Book announcement

Hello everyone!

I am sorry for the long delay since the last post, but I do have some good news. Amberley Publishing have agreed to publish my book about Francis!

Its name will be "Lovell our Dogge: The Life of Viscount Lovell, Closest Friend of Richard III and Failed Regicide", it will have 120,000 words and most likely be published in about a year.

The book will be about Francis`s whole life and illuminate the less well-known and famous parts of his life as well as the more famous ones. There will also be some focus on his family, his wife, his sisters, their husbands, and his in-laws.

I hope to spread some knowledge about Francis with this book, correct some misconceptions, and especially to arouse interest in him as his own person, not just "Richard`s friend". It will at least attempt to answer the question what sort of person he was, with the help of many primary sources.

As soon as more details are known, such as likely publishing date, I`ll of course immediately report them. 

Frideswide Lovell Norris

As I have mentioned before, Francis had two sisters. One of them, Joan, was probably his twin sister. Very little is known about her, except the most basic facts of her life, such her approximate birth and death year, the year she married, whom she married, and when she had her children

A little bit more is known about her and Francis`s younger sister, Frideswide. Apparently significantly younger than her siblings, she was not born before 1463, and most likely in 1464. Therefore, she was still only a baby when her father died on 9th January 1465, and a toddler when her mother died a bit over a year later, on 5th August 1466. She appears to have spent her childhood and adolescence in the household of her brother`s parents-in-law. In 1470, when she was around 6 years old, the first contemporary mention of her is found in the pardon Edward IV`s government issued for Henry FitzHugh and all those in his household after Henry`s rebellion. Though only a child, Frideswide was mentioned as she was, together with her sister, her brother Francis`s co-heir. If Francis himself was even involved in the rebellion is doubtful, as he was just shy of his 14th birthday, but the pardon cleared him of any legal difficulties that could have arisen later from being in Henry`s household at the time he rebelled.

What Frideswide`s education looked like, we naturally do not know. Nor do we know where she stayed until she married in around 1480, whether she lived with Francis`s guardians until then, lived with her brother Francis and his wife Anne after they had started living together as man and wife in around 1476, or lived with her sister Joan after she married in around 1473. Perhaps she stayed with all of them at different times, but it is sheerest speculation.

When Frideswide was around 16, she married the 15-year-old Edward Norris, the oldest son of William Norris of Yattendon and his first wife Joan/Jane de Vere. Edward was the nephew of the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford, who was a close friend of the Lancastrian Viscount Beaumont, Frideswide`s uncle. This, however, was most likely not the cause of the connection, as neither Edward nor Frideswide can ever have seen much of their respective uncles before 1485. Why the marriage was arranged, and if it was done by Francis, by William Norris, by the king or even by one of Francis`s FitzHugh relations, we no longer know.

How the two felt about being married, we also don`t know, but they did their duty and in 1481, the teenage couple became parents for the first time, when Frideswide gave birth to a son they called John. If they named their son after Frideswide`s father, whom she cannot have remembered and perhaps therefore did not think of with as much repulsion as the rest of her family did, or after Edward`s grandfather or paternal uncle, who were both named John as well, or after John of Suffolk, or even an unknown godfather is sheerest guesswork.

Only a year after the birth of their first son, Frideswide gave birth again, to a second son. He was named Henry, most likely after Henry FitzHugh, as there were no other men named Henry in either her nor her husband`s close family. This could suggest that though she was only around eight years old when Henry FitzHugh died, Frideswide remembered him fondly. Henry Norris grew up to become (in)famous for being one of Anne Boleyn`s supposed lovers and was one of the five men executed for this.

Perhaps because they already had two sons and considered their duty done, perhaps for other reasons, the couple did not have another child for several years. In 1483, Frideswide received a "reward" of 50 marks from Richard III after he was crowned king. Perhaps it was this, her support and closeness to her brother`s close friend, that caused a rift between her and her husband, and the couple was divided over political opinions which they needed some time to overcome. Edward`s father William, who had originally supported the Lancastrian cause, had accepted Edward IV as king, but rebelled against Richard in autumn 1483. Edward Norris may have supported this, though he never acted against Richard, while Frideswide seemed to support Richard.

