Who was the real Francis Lovell?

I'l have a go as well Carol. A few weeks' ago I realised I didn't really know Francis Lovell. So much of what I think I know comes from fiction; Richard's Middleham childhood friend, his rather puppy-dog like admirer and faithfull supporter. But Lovell was four years' younger than Richard, that's a lot in childhood. We know Warwick used his wardship to tie in the FitzHugh lands. We know that Francis and Anna had no children, were admitted to the Corpus Christi Guild in York in the 1470s and that she didn't seem to know what happened to him after Stoke. We know that Richard made him a Viscount in the Scottish campaign and clearly trusted him when he was King. In the York House books there seems little affection for him (as there even is for Northumberland) but he is recorded as acquiring lands. Where was Lovell in the 1470s; lodging at Middleham? He was too young to fight at Barnet and Tewkesbury so we don't really know what manner of warrior he was. Was he at Bosworth? Why did he let Tudor's ships dupe him? What did he think of Richard's seeming infatuation with Buckingham? And did he go to Scotland after Stoke? I for one don't buy the Minster Lovell skeleton theory. I'm just asking daft questions again. I don't know the answers to any of this. Does anyone out there? Do we give Lovell too much credit when some folks are keen to pull Catesby to bits for doing what his family had been doing for nigh on two hundred years? H.

Hilary wrote:
" I'll have a go Carol.
A few weeks' ago I realised I really didn't know
Francis Lovell. So much of what I think I know comes from fiction; Richard's
Middleham childhood friend, his rather puppy-dog like admirer and faithful
supporter.
But Lovell was four years' younger than Richard,
that's a lot i childhood. We know Warwick used his wardship to tie in the
Fitzgerald lands. We know that Francis and Anna had no children, were admitted
to the Corpus Christi Guild in York in the 1470s and that she didn't seem to
know what happened to him after Stoke. We know that Richard made him a Viscount
in the Scottish campaign and clearly trusted him when he King. In the York House
books there seems little affection for him (as there even for is for
Nirthumbeland) but he is recorded as acquiring lands.
Where was Lovell in the 1470s; lodging in
Middleham? He was too young to fight at Barnet and Tewksbury so we really don't
know what manner of warrior he was. Was he at Bosworth? Why did he let Tudor's
ships dupe him? What did he think of Richard's semming infatuation with
Buckingham?
And did he go to Scotland after Stoke? I for one
don't buy the Minster Lovell skeleton theory.
I'm just asking daft questions again. I don't know
the answers to any of this. Does anyone out there? Do we give Lovell too much
credit when some folks are keen to pull Catesby to bits for doing what his
family had been doing for nigh on two hundred years?"
Doug here:
First off, sorry for the time lapse in replying to
you, but I when I read Marie's remarks about Lovell being a ward of the Suffolks
and living in their household I wondered if *that* wasn't the answer to your
question about why/how Richard and Lovell became involved - through the
Suffolks? IOW, Lovell's relationship with Richard originated in his (Lovell's)
being a friend of Lincoln.
We know, or at least it certainly appears so,
that Richard had a high regard for his nephew Lincoln, so why shouldn't
Richard accept a friend of Lincoln's in his service? Do you know of any links
between Lovell and *Lincoln*? Perhaps that would help in getting a better grip
on Lovell ?
If Lovell *was* at Bosworth, then he would seem to
have been one of the very few, if any, well-known supporters who survived
more than a few hours/days.
As for being duped by Tudor (a reference to where
Tudor actually *did* land, I presume), could that be the result of bad
intelligence? *If* Tudor's fleet *did* number what was claimed for it, it could
certainly be expected that such a fleet would require the facilities only a
decent-sized port, or ports, could provide and I don't recall any such
ports in Wales outside of Milford Haven, which wasn't situated in a position
favorable for a further invasion of England, especially if speed was paramount.
The south coast, on the other hand, had several such ports, starting with
Plymouth in the west and ending with Southampton in the east. Therefore, if
Lovell was tasked with preventing a landing *in force* on the south coast and
(this part is my own presumption) because the number of known vessels in
Tudor's *actual* fleet didn't provide the carrying capacity for a large descent,
Lovell remained on guard on the south coast even after Tudor had landed in Wales
*because he presumed there would be another, major landing*, which *was*
necessary *if* the information (read: Tudor propaganda) he had was true. We know
it wasn't, but he unfortunately either didn't, or discovered the truth too
late.
As for Lovell's thoughts about Richard and
Buckingham, I can't say that Lovell would even have expected any opinion he may
have had to carry any weight, except pehaps via Lincoln. After all, it *was* the
norm for the upper nobility to be major players in governing of the kingdom.
Until Buckingham had shown himself incompent, prevented by his rebelling, there
would have been no basis for Lovell to do anything other than support him
(Buckingham) as Richard's choice for the positions he held.
My personal opinion about the skeleton at Minster
Lovell is that it answered, seemingly, the question of what had happened to
Viscount Lovell and that's the reason it was accepted, at least to the
extent it has been. But not by me, I might add.
Doug

