Francis Lovell's death

My question is why would we accept the information in Baldwin over the information in this lawsuit? The battlefield report appears murky at best - why would an official in Richard's government be listed under "Others"? Seems he'd rate more identification than that!

In the court documents we have "disinterested" parties ( Ricardian-wise) wrangling over land that may have been deeded over to the Wright family years before the Bosworth situation even occurred. Does it say when Lovell transferred the interest in the land to the plaintiff's family? The only information they needed was whether or not Lovell predeceased the man to whom he gave the land. They were not leaving a misdirection for posterity.

It could be they substituted another Francis Lovell's death certificate but that seems unbelievably Byzantine.

I know Ricardians dearly want Lord Lovell to have survived Bosworth and tried to help the Plantagenet cause in mysterious ways but this document has to raise the question whether that surmise is correct or not. Needs more research, I say!

L.M.L.,
Janet

There is clear evidence that Lovell survived Bosworth. IIRC, Lovell went
into Sanctuary with Thomas and Humphrey Stafford in Colchester from
where he eventually escaped and after a failed rebellion in 1486, fled
to Burgundy where he joined up with Richard's sister, Margaret. The
question about Bosworth isn't whether he survived, but whether he made
it to the battle at all. Before the battle, Lovell was "stationed" in
South Hampton and may not have had time to get to Bosworth before it was
over.

So the question is not if Lovell survived Bosworth, but if he survived
Stoke. Since Lovell's body was not found among the rebel dead at Stoke,
there was no proof of his death in that battle. No one actually knows
what did happen to him after June 16, 1487, but since James IV of
Scotland issued a safe passage for him in 1488, it is possible that he
was alive at that time. One has to think that James IV had information
that Lovell was alive at the time he issued safe passage.

In that list of others was Elizabeth Woodville. It does look like
Baldwin thought Lovell survived Stoke since he wasn't pardoned nor was
his body found among the dead. He wouldn't have been attainted then
because he already had been.

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 , "J. T," <treenbagh@...>
wrote:
>
> My question is why would we accept the information in Baldwin over the
information in this lawsuit? The battlefield report appears murky at
best - why would an official in Richard's government be listed under
"Others"? Seems he'd rate more identification than that!
>
> In the court documents we have "disinterested" parties (
Ricardian-wise) wrangling over land that may have been deeded over to
the Wright family years before the Bosworth situation even occurred.
Does it say when Lovell transferred the interest in the land to the
plaintiff's family? The only information they needed was whether or not
Lovell predeceased the man to whom he gave the land. They were not
leaving a misdirection for posterity.
>
> It could be they substituted another Francis Lovell's death
certificate but that seems unbelievably Byzantine.
>
> I know Ricardians dearly want Lord Lovell to have survived Bosworth
and tried to help the Plantagenet cause in mysterious ways but this
document has to raise the question whether that surmise is correct or
not. Needs more research, I say!
>
> L.M.L.,
> Janet
>

--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> So the question is not if Lovell survived Bosworth, but if he survived
> Stoke. Since Lovell's body was not found among the rebel dead at Stoke,
> there was no proof of his death in that battle. No one actually knows
> what did happen to him after June 16, 1487, but since James IV of
> Scotland issued a safe passage for him in 1488, it is possible that he
> was alive at that time. One has to think that James IV had information
> that Lovell was alive at the time he issued safe passage.



Two contemporary accounts say that Lovell was seen trying to swim his horse across the Trent, which was in flood, after Stoke. One says that he made it -- the horse, with him on it, was seen climbing from the river on the opposite bank.

Katy

You can find the report of Nichols v Nichols here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=L1ZHAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:YmwDAAAAQAAJ&hl=en&ei=op4oTaG7BsT38AaVpPG1AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Just search the book for Nichols. Starts on page 477.

All of the discussion of the attainder, and whether Lovell's interest in
the land became the property of Henry 7, is also interesting.
Too bad we have only a "brief report." The case was apparently argued over
the course of years. There may have been some proof offered of the date of
death; perhaps dispute about it. ( No such thing as a death certificate
until the 19th century, I believe. A burial record would be more likely. Or
affidavits.

It has been a very long time since I had to brief a case, but I've made
an attempt to provide a more brief version than Plowden's report, as
follows:

--------
Humphrey Nichols claimed that John Nichols, with force and arms, broke his
close at Alverly and caused damage. Sued for £40.

John Nichols said that the land in question had been demised by "Francis
Lovel, Knight, Lord Lovel, Holland, Burnet, Dancourt, and Grey" to one
Thomas Wright for the term of his life, and if the said Francis should die
without heirs of his body, then to Wright and his heirs forever. This gave
Lovell and his heirs (if any) a reversionary interest. John Nichols said
that Lovell died without heirs on 1 May of the 2nd year of the reign of H7,
in the parish of Blessed Mary of the Arches in London, while Wright was
still living, thus creating in Wright and his heirs an interest in fee.

Wright deeded it to Wildicot, who deeded it to William Nichols, and so on
in the chain of title, until it was inherited by John Nichols.

Humphrey Nichols argued that Wright never obtained fee title because of the
attainder of Lovell. Lovell's reversionary interest, he claimed, was
forfeited to Henry 7 and his heirs. Thomas Wright apparently died during the
reign of H 8. There was an Inquisition in the 11th year of the reign of
Elizabeth, which held that Henry 8 had owned the land in fee after Wright
died, and the fee descended to Elizabeth. On 4 Feb 12 Eliz, by Letters
Patent (which were produced in court), she granted the property to Hugh
Counsel & Robert Pistor, who sold it to Humphrey Nichols.

John Nichols argued that the bill of attainder said "saving to every Person
and Persons and their Heirs, other than such as by the same Act were
attainted . . . such Right, Title, Action, or Interest" as they ought to
have had, if the Act had never been passed.

HELD that the reversion was not vested in the King by the Act of Attainder.
John Nichols had title.
---------------

I see by an online search that there are some records from St.
Mary-le-Bow extant. The Guildhall Library seems to have some, but the site
doesn't give dates. Other sites mention the existence of records dating from
1538.

