chance, I'll look at the Reports of Edmund Plowden.
Thank you for finding this. The Battle of Stoke was June 16th 1487. This commentary is saying Francis Lovel died about six weeks or so before Stoke. This report can't be right. He fought at Stoke.
Kris
--- In , PD <outtolaunch@...> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I came across something odd in *The commentaries, or Reports of Edmund
> Plowden, Vol 2, *in Google Books, and would appreciate hearing what you
> think about it.*
>
> * Starting on page 477, there's a report of a case, a dispute over land at
> Alveley, called *Nichols v. Nichols. *It was argued in the 17th & 18th years
> of the reign of Elizabeth I. One of the parties claimed the land through a
> deed dated 20 Jan in the 18th year of the reign of Edward IV, from "Francis
> Lovel, Lord Lovel" to a Thomas Wright. The deed was to Wright for life, but
> if Lovell died without heirs of his body, while Wright was still living, the
> land went to Wright and his heirs forever.
>
> Here's the odd part:
>
> "... the same Francis ... the 1st Day of May, in the second Year of the
> Reign of Lord Henry, late King of England, the Seventh, at London, in the
> Parish of the blessed Mary of the Arches, in the Ward of Cheap, died without
> Heirs of his Body begotten...."
>
> London?!? Where's the Parish of blessed Mary of the Arches? Mary-le-bow?
> And wouldn't that date be before Stoke, not to mention before the safe
> conduct from James IV?
>
> From what I can make out, no one --- opposing party or lawyers or judges
> --- questioned that date of death for Francis. (It might have mattered, I
> believe, depending upon when Wright died.) The decision turned on the effect
> of the 1485 attainder of Francis.
>
>
> Peggy
>
> P.S. Info previously posted to American Branch group.
>
>
>
>
Thank you for finding this. The Battle of Stoke was June 16th 1487. This commentary is saying Francis Lovel died about six weeks or so before Stoke. This report can't be right. He fought at Stoke.
Kris
--- In , PD <outtolaunch@...> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I came across something odd in *The commentaries, or Reports of Edmund
> Plowden, Vol 2, *in Google Books, and would appreciate hearing what you
> think about it.*
>
> * Starting on page 477, there's a report of a case, a dispute over land at
> Alveley, called *Nichols v. Nichols. *It was argued in the 17th & 18th years
> of the reign of Elizabeth I. One of the parties claimed the land through a
> deed dated 20 Jan in the 18th year of the reign of Edward IV, from "Francis
> Lovel, Lord Lovel" to a Thomas Wright. The deed was to Wright for life, but
> if Lovell died without heirs of his body, while Wright was still living, the
> land went to Wright and his heirs forever.
>
> Here's the odd part:
>
> "... the same Francis ... the 1st Day of May, in the second Year of the
> Reign of Lord Henry, late King of England, the Seventh, at London, in the
> Parish of the blessed Mary of the Arches, in the Ward of Cheap, died without
> Heirs of his Body begotten...."
>
> London?!? Where's the Parish of blessed Mary of the Arches? Mary-le-bow?
> And wouldn't that date be before Stoke, not to mention before the safe
> conduct from James IV?
>
> From what I can make out, no one --- opposing party or lawyers or judges
> --- questioned that date of death for Francis. (It might have mattered, I
> believe, depending upon when Wright died.) The decision turned on the effect
> of the 1485 attainder of Francis.
>
>
> Peggy
>
> P.S. Info previously posted to American Branch group.
>
>
>
>
Re: Francis Lovell death
2011-01-09 18:42:57
--- In , "KristineW" <krisanne712@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for finding this. The Battle of Stoke was June 16th 1487. This commentary is saying Francis Lovel died about six weeks or so before Stoke. This report can't be right. He fought at Stoke.
>
> Kris
Even though none of the lawyers questioned the date of Lovell's death in this lawsuit, I'm suspicious of it simply because the suit took place in 1557/76,if it was during the 17th and 18th years of the reign of Elizabeth I, and the report gives Lovell's death as 1485 or 86. Almost a century before the lawsuit, and in the interim the Tudors had taken over and lots of fortunes and titles had changed hands.
From some quick superficial research, it appears that most of Lovell's lands and holdings went to William Stanley after Bosworth, and what he didn't get, Jasper Tudor did, so it would seem to me that this suit, so many years later, would be moot.
I don't recall that the date and place of Lovell's death has ever been found in the records. My baseless suspicion is that the report of his death, in London, yet, is a fake -- that someone on the side of the plaintiff dug up the record of the death of another Francis Lovell entirely and embroidered it to suit his client.
As I recall, St Mary-le-Bow was badly damaged in WW II and it probably wouldn't be possible to check the records now.
Katy
>
> Thank you for finding this. The Battle of Stoke was June 16th 1487. This commentary is saying Francis Lovel died about six weeks or so before Stoke. This report can't be right. He fought at Stoke.
>
> Kris
Even though none of the lawyers questioned the date of Lovell's death in this lawsuit, I'm suspicious of it simply because the suit took place in 1557/76,if it was during the 17th and 18th years of the reign of Elizabeth I, and the report gives Lovell's death as 1485 or 86. Almost a century before the lawsuit, and in the interim the Tudors had taken over and lots of fortunes and titles had changed hands.
From some quick superficial research, it appears that most of Lovell's lands and holdings went to William Stanley after Bosworth, and what he didn't get, Jasper Tudor did, so it would seem to me that this suit, so many years later, would be moot.
I don't recall that the date and place of Lovell's death has ever been found in the records. My baseless suspicion is that the report of his death, in London, yet, is a fake -- that someone on the side of the plaintiff dug up the record of the death of another Francis Lovell entirely and embroidered it to suit his client.
As I recall, St Mary-le-Bow was badly damaged in WW II and it probably wouldn't be possible to check the records now.
