Nichols v Nichols - Francis Lovell

The story about the skeleton at Minster Lovell is fun, but I'd like to
get back to Nichols v. Nichols.,

Is it possible that any other account of the case, or any documents
relating to it, still exist?

While I studied some old cases in law school, I don't know very much
about British law, especially not in Elizabeth I's reign. But I'd be
astonished if judges, and opposing lawyers, were any less picky about
requiring proof of elements vital to the case than they are today.

For John Nichols to show valid title to the land, it was necessary for
him to prove that Francis Lovell had died while John Wright was still alive.
He (or his several attorneys) must have been required to produce some
evidence, by means of documents, affidavits, or witnesses. Obviously, it was
very much in the interest of the opposing side to try to refute the claim.

The case was heard over the course of more than 2 years, by a number of
judges. It doesn't appear that any of them was not satisfied by whatever
proof John Nichols provided. If the case is accurately reported, It seems to
me that It amounts to a finding by a court of law that Lovell died in London
on 1 May 1478.

I find that mind-boggling, and posted the information here in the hope
that some experienced Ricardian researcher will try to follow up on it

Peggy

Peggy wrote: "...died in London, May 1, 1478..."
I assume that's a typo and you meant 1487.

But what about the finding of the 1508 inquisition where yhe jury found
that Lovel had escaped and was living abroad at that time, not having
proof of his death? If they couldn't have found proof of his death in
1508--some 20+ years after said date--what was discovered in the next
100 or so years that wasn't recorded anywhere else? Is there a
transcript of that suit?

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:
>
> The story about the skeleton at Minster Lovell is fun, but I'd
like to
> get back to Nichols v. Nichols.,
>
> Is it possible that any other account of the case, or any
documents
> relating to it, still exist?
>
> While I studied some old cases in law school, I don't know very
much
> about British law, especially not in Elizabeth I's reign. But I'd be
> astonished if judges, and opposing lawyers, were any less picky about
> requiring proof of elements vital to the case than they are today.
>
> For John Nichols to show valid title to the land, it was necessary
for
> him to prove that Francis Lovell had died while John Wright was still
alive.
> He (or his several attorneys) must have been required to produce some
> evidence, by means of documents, affidavits, or witnesses. Obviously,
it was
> very much in the interest of the opposing side to try to refute the
claim.
>
> The case was heard over the course of more than 2 years, by a number
of
> judges. It doesn't appear that any of them was not satisfied by
whatever
> proof John Nichols provided. If the case is accurately reported, It
seems to
> me that It amounts to a finding by a court of law that Lovell died in
London
> on 1 May 1478.
>
> I find that mind-boggling, and posted the information here in the
hope
> that some experienced Ricardian researcher will try to follow up on it
>
> Peggy
>
>
>
>

Joan,

>Peggy wrote: "...died in London, May 1, 1478..."
> I assume that's a typo and you meant 1487.

Absolutely. Thanks for the correction.

> But what about the finding of the 1508 inquisition where yhe jury found
that Lovel had
> escaped and was living abroad at that time, not having proof of his death?


Do we know what question was put to the jury? (Was it a jury, or some
people appointed to look into it, or...?) Did they find that he was living
abroad, or just give that as a likelihood? Not finding proof of his death
is a far cry from making a positive finding as to his whereabouts.

> If they couldn't have found proof of his death in1508--some 20+ years
after said date--what
> was discovered in the next 100 or so years that wasn't recorded anywhere
else?

Well, I don't know where they looked. Or what evidence John Nichols
presented. (If burial records from St. Mary-le-bow exist, they'd be the
first place to look. But I doubt that the 1508 people went around looking at
any and all burial records then existing for every parish in England. I
don't think that parishes were required to keep records until 1538. Maybe
they kept some financial records, like payments received for use of a pall?
Of course, if a record were found, it could indeed be for some other Francis
Lovel --- unless it included terms like Viscount or Lord.)

>Is there a transcript of that suit?