Peggy






On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:06 AM, J. T, <treenbagh@...> wrote:

> My question is why would we accept the information in Baldwin over the
> information in this lawsuit? The battlefield report appears murky at best -
> why would an official in Richard's government be listed under "Others"?
> Seems he'd rate more identification than that!
>
> In the court documents we have "disinterested" parties ( Ricardian-wise)
> wrangling over land that may have been deeded over to the Wright family
> years before the Bosworth situation even occurred. Does it say when Lovell
> transferred the interest in the land to the plaintiff's family? The only
> information they needed was whether or not Lovell predeceased the man to
> whom he gave the land. They were not leaving a misdirection for posterity.
>
> It could be they substituted another Francis Lovell's death certificate but
> that seems unbelievably Byzantine.
>
> I know Ricardians dearly want Lord Lovell to have survived Bosworth and
> tried to help the Plantagenet cause in mysterious ways but this document has
> to raise the question whether that surmise is correct or not. Needs more
> research, I say!
>
> L.M.L.,
> Janet
>
>
>
>

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > So the question is not if Lovell survived Bosworth, but if he survived
> > Stoke. Since Lovell's body was not found among the rebel dead at Stoke,
> > there was no proof of his death in that battle. No one actually knows
> > what did happen to him after June 16, 1487, but since James IV of
> > Scotland issued a safe passage for him in 1488, it is possible that he
> > was alive at that time. One has to think that James IV had information
> > that Lovell was alive at the time he issued safe passage.
>
>
>
> Two contemporary accounts say that Lovell was seen trying to swim his horse across the Trent, which was in flood, after Stoke. One says that he made it -- the horse, with him on it, was seen climbing from the river on the opposite bank.




To be more accurate, as I recall the mention of the report that I read, Lovell and the horse were seen climbing from the river on the opposite bank, but it didn't say he was on the horse.

Katy

Minster Lovell Hall and Dovecote are extensive ruins of a 15th century Manor house, once belonging to Lord Lovell. There is a medieval dovecote nearby. There is a public footway over private land via a kissing gate and a pasture. Legend has it that in 1708 the skeletal remains of Lord Lovell were discovered in a secret chamber in the manor house. Lord Lovell had fought in the Battle of Stoke in 1487 and had been seen escaping from the battle, but was never afterwards heard of. It is supposed that he had hidden himself there and died of starvation.

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So the question is not if Lovell survived Bosworth, but if he survived
> > > Stoke. Since Lovell's body was not found among the rebel dead at Stoke,
> > > there was no proof of his death in that battle. No one actually knows
> > > what did happen to him after June 16, 1487, but since James IV of
> > > Scotland issued a safe passage for him in 1488, it is possible that he
> > > was alive at that time. One has to think that James IV had information
> > > that Lovell was alive at the time he issued safe passage.
> >
> >
> >
> > Two contemporary accounts say that Lovell was seen trying to swim his horse across the Trent, which was in flood, after Stoke. One says that he made it -- the horse, with him on it, was seen climbing from the river on the opposite bank.
>
>
>
>
> To be more accurate, as I recall the mention of the report that I read, Lovell and the horse were seen climbing from the river on the opposite bank, but it didn't say he was on the horse.
>
> Katy
>

Thanks Peggy for the clear interpretation.


--- On Mon, 1/10/11, PD <outtolaunch@...> wrote:


From: PD <outtolaunch@...>
Subject: Re: Francis Lovell's death
To:
Date: Monday, January 10, 2011, 1:53 PM


 



You can find the report of Nichols v Nichols here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=L1ZHAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:YmwDAAAAQAAJ&hl=en&ei=op4oTaG7BsT38AaVpPG1AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Just search the book for Nichols. Starts on page 477.

All of the discussion of the attainder, and whether Lovell's interest in
the land became the property of Henry 7, is also interesting.
Too bad we have only a "brief report." The case was apparently argued over
the course of years. There may have been some proof offered of the date of
death; perhaps dispute about it. ( No such thing as a death certificate
until the 19th century, I believe. A burial record would be more likely. Or
affidavits.

It has been a very long time since I had to brief a case, but I've made
an attempt to provide a more brief version than Plowden's report, as
follows:

--------
Humphrey Nichols claimed that John Nichols, with force and arms, broke his
close at Alverly and caused damage. Sued for £40.

John Nichols said that the land in question had been demised by "Francis
Lovel, Knight, Lord Lovel, Holland, Burnet, Dancourt, and Grey" to one
Thomas Wright for the term of his life, and if the said Francis should die
without heirs of his body, then to Wright and his heirs forever. This gave
Lovell and his heirs (if any) a reversionary interest. John Nichols said
that Lovell died without heirs on 1 May of the 2nd year of the reign of H7,
in the parish of Blessed Mary of the Arches in London, while Wright was
still living, thus creating in Wright and his heirs an interest in fee.

Wright deeded it to Wildicot, who deeded it to William Nichols, and so on
in the chain of title, until it was inherited by John Nichols.

Humphrey Nichols argued that Wright never obtained fee title because of the
attainder of Lovell. Lovell's reversionary interest, he claimed, was
forfeited to Henry 7 and his heirs. Thomas Wright apparently died during the
reign of H 8. There was an Inquisition in the 11th year of the reign of
Elizabeth, which held that Henry 8 had owned the land in fee after Wright
died, and the fee descended to Elizabeth. On 4 Feb 12 Eliz, by Letters
Patent (which were produced in court), she granted the property to Hugh
Counsel & Robert Pistor, who sold it to Humphrey Nichols.

John Nichols argued that the bill of attainder said "saving to every Person
and Persons and their Heirs, other than such as by the same Act were
attainted . . . such Right, Title, Action, or Interest" as they ought to
have had, if the Act had never been passed.

HELD that the reversion was not vested in the King by the Act of Attainder.
John Nichols had title.
---------------

I see by an online search that there are some records from St.
Mary-le-Bow extant. The Guildhall Library seems to have some, but the site
doesn't give dates. Other sites mention the existence of records dating from
1538.

Peggy

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:06 AM, J. T, <treenbagh@...> wrote:

> My question is why would we accept the information in Baldwin over the
> information in this lawsuit? The battlefield report appears murky at best -
> why would an official in Richard's government be listed under "Others"?
> Seems he'd rate more identification than that!
>
> In the court documents we have "disinterested" parties ( Ricardian-wise)
> wrangling over land that may have been deeded over to the Wright family
> years before the Bosworth situation even occurred. Does it say when Lovell
> transferred the interest in the land to the plaintiff's family? The only
> information they needed was whether or not Lovell predeceased the man to
> whom he gave the land. They were not leaving a misdirection for posterity.
>
> It could be they substituted another Francis Lovell's death certificate but
> that seems unbelievably Byzantine.
>
> I know Ricardians dearly want Lord Lovell to have survived Bosworth and
> tried to help the Plantagenet cause in mysterious ways but this document has
> to raise the question whether that surmise is correct or not. Needs more
> research, I say!
>
> L.M.L.,
> Janet
>
>
>
>

--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> Minster Lovell Hall and Dovecote are extensive ruins of a 15th century Manor house, once belonging to Lord Lovell. There is a medieval dovecote nearby. There is a public footway over private land via a kissing gate and a pasture. Legend has it that in 1708 the skeletal remains of Lord Lovell were discovered in a secret chamber in the manor house. Lord Lovell had fought in the Battle of Stoke in 1487 and had been seen escaping from the battle, but was never afterwards heard of. It is supposed that he had hidden himself there and died of starvation.