However, there is evidence from 1484 which throws a rather different light on Frideswide`s marriage and her relationship to Richard. While her "reward" from 1483 could well have been simply a gesture of friendship by the new king towards his closest friend`s sister, their interactions clearly did not stop there. In August 1484, Richard granted her an annuity of 100 marks, a rather large sum. While this has traditionally been assumed to have been because of her father-in-law`s rebellion, leaving her husband disinherited, this does not seem to have been the cause. None of William`s other children, nor his wife, was granted anything by Richard.

Naturally, it could be that Richard chose to favour Francis`s sister over the rest of her marital family, but this is contradicted by two facts: one, that the grant was for unspecified "services" to the king, not, as that to other traitor`s relatives, as a compensation, a generous gift by the king. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, is that a second grant of an annuity of 100 marks was made from the same venue, dating from 10th January 1485. This grant was not a confirmation of the first, but was added to it, meaning that Frideswide received 200 marks yearly from Richard, a sizable sum, more than the Countess of Oxford, or even his own mother-in-law, received.

The key to this may lie in the fact that the second grant was dated back nine months, and appears to have been made just after Frideswide gave birth to her third child, a daughter called Anne. Very notably, the grants to her, for unspecified services to the king, have the same wording as one to Katherine Haute, a woman often assumed to have been the mother of Richard`s illegitimate daughter Katherine, Richard made years earlier.

Equally notable is that Richard made grants to Francis on the same days as he made those to Frideswide, as a compensation for equally unspecified services, and that Frideswide appeared to have lived with her brother while pregnant.

That Henry Norris, in later years, appeared to not treat Anne as his sister, and that William Norris, Edward`s father, later favoured Frideswide`s sons, even apparently helping them become established at court, but not Anne, might also point towards the idea that there was at least a question mark over Anne`s paternity, and that she may have been Richard`s.

If so, Frideswide was in a bad position after Richard`s defeat and death at Bosworth only eight and a half months after her daughter`s birth. It seems, though, that she and her husband Edward made the best of it, and even reconcilliated. In around 1486, Frideswide gave birth to her last child, a girl called Margaret, presumably after Edward`s sister. From surviving documents, Margaret seemed much closer to her brother Henry and her grandfather William, again showing up a difference to Anne.

In 1487, Frideswide`s husband, as well as her father-in-law, joined Henry VII`s forces against her brother Francis and the Yorkist rebels, and defeated them at the Battle of Stoke. Edward was knighted for his services. It can only be speculated about what Frideswide thought about this, and what her feelings were about her husband fighting against her brother.

Edward, sadly, did not get to enjoy his knighthood for long, dying later in 1487, of causes unknown. He was only 22 years old, and left Frideswide a 23-year-old widow.

Very little is known about the rest of her life. She appeared to have helped taking care of her sister Joan`s children, and her younger son George eventually even named a child after her. Frideswide did not remarry, and died before 1507, when she is said to be deceased in her uncle William Beaumont`s IPM. When exactly she died, and what of, is sadly unknown.

Of her children, only Henry and Anne had issue, but through them, she has descendants alive even today.

The birthdate of Joan Beaumont

In or around 1428, Francis`s maternal grandparents John Beaumont and Elizabeth Phelip married. He was 19 years old, she was approximately the same age. We do not know of their living arrangements, or how they felt about the match, but it was five years until they had their first child, a son called Henry after John`s father. This was traditional in the Beaumont family, and the lords Beaumont had been alternatively called John and Henry for over a century.

Whether or not Elizabeth fell pregnant and perhaps had miscarriages in the years following this, we do not know. Since John spent a lot of time at court and from all we know, Elizabeth did not often accompany him, it is perhaps not too likely. We do know, however, that soon after John returned from France, where he had been on a campaign with the royal court, in July 1437, Elizabeth became pregnant again. On 23rd April 1438, she gave birth to her second son, a boy they named William after her father William Phelip. John was present at the time and saw to it his son`s birth was properly celebrated.

In the following year, John again spent a lot of time at court, while Elizabeth seems to have stayed away, running his estates. While it is naturally possible that she visited him during that time and became pregnant,  there are no indications this was so. At no point did he ever leave court to be present at another birth, or to see a new baby, and no comment was made anywhere about another child being born to him. This might, of course, be because this third baby was a daughter and therefore of less interest than her brothers, but circumstantial evidence speaks against it, most notably that in February 1440, when he was made a viscount, John was not noted to be the father to a daughter, only to two sons.

In 1440, after being made England`s first viscount, John appears to have spent less time at court than in the years before. Why this was so, we do not know, but it is most likely that at the end of this year, his wife Elizabeth became pregnant again. By this time, they had been married for twelve years, and she had only given birth two times, not a lot for the time. Why this was so, we have of course no way of saying. Perhaps they had tried whenever they were together but had had difficulties conceiving, or she had had miscarriages. Perhaps they also did not try so often and were happy having two sons, but his new title had made them decide to try for more children.

Whyever it was then, and not earlier, Elizabeth appears to have become pregnant again in late 1440. She must have been around eight or so months along when her father William died on 6th June 1441. In his will, he left her "a bed of silk and one pair of sheets", but nothing to his grandchildren. He mentioned his daughters children, however, as his "heirs male" for the barony he held in the name of his wife, suggesting that at this time, she only had her two sons.

Between her father`s death, and 10th August 1441, Elizabeth died, perhaps from complications while giving birth to her third child, a girl who was named Joan after Elizabeth`s mother Joan. This may have been in the beginning or middle of July, for in a grant made to John Beaumont on 10th August 1441, he is said to have just been bereaved. Said grant gave him the rights to his late father-in-law`s lands and possessions during his children`s minority. It is the first time Joan Beaumont is mentioned. In both this grant, and in her grandfather`s Inquisition Post Mortem made in October 1441, she is said to be his heir, after her brothers, making it clear that no male entail had been created for his lands. This also suggests that when William Phelip spoke of his daughter`s children as his "heirs male" in his will, he wasn`t deliberately excluding Joan because she was a girl, but she simply had not been born yet.

She was therefore seven years younger than her oldest brother, three years younger than William. She was married at the age of 5, and first gave birth, to Francis and his sister Joan, when she had just turned fifteen.

Most likely, like her mother, she died in childbirth in 1466, just after her 25th birthday. 

Francis`s safe-conducts to Scotland

In the space of less than twenty years, Francis was granted two safe-conducts to Scotland, both curiously issued on 19th June, the first one in 1471, the second one in 1488.

The first one was organised by his father-in-law, Henry FitzHugh, during the Lancastrian re-adaption, for his family and wards, if strangely not for himself. Since Henry supported the Lancastrian side, it seems likely he hoped to allow his family to escape to Scotland should the then-exiled Yorkist king Edward IV return and be victorious against the Lancastrian Henry VI. Perhaps he feared that, having already been in rebellion against Edward in autumn 1470 and been forgiven, this would not happen a second time and both he and his family would be punished. Perhaps he definitely intended them to go to Scotland if it was possible in case Edward IV regained his throne, or he just wished that they would have the option to flee when it became clear that he might be punished. There is no certainty about it, as it never came to it.

We do not know when Henry applied for the safe conducts, but by the time they came, it may have already been too late for him to realise any of his plans, for by June 1471, Edward had already regained his throne and Henry VI was dead, probably killed on Edward`s orders. It is sometimes assumed that Henry FitzHugh did flee to Scotland alone, with a safe-conduct about which records have got lost, and died there in 1472, but there is no certainty about it. While his death in 1472 is a fact, where he was at the time of death can`t be said. If he did leave for Scotland, however, he took neither Francis nor any of the others he had applied for safe conducts for so they could join him, which also included his wife Alice, his oldest son Richard and their ward Richard, Lord Latimer, who was only three years old in 1471. Francis`s sisters, who at that time still lived in the FitzHugh household, are not mentioned, nor are any of the younger FitzHugh children, but this is most likely not because they were not meant to go along, but because they were not of enough importance to be mentioned, as they neither held any titles in their own name, nor were heirs/heiresses expected to hold titles in the future. 

Naturally, we have no idea what Francis thought of going to Scotland, but by the time he could have, he was most likely no longer in the FitzHugh household. Though his wardship was only granted to Edward IV`s sister Elizabeth and her husband John, Duke of Suffolk, a month later, he was presumably already living with them at this time, and would do so for around a year, by which time Henry FitzHugh was dead and any and all plans to go to Scotland appear to have been unnecessary and forgot.

Francis`s second safe conduct to Scotland was presumably organised by Margaret of York, after the Battle of Stoke was won by Henry VII`s forces and Francis was once more a fugitive. It was, however, only granted almost exactly a year after the battle, and Francis may well have been dead by then.

His fellow rebel, Thomas Broughton, appears to have taken his own safe conduct, granted at the same time as Francis`s, and stayed in Scotland until 1492. There is, however, no solid evidence Francis accompanied him, only one instance of hearsay by a "poor and simple man of York", which was recanted later. While there is some evidence of Broughton`s life in Scotland, there is none for Francis.

While it seems likely that in this instance, Francis supported the idea of a safe conduct, it doesn`t seem as if he ever arrived there. He may have been dead by the time it arrived, or been too ill to travel. Whether he had wanted to go there or seen it as a necessary evil, we don`t know, but it never came to fruition. It seems that despite having had two safe- conducts in his name, Francis never went to Scotland.

The Battle of Stoke

On 16th June 1487, the last battle of the series of conflicts now known as the Wars of the Roses was fought at East Stoke between the forces of the then-sitting king, Henry VII, and rebel Yorkist forces, led by John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln and Francis.

Little is known about the actual battle itself, not even who was present. Strangely, though information about their motivations and especially the identity of the boy they fought for is scarce and has been lost and/or deliberately destroyed, more is known about who fought for the Yorkist rebels than who fought for Henry VII.

Apart from Francis and John, the Yorkists were supported by the Irish Earl of Kildare`s brother, Thomas FitzGerald, and a number of his men, as well as a German mercenary called Martin Schwartz and a company of his men. They were also joined by some English rebels eager to support their cause, most notably Francis`s associate Thomas Broughton. Henry VII`s forces appear to have been led by the Earl of Oxford. It is usually assumed that Henry`s uncle Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford, also took a leading part, but he is not mentioned in any contemporary source, though his absence would be hard to explain. It is equally unknown if William Beaumont, Viscount Beaumont, also an experienced fighter, was present, though in his case, an absence could easily be explained by the fact that at this point, his mental health was already failing.

If he was present, it would have meant he fought against his nephew Francis. Although it is hard to imagine either of them was much upset about this, as they can hardly have known each other, it is possible that William, already being somewhat unstable, was kept away from the battle so this situation would not worsen his state, and he would not be tempted to do something irrational.  This is sheerest speculation, though.

What is known is that the battle between those forces which were there took longer than the Battle of Bosworth some two years previously had done. It has been estimated that it lasted around three hours, and hung in the balance for a while. Eventually, however, the Yorkists were defeated and Henry VII`s forces won the day.

There has been much speculation why this was so. Polydore Vergil, writing years later for Henry VII and his son, claimed that one factor was that Kildare`s Irish forces had only old-fashioned weapons, which meant they were quite easily defeated by the more modern weapons of the royal forces and that without their support, the rest of the rebel forces were outnumbered and eventually defeated. It has also been claimed that in fact the opposite was the case, that the German mercenaries` modern firearms backfired a lot and many were killed by their own weapons, fatally weakening the Yorkist army.

Whether or not either of those theories is the truth, most of the rebel leaders were killed during the battle. Vergil claimed that they died bravely standing their ground in the face of defeat, but once more, the truth of who died when cannot be ascertained. It is a fact though that Martin Schwartz, Thomas FitzGerald, and John de la Pole died during or just after the battle. There is a legend that John de la Pole was found fatally wounded but still breathing under an oak tree after the battle, was killed with a stake through the heart by the enemy fighter who found him, and later buried on the spot that he had died. There is, however, no evidence to support this story, and it is perhaps a touch too dramatic to be truthful.

It has also been claimed that Henry VII was angry that John de la Pole had not survived and been brought to him so he could question him about his knowledge and reasons for rebellion, but again, there is no supporting evidence for this.

Of the Yorkist leaders, only Francis survived the battle, though his fate afterwards is unknown. The York Civic Records state that he was "discomfited and fled", but there is no further information as to what happened to him afterwards. According to legend he was last seen swimming with his horse over the river Trent, but as with so many stories about the battle, it cannot be ascertained in any way.

Shortly after the Battle of Stoke, it became known that the pretender the Yorkist forces fought for had been caught by Henry VII`s forces, but since he was only a boy of ten years old, pardoned. However, the identity of the boy has been doubted, and there are many theories that the boy who subsequently worked in Henry VII`s household was not in fact identical with the boy the Yorkists fought for. It has been postulated that this boy was in fact Edward of Warwick, as Henry VII`s government gave out he claimed to be, or even Edward V, son of Edward IV, who died in the battle.

Though there have been claims that the very fact Francis fled from the battle field after the battle was lost shows he regarded the boy as insignificant, this argument can easily be debunked. Since, if all happened as is claimed in the traditional narrative, the boy was already captured in the last moments of the battle, there would have been nothing Francis could have done for him, and any attempt to do anything would have only led to his own capture and execution without helping the young pretender any. If, however, the boy was in fact Edward of Warwick or Edward V, who had died in battle, there would have been no reason for him to remain and no one to even attempt to help. The argument, therefore, does not hold water and unfairly makes Francis look like a coward, when there is absolutely no evidence to support such an interpretation of him.

There are some indications that Francis was injured during the battle, and it is even possible he did not leave the battle field on his own but was carried away as he was unable to leave himself. Once more, it is speculation. However, there are some indications he may have died fairly soon afterwards, perhaps of complications of his wounds.

Since he had already been attainted in November 1485, he was not among the number of rebels for whom an attainder was passed in Parliament in 1487. However, for some reason, when Parliament sat in 1495, it was decided to rectify this, and despite the fact the 1485 attainder had never been lifted, a second attainder was passed for him.

However, by this time, Francis was almost certainly dead already, and it had been eight years since his last confirmed sighting.

13th June 1473: Francis and Anne join the Corpus Christi Guild in York

On the feast day of Corpus Christi of the year 1473, which fell onto the 13th June, Francis, his wife Anne, her mother Alice and most of her siblings joined the Corpus Christi Guild in York. They were among several others of high standing who joined this guild, which had been founded in 1408. Other members included the king`s mother Cecily Neville, Lord Clifford (who has gained historical notority as the killer of Edmund of Rutland), Lord Scrope, as well as a number of bishops and archbishops during its not quite 150 years of existence. Richard III and his wife Anne equally became famous members, though they only joined it four years after Francis.

Membership cost 2 shillings a year, as Alexandra Johnson points out in her essay on the guild, and was open to anyone who could afford this. The ordinances of the guild stated that "all candidates for admission to the guild [are] to be received by the six masters or keepers. No oath [is] to be required by them, but they shall charge their conscience to contribute, according to their means, to the support of the guild."

One can imagine that this meant nobles were popular members, as they would have been able to give a lot if they so wished. Sadly, we do not know any longer how much Francis contributed, but since he was a pious man, it may have been a lot.

The guild was "dedicated to the praise and honour of the most sacred body of our Lord Jesus Christ" and aimed to see to the proper observation of the holiday of Corpus Christi. At least two of its six "keepers", clergymen in charge of the guild, would be leading the parade on the day after Corpus Christi every day. While on the actual day of Corpus Christi, the York Mystery Plays took place, the day afterwards there was a parade, still in the essentials the same as Corpus Christi parades today, to the honour of the body of Christ. Guild members joined it, together with officials of the city of York, followed the clergymen who led the parade.

Together with Francis, over 100 other people, men and women, joined the guild, among them his wife and most of her family. The register of the guild states that Francis "and his wife Anne" joined with  "Lady Alice FitzHugh" and "Richard, Roger, Edward, Thomas and Elizabeth, children of the said Alice FitzHugh".

Curiously, this is the only reference to a FitzHugh child called Roger, and it`s likely that it was a scribe`s mistake, aciddentally writing Roger instead of George FitzHugh. George, then around eleven years old, was at that time still his brother`s heir, and would have most likely been mentioned between him and his younger brother Edward.

Notably missing is the FitzHugh`s oldest child Alice, who was by then married with children herself and lived in her own household, and their youngest child, a boy named John. Francis`s sisters, who had been brought up in the FitzHugh household after their mother`s death, were equally not present. In Joan`s case, this was probably because, like Alice, she was already married, if recently, and no longer lived in the FitzHugh household. It is less certain why Frideswide did not join the guild with the family, but given that she was only around eight to nine years of age, she may have been considered too young. The fact that John FitzHugh would have been around her age corroborates this theory.

Francis himself was still several months shy of his seventeenth birthday when he joined the guild, while his wife Anne was around thirteen. For both, it must have been an exciting event, but as is so often the case, about their feelings and attitude towards the Corpus Christi Guild, we have little indication and can only speculate.

Francis`s character

Not many of Francis`s own words still survive. We only have two letters written by him, plus one indenture which reflects his wishes but most likely was not written in his own words, but those of a lawyer. Still, little though it is, these documents give a rare insight into Francis`s state of mind, and as such are invaluable.

Both of Francis`s surviving letters were addressed to William Stonor, his Oxfordshire neighbour. The first one dates from 1482, the second one from 1483. By this time, the two men had known each other for at least six years, possibly a bit more. A letter from Elizabeth