Doug, Many apologies for my typing (I think I have a dying keyboard) and I of course meant the FitzHughs, not the Fitzgeralds (must have spent too much time with the Butlers).I've actually learned a lot because I didn't know about the de la Poles and Lovell. My knowledge of the whole Richard thing is patchy and I'm certainly weak on 83/85. I'm better on the 70s.I think, as usual, we agree on most. My guess is that Lovell was duped by Henry's landing, there's no reason to deliberately let him avoid you. Perhaps Warwick, who seems to have been a born sea captain, would have guessed, but he was long gone. In fact the whole Yorkist story does show how much they really missed the skills of Warwick and later
Hastings.As for Bosworth, I've always wondered whether Lovell really was there. Firstly, he'd have had to have got there from the South and secondly wouldn't you have thought that he would have been with Richard on that final charge, which would make it very unlikely that he would have escaped death or capture? And no I don't accept the skeleton either. Why would Lovell head for an area which seems to have been seething with Lancastrian support? H On Wednesday, 20 November 2013, 14:49, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
wrote:
Hilary wrote:
" I'll have a go Carol.
A few weeks' ago I realised I really didn't know
Francis Lovell. So much of what I think I know comes from fiction; Richard's
Middleham childhood friend, his rather puppy-dog like admirer and faithful
supporter.
But Lovell was four years' younger than Richard,
that's a lot i childhood. We know Warwick used his wardship to tie in the
Fitzgerald lands. We know that Francis and Anna had no children, were admitted
to the Corpus Christi Guild in York in the 1470s and that she didn't seem to
know what happened to him after Stoke. We know that Richard made him a Viscount
in the Scottish campaign and clearly trusted him when he King. In the York House
books there seems little affection for him (as there even for is for
Nirthumbeland) but he is recorded as acquiring lands.
Where was Lovell in the 1470s; lodging in
Middleham? He was too young to fight at Barnet and Tewksbury so we really don't
know what manner of warrior he was. Was he at Bosworth? Why did he let Tudor's
ships dupe him? What did he think of Richard's semming infatuation with
Buckingham?
And did he go to Scotland after Stoke? I for one
don't buy the Minster Lovell skeleton theory.
I'm just asking daft questions again. I don't know
the answers to any of this. Does anyone out there? Do we give Lovell too much
credit when some folks are keen to pull Catesby to bits for doing what his
family had been doing for nigh on two hundred years?"
Doug here:
First off, sorry for the time lapse in replying to
you, but I when I read Marie's remarks about Lovell being a ward of the Suffolks
and living in their household I wondered if *that* wasn't the answer to your
question about why/how Richard and Lovell became involved - through the
Suffolks? IOW, Lovell's relationship with Richard originated in his (Lovell's)
being a friend of Lincoln.
We know, or at least it certainly appears so,
that Richard had a high regard for his nephew Lincoln, so why shouldn't
Richard accept a friend of Lincoln's in his service? Do you know of any links
between Lovell and *Lincoln*? Perhaps that would help in getting a better grip
on Lovell ?
If Lovell *was* at Bosworth, then he would seem to
have been one of the very few, if any, well-known supporters who survived
more than a few hours/days.
As for being duped by Tudor (a reference to where
Tudor actually *did* land, I presume), could that be the result of bad
intelligence? *If* Tudor's fleet *did* number what was claimed for it, it could
certainly be expected that such a fleet would require the facilities only a
decent-sized port, or ports, could provide and I don't recall any such
ports in Wales outside of Milford Haven, which wasn't situated in a position
favorable for a further invasion of England, especially if speed was paramount.
The south coast, on the other hand, had several such ports, starting with
Plymouth in the west and ending with Southampton in the east. Therefore, if
Lovell was tasked with preventing a landing *in force* on the south coast and
(this part is my own presumption) because the number of known vessels in
Tudor's *actual* fleet didn't provide the carrying capacity for a large descent,
Lovell remained on guard on the south coast even after Tudor had landed in Wales
*because he presumed there would be another, major landing*, which *was*
necessary *if* the information (read: Tudor propaganda) he had was true. We know
it wasn't, but he unfortunately either didn't, or discovered the truth too
late.
As for Lovell's thoughts about Richard and
Buckingham, I can't say that Lovell would even have expected any opinion he may
have had to carry any weight, except pehaps via Lincoln. After all, it *was* the
norm for the upper nobility to be major players in governing of the kingdom.
Until Buckingham had shown himself incompent, prevented by his rebelling, there
would have been no basis for Lovell to do anything other than support him
(Buckingham) as Richard's choice for the positions he held.
My personal opinion about the skeleton at Minster
Lovell is that it answered, seemingly, the question of what had happened to
Viscount Lovell and that's the reason it was accepted, at least to the
extent it has been. But not by me, I might add.
Doug