In his "History of Henry VII," Francis Bacon says that after Stoke, Lovell lived on in a cave or vault. In 1708, men working on Minster Lovell allegedly found a secret underground chamber in which a skeleton was seated at a desk strewn with writing paper. The story is, the skeleton and the papers soon crumbled away into dust when the outside air entered the chamber.

I'm skeptical.

Katy

I think the story is apocryphal, by it's too delicious to let go, so I'm
using it for my third book in my series about Richard III in the
21st-century.

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 , "vermeertwo" hi.dung@
wrote:
> >
> > Minster Lovell Hall and Dovecote are extensive ruins of a 15th
century Manor house, once belonging to Lord Lovell. There is a medieval
dovecote nearby. There is a public footway over private land via a
kissing gate and a pasture. Legend has it that in 1708 the skeletal
remains of Lord Lovell were discovered in a secret chamber in the manor
house. Lord Lovell had fought in the Battle of Stoke in 1487 and had
been seen escaping from the battle, but was never afterwards heard of.
It is supposed that he had hidden himself there and died of starvation.
>
>
> In his "History of Henry VII," Francis Bacon says that after Stoke,
Lovell lived on in a cave or vault. In 1708, men working on Minster
Lovell allegedly found a secret underground chamber in which a skeleton
was seated at a desk strewn with writing paper. The story is, the
skeleton and the papers soon crumbled away into dust when the outside
air entered the chamber.
>
> I'm skeptical.
>
> Katy
>

Indeed... the protagonist gets a tantalizing glimpse of the lost letter from Elizabeth of York to Richard, then it suddenly crumbles before his eyes.

----- Original Message -----
From: joansr3 <u2nohoo@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 2:26 pm
Subject: Re: Francis Lovell's death
To:

> I think the story is apocryphal, by it's too delicious to let
> go, so I'm
> using it for my third book in my series about Richard III in the
> 21st-century.
>
> 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 , "vermeertwo" hi.dung@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Minster Lovell Hall and Dovecote are extensive ruins of a 15th
> century Manor house, once belonging to Lord Lovell. There is a
> medievaldovecote nearby. There is a public footway over private
> land via a
> kissing gate and a pasture.  Legend has it that in 1708 the
> skeletalremains of Lord Lovell were discovered in a secret
> chamber in the manor
> house. Lord Lovell had fought in the Battle of Stoke in 1487 and had
> been seen escaping from the battle, but was never afterwards
> heard of.
> It is supposed that he had hidden himself there and died of
> starvation.>
> >
> > In his "History of Henry VII,"  Francis Bacon says that
> after Stoke,
> Lovell lived on in a cave or vault.  In 1708, men working
> on Minster
> Lovell allegedly found a secret underground chamber in which a
> skeletonwas seated at a desk strewn with writing paper. 
> The story is, the
> skeleton and the papers soon crumbled away into dust when the outside
> air entered the chamber.
> >
> > I'm skeptical.
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
>
>

--- In , Angie Telepenko <gooble@...> wrote:
>
> Indeed... the protagonist gets a tantalizing glimpse of the lost letter from Elizabeth of York to Richard, then it suddenly crumbles before his eyes.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: joansr3 <u2nohoo@...>
> Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 2:26 pm
> Subject: Re: Francis Lovell's death
> To:
>
> > I think the story is apocryphal, by it's too delicious to let
> > go, so I'm
> > using it for my third book in my series about Richard III in the
> > 21st-century.
> >
> > Joan



What, no note in Richard's fine Italian hand saying "Francis, I told Bob to release the boys to Buckingham. You know what to do next. My Anne sends regards to yours. R Rex."

Katy

Having visited Minster Lovell a couple of times I totally understand the atmosphere which is almost palpable. The ruins, the dovecote, the Windrush babbling by....it calls out for a ghost! The setting is perfect!
But the "skeleton found in a locked room crumbling to dust" story has been done many times so I agree that, poignant as it is, it probably is a later invention. Or maybe that is how the litigant in the Wright case knew Lovell died on May 1, 1487. So much of the tale is lost to us now that could have still been available in the following couple of centuries.
Here we have another mystery in the story of Richard III. Unless the little tantalizing bit found by PD turns out to actually lead to something. Can one of our research-minded members check out Mary-le Bow's meagre records?

L.M.L.,
Janet

The following seems relevant; it seems Lovell escaped to Scotland.

As a chief leader of the Yorkist party, Lovell took a prominent part in Lambert Simnel's enterprise. With John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, he accompanied the pretender to Ireland and fought for him at the Battle of Stoke Field on 16 June 1487. He was seen escaping from the battle and seems to have eventually fled to Scotland, where on 19 June 1488 James IV issued a safe conduct to him. There is no further information about Lovell's fate.

Francis Bacon relates that according to one report he lived long after in a cave or vault (History of Henry VII, p. 37, ed. Joseph Rawson Lumby). More than 200 years later, in 1708, the skeleton of a man was found in a secret chamber in the family mansion at Minster Lovell in Oxfordshire and it was supposed that Lovell had hidden himself there and died of starvation. While this story is very picturesque, it seems unlikely to be true. Francis Lovell had hardly spent any time at Minster Lovell and would not have a faithful servant there who would hide him for years. Additionally, the manor had been granted to Jasper Tudor, Henry Tudor's uncle and was therefore hardly an appropriate hiding place for Francis Lovell.

Francis Lovell's wife, Anne Fitzhugh, was granted an annuity of £20 in 1489. She was still alive in 1495; the date of her death is not known.


--- In , "J. T," <treenbagh@...> wrote:
>
> Having visited Minster Lovell a couple of times I totally understand the atmosphere which is almost palpable. The ruins, the dovecote, the Windrush babbling by....it calls out for a ghost! The setting is perfect!
> But the "skeleton found in a locked room crumbling to dust" story has been done many times so I agree that, poignant as it is, it probably is a later invention. Or maybe that is how the litigant in the Wright case knew Lovell died on May 1, 1487. So much of the tale is lost to us now that could have still been available in the following couple of centuries.
> Here we have another mystery in the story of Richard III. Unless the little tantalizing bit found by PD turns out to actually lead to something. Can one of our research-minded members check out Mary-le Bow's meagre records?
>
> L.M.L.,
> Janet
>

I agree about the atmosphere at Minster Lovell. It cries out for
romantic legends to go with it! As I recall (need to dig out the booklet)
there's another one involving a coach.

> Or maybe that is how the litigant in the Wright case knew Lovell died on
May 1, 1487.

?? If Lovell died locked in a secret chamber at Minster Lovell, and was
not found until 150+ years after the lawsuit, the litigant in Nichols could
hardly have known that he'd died in London in 1487.

> The following seems relevant:...

The Wikipedia article is certainly on topic, but doesn't solve the
mystery.