Katy
Francis Lovell death
2011-01-09 20:50:09
Dates:
The date stated in the lawsuit would have been 1 May 1487. The other date
(3 H. 7. 1487.) found on Ancestry would have been between 21 Aug 1487 and 26
Mar 1487/8. (If I have the official lie about the dates of H 7's reign
right, and if the transcription is accurate, and if my math is.) Is there a
way to check that reference - Buswell's Knts. 126?
Commentary:
The Commentary is just a collection of reports of legal cases. The
person who stated that Francis died in London on 1 May of the 2nd year of
Henry's reign was one of the parties to the lawsuit. I wouldn't be a bit
surprised if his lawyer dug up the burial record of another Francis Lovell.
But I *am* surprised that there was no reported discussion of the accuracy
of the date.
I'll have to read it more carefully, but it is my impression that the
party claiming under the deed from Francis Lovell won the case. If so, it
must have been determined that Wright outlived Francis. (Otherwise, there
would have been no need to rule upon the effect of the attainder.) I'd also
think that there would have been some document recorded (and fees paid)
when/if Wright and his heirs gained title in fee simple, or whatever it was
called then.
Stoke:
As the saying goes, of all the things I've lost I miss my memory the
most. Will someone please remind me how we know that Francis was at Stoke?
And was he in Ireland before that? What dates?
Regards,
Peggy
P.S. I do wish someone would hurry up and discover Francis Lovell's
Burgundian bar bill from 1510! :-)
The date stated in the lawsuit would have been 1 May 1487. The other date
(3 H. 7. 1487.) found on Ancestry would have been between 21 Aug 1487 and 26
Mar 1487/8. (If I have the official lie about the dates of H 7's reign
right, and if the transcription is accurate, and if my math is.) Is there a
way to check that reference - Buswell's Knts. 126?
Commentary:
The Commentary is just a collection of reports of legal cases. The
person who stated that Francis died in London on 1 May of the 2nd year of
Henry's reign was one of the parties to the lawsuit. I wouldn't be a bit
surprised if his lawyer dug up the burial record of another Francis Lovell.
But I *am* surprised that there was no reported discussion of the accuracy
of the date.
I'll have to read it more carefully, but it is my impression that the
party claiming under the deed from Francis Lovell won the case. If so, it
must have been determined that Wright outlived Francis. (Otherwise, there
would have been no need to rule upon the effect of the attainder.) I'd also
think that there would have been some document recorded (and fees paid)
when/if Wright and his heirs gained title in fee simple, or whatever it was
called then.
Stoke:
As the saying goes, of all the things I've lost I miss my memory the
most. Will someone please remind me how we know that Francis was at Stoke?
And was he in Ireland before that? What dates?
Regards,
Peggy
P.S. I do wish someone would hurry up and discover Francis Lovell's
Burgundian bar bill from 1510! :-)
Re: Francis Lovell death
2011-01-09 22:36:59
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:29 PM, KristineW <krisanne712@...> wrote:
>
>
> I think it was in Henry's interest to have Lovell declared dead one way or
> the other. I agree with you Katy that it wouldn't be surprising if another
> Lovell died at Mary of the Arches, and the body was identified as Lord
> Lovell. Lovell being dead solved a lot of problems for Henry.
>
> Kris
>
As long as Lovell didn't show up later --- at Stoke, for instance.
Peggy
>
>
> I think it was in Henry's interest to have Lovell declared dead one way or
> the other. I agree with you Katy that it wouldn't be surprising if another
> Lovell died at Mary of the Arches, and the body was identified as Lord
> Lovell. Lovell being dead solved a lot of problems for Henry.
>
> Kris
>
As long as Lovell didn't show up later --- at Stoke, for instance.
Peggy
Re: Francis Lovell death
2011-01-09 23:03:47
And, as fate would have it, he did [show up at Stoke]. In "Stoke Field"
Baldwin lists the people who fought and cited the Rolls of Parliament
VI. Francis, Viscount Lovel is listed under "Other" for the Rebels.
In fact, Lovel's body was probably never found as an inquisition to
determine Lovel's disposition was held in 1508. 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 , PD <outtolaunch@...>
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:29 PM, KristineW krisanne712@... wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I think it was in Henry's interest to have Lovell declared dead one
way or
> > the other. I agree with you Katy that it wouldn't be surprising if
another
> > Lovell died at Mary of the Arches, and the body was identified as
Lord
> > Lovell. Lovell being dead solved a lot of problems for Henry.
> >
> > Kris
> >
>
>
> As long as Lovell didn't show up later --- at Stoke, for
instance.
>
> Peggy
>
>
>
>
Baldwin lists the people who fought and cited the Rolls of Parliament
VI. Francis, Viscount Lovel is listed under "Other" for the Rebels.
In fact, Lovel's body was probably never found as an inquisition to
determine Lovel's disposition was held in 1508. 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 , PD <outtolaunch@...>
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:29 PM, KristineW krisanne712@... wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I think it was in Henry's interest to have Lovell declared dead one
way or
> > the other. I agree with you Katy that it wouldn't be surprising if
another
> > Lovell died at Mary of the Arches, and the body was identified as
Lord
> > Lovell. Lovell being dead solved a lot of problems for Henry.
> >
> > Kris
> >
>
>
> As long as Lovell didn't show up later --- at Stoke, for
instance.
>
> Peggy
>
>
>
>
Re: Francis Lovell death
2011-01-10 00:54:16
Hi Joan,
I've wondered about that "Other." I have to confess that I haven't read
Baldwin's book.
The Parliament Rolls listed Francis under "Other," or Baldwin did?
"Other what? Others seen on the field? Other rebel leaders? What was the
category as opposed to which they were "Others"?
Peggy
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 6:03 PM, joansr3 <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
> And, as fate would have it, he did [show up at Stoke]. In "Stoke Field"
> Baldwin lists the people who fought and cited the Rolls of Parliament
> VI. Francis, Viscount Lovel is listed under "Other" for the Rebels.