I don't think that there was such a thing as what we'd call a
transcript today. Attorneys would probably have presented various papers &
documents. A clerk probably wrote some notes. In the US, we usually have
transcripts of cases only where someone has appealed the case and paid for
the stenographer's notes to be transcribed.

But that's pretty much what I was asking. Is it possible that any other
records of the case still exist? We have the names of the judges and
attorneys --- that might be a help. I'd suppose that lawyers kept papers in
deed boxes even that far back.

I wonder who owns the property now, and when the last title search was
done. :-)

LML,

Peggy

Conversely, If we could show for a fact that Lovel was at Stoke, then
the case, however received was specious.

However, since Lovell was atainted after Bosworth and all his lands and
properties went to the crown, maybe the argument used was that Lovel
should be considered legally dead before the owner died and it should
have reverted back to him at that time?

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:
>
> Joan,
>
> >Peggy wrote: "...died in London, May 1, 1478..."
> > I assume that's a typo and you meant 1487.
>
> Absolutely. Thanks for the correction.
>
> > But what about the finding of the 1508 inquisition where yhe jury
found
> that Lovel had
> > escaped and was living abroad at that time, not having proof of his
death?
>
>
> Do we know what question was put to the jury? (Was it a jury, or
some
> people appointed to look into it, or...?) Did they find that he was
living
> abroad, or just give that as a likelihood? Not finding proof of his
death
> is a far cry from making a positive finding as to his whereabouts.
>
> > If they couldn't have found proof of his death in1508--some 20+
years
> after said date--what
> > was discovered in the next 100 or so years that wasn't recorded
anywhere
> else?
>
> Well, I don't know where they looked. Or what evidence John
Nichols
> presented. (If burial records from St. Mary-le-bow exist, they'd be
the
> first place to look. But I doubt that the 1508 people went around
looking at
> any and all burial records then existing for every parish in England.
I
> don't think that parishes were required to keep records until 1538.
Maybe
> they kept some financial records, like payments received for use of a
pall?
> Of course, if a record were found, it could indeed be for some other
Francis
> Lovel --- unless it included terms like Viscount or Lord.)
>
> >Is there a transcript of that suit?
>
> I don't think that there was such a thing as what we'd call a
> transcript today. Attorneys would probably have presented various
papers &
> documents. A clerk probably wrote some notes. In the US, we usually
have
> transcripts of cases only where someone has appealed the case and paid
for
> the stenographer's notes to be transcribed.
>
> But that's pretty much what I was asking. Is it possible that any
other
> records of the case still exist? We have the names of the judges and
> attorneys --- that might be a help. I'd suppose that lawyers kept
papers in
> deed boxes even that far back.
>
> I wonder who owns the property now, and when the last title search
was
> done. :-)
>
> LML,
>
> Peggy
>
>
>
>

At Stoke:

Sure. If we can prove that he was anywhere, alive, after 1 May, then
John Nichols & his lawyers apparently pulled off a fraud on the court. You
know, I'm surprised that the attorneys for Humphrey Nichols didn't bring up
that 1508 Inquisition to show that Francis *might* have outlived Wright.
I'd sure like to know what kind of proof John had produced!

Attainder:

Nope. Read the report. The decision was that the attainder had no
effect on the full title passing to Wright when (but not before) Francis
died.

The reversion was to Lovell. The deed was to Wright for life, and, IF
Francis died without heirs before Wright, then to Wright & his heirs
forever. If Wright died first, it reverted to Francis.
Apparently even H7 couldn't interfere with Wright's life interest. But if
Wright had died first, I reckon full title would have reverted to the Crown,
which stood in the place of Lovell.

John Nichols argued the "saving clause" in the act of attainder,
regarding the rights & interests of others not attainted. Humphrey then
argued that John hadn't *shown* that Wright *hadn't* been a traitor, or
attainted; but the judges said, in effect, "Oh, come on! --- we have the
list --- his name wasn't on it."

