Inaccurate and annoying claims often found about Francis

Having spoken about Francis`s horrible portrayal in The White Princess, I decided to write the second part of this rant about misrepresentation of Francis. While in the two articles I have done this before have focused on fiction - here is the second one - this one is about nonfiction, and various, sadly very widespread, nonsense about him found on the internet and even in published non-fiction books.

The first, and perhaps most often repeated of these is that, as it is put even in a thoroughly scholarly and otherwise well-researched biography of Henry VII, Francis was "not personally important". This is said in context with his rebellions, and left to stand like this, with no more background information given about Francis. Just what he would have needed to qualify as personally important is not stated. Clearly it can`t have been riches, as Francis had been the wealthiest peer in the land below the rank of an earl, and in fact richer than some earls before he was attainted by Henry VII`s Parliament; his annual income estimated at around 2000 £. Nor can it have been rank, for Francis held five baronies and one viscouncy and would have inherited another had his maternal uncle William predeceased him. It also can`t have been influence, as Francis, while never much of a political player, was so by choice and in Richard III`s reign he held enough posts to enable him to become one had he so chosen, and he was moreover known to have influence by having the king`s ear. Not even lack of action can have been used to determine that Francis was "not important", for after all, he was instrumental in two rebellions in the first two years of Henry VII`s reign, not to mention an assassination attempt and a kidnap attempt on the king. 

Despite this, the description of Francis as such is repeated time and again, in other works about the time, and on the internet, where often it is put less politely. On several pages, Francis is variously stated to have been "a failure who needs no attention", "just Richard`s lackey and goon", and similarly lovely, yet wrong, descriptions. At one point, when attempting to argue against such a depiction, I was even accused of having nothing but "conjuncture" to support my claim that Francis ever held any importance whatsoever. 

Somewhat relatedly, as it is another claim minimising Francis`s rebellions, a claim often found is that the very fact he chose to rebel was "foolish" and "he should have submitted". While there were doubtlessly problems with his rebellions, especially the first one as it was critically underplanned and did not even have a figurehead, those are usually not addressed when such claims are made. It is just stated that it was stupid of him to ever rebel against Henry VII, without going into the reasons of why he did so. This would be more understandable if those claiming so explained why they are opposed to his actions, or condemned any other uprising - Warwick`s, York`s, Buckingham`s, Henry Tudor`s etc. - as well, but very often it`s only Francis, and the crux of the argument always seems to be that he didn`t know what he was doing and didn`t know what he was missing by not submitting after Bosworth, and was therefore "stupid". 

If not that, then especially the 1486 uprising gets squarely presented as being "for gain", or sometimes, "partly for loyalty and partly for gain", made by someone who had nothing to lose anymore. The fact that Francis had deliberately chosen to lose everything by not submitting, that he was offered a pardon after Bosworth and could have simply accepted it and tried working his way up in Henry VII`s government had he wanted gain, is nearly always ignored in every retelling of this rebellion - which aren`t that many to begin with. 

A completely different set of claims about Francis, which are found on social media and various websites, are concerned not so much with his actions as with his relationships. I`ve mentioned before how his marriage often gets portrayed as horrible, in spite of all evidence against this, but thankfully, this is not something that has bled into non-fiction, as Anne Lovell is usually, if in my opinion wrongly, not considered important enough to include there. His relationship with Richard, however, often does get mentioned. 

Ignoring the claims of "lackey" and "goon" mentioned above, Francis is very often made out to be a sort of second choice, the far less loved, less noticed, less interesting, connection of Richard in comparison to his wife, Anne Neville. While logic would dictate that these relationships were completely different ones and one would not reflect on the other, much less diminish it, such claims like to diminish Francis`s friendship to present Anne as the only one always there for Richard, the only one understanding him. One book went out of its way to point out that Anne was "possibly a good deal" Richard`s "confidante and comforter" since "Frances [sic] Lovel, his closest friend since his youthful days in the Earl of Warwick`s household, cannot have been so constantly at his side; and both Richard and Anne would have retained childhood memories, and surely been bound by some of the similar vicissitudes they had experienced as playthings in the power game".

This statement is frankly baffling, since its assumptions are based on pretty much nothing and moreover, some of it is easily debunkable. As lord chamberlain, it was literally Francis`s job to constantly be by Richard`s side, and in fact, the one time we know for a fact where both Anne and Francis were, during Richard`s 1483 progress, it was Francis who was always by his side and Anne who was not. Curiously, this also goes on to state that Francis was Richard`s closest friend since childhood, which is somewhat likely but unproven, only to then point out that Anne supposedly would have understood Richard better than anyone else as they would have shared childhood memories - which somehow, apparently, Francis and Richard, friends since childhood, didn`t. Nor is the argument that they were "bound" by their experiences as "playthings in the power game" particularly convincing, since those experiences were very different and, moreover, something that Francis also went through. 

What makes this particularly annoying is that to make a point about Richard and Anne`s supposed happiness, there would have been absolutely no need to mention Francis. In this, and in similar claims, it comes off as if he is just being mentioned to illustrate that Anne`s relationship to Richard was in all ways better, more profound and more understanding. Such a comparison is unnecessary, and often, as in this case, based on faulty assumptions about Richard, Anne and Francis.

Even worse is the claim sometimes made that Francis did not survive at Bosworth because he either was not present during the battle or, more likely, was ordered by Richard to stand back so he could survive, but because he "would have tried to stop him [Richard] on his suicide run" which he intended to commit because Anne Neville was dead and she was, according to claims like these, together with their son, the only person Richard cared about. In some places, Francis is even assumed to have been "a nuisance" for Richard because he would have wanted to stop him from committing suicide.

Of course, this is massively insulting towards Richard and all those we know he actually was still close to, which apart from Francis, included his illegitimate children John of Gloucester and Katherine Plantagenet, his mother Cecily Neville, his sisters Elizabeth and Margaret, his brother George`s children, Elizabeth`s children, as well as supporters like John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, his comptroller Sir Robert Percy, Richard FitzHugh Baron FitzHugh,  Robert Brackenbury, Sir Richard Ratcliffe, etc, and assumes he would have been fine with them dying alongside him in what he knew was a suicide attack or leaving them to an uncertain fate. It also takes the fact that Richard very likely asked Francis to stay back so he could survive even if he himself died - be it for practical or sentimental reasons or both - and manages to make it not about Francis but about Anne Neville, and in fact make Francis the scorned party in this, as if Richard could not possibly have wanted him to survive for his own merits, practical or otherwise.

There are other weird claims about Francis, but these are the ones most widespread, especially on the internet. Francis the insignificant nobody, Francis the idiotic rebel unaware how wonderful his life could be if only he submitted and Francis the man who is always inferior, not as important, to Anne Neville and her surpreme place in Richard`s affections.

Francis was far from perfect. There`s enough he can be called out for, even for and perhaps especially regarding his rebellions. But he deserves none of the above claims to be taken as truth about him.