>
> In fact, Lovel's body was probably never found as an inquisition to
> determine Lovel's disposition was held in 1508. 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 , PD <outtolaunch@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:29 PM, KristineW krisanne712@... wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think it was in Henry's interest to have Lovell declared dead one
> way or
> > > the other. I agree with you Katy that it wouldn't be surprising if
> another
> > > Lovell died at Mary of the Arches, and the body was identified as
> Lord
> > > Lovell. Lovell being dead solved a lot of problems for Henry.
> > >
> > > Kris
> > >
> >
> >
> > As long as Lovell didn't show up later --- at Stoke, for
> instance.
> >
> > Peggy
> >
> >
>
I've wondered about that "Other." I have to confess that I haven't read
Baldwin's book.
The Parliament Rolls listed Francis under "Other," or Baldwin did?
"Other what? Others seen on the field? Other rebel leaders? What was the
category as opposed to which they were "Others"?
Peggy
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 6:03 PM, joansr3 <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
> And, as fate would have it, he did [show up at Stoke]. In "Stoke Field"
> Baldwin lists the people who fought and cited the Rolls of Parliament
> VI. Francis, Viscount Lovel is listed under "Other" for the Rebels.
>
> In fact, Lovel's body was probably never found as an inquisition to
> determine Lovel's disposition was held in 1508. 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 , PD <outtolaunch@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:29 PM, KristineW krisanne712@... wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think it was in Henry's interest to have Lovell declared dead one
> way or
> > > the other. I agree with you Katy that it wouldn't be surprising if
> another
> > > Lovell died at Mary of the Arches, and the body was identified as
> Lord
> > > Lovell. Lovell being dead solved a lot of problems for Henry.
> > >
> > > Kris
> > >
> >
> >
> > As long as Lovell didn't show up later --- at Stoke, for
> instance.
> >
> > Peggy
> >
> >
>
Re: Francis Lovell death
2011-01-10 01:24:44
The two other categories were:
Rebels attainted in 1487 and general pardons. I guess other could have
been those thought to have been killed but no body to confirm and/or
those who had been previously attainted. The longest list are the
persons pardoned, the next smaller list are the ones who were attainted,
and the smallest list by far, weighing in at ten names, are others.
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 , PD <outtolaunch@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Joan,
>
> I've wondered about that "Other." I have to confess that I
haven't read
> Baldwin's book.
>
> The Parliament Rolls listed Francis under "Other," or Baldwin
did?
> "Other what? Others seen on the field? Other rebel leaders? What was
the
> category as opposed to which they were "Others"?
>
> Peggy
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 6:03 PM, joansr3 u2nohoo@... wrote:
>
> > And, as fate would have it, he did [show up at Stoke]. In "Stoke
Field"
> > Baldwin lists the people who fought and cited the Rolls of
Parliament
> > VI. Francis, Viscount Lovel is listed under "Other" for the Rebels.
> >
> > In fact, Lovel's body was probably never found as an inquisition to
> > determine Lovel's disposition was held in 1508. 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 , PD outtolaunch@
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:29 PM, KristineW krisanne712@ wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think it was in Henry's interest to have Lovell declared dead
one
> > way or
> > > > the other. I agree with you Katy that it wouldn't be surprising
if
> > another
> > > > Lovell died at Mary of the Arches, and the body was identified
as
> > Lord
> > > > Lovell. Lovell being dead solved a lot of problems for Henry.
> > > >
> > > > Kris
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As long as Lovell didn't show up later --- at Stoke, for
> > instance.
> > >
> > > Peggy
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
Rebels attainted in 1487 and general pardons. I guess other could have
been those thought to have been killed but no body to confirm and/or
those who had been previously attainted. The longest list are the
persons pardoned, the next smaller list are the ones who were attainted,
and the smallest list by far, weighing in at ten names, are others.
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 , PD <outtolaunch@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Joan,
>
> I've wondered about that "Other." I have to confess that I
haven't read
> Baldwin's book.
>
> The Parliament Rolls listed Francis under "Other," or Baldwin
did?
> "Other what? Others seen on the field? Other rebel leaders? What was
the
> category as opposed to which they were "Others"?
>
> Peggy
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 6:03 PM, joansr3 u2nohoo@... wrote:
>
> > And, as fate would have it, he did [show up at Stoke]. In "Stoke
Field"
> > Baldwin lists the people who fought and cited the Rolls of
Parliament
> > VI. Francis, Viscount Lovel is listed under "Other" for the Rebels.
> >
> > In fact, Lovel's body was probably never found as an inquisition to
> > determine Lovel's disposition was held in 1508. 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 , PD outtolaunch@
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:29 PM, KristineW krisanne712@ wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think it was in Henry's interest to have Lovell declared dead
one
> > way or
> > > > the other. I agree with you Katy that it wouldn't be surprising
if
> > another
> > > > Lovell died at Mary of the Arches, and the body was identified
as
> > Lord
> > > > Lovell. Lovell being dead solved a lot of problems for Henry.
> > > >
> > > > Kris
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As long as Lovell didn't show up later --- at Stoke, for
> > instance.
> > >
> > > Peggy
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Francis Lovell death
2011-01-10 02:26:13
Re: Stoke "others"
Thanks, Joan!
Peggy
Thanks, Joan!
Peggy
Re: Francis Lovell death
2011-01-15 23:15:56
Hi Joan & all,
Sorry, been half keeping up with this - v. busy. Will be out of contact for 2 weeks now. Just wanted to say:-
1) "Other" is because Lovell wasn't mentioned in the attainder of 1487 - didn't need to be as he was already under attainder
2) Lovell did march to Stoke with the rebels. On 8th June 1487 a letter was written from the pretender at Masham (north of York, seat of Lord Scrope of same) & delivered the same day to the city of York, who described it as "a letter direct to the Mayor, etc. from the lords of Lincoln, Lovell and other landed at Furness in the name of their king, calling himself King Edward VIth."
The city council therefore sent a letter back with some of their own people "to the lords of Lincoln and Lovell". When the city messengers arrived back, they reported how "the said lords and their retinue was departed over Boroughbridge...."
The Historical Notes of a London Citizen also states that Lovell came into England with the Pretender with Lincoln and Schwartz.
3) As regards the battle, the contemporary Heralds' account states "And there was slain the Earl of Lincoln (John) and divers other gentlemen, and the Viscount Lovell put to flight. and there were slain of English, Dutch and Irish 4,000."
The York city council recorded: ". . . the King ... met with the lords of Lincoln and Lovell with other many nobles, as well of Englishmen as Irishmen and other, to the number of 10,000, of the moor beyond Newark, and there was a sore battle in the which the Earl of Lincoln and many other, as well Englishmen as Irish, to the number of 5,000 were slain and murdered. The Lord Lovell was discomfited and fled with Sir Thomas Broughton and many other, and the child which they called their king was taken and brought unto the King's Grace, and many other in great number, which was judged to death at Lincoln and other places thereabout, etc."
4) Dating by regnal years was absolutely what it said on the tin - year 1 was counted from the first day of the reign, year 2 from the first anniversary of the king's accession, etc.
5) Parish registers as such (baptism, marriage & burial) began in the reign of Henry VIII after the Reformation - for snooping purposes. I'd be very surprised if there were burial records for St Mary Arches for this period. There would have been monuments, however, for people of Lovell's status.
6) I don't know whether there were any Francis Lovells in London in 1487, but I do know that the Lancastrian Sir Thomas L. of Barton Bendish, whom I have mentioned before, had a younger relative of that name who survived well into the 16th century.
7) I haven't had time to go into it, but this later claim sounds like a try-on. There was a cufuffle in the 1490s because it was noticed that Lovell's name didn't appear in the 1487 attainder, so he was attainted again in 1495 for his part at Stoke. Our later claimant may have been unaware of the 1485 attainder and so thought he could claim inheritance through him by forging evidence that he had died before Stoke.
By for now,
Marie
--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> The two other categories were:
>
> Rebels attainted in 1487 and general pardons. I guess other could have
> been those thought to have been killed but no body to confirm and/or
> those who had been previously attainted. The longest list are the
> persons pardoned, the next smaller list are the ones who were attainted,
> and the smallest list by far, weighing in at ten names, are others.
>
> 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 , PD <outtolaunch@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Joan,
> >
> > I've wondered about that "Other." I have to confess that I
> haven't read
> > Baldwin's book.
> >
> > The Parliament Rolls listed Francis under "Other," or Baldwin
> did?
> > "Other what? Others seen on the field? Other rebel leaders? What was
> the
> > category as opposed to which they were "Others"?
> >
> > Peggy
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 6:03 PM, joansr3 u2nohoo@ wrote:
> >
> > > And, as fate would have it, he did [show up at Stoke]. In "Stoke
> Field"
> > > Baldwin lists the people who fought and cited the Rolls of
> Parliament
> > > VI. Francis, Viscount Lovel is listed under "Other" for the Rebels.
> > >
> > > In fact, Lovel's body was probably never found as an inquisition to
> > > determine Lovel's disposition was held in 1508. 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 , PD outtolaunch@
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:29 PM, KristineW krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it was in Henry's interest to have Lovell declared dead
> one
> > > way or
> > > > > the other. I agree with you Katy that it wouldn't be surprising
> if
> > > another
> > > > > Lovell died at Mary of the Arches, and the body was identified
> as
> > > Lord
> > > > > Lovell. Lovell being dead solved a lot of problems for Henry.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kris
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As long as Lovell didn't show up later --- at Stoke, for
> > > instance.
> > > >
> > > > Peggy
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Sorry, been half keeping up with this - v. busy. Will be out of contact for 2 weeks now. Just wanted to say:-
1) "Other" is because Lovell wasn't mentioned in the attainder of 1487 - didn't need to be as he was already under attainder
2) Lovell did march to Stoke with the rebels. On 8th June 1487 a letter was written from the pretender at Masham (north of York, seat of Lord Scrope of same) & delivered the same day to the city of York, who described it as "a letter direct to the Mayor, etc. from the lords of Lincoln, Lovell and other landed at Furness in the name of their king, calling himself King Edward VIth."
The city council therefore sent a letter back with some of their own people "to the lords of Lincoln and Lovell". When the city messengers arrived back, they reported how "the said lords and their retinue was departed over Boroughbridge...."
The Historical Notes of a London Citizen also states that Lovell came into England with the Pretender with Lincoln and Schwartz.
3) As regards the battle, the contemporary Heralds' account states "And there was slain the Earl of Lincoln (John) and divers other gentlemen, and the Viscount Lovell put to flight. and there were slain of English, Dutch and Irish 4,000."
The York city council recorded: ". . . the King ... met with the lords of Lincoln and Lovell with other many nobles, as well of Englishmen as Irishmen and other, to the number of 10,000, of the moor beyond Newark, and there was a sore battle in the which the Earl of Lincoln and many other, as well Englishmen as Irish, to the number of 5,000 were slain and murdered. The Lord Lovell was discomfited and fled with Sir Thomas Broughton and many other, and the child which they called their king was taken and brought unto the King's Grace, and many other in great number, which was judged to death at Lincoln and other places thereabout, etc."
4) Dating by regnal years was absolutely what it said on the tin - year 1 was counted from the first day of the reign, year 2 from the first anniversary of the king's accession, etc.
5) Parish registers as such (baptism, marriage & burial) began in the reign of Henry VIII after the Reformation - for snooping purposes. I'd be very surprised if there were burial records for St Mary Arches for this period. There would have been monuments, however, for people of Lovell's status.
6) I don't know whether there were any Francis Lovells in London in 1487, but I do know that the Lancastrian Sir Thomas L. of Barton Bendish, whom I have mentioned before, had a younger relative of that name who survived well into the 16th century.
7) I haven't had time to go into it, but this later claim sounds like a try-on. There was a cufuffle in the 1490s because it was noticed that Lovell's name didn't appear in the 1487 attainder, so he was attainted again in 1495 for his part at Stoke. Our later claimant may have been unaware of the 1485 attainder and so thought he could claim inheritance through him by forging evidence that he had died before Stoke.
By for now,
Marie
--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> The two other categories were:
>
> Rebels attainted in 1487 and general pardons. I guess other could have
> been those thought to have been killed but no body to confirm and/or
> those who had been previously attainted. The longest list are the
> persons pardoned, the next smaller list are the ones who were attainted,
> and the smallest list by far, weighing in at ten names, are others.
>
> 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 , PD <outtolaunch@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Joan,
> >
> > I've wondered about that "Other." I have to confess that I
> haven't read
> > Baldwin's book.
> >
> > The Parliament Rolls listed Francis under "Other," or Baldwin
> did?
> > "Other what? Others seen on the field? Other rebel leaders? What was
> the
> > category as opposed to which they were "Others"?
> >
> > Peggy
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 6:03 PM, joansr3 u2nohoo@ wrote:
> >
> > > And, as fate would have it, he did [show up at Stoke]. In "Stoke
> Field"
> > > Baldwin lists the people who fought and cited the Rolls of
> Parliament
> > > VI. Francis, Viscount Lovel is listed under "Other" for the Rebels.
> > >
> > > In fact, Lovel's body was probably never found as an inquisition to
> > > determine Lovel's disposition was held in 1508. 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 , PD outtolaunch@
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:29 PM, KristineW krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it was in Henry's interest to have Lovell declared dead
> one
> > > way or
> > > > > the other. I agree with you Katy that it wouldn't be surprising
> if
> > > another
> > > > > Lovell died at Mary of the Arches, and the body was identified
> as
> > > Lord
> > > > > Lovell. Lovell being dead solved a lot of problems for Henry.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kris
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As long as Lovell didn't show up later --- at Stoke, for
> > > instance.
> > > >
> > > > Peggy
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Francis Lovell death
2011-01-16 00:24:34
Thank you for this information, Marie. I was pretty sure that Lovell
made it as far as Stoke and probably had survived it, although he could
have died shortly thereafter. I think Baldwin is a reliable researcher
and didn't see any profit from reinventing the wheel, so to speak. I'm
so glad you found this corroborating documentation.
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 , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Joan & all,
>
> Sorry, been half keeping up with this - v. busy. Will be out of
contact for 2 weeks now. Just wanted to say:-
> 1) "Other" is because Lovell wasn't mentioned in the attainder of 1487
- didn't need to be as he was already under attainder
>
> 2) Lovell did march to Stoke with the rebels. On 8th June 1487 a
letter was written from the pretender at Masham (north of York, seat of
Lord Scrope of same) & delivered the same day to the city of York, who
described it as "a letter direct to the Mayor, etc. from the lords of
Lincoln, Lovell and other landed at Furness in the name of their king,
calling himself King Edward VIth."
> The city council therefore sent a letter back with some of their own
people "to the lords of Lincoln and Lovell". When the city messengers
arrived back, they reported how "the said lords and their retinue was
departed over Boroughbridge...."
> The Historical Notes of a London Citizen also states that Lovell came
into England with the Pretender with Lincoln and Schwartz.
> 3) As regards the battle, the contemporary Heralds' account states
"And there was slain the Earl of Lincoln (John) and divers other
gentlemen, and the Viscount Lovell put to flight. and there were slain
of English, Dutch and Irish 4,000."
> The York city council recorded: ". . . the King ... met with the lords
of Lincoln and Lovell with other many nobles, as well of Englishmen as
Irishmen and other, to the number of 10,000, of the moor beyond Newark,
and there was a sore battle in the which the Earl of Lincoln and many
other, as well Englishmen as Irish, to the number of 5,000 were slain
and murdered. The Lord Lovell was discomfited and fled with Sir Thomas
Broughton and many other, and the child which they called their king was
taken and brought unto the King's Grace, and many other in great number,
which was judged to death at Lincoln and other places thereabout, etc."
> 4) Dating by regnal years was absolutely what it said on the tin -
year 1 was counted from the first day of the reign, year 2 from the
first anniversary of the king's accession, etc.
> 5) Parish registers as such (baptism, marriage & burial) began in the
reign of Henry VIII after the Reformation - for snooping purposes. I'd
be very surprised if there were burial records for St Mary Arches for
this period. There would have been monuments, however, for people of
Lovell's status.
> 6) I don't know whether there were any Francis Lovells in London in
1487, but I do know that the Lancastrian Sir Thomas L. of Barton
Bendish, whom I have mentioned before, had a younger relative of that
name who survived well into the 16th century.
> 7) I haven't had time to go into it, but this later claim sounds like
a try-on. There was a cufuffle in the 1490s because it was noticed that
Lovell's name didn't appear in the 1487 attainder, so he was attainted
again in 1495 for his part at Stoke. Our later claimant may have been
unaware of the 1485 attainder and so thought he could claim inheritance
through him by forging evidence that he had died before Stoke.
>
> By for now,
>
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
wrote:
> >
> > The two other categories were:
> >
> > Rebels attainted in 1487 and general pardons. I guess other could
have
> > been those thought to have been killed but no body to confirm and/or
> > those who had been previously attainted. The longest list are the
> > persons pardoned, the next smaller list are the ones who were
attainted,
> > and the smallest list by far, weighing in at ten names, are others.
> >
> > 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 , PD <outtolaunch@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Joan,
> > >
> > > I've wondered about that "Other." I have to confess that I
> > haven't read
> > > Baldwin's book.
> > >
> > > The Parliament Rolls listed Francis under "Other," or Baldwin
> > did?
> > > "Other what? Others seen on the field? Other rebel leaders? What
was
> > the
> > > category as opposed to which they were "Others"?
> > >
> > > Peggy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 6:03 PM, joansr3 u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > >
> > > > And, as fate would have it, he did [show up at Stoke]. In "Stoke
> > Field"
> > > > Baldwin lists the people who fought and cited the Rolls of
> > Parliament
> > > > VI. Francis, Viscount Lovel is listed under "Other" for the
Rebels.
> > > >
> > > > In fact, Lovel's body was probably never found as an inquisition
to
> > > > determine Lovel's disposition was held in 1508. 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 , PD outtolaunch@
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:29 PM, KristineW krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think it was in Henry's interest to have Lovell declared
dead
> > one
> > > > way or
> > > > > > the other. I agree with you Katy that it wouldn't be
surprising
> > if
> > > > another
> > > > > > Lovell died at Mary of the Arches, and the body was
identified
> > as
> > > > Lord
> > > > > > Lovell. Lovell being dead solved a lot of problems for
Henry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kris
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As long as Lovell didn't show up later --- at Stoke,
for
> > > > instance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Peggy
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
made it as far as Stoke and probably had survived it, although he could
have died shortly thereafter. I think Baldwin is a reliable researcher
and didn't see any profit from reinventing the wheel, so to speak. I'm
so glad you found this corroborating documentation.
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 , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Joan & all,
>
> Sorry, been half keeping up with this - v. busy. Will be out of
contact for 2 weeks now. Just wanted to say:-
> 1) "Other" is because Lovell wasn't mentioned in the attainder of 1487
- didn't need to be as he was already under attainder
>
> 2) Lovell did march to Stoke with the rebels. On 8th June 1487 a
letter was written from the pretender at Masham (north of York, seat of
Lord Scrope of same) & delivered the same day to the city of York, who
described it as "a letter direct to the Mayor, etc. from the lords of
Lincoln, Lovell and other landed at Furness in the name of their king,
calling himself King Edward VIth."
> The city council therefore sent a letter back with some of their own
people "to the lords of Lincoln and Lovell". When the city messengers
arrived back, they reported how "the said lords and their retinue was
departed over Boroughbridge...."
> The Historical Notes of a London Citizen also states that Lovell came
into England with the Pretender with Lincoln and Schwartz.
> 3) As regards the battle, the contemporary Heralds' account states
"And there was slain the Earl of Lincoln (John) and divers other
gentlemen, and the Viscount Lovell put to flight. and there were slain
of English, Dutch and Irish 4,000."
> The York city council recorded: ". . . the King ... met with the lords
of Lincoln and Lovell with other many nobles, as well of Englishmen as
Irishmen and other, to the number of 10,000, of the moor beyond Newark,
and there was a sore battle in the which the Earl of Lincoln and many
other, as well Englishmen as Irish, to the number of 5,000 were slain
and murdered. The Lord Lovell was discomfited and fled with Sir Thomas
Broughton and many other, and the child which they called their king was
taken and brought unto the King's Grace, and many other in great number,
which was judged to death at Lincoln and other places thereabout, etc."
> 4) Dating by regnal years was absolutely what it said on the tin -
year 1 was counted from the first day of the reign, year 2 from the
first anniversary of the king's accession, etc.
> 5) Parish registers as such (baptism, marriage & burial) began in the
reign of Henry VIII after the Reformation - for snooping purposes. I'd
be very surprised if there were burial records for St Mary Arches for
this period. There would have been monuments, however, for people of
Lovell's status.
> 6) I don't know whether there were any Francis Lovells in London in
1487, but I do know that the Lancastrian Sir Thomas L. of Barton
Bendish, whom I have mentioned before, had a younger relative of that
name who survived well into the 16th century.
> 7) I haven't had time to go into it, but this later claim sounds like
a try-on. There was a cufuffle in the 1490s because it was noticed that
Lovell's name didn't appear in the 1487 attainder, so he was attainted
again in 1495 for his part at Stoke. Our later claimant may have been
unaware of the 1485 attainder and so thought he could claim inheritance
through him by forging evidence that he had died before Stoke.
>
> By for now,
>
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
wrote:
> >
> > The two other categories were:
> >
> > Rebels attainted in 1487 and general pardons. I guess other could
have
> > been those thought to have been killed but no body to confirm and/or
> > those who had been previously attainted. The longest list are the
> > persons pardoned, the next smaller list are the ones who were
attainted,
> > and the smallest list by far, weighing in at ten names, are others.
> >
> > 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 , PD <outtolaunch@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Joan,
> > >
> > > I've wondered about that "Other." I have to confess that I
> > haven't read
> > > Baldwin's book.
> > >
> > > The Parliament Rolls listed Francis under "Other," or Baldwin
> > did?
> > > "Other what? Others seen on the field? Other rebel leaders? What
was
> > the
> > > category as opposed to which they were "Others"?
> > >
> > > Peggy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 6:03 PM, joansr3 u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > >
> > > > And, as fate would have it, he did [show up at Stoke]. In "Stoke
> > Field"
> > > > Baldwin lists the people who fought and cited the Rolls of
> > Parliament
> > > > VI. Francis, Viscount Lovel is listed under "Other" for the
Rebels.
> > > >
> > > > In fact, Lovel's body was probably never found as an inquisition
to
> > > > determine Lovel's disposition was held in 1508. 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 , PD outtolaunch@
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:29 PM, KristineW krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think it was in Henry's interest to have Lovell declared
dead
> > one
> > > > way or
> > > > > > the other. I agree with you Katy that it wouldn't be
surprising
> > if
> > > > another
> > > > > > Lovell died at Mary of the Arches, and the body was
identified
> > as
> > > > Lord
> > > > > > Lovell. Lovell being dead solved a lot of problems for
Henry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kris
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As long as Lovell didn't show up later --- at Stoke,
for
> > > > instance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Peggy
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Francis Lovell death
2011-01-16 02:01:13
I agree; I believe that Lovell made it to Stoke, and probably beyond.
Btw, the York Council records, and the Herald's report (apparently
assembled later from notes), are the ones preferred in Bennett's book on
Lambert & Stoke.
What intrigues me about Nichols v. Nichols is that it is the sort of
source that Grant's Woolly Lamb (in *The Daughter of Time*) tells him is the
best kind --- not someone's account of history, but a record made for an
entirely different purpose. The people involved in the case didn't care if
Lovell was a good guy or a bad guy, or what happened in the Wars of the
Roses --- only about which Nichols owned the land under the real property
laws. I would love to know what sort of evidence of Lovell's date of death
satisfied those judges.
Peggy
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 7:24 PM, joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
> Thank you for this information, Marie. I was pretty sure that Lovell
> made it as far as Stoke and probably had survived it, although he could
> have died shortly thereafter. I think Baldwin is a reliable researcher
> and didn't see any profit from reinventing the wheel, so to speak. I'm
> so glad you found this corroborating documentation.
>
> 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 , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Joan & all,
> >
> > Sorry, been half keeping up with this - v. busy. Will be out of
> contact for 2 weeks now. Just wanted to say:-
> > 1) "Other" is because Lovell wasn't mentioned in the attainder of 1487
> - didn't need to be as he was already under attainder
> >
> > 2) Lovell did march to Stoke with the rebels. On 8th June 1487 a
> letter was written from the pretender at Masham (north of York, seat of
> Lord Scrope of same) & delivered the same day to the city of York, who
> described it as "a letter direct to the Mayor, etc. from the lords of
> Lincoln, Lovell and other landed at Furness in the name of their king,
> calling himself King Edward VIth."
> > The city council therefore sent a letter back with some of their own
> people "to the lords of Lincoln and Lovell". When the city messengers
> arrived back, they reported how "the said lords and their retinue was
> departed over Boroughbridge...."
> > The Historical Notes of a London Citizen also states that Lovell came
> into England with the Pretender with Lincoln and Schwartz.
> > 3) As regards the battle, the contemporary Heralds' account states
> "And there was slain the Earl of Lincoln (John) and divers other
> gentlemen, and the Viscount Lovell put to flight. and there were slain
> of English, Dutch and Irish 4,000."
> > The York city council recorded: ". . . the King ... met with the lords
> of Lincoln and Lovell with other many nobles, as well of Englishmen as
> Irishmen and other, to the number of 10,000, of the moor beyond Newark,
> and there was a sore battle in the which the Earl of Lincoln and many
> other, as well Englishmen as Irish, to the number of 5,000 were slain
> and murdered. The Lord Lovell was discomfited and fled with Sir Thomas
> Broughton and many other, and the child which they called their king was
> taken and brought unto the King's Grace, and many other in great number,
> which was judged to death at Lincoln and other places thereabout, etc."
> > 4) Dating by regnal years was absolutely what it said on the tin -
> year 1 was counted from the first day of the reign, year 2 from the
> first anniversary of the king's accession, etc.
> > 5) Parish registers as such (baptism, marriage & burial) began in the
> reign of Henry VIII after the Reformation - for snooping purposes. I'd
> be very surprised if there were burial records for St Mary Arches for
> this period. There would have been monuments, however, for people of
> Lovell's status.
> > 6) I don't know whether there were any Francis Lovells in London in
> 1487, but I do know that the Lancastrian Sir Thomas L. of Barton
> Bendish, whom I have mentioned before, had a younger relative of that
> name who survived well into the 16th century.
> > 7) I haven't had time to go into it, but this later claim sounds like
> a try-on. There was a cufuffle in the 1490s because it was noticed that
> Lovell's name didn't appear in the 1487 attainder, so he was attainted
> again in 1495 for his part at Stoke. Our later claimant may have been
> unaware of the 1485 attainder and so thought he could claim inheritance
> through him by forging evidence that he had died before Stoke.
> >
> > By for now,
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > The two other categories were:
> > >
> > > Rebels attainted in 1487 and general pardons. I guess other could
> have
> > > been those thought to have been killed but no body to confirm and/or
> > > those who had been previously attainted. The longest list are the
> > > persons pardoned, the next smaller list are the ones who were
> attainted,
> > > and the smallest list by far, weighing in at ten names, are others.
> > >
> > > 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 , PD <outtolaunch@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Joan,
> > > >
> > > > I've wondered about that "Other." I have to confess that I
> > > haven't read
> > > > Baldwin's book.
> > > >
> > > > The Parliament Rolls listed Francis under "Other," or Baldwin
> > > did?
> > > > "Other what? Others seen on the field? Other rebel leaders? What
> was
> > > the
> > > > category as opposed to which they were "Others"?
> > > >
> > > > Peggy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 6:03 PM, joansr3 u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > And, as fate would have it, he did [show up at Stoke]. In "Stoke
> > > Field"
> > > > > Baldwin lists the people who fought and cited the Rolls of
> > > Parliament
> > > > > VI. Francis, Viscount Lovel is listed under "Other" for the
> Rebels.
> > > > >
> > > > > In fact, Lovel's body was probably never found as an inquisition
> to
> > > > > determine Lovel's disposition was held in 1508. 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 , PD outtolaunch@
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:29 PM, KristineW krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think it was in Henry's interest to have Lovell declared
> dead
> > > one
> > > > > way or
> > > > > > > the other. I agree with you Katy that it wouldn't be
> surprising
> > > if
> > > > > another
> > > > > > > Lovell died at Mary of the Arches, and the body was
> identified
> > > as
> > > > > Lord
> > > > > > > Lovell. Lovell being dead solved a lot of problems for
> Henry.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As long as Lovell didn't show up later --- at Stoke,
> for
> > > > > instance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Peggy
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Btw, the York Council records, and the Herald's report (apparently
assembled later from notes), are the ones preferred in Bennett's book on
Lambert & Stoke.
What intrigues me about Nichols v. Nichols is that it is the sort of
source that Grant's Woolly Lamb (in *The Daughter of Time*) tells him is the
best kind --- not someone's account of history, but a record made for an
entirely different purpose. The people involved in the case didn't care if
Lovell was a good guy or a bad guy, or what happened in the Wars of the
Roses --- only about which Nichols owned the land under the real property
laws. I would love to know what sort of evidence of Lovell's date of death
satisfied those judges.
Peggy
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 7:24 PM, joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
> Thank you for this information, Marie. I was pretty sure that Lovell
> made it as far as Stoke and probably had survived it, although he could
> have died shortly thereafter. I think Baldwin is a reliable researcher
> and didn't see any profit from reinventing the wheel, so to speak. I'm
> so glad you found this corroborating documentation.
>
> 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 , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Joan & all,
> >
> > Sorry, been half keeping up with this - v. busy. Will be out of
> contact for 2 weeks now. Just wanted to say:-
> > 1) "Other" is because Lovell wasn't mentioned in the attainder of 1487
> - didn't need to be as he was already under attainder
> >
> > 2) Lovell did march to Stoke with the rebels. On 8th June 1487 a
> letter was written from the pretender at Masham (north of York, seat of
> Lord Scrope of same) & delivered the same day to the city of York, who
> described it as "a letter direct to the Mayor, etc. from the lords of
> Lincoln, Lovell and other landed at Furness in the name of their king,
> calling himself King Edward VIth."
> > The city council therefore sent a letter back with some of their own
> people "to the lords of Lincoln and Lovell". When the city messengers
> arrived back, they reported how "the said lords and their retinue was
> departed over Boroughbridge...."
> > The Historical Notes of a London Citizen also states that Lovell came
> into England with the Pretender with Lincoln and Schwartz.
> > 3) As regards the battle, the contemporary Heralds' account states
> "And there was slain the Earl of Lincoln (John) and divers other
> gentlemen, and the Viscount Lovell put to flight. and there were slain
> of English, Dutch and Irish 4,000."
> > The York city council recorded: ". . . the King ... met with the lords
> of Lincoln and Lovell with other many nobles, as well of Englishmen as
> Irishmen and other, to the number of 10,000, of the moor beyond Newark,
> and there was a sore battle in the which the Earl of Lincoln and many
> other, as well Englishmen as Irish, to the number of 5,000 were slain
> and murdered. The Lord Lovell was discomfited and fled with Sir Thomas
> Broughton and many other, and the child which they called their king was
> taken and brought unto the King's Grace, and many other in great number,
> which was judged to death at Lincoln and other places thereabout, etc."
> > 4) Dating by regnal years was absolutely what it said on the tin -
> year 1 was counted from the first day of the reign, year 2 from the
> first anniversary of the king's accession, etc.
> > 5) Parish registers as such (baptism, marriage & burial) began in the
> reign of Henry VIII after the Reformation - for snooping purposes. I'd
> be very surprised if there were burial records for St Mary Arches for
> this period. There would have been monuments, however, for people of
> Lovell's status.
> > 6) I don't know whether there were any Francis Lovells in London in
> 1487, but I do know that the Lancastrian Sir Thomas L. of Barton
> Bendish, whom I have mentioned before, had a younger relative of that
> name who survived well into the 16th century.
> > 7) I haven't had time to go into it, but this later claim sounds like
> a try-on. There was a cufuffle in the 1490s because it was noticed that
> Lovell's name didn't appear in the 1487 attainder, so he was attainted
> again in 1495 for his part at Stoke. Our later claimant may have been
> unaware of the 1485 attainder and so thought he could claim inheritance
> through him by forging evidence that he had died before Stoke.
> >
> > By for now,
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > The two other categories were:
> > >
> > > Rebels attainted in 1487 and general pardons. I guess other could
> have
> > > been those thought to have been killed but no body to confirm and/or
> > > those who had been previously attainted. The longest list are the
> > > persons pardoned, the next smaller list are the ones who were
> attainted,
> > > and the smallest list by far, weighing in at ten names, are others.
> > >
> > > 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 , PD <outtolaunch@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Joan,
> > > >
> > > > I've wondered about that "Other." I have to confess that I
> > > haven't read
> > > > Baldwin's book.
> > > >
> > > > The Parliament Rolls listed Francis under "Other," or Baldwin
> > > did?
> > > > "Other what? Others seen on the field? Other rebel leaders? What
> was
> > > the
> > > > category as opposed to which they were "Others"?
> > > >
> > > > Peggy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 6:03 PM, joansr3 u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > And, as fate would have it, he did [show up at Stoke]. In "Stoke
> > > Field"
> > > > > Baldwin lists the people who fought and cited the Rolls of
> > > Parliament
> > > > > VI. Francis, Viscount Lovel is listed under "Other" for the
> Rebels.
> > > > >
> > > > > In fact, Lovel's body was probably never found as an inquisition
> to
> > > > > determine Lovel's disposition was held in 1508. 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 , PD outtolaunch@
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:29 PM, KristineW krisanne712@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think it was in Henry's interest to have Lovell declared
> dead
> > > one
> > > > > way or
> > > > > > > the other. I agree with you Katy that it wouldn't be
> surprising
> > > if
> > > > > another
> > > > > > > Lovell died at Mary of the Arches, and the body was
> identified
> > > as
> > > > > Lord
> > > > > > > Lovell. Lovell being dead solved a lot of problems for
> Henry.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kris
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As long as Lovell didn't show up later --- at Stoke,
> for
> > > > > instance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Peggy
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.