Peggy

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 8:29 PM, joansr3 <u2nohoo@...> wrote:

> Conversely, If we could show for a fact that Lovel was at Stoke, then
> the case, however received was specious.
>
> However, since Lovell was atainted after Bosworth and all his lands and
> properties went to the crown, maybe the argument used was that Lovel
> should be considered legally dead before the owner died and it should
> have reverted back to him at that time?
>
> Joan
> ---
>
>
>

look at the bishop's records who oversaw mary le bow too. there maybe a record there. praying for the loved one's soul was often paid for. i.e. say 100 masses for lord lovel.
 
check inquistions post mortum for francis's siblings or any other close family member who may have survived him. they may have made such a request in their will.
 
good hunting
roslyn

--- On Wed, 1/12/11, PD <outtolaunch@...> wrote:


From: PD <outtolaunch@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Nichols v Nichols - Francis Lovell
To:
Received: Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 7:02 PM


 



Joan,

>Peggy wrote: "...died in London, May 1, 1478..."
> I assume that's a typo and you meant 1487.

Absolutely. Thanks for the correction.

> But what about the finding of the 1508 inquisition where yhe jury found
that Lovel had
> escaped and was living abroad at that time, not having proof of his death?

Do we know what question was put to the jury? (Was it a jury, or some
people appointed to look into it, or...?) Did they find that he was living
abroad, or just give that as a likelihood? Not finding proof of his death
is a far cry from making a positive finding as to his whereabouts.

> If they couldn't have found proof of his death in1508--some 20+ years
after said date--what
> was discovered in the next 100 or so years that wasn't recorded anywhere
else?

Well, I don't know where they looked. Or what evidence John Nichols
presented. (If burial records from St. Mary-le-bow exist, they'd be the
first place to look. But I doubt that the 1508 people went around looking at
any and all burial records then existing for every parish in England. I
don't think that parishes were required to keep records until 1538. Maybe
they kept some financial records, like payments received for use of a pall?
Of course, if a record were found, it could indeed be for some other Francis
Lovel --- unless it included terms like Viscount or Lord.)

>Is there a transcript of that suit?

I don't think that there was such a thing as what we'd call a
transcript today. Attorneys would probably have presented various papers &
documents. A clerk probably wrote some notes. In the US, we usually have
transcripts of cases only where someone has appealed the case and paid for
the stenographer's notes to be transcribed.

But that's pretty much what I was asking. Is it possible that any other
records of the case still exist? We have the names of the judges and
attorneys --- that might be a help. I'd suppose that lawyers kept papers in
deed boxes even that far back.

I wonder who owns the property now, and when the last title search was
done. :-)

LML,

Peggy

Chapter 7 of Baldwin's Stoke Field, titled "The Disappearance of Lord
Lovel" (Baldwin's spelling), he cites several references that show Lovel
at Stoke and not listed among the dead. In addition, Baldwin cites
Alice, Lady Fitzhugh's (Lovel's mother-in-law) letter to *Sir* John
Paston where she asks about Lord Lovell's (Fitzhugh's spelling)
whereabouts in behalf of her "doghtyr." While Gairdner attributes the
letter to Feb. 24, 1486, Baldwin points out that John Paston wasn't
knighted until after Stoke.

In addition, Baldwin wrote:
"There is, moreover, evidence with implies that Lovel not only survived
the conflict, but was thought to be still living as late oas the
beginning of the next decade. British Library Vitellius A XVI, a
chronicle compiled, probably, about 1490, has appended a very full list
of the 'Names of dyvers lordis, knyghtes, and gentilmen, the which have
ben slayn in the Realme of England Sith (since) the good Duke of
Glowcestre was mourdred at the parlement holden at Bury (I.e. February
1447), from which Lovel is specifically omitted. The scribe recorded
that, together with the Earl of Lincoln and Martin Schwartz, he 'cam to
Stoke feeld', but only Schwartz and Lincoln are subsequently listed as
slain. ..."