Peggy

--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> The following seems relevant; it seems Lovell escaped to Scotland.
>
> As a chief leader of the Yorkist party, Lovell took a prominent part in Lambert Simnel's enterprise. With John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, he accompanied the pretender to Ireland and fought for him at the Battle of Stoke Field on 16 June 1487. He was seen escaping from the battle and seems to have eventually fled to Scotland, where on 19 June 1488 James IV issued a safe conduct to him. There is no further information about Lovell's fate.
>
> Francis Bacon relates that according to one report he lived long after in a cave or vault (History of Henry VII, p. 37, ed. Joseph Rawson Lumby). More than 200 years later, in 1708, the skeleton of a man was found in a secret chamber in the family mansion at Minster Lovell in Oxfordshire and it was supposed that Lovell had hidden himself there and died of starvation. While this story is very picturesque, it seems unlikely to be true. Francis Lovell had hardly spent any time at Minster Lovell and would not have a faithful servant there who would hide him for years. Additionally, the manor had been granted to Jasper Tudor, Henry Tudor's uncle and was therefore hardly an appropriate hiding place for Francis Lovell.
>
> Francis Lovell's wife, Anne Fitzhugh, was granted an annuity of £20 in 1489. She was still alive in 1495; the date of her death is not known.
>
>


Katy says: I'm sure vermeer won't mind my input that the above is the Wikipedia article entitled "Francis Lovell, 1st Viscount Lovell." I've learned from my own I-read-it-someplace experience that keeping track of where information comes from is important.

Katy

Uh ... that's what I meant by calling it "the Wikipedia article." :-)

Peggy

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:51 AM, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:

> the above is the Wikipedia article

--- In , PD <outtolaunch@...> wrote:
>
> Uh ... that's what I meant by calling it "the Wikipedia article." :-)
>
> Peggy
>



That's why I said vermeer wouldn't mind my pointing that out.


Katy

The concept of Lovell being locked up in a room smacks more of
nineteenth century Gothic- Revival than it does of medieval Gothic. Even
though the story goes back to Francis Bacon, it's the kind of story
beloved of Victorians.

On 12/01/2011 10:44 AM, vermeertwo wrote:
>
> The following seems relevant; it seems Lovell escaped to Scotland.
>
> As a chief leader of the Yorkist party, Lovell took a prominent part
> in Lambert Simnel's enterprise. With John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln,
> he accompanied the pretender to Ireland and fought for him at the
> Battle of Stoke Field on 16 June 1487. He was seen escaping from the
> battle and seems to have eventually fled to Scotland, where on 19 June
> 1488 James IV issued a safe conduct to him. There is no further
> information about Lovell's fate.
>
> Francis Bacon relates that according to one report he lived long after
> in a cave or vault (History of Henry VII, p. 37, ed. Joseph Rawson
> Lumby). More than 200 years later, in 1708, the skeleton of a man was
> found in a secret chamber in the family mansion at Minster Lovell in
> Oxfordshire and it was supposed that Lovell had hidden himself there
> and died of starvation. While this story is very picturesque, it seems
> unlikely to be true. Francis Lovell had hardly spent any time at
> Minster Lovell and would not have a faithful servant there who would
> hide him for years. Additionally, the manor had been granted to Jasper
> Tudor, Henry Tudor's uncle and was therefore hardly an appropriate
> hiding place for Francis Lovell.
>
> Francis Lovell's wife, Anne Fitzhugh, was granted an annuity of £20 in
> 1489. She was still alive in 1495; the date of her death is not known.
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "J. T,"
> <treenbagh@...> wrote:
> >
> > Having visited Minster Lovell a couple of times I totally understand
> the atmosphere which is almost palpable. The ruins, the dovecote, the
> Windrush babbling by....it calls out for a ghost! The setting is perfect!
> > But the "skeleton found in a locked room crumbling to dust" story
> has been done many times so I agree that, poignant as it is, it
> probably is a later invention. Or maybe that is how the litigant in
> the Wright case knew Lovell died on May 1, 1487. So much of the tale
> is lost to us now that could have still been available in the
> following couple of centuries.
> > Here we have another mystery in the story of Richard III. Unless the
> little tantalizing bit found by PD turns out to actually lead to
> something. Can one of our research-minded members check out Mary-le
> Bow's meagre records?
> >
> > L.M.L.,
> > Janet
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3375 - Release Date: 01/12/11
>

If there *was* a secret room, isn't it likely to have been a priests'
hole added in post-Reformation times? Who owned Minster Lovell when some
Catholics were hiding priests in their houses? How prevalent were they,
anyway?

Are there other examples of secret chambers said to have existed in 15th
century or earlier houses?

Peggy


On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Bill Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:

> The concept of Lovell being locked up in a room smacks more of
> nineteenth century Gothic- Revival than it does of medieval Gothic.
>

--- In , PD <outtolaunch@...> wrote:
>
> If there *was* a secret room, isn't it likely to have been a priests'
> hole added in post-Reformation times? Who owned Minster Lovell when some
> Catholics were hiding priests in their houses? How prevalent were they,
> anyway?
>
> Are there other examples of secret chambers said to have existed in 15th
> century or earlier houses?
>
> Peggy



Many. Secret passages and hidden rooms are a staple element of spooky stories. Glamis Castle is said to have a famous one:

http://www.castleofspirits.com/glamis2.html

Selling or wagering one's soul to the devil is an ever-popular element of folktales, too. What better than combine the two?

(Folk songs, too, such as "Peter Grubb" in which the devil wanted Grubb's prize hunting dog, not his soul.)

Here's a link to a rather exhaustive account of Minster Lovell.

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=117025

Katy

Thanks.

As for Glamis, I gather that the room remains undiscovered? Perhaps I
should have asked if there are any reliable accounts of secret chambers
being found in 15th century or earlier houses or castles; rooms which could
not have been added in post-15th century renovations. I love a good ghost
story, but....

I'm not sufficiently familiar with those post-Reformation owners or
occupiers of Minster Lovell listed to know if any were Catholic.

Peggy

>
>
>
>
> Many. Secret passages and hidden rooms are a staple element of spooky
> stories. Glamis Castle is said to have a famous one:
>
> http://www.castleofspirits.com/glamis2.html
>
> Selling or wagering one's soul to the devil is an ever-popular element of
> folktales, too. What better than combine the two?
>
> (Folk songs, too, such as "Peter Grubb" in which the devil wanted Grubb's
> prize hunting dog, not his soul.)
>
> Here's a link to a rather exhaustive account of Minster Lovell.
>
> http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=117025
>

From what I remember about the "legend," Lovel hid in an underground
storage cellar at Minster Lovel and arranged to have his servant wall up
the entry and bring him food. Either the servant abandoned him, or
something happened to the servant, but either way, Lovel was left there
without food where he eventually died of starvation.

I really think it's unlikely that Lovel would have returned to Minster
Lovel since Henry had seized the property after Bosworth. If Lovel had
indeed survived Stoke, then why would he suddenly act out of character
and do something so dumb as to have walked into the lion's den, so to
speak?

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 , PD outtolaunch@ wrote:
> >
> > If there *was* a secret room, isn't it likely to have been a
priests'
> > hole added in post-Reformation times? Who owned Minster Lovell when
some
> > Catholics were hiding priests in their houses? How prevalent were
they,
> > anyway?
> >
> > Are there other examples of secret chambers said to have existed
in 15th
> > century or earlier houses?
> >
> > Peggy
>
>
>
> Many. Secret passages and hidden rooms are a staple element of spooky
stories. Glamis Castle is said to have a famous one:
>
> http://www.castleofspirits.com/glamis2.html
>
> Selling or wagering one's soul to the devil is an ever-popular element
of folktales, too. What better than combine the two?
>
> (Folk songs, too, such as "Peter Grubb" in which the devil wanted
Grubb's prize hunting dog, not his soul.)
>
> Here's a link to a rather exhaustive account of Minster Lovell.
>
> http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=117025
>
> Katy
>

Joan wrote:
>
<snip> If Lovel had indeed survived Stoke, then why would he suddenly act out of character and do something so dumb as to have walked into the lion's den, so to speak?

Carol responds:

Should that be the dragon's den, given his standard? ;-)

By the way, is "Lovel" like "Cecily/Cicely/Cecille" in that there was no standard fifteenth-century spelling or did Francis routinely sign his name with one final "l"?

Carol, taking a break from an editing project that's giving her a headache

As far as I know, there was no standard 15th century spelling of almost
any word or name. Spelling didn't get much more "standard" in the 16th
century; or in the 17th. Think of Ben Jonson (now the standard spelling),
spelled "Johnson" in 3 different places in Westminster Abbey. And I don't
think we have a "Shakespeare" signature with that spelling of his name.

Peggy

P.S. Joan, has Richard encountered spellcheck yet? :-)

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 5:01 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> Joan wrote:
> >
> <snip> If Lovel had indeed survived Stoke, then why would he suddenly act
> out of character and do something so dumb as to have walked into the lion's
> den, so to speak?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Should that be the dragon's den, given his standard? ;-)
>
> By the way, is "Lovel" like "Cecily/Cicely/Cecille" in that there was no
> standard fifteenth-century spelling or did Francis routinely sign his name
> with one final "l"?
>
> Carol, taking a break from an editing project that's giving her a headache
>
>
>

--- On Tue, 1/11/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:


From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Francis Lovell's death
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 11:58 AM


 





--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> Minster Lovell Hall and Dovecote are extensive ruins of a 15th century Manor house, once belonging to Lord Lovell. There is a medieval dovecote nearby. There is a public footway over private land via a kissing gate and a pasture. Legend has it that in 1708 the skeletal remains of Lord Lovell were discovered in a secret chamber in the manor house. Lord Lovell had fought in the Battle of Stoke in 1487 and had been seen escaping from the battle, but was never afterwards heard of. It is supposed that he had hidden himself there and died of starvation.

In his "History of Henry VII," Francis Bacon says that after Stoke, Lovell lived on in a cave or vault. In 1708, men working on Minster Lovell allegedly found a secret underground chamber in which a skeleton was seated at a desk strewn with writing paper. The story is, the skeleton and the papers soon crumbled away into dust when the outside air entered the chamber.

I'm skeptical.

Katy
me too. basically the story is saying francis was in an air tight vault. therefore he did not die of starvation, but more like suffocation.
roslyn

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Joan wrote:
> >
> <snip> If Lovel had indeed survived Stoke, then why would he suddenly act out of character and do something so dumb as to have walked into the lion's den, so to speak?



Trolling through the Internet, I discovered this poem entitled Lord Lovel in which it is his bride who disappears tragically:

http://www.users.dialstart.net/~2metres/poetry/mistletoebough/mistletoebough.htm

It's from the late 19th century and I imagine it is totally apocryphal, just an example of Victorian fondness for the gothic, tacked onto the name of someone vaguely remembered for a mysterious disappearance.

This may be the same poem set to music -- I didn't download it:

http://www.folkways.si.edu/TrackDetails.aspx?itemid=33956


Katy

John Buchan used the "Hidden Corpse at Minster Lovell" story in his 1931 novel "The Blanket of the Dark", set in the time of Henry VIII.

Richard G

--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> I think the story is apocryphal, by it's too delicious to let go, so I'm
> using it for my third book in my series about Richard III in the
> 21st-century.
>
> 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 , "vermeertwo" hi.dung@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Minster Lovell Hall and Dovecote are extensive ruins of a 15th
> century Manor house, once belonging to Lord Lovell. There is a medieval
> dovecote nearby. There is a public footway over private land via a
> kissing gate and a pasture. Legend has it that in 1708 the skeletal
> remains of Lord Lovell were discovered in a secret chamber in the manor
> house. Lord Lovell had fought in the Battle of Stoke in 1487 and had
> been seen escaping from the battle, but was never afterwards heard of.
> It is supposed that he had hidden himself there and died of starvation.
> >
> >
> > In his "History of Henry VII," Francis Bacon says that after Stoke,
> Lovell lived on in a cave or vault. In 1708, men working on Minster
> Lovell allegedly found a secret underground chamber in which a skeleton
> was seated at a desk strewn with writing paper. The story is, the
> skeleton and the papers soon crumbled away into dust when the outside
> air entered the chamber.
> >
> > I'm skeptical.
> >
> > Katy
> >
>

And I think that Marjory Allingham used it in her Campion novel 'Look to the Lady',

Jennifer

--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> John Buchan used the "Hidden Corpse at Minster Lovell" story in his 1931 novel "The Blanket of the Dark", set in the time of Henry VIII.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > I think the story is apocryphal, by it's too delicious to let go, so I'm
> > using it for my third book in my series about Richard III in the
> > 21st-century.
> >
> > 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 , "vermeertwo" hi.dung@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Minster Lovell Hall and Dovecote are extensive ruins of a 15th
> > century Manor house, once belonging to Lord Lovell. There is a medieval
> > dovecote nearby. There is a public footway over private land via a
> > kissing gate and a pasture. Legend has it that in 1708 the skeletal
> > remains of Lord Lovell were discovered in a secret chamber in the manor
> > house. Lord Lovell had fought in the Battle of Stoke in 1487 and had
> > been seen escaping from the battle, but was never afterwards heard of.
> > It is supposed that he had hidden himself there and died of starvation.
> > >
> > >
> > > In his "History of Henry VII," Francis Bacon says that after Stoke,
> > Lovell lived on in a cave or vault. In 1708, men working on Minster
> > Lovell allegedly found a secret underground chamber in which a skeleton
> > was seated at a desk strewn with writing paper. The story is, the
> > skeleton and the papers soon crumbled away into dust when the outside
> > air entered the chamber.
> > >
> > > I'm skeptical.
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> >
>

Thanks for the tip, Richard. I'll have to look for the book. I will say
that this book isn't a ghost story. The people in it are either alive,
or if dead, only mentioned by people who are alive. So no ghosts, or
apparitions, or paranormal encounters. There's a bit of scifi and time
travel, though.

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 , "Richard"
<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> John Buchan used the "Hidden Corpse at Minster Lovell" story in his
1931 novel "The Blanket of the Dark", set in the time of Henry VIII.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
wrote:
> >
> > I think the story is apocryphal, by it's too delicious to let go, so
I'm
> > using it for my third book in my series about Richard III in the
> > 21st-century.
> >
> > 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 , "vermeertwo"
hi.dung@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Minster Lovell Hall and Dovecote are extensive ruins of a 15th
> > century Manor house, once belonging to Lord Lovell. There is a
medieval
> > dovecote nearby. There is a public footway over private land via a
> > kissing gate and a pasture. Legend has it that in 1708 the skeletal
> > remains of Lord Lovell were discovered in a secret chamber in the
manor
> > house. Lord Lovell had fought in the Battle of Stoke in 1487 and had
> > been seen escaping from the battle, but was never afterwards heard
of.
> > It is supposed that he had hidden himself there and died of
starvation.
> > >
> > >
> > > In his "History of Henry VII," Francis Bacon says that after
Stoke,
> > Lovell lived on in a cave or vault. In 1708, men working on Minster
> > Lovell allegedly found a secret underground chamber in which a
skeleton
> > was seated at a desk strewn with writing paper. The story is, the
> > skeleton and the papers soon crumbled away into dust when the
outside
> > air entered the chamber.
> > >
> > > I'm skeptical.
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> >
>

Oops, meant to say that MY book isn't a ghost story.--Joan

--- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@...>
wrote:
>
> Thanks for the tip, Richard. I'll have to look for the book. I will
say
> that this book isn't a ghost story. The people in it are either alive,
> or if dead, only mentioned by people who are alive. So no ghosts, or
> apparitions, or paranormal encounters. There's a bit of scifi and time
> travel, though.
>
> 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 , "Richard"
> RSG_Corris@ wrote:
> >
> > John Buchan used the "Hidden Corpse at Minster Lovell" story in his
> 1931 novel "The Blanket of the Dark", set in the time of Henry VIII.
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In , "joansr3" u2nohoo@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think the story is apocryphal, by it's too delicious to let go,
so
> I'm
> > > using it for my third book in my series about Richard III in the
> > > 21st-century.
> > >
> > > 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 , "vermeertwo"
> hi.dung@
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Minster Lovell Hall and Dovecote are extensive ruins of a 15th
> > > century Manor house, once belonging to Lord Lovell. There is a
> medieval
> > > dovecote nearby. There is a public footway over private land via a
> > > kissing gate and a pasture. Legend has it that in 1708 the
skeletal
> > > remains of Lord Lovell were discovered in a secret chamber in the
> manor
> > > house. Lord Lovell had fought in the Battle of Stoke in 1487 and
had
> > > been seen escaping from the battle, but was never afterwards heard
> of.
> > > It is supposed that he had hidden himself there and died of
> starvation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In his "History of Henry VII," Francis Bacon says that after
> Stoke,
> > > Lovell lived on in a cave or vault. In 1708, men working on
Minster
> > > Lovell allegedly found a secret underground chamber in which a
> skeleton
> > > was seated at a desk strewn with writing paper. The story is, the
> > > skeleton and the papers soon crumbled away into dust when the
> outside
> > > air entered the chamber.
> > > >
> > > > I'm skeptical.
> > > >
> > > > Katy
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Allingham's corpse wasn't Francis Lovell - Buchan's was.

Richard G

--- In , dances_with_spaniels <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> And I think that Marjory Allingham used it in her Campion novel 'Look to the Lady',
>
> Jennifer
>
> --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > John Buchan used the "Hidden Corpse at Minster Lovell" story in his 1931 novel "The Blanket of the Dark", set in the time of Henry VIII.
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think the story is apocryphal, by it's too delicious to let go, so I'm
> > > using it for my third book in my series about Richard III in the
> > > 21st-century.
> > >
> > > 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 , "vermeertwo" hi.dung@
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Minster Lovell Hall and Dovecote are extensive ruins of a 15th
> > > century Manor house, once belonging to Lord Lovell. There is a medieval
> > > dovecote nearby. There is a public footway over private land via a
> > > kissing gate and a pasture. Legend has it that in 1708 the skeletal
> > > remains of Lord Lovell were discovered in a secret chamber in the manor
> > > house. Lord Lovell had fought in the Battle of Stoke in 1487 and had
> > > been seen escaping from the battle, but was never afterwards heard of.
> > > It is supposed that he had hidden himself there and died of starvation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In his "History of Henry VII," Francis Bacon says that after Stoke,
> > > Lovell lived on in a cave or vault. In 1708, men working on Minster
> > > Lovell allegedly found a secret underground chamber in which a skeleton
> > > was seated at a desk strewn with writing paper. The story is, the
> > > skeleton and the papers soon crumbled away into dust when the outside
> > > air entered the chamber.
> > > >
> > > > I'm skeptical.
> > > >
> > > > Katy
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Ji Katy,

I'm trying to track down where this story about Lovell crossing the Trent comes from. The only strictly contemporary accounts I have seen agree that he escaped from Stoke.
Then we move on to the early 16th century histories. Vergil just says he was killed in the battle, like Lincoln and Schwartz.
Move on another 100 years, and Bacon relates: "Of the Lord Lovel there went a report that he fled and swam over Trent on horseback but could not recover the farther side, by reason of the steepness of the bank, and so was drowned in the river."
Does anyone know whether this story has any 16th century antecedants?
Personally, I can see no reason at all to doubt the unanimous contemporary report that Lovel survived the battle, nor the evidence of the safeconduct and later sighting in Scotland.
The problem for the whole Ricardian story, surely, is that the history books have relied so much on unreliable yarns from late "sources" that these have become ingrained in the collective consciousness.
Marie

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "joansr3" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > So the question is not if Lovell survived Bosworth, but if he survived
> > Stoke. Since Lovell's body was not found among the rebel dead at Stoke,
> > there was no proof of his death in that battle. No one actually knows
> > what did happen to him after June 16, 1487, but since James IV of
> > Scotland issued a safe passage for him in 1488, it is possible that he
> > was alive at that time. One has to think that James IV had information
> > that Lovell was alive at the time he issued safe passage.
>
>
>
> Two contemporary accounts say that Lovell was seen trying to swim his horse across the Trent, which was in flood, after Stoke. One says that he made it -- the horse, with him on it, was seen climbing from the river on the opposite bank.
>
> Katy
>

Marie,

What was the "later sighting in Scotland"?

Peggy

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Ji Katy,
>
> I'm trying to track down where this story about Lovell crossing the Trent comes from. The only strictly contemporary accounts I have seen agree that he escaped from Stoke.



As usual, I don't know. I originally got interested in R III 25 or 30 years ago. I started reading everything I could find, but I didn't know anyone else who was similarly interested (folks who don't remember the days before the internet may not appreciate the loneliness of having a rather oddball interest and no one to share it with) so I made no notes on where I read anything. I just squirreled it away in my brain, where almost everything is filed under "miscellaneous."

I really shouldn't pop up out of the teapot and try to contribute something to the discussion unless I at least know where I got that idea, even if I can't provide a bibliography. I know I won't be able to resist, but in the future I'll try to frame such interjections as a question rather than a statement -- "Didn't somebody say that Lord Lovell was last seen trying to swim his horse across the Trent?"

Katy

katy <oregon_katy@...>
Sent: Sun, January 16, 2011 1:55:51 AM
Katy
>As usual, I don't know. I originally got interested in R III 25 or 30 years
ago. I started reading everything I could find, but I didn't know anyone else
who was similarly interested (folks who don't remember the days before the
internet may not appreciate the loneliness of having a rather oddball interest
and no one to share it with) so I made no notes on where I read anything. I
just squirreled it away in my brain, where almost everything is filed under
"miscellaneous."


***A newbie lurker here....Boy can I relate Before the Flood/Internet was
lonely. OTOH I acquired some great books for cheap as no one knew
they were rare. Powell's here in Chicago 30+ yrs ago must have gotten
hold of someones personal library who had an interest in RIII because
I picked up some great deals.
Grace back to lurking.

Katy,

I think these "miscellaneous" contributions are really valuable even if
you can't remember where you saw it. Someone else might be able to find
the attribution, only having needed you to trigger their memory.

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 , mariewalsh2003
no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ji Katy,
> >
> > I'm trying to track down where this story about Lovell crossing the
Trent comes from. The only strictly contemporary accounts I have seen
agree that he escaped from Stoke.
>
>
>
> As usual, I don't know. I originally got interested in R III 25 or 30
years ago. I started reading everything I could find, but I didn't know
anyone else who was similarly interested (folks who don't remember the
days before the internet may not appreciate the loneliness of having a
rather oddball interest and no one to share it with) so I made no notes
on where I read anything. I just squirreled it away in my brain, where
almost everything is filed under "miscellaneous."
>
> I really shouldn't pop up out of the teapot and try to contribute
something to the discussion unless I at least know where I got that
idea, even if I can't provide a bibliography. I know I won't be able to
resist, but in the future I'll try to frame such interjections as a
question rather than a statement -- "Didn't somebody say that Lord
Lovell was last seen trying to swim his horse across the Trent?"
>
> Katy
>

--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Katy,
>
> I think these "miscellaneous" contributions are really valuable even if
> you can't remember where you saw it. Someone else might be able to find
> the attribution, only having needed you to trigger their memory.
>
> Joan


Why, thank you. I had expected other members of this group to second my offer to pipe down unless I knew from whence I had gotten some notion.

I actually have done real, professional writing, editing and research and in fact was employed by the US government as a technical writer for quite a few years, so I know how research should be done. I just never thought that the R III information I gobbled up because I was fascinated would be of interest to others 30 years later. I had no inkling I'd meet up with other like-minded lovely people via an invention that was as yet over the horizon -- there were certainly computers, but no Windows, which opened made them usable to ordinary people -- a "something-net."

Katy

"The Mistletoe Bough", by Thomas Haynes Bayley, about the bride in the chest, was sung in Oxfordshire schools as late as the 1930s. Interestingly, the fatal chest is still displayed at Rotherfield Greys - another former Lovell manor.

--- In , "stanley" <stanleyc.jenkins@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> "The Mistletoe Bough", by Thomas Haynes Bayley, about the bride in the chest, was sung in Oxfordshire schools as late as the 1930s. Interestingly, the fatal chest is still displayed at Rotherfield Greys - another former Lovell manor.



I went traipsing through the Internet trying to find which bride of a Lord Lovell this might refer to. It wasn't Francis' wife Anne -- she outlived him by many years, and he doesn't seem to have had a tragic wife before him.

Many of the old nursery rhymes are "cautionary tales" meant to warn children about real dangers. Don't go wandering off in the woods is a favorite theme -- Red Riding Hood, the Babes in the Woods, Hansel and Gretel, and so on. Maybe this song is an adult version of a cautionary tale -- don't go playing hide and seek on your wedding night, just hop into bed like a good girl.

While searching, though, I found this page which contains ads for lots of interesting books, some of which I didn't know about.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Mystery-People-of-History--Francis-Lovell

Katy

Hello Katy,

The bride-in-the-chest legend is thought to be of Italian origin, and it featured in the poem Ginerva, by Samuel Roger; this is a fragment:

"Full fifty years were past, and all forgot,
When on an idle day, a day of search
Mid the old lumber in the Gallery,
That mouldering chest was noticed; and 'twas said
By one as young, as thoughtless as Ginevra,
'Why not remove it from its lurking place?'
'Twas done as soon as said; but on the way
It burst, it fell; and lo, a skeleton,
With here and there a pearl, an emerald-stone,
A golden-clasp, clasping a shred of gold.
All else had perished -- save a nuptial ring,
And a small seal, her mother's legacy,
Engraven with a name, the name of both,
'Ginevra.'

There then had she found a grave!
Within that chest had she concealed herself,
Fluttering with joy, the happiest of the happy;
When a spring-lock, that lay in ambush there,
Fastened her down for ever!

There is also a poem by Shelley, which was possibly based on the same story. The Mistletoe Bow version moved the setting from Italy to "Lovell Castle" (as it used to be called) at Minster Lovell.

Hi Peggy,

It's the one I mentioned in my previous summary. I got this from an artile by Shelagh O'Connor in Ricardian no 96. I must admit I can't find it in Lorraine Attreed's edition of the York House Books. If you like, I can look up the article again for the exact source:-

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. . . "

I wouldn't worry too much about the fact that the man denied the sighting under questioning. There are a few similar incidents in the York Records during Henry VII's reign, where people had been overheard spreading information about the movements of Yorkist dissidents,and had been arrested. They always denied it under interrogation by the Mayor.

Marie


> Marie,
>
> What was the "later sighting in Scotland"?
>
> Peggy
>
>
>
>

Ah, and the OTHER Lord Lovell was dead by then, if I recall.

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: Francis Lovell's death




Hi Peggy,

It's the one I mentioned in my previous summary. I got this from an artile by Shelagh O'Connor in Ricardian no 96. I must admit I can't find it in Lorraine Attreed's edition of the York House Books. If you like, I can look up the article again for the exact source:-

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. . . "

I wouldn't worry too much about the fact that the man denied the sighting under questioning. There are a few similar incidents in the York Records during Henry VII's reign, where people had been overheard spreading information about the movements of Yorkist dissidents,and had been arrested. They always denied it under interrogation by the Mayor.

Marie

> Marie,
>
> What was the "later sighting in Scotland"?
>
> Peggy
>
>
>
>

Ah, yes,

You mean the OTHER Lord Lovell who wasn't Lord Lovell . . . .

Morley?

Marie

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Ah, and the OTHER Lord Lovell was dead by then, if I recall.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 6:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Francis Lovell's death
>
>
>
>
> Hi Peggy,
>
> It's the one I mentioned in my previous summary. I got this from an artile by Shelagh O'Connor in Ricardian no 96. I must admit I can't find it in Lorraine Attreed's edition of the York House Books. If you like, I can look up the article again for the exact source:-
>
> 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. . . "
>
> I wouldn't worry too much about the fact that the man denied the sighting under questioning. There are a few similar incidents in the York Records during Henry VII's reign, where people had been overheard spreading information about the movements of Yorkist dissidents,and had been arrested. They always denied it under interrogation by the Mayor.
>
> Marie
>
> > Marie,
> >
> > What was the "later sighting in Scotland"?
> >
> > Peggy
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, quite - he was demonstrably dead so this could only have meant the Viscount.

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: Francis Lovell's death



Ah, yes,

You mean the OTHER Lord Lovell who wasn't Lord Lovell . . . .

Morley?

Marie

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Ah, and the OTHER Lord Lovell was dead by then, if I recall.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 6:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Francis Lovell's death
>
>
>
>
> Hi Peggy,
>
> It's the one I mentioned in my previous summary. I got this from an artile by Shelagh O'Connor in Ricardian no 96. I must admit I can't find it in Lorraine Attreed's edition of the York House Books. If you like, I can look up the article again for the exact source:-
>
> 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. . . "
>
> I wouldn't worry too much about the fact that the man denied the sighting under questioning. There are a few similar incidents in the York Records during Henry VII's reign, where people had been overheard spreading information about the movements of Yorkist dissidents,and had been arrested. They always denied it under interrogation by the Mayor.
>
> Marie
>
> > Marie,
> >
> > What was the "later sighting in Scotland"?
> >
> > Peggy
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

 The Tudors was so obviously fiction ,Henry8 with black hair, Anne Boleyn a
dizzy blonde and Anne of Cleeves (after a face lift) just popping in speaking
perfect English.Hope nobody believed it.It's recorded what the above looked
like,but maybe it was a comedy?



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tue, February 1, 2011 3:22:03 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Francis Lovell's death

 
Yes, quite - he was demonstrably dead so this could only have meant the
Viscount.

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: Francis Lovell's death

Ah, yes,

You mean the OTHER Lord Lovell who wasn't Lord Lovell . . . .

Morley?

Marie

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...>
wrote:
>
> Ah, and the OTHER Lord Lovell was dead by then, if I recall.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 6:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Francis Lovell's death
>
>
>
>
> Hi Peggy,
>
> It's the one I mentioned in my previous summary. I got this from an artile by
>Shelagh O'Connor in Ricardian no 96. I must admit I can't find it in Lorraine
>Attreed's edition of the York House Books. If you like, I can look up the
>article again for the exact source:-
>
> 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. . . "
>
>
> I wouldn't worry too much about the fact that the man denied the sighting under
>questioning. There are a few similar incidents in the York Records during Henry
>VII's reign, where people had been overheard spreading information about the
>movements of Yorkist dissidents,and had been arrested. They always denied it
>under interrogation by the Mayor.
>
> Marie
>
> > Marie,
> >
> > What was the "later sighting in Scotland"?
> >
> > Peggy
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , carole jenkins <carolejenkins57@...> wrote:
>
>  The Tudors was so obviously fiction ,Henry8 with black hair, Anne Boleyn a
> dizzy blonde and Anne of Cleeves (after a face lift) just popping in speaking
> perfect English.Hope nobody believed it.It's recorded what the above looked
> like,but maybe it was a comedy?



I've been looking at it as an alternate world as imagined in Henry VIII's dreams, where he is forever young and studly and all the women are beautiful.

Katy

  Anne of Cleves looked just fine--she just didn't suit Henry.  The woman never needed a face lift.  Henry, on the other hand--major liposuction.
Sheffe

--- On Tue, 2/1/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: tudors
To:
Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2011, 9:35 PM







 













--- In , carole jenkins <carolejenkins57@...> wrote:

>

>  The Tudors was so obviously fiction ,Henry8 with black hair, Anne Boleyn a

> dizzy blonde and Anne of Cleeves (after a face lift) just popping in speaking

> perfect English.Hope nobody believed it.It's recorded what the above looked

> like,but maybe it was a comedy?



I've been looking at it as an alternate world as imagined in Henry VIII's dreams, where he is forever young and studly and all the women are beautiful.



Katy

apart from Anne Boleyn?she just looked silly




________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Wed, February 2, 2011 2:35:28 AM
Subject: Re: tudors

 


--- In , carole jenkins
<carolejenkins57@...> wrote:
>
>  The Tudors was so obviously fiction ,Henry8 with black hair, Anne Boleyn a
> dizzy blonde and Anne of Cleeves (after a face lift) just popping in speaking
> perfect English.Hope nobody believed it.It's recorded what the above looked
> like,but maybe it was a comedy?

I've been looking at it as an alternate world as imagined in Henry VIII's
dreams, where he is forever young and studly and all the women are beautiful.

Katy

Liposuction for Henry VIII would've been extremely dangerous: he would've sagged terribly after that and, as a fat head, he might've been left with no brain! Not that he had much of a brain to start with!

His grandfather Edward IV seems to have been just as voracious with women: didn't he have one mistress who used to dress up as a kinky nun?


--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>
>   Anne of Cleves looked just fine--she just didn't suit Henry.  The woman never needed a face lift.  Henry, on the other hand--major liposuction.
> Sheffe
>
> --- On Tue, 2/1/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> Subject: Re: tudors
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2011, 9:35 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , carole jenkins <carolejenkins57@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >  The Tudors was so obviously fiction ,Henry8 with black hair, Anne Boleyn a
>
> > dizzy blonde and Anne of Cleeves (after a face lift) just popping in speaking
>
> > perfect English.Hope nobody believed it.It's recorded what the above looked
>
> > like,but maybe it was a comedy?
>
>
>
> I've been looking at it as an alternate world as imagined in Henry VIII's dreams, where he is forever young and studly and all the women are beautiful.
>
>
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

At 09:53 AM 2/2/2011, vermeertwo wrote:
>Liposuction for Henry VIII would've been extremely dangerous: he
>would've sagged terribly after that and, as a fat head, he might've
>been left with no brain! Not that he had much of a brain to start with!

>His grandfather Edward IV seems to have been just as voracious with
>women: didn't he have one mistress who used to dress up as a kinky nun?

The major difference was that Edward left his women alive afterward.
One might almost think Henry was afraid of what his 'conquests' might
reveal if they decided to kiss and tell, while Edward would probably
just consider it extra publicity. ;-)