In his chapter notes, Baldwin cites that chapter 7 is an expanded and
revised version of the article "What Happened to Lord Lovel" that was
published in "The Ricardian" in June 1985.

I think Baldwin has done the research, and it does look like the lawyers
in Nichols v Nichols either didn't have access to all the records, or
were sloppy--like that never happens.

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 , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> look at the bishop's records who oversaw mary le bow too.
there maybe a record there. praying for the loved one's soul was often
paid for. i.e. say 100 masses for lord lovel.
> Â
> check inquistions post mortum for francis's siblings or any other
close family member who may have survived him. they may have made such a
request in their will.
> Â
> good hunting
> roslyn
>
> --- On Wed, 1/12/11, PD outtolaunch@... wrote:
>
>
> From: PD outtolaunch@...
> Subject: Re: Re: Nichols v Nichols -
Francis Lovell
> To:
> Received: Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 7:02 PM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Joan,
>
> >Peggy wrote: "...died in London, May 1, 1478..."
> > I assume that's a typo and you meant 1487.
>
> Absolutely. Thanks for the correction.
>
> > But what about the finding of the 1508 inquisition where yhe jury
found
> that Lovel had
> > escaped and was living abroad at that time, not having proof of his
death?
>
> Do we know what question was put to the jury? (Was it a jury, or some
> people appointed to look into it, or...?) Did they find that he was
living
> abroad, or just give that as a likelihood? Not finding proof of his
death
> is a far cry from making a positive finding as to his whereabouts.
>
> > If they couldn't have found proof of his death in1508--some 20+
years
> after said date--what
> > was discovered in the next 100 or so years that wasn't recorded
anywhere
> else?
>
> Well, I don't know where they looked. Or what evidence John Nichols
> presented. (If burial records from St. Mary-le-bow exist, they'd be
the
> first place to look. But I doubt that the 1508 people went around
looking at
> any and all burial records then existing for every parish in England.
I
> don't think that parishes were required to keep records until 1538.
Maybe
> they kept some financial records, like payments received for use of a
pall?
> Of course, if a record were found, it could indeed be for some other
Francis
> Lovel --- unless it included terms like Viscount or Lord.)
>
> >Is there a transcript of that suit?
>
> I don't think that there was such a thing as what we'd call a
> transcript today. Attorneys would probably have presented various
papers &
> documents. A clerk probably wrote some notes. In the US, we usually
have
> transcripts of cases only where someone has appealed the case and paid
for
> the stenographer's notes to be transcribed.
>
> But that's pretty much what I was asking. Is it possible that any
other
> records of the case still exist? We have the names of the judges and
> attorneys --- that might be a help. I'd suppose that lawyers kept
papers in
> deed boxes even that far back.
>
> I wonder who owns the property now, and when the last title search was
> done. :-)
>
> LML,
>
> Peggy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

the problem with research is ..that while it can be of a very good quality..it is often coloured by the bias of the researcher. for instance, i'm currently reading buckingham's rebellion by louise gill. awesome research, but it is peppered with anti-ricardian commentary.
 
i found it rather hard to "get into" because of her bias. it detracted from the information she was trying to present. that, and i don't like her writing style either. it's not very fluid.
 
i've also spotted one error. she says that william knyvett is buckingham's step father. he is not. he is buckingham's uncle in law via his marriage to joan stafford, daughter of humphrey 1st duke of buckingham.
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00026559&tree=LEO
 
btw. here is a descent line from francis's great grandfather. it may help sort out who could possibly pay for masses for his soul.
http://www.genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00348555&tree=LEO
 
leo van de pas is one of the better online genealogical sources available on the net. he is very particular as to who makes it into his database. he always cites his sources too. i shared this site with stephen a few years ago as well as some other top notch medieval european genealogical websites.
 
roslyn

--- On Thu, 1/13/11, joansr3 <u2nohoo@...> wrote:


From: joansr3 <u2nohoo@...>
Subject: Re: Nichols v Nichols - Francis Lovell
To:
Received: Thursday, January 13, 2011, 9:43 AM


 



Chapter 7 of Baldwin's Stoke Field, titled "The Disappearance of Lord
Lovel" (Baldwin's spelling), he cites several references that show Lovel
at Stoke and not listed among the dead. In addition, Baldwin cites
Alice, Lady Fitzhugh's (Lovel's mother-in-law) letter to *Sir* John
Paston where she asks about Lord Lovell's (Fitzhugh's spelling)
whereabouts in behalf of her "doghtyr." While Gairdner attributes the
letter to Feb. 24, 1486, Baldwin points out that John Paston wasn't
knighted until after Stoke.

In addition, Baldwin wrote:
"There is, moreover, evidence with implies that Lovel not only survived
the conflict, but was thought to be still living as late oas the
beginning of the next decade. British Library Vitellius A XVI, a
chronicle compiled, probably, about 1490, has appended a very full list
of the 'Names of dyvers lordis, knyghtes, and gentilmen, the which have
ben slayn in the Realme of England Sith (since) the good Duke of
Glowcestre was mourdred at the parlement holden at Bury (I.e. February
1447), from which Lovel is specifically omitted. The scribe recorded
that, together with the Earl of Lincoln and Martin Schwartz, he 'cam to
Stoke feeld', but only Schwartz and Lincoln are subsequently listed as
slain. ..."

In his chapter notes, Baldwin cites that chapter 7 is an expanded and
revised version of the article "What Happened to Lord Lovel" that was
published in "The Ricardian" in June 1985.

I think Baldwin has done the research, and it does look like the lawyers
in Nichols v Nichols either didn't have access to all the records, or
were sloppy--like that never happens.

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 , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> look at the bishop's records who oversaw mary le bow too.
there maybe a record there. praying for the loved one's soul was often
paid for. i.e. say 100 masses for lord lovel.
> Â
> check inquistions post mortum for francis's siblings or any other
close family member who may have survived him. they may have made such a
request in their will.
> Â
> good hunting
> roslyn
>
> --- On Wed, 1/12/11, PD outtolaunch@... wrote:
>
>
> From: PD outtolaunch@...
> Subject: Re: Re: Nichols v Nichols -
Francis Lovell
> To:
> Received: Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 7:02 PM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Joan,
>
> >Peggy wrote: "...died in London, May 1, 1478..."
> > I assume that's a typo and you meant 1487.
>
> Absolutely. Thanks for the correction.
>
> > But what about the finding of the 1508 inquisition where yhe jury
found
> that Lovel had
> > escaped and was living abroad at that time, not having proof of his
death?
>
> Do we know what question was put to the jury? (Was it a jury, or some
> people appointed to look into it, or...?) Did they find that he was
living
> abroad, or just give that as a likelihood? Not finding proof of his
death
> is a far cry from making a positive finding as to his whereabouts.
>
> > If they couldn't have found proof of his death in1508--some 20+
years
> after said date--what
> > was discovered in the next 100 or so years that wasn't recorded
anywhere
> else?
>
> Well, I don't know where they looked. Or what evidence John Nichols
> presented. (If burial records from St. Mary-le-bow exist, they'd be
the
> first place to look. But I doubt that the 1508 people went around
looking at
> any and all burial records then existing for every parish in England.
I
> don't think that parishes were required to keep records until 1538.
Maybe
> they kept some financial records, like payments received for use of a
pall?
> Of course, if a record were found, it could indeed be for some other
Francis
> Lovel --- unless it included terms like Viscount or Lord.)
>
> >Is there a transcript of that suit?
>
> I don't think that there was such a thing as what we'd call a
> transcript today. Attorneys would probably have presented various
papers &
> documents. A clerk probably wrote some notes. In the US, we usually
have
> transcripts of cases only where someone has appealed the case and paid
for
> the stenographer's notes to be transcribed.
>
> But that's pretty much what I was asking. Is it possible that any
other
> records of the case still exist? We have the names of the judges and
> attorneys --- that might be a help. I'd suppose that lawyers kept
papers in
> deed boxes even that far back.
>
> I wonder who owns the property now, and when the last title search was
> done. :-)
>
> LML,
>
> Peggy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

We know his wife was around.  Was his mother living?  Did he have older sisters? He was the only son of his father who survived to receive the title.
Sheffe

--- On Thu, 1/13/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Nichols v Nichols - Francis Lovell
To:
Date: Thursday, January 13, 2011, 7:30 AM







 









look at the bishop's records who oversaw mary le bow too. there maybe a record there. praying for the loved one's soul was often paid for. i.e. say 100 masses for lord lovel.

 

check inquistions post mortum for francis's siblings or any other close family member who may have survived him. they may have made such a request in their will.

 

good hunting

roslyn



--- On Wed, 1/12/11, PD <outtolaunch@...> wrote:



From: PD <outtolaunch@...>

Subject: Re: Re: Nichols v Nichols - Francis Lovell

To:

Received: Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 7:02 PM



 



Joan,



>Peggy wrote: "...died in London, May 1, 1478..."

> I assume that's a typo and you meant 1487.



Absolutely. Thanks for the correction.



> But what about the finding of the 1508 inquisition where yhe jury found

that Lovel had

> escaped and was living abroad at that time, not having proof of his death?



Do we know what question was put to the jury? (Was it a jury, or some

people appointed to look into it, or...?) Did they find that he was living

abroad, or just give that as a likelihood? Not finding proof of his death

is a far cry from making a positive finding as to his whereabouts.



> If they couldn't have found proof of his death in1508--some 20+ years

after said date--what

> was discovered in the next 100 or so years that wasn't recorded anywhere

else?



Well, I don't know where they looked. Or what evidence John Nichols

presented. (If burial records from St. Mary-le-bow exist, they'd be the

first place to look. But I doubt that the 1508 people went around looking at

any and all burial records then existing for every parish in England. I

don't think that parishes were required to keep records until 1538. Maybe

they kept some financial records, like payments received for use of a pall?

Of course, if a record were found, it could indeed be for some other Francis

Lovel --- unless it included terms like Viscount or Lord.)



>Is there a transcript of that suit?



I don't think that there was such a thing as what we'd call a

transcript today. Attorneys would probably have presented various papers &

documents. A clerk probably wrote some notes. In the US, we usually have

transcripts of cases only where someone has appealed the case and paid for

the stenographer's notes to be transcribed.



But that's pretty much what I was asking. Is it possible that any other

records of the case still exist? We have the names of the judges and

attorneys --- that might be a help. I'd suppose that lawyers kept papers in

deed boxes even that far back.



I wonder who owns the property now, and when the last title search was

done. :-)



LML,



Peggy

Roslyn,

Would you mind giving us URLs for those other top notch medieval european
genealogical websites you mentioned, if they are still active?

Thanks,

Peggy

for starters off the top of my head...
the foundation for medieval genealogy
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/CONTENTS.htm
 
this is a good resource with medieval researchers sharing information and providing corrections and updates to accepted genealogical resources. this is mostly english, but still highly useful.
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/
 
btw, if you have outdated/dead urls give the wayback machine a go.
www.archive.org
 
aside from often being able to retrieve info you thought was lost, it is also well worth a snoop for items of interest.
 
i'll have to rummage about in my files for more information, perhaps after the weekend.
 
roslyn
 
 
--- On Fri, 1/14/11, PD <outtolaunch@...> wrote:


From: PD <outtolaunch@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Nichols v Nichols - Francis Lovell
To:
Received: Friday, January 14, 2011, 4:48 PM


 



Roslyn,

Would you mind giving us URLs for those other top notch medieval european
genealogical websites you mentioned, if they are still active?

Thanks,

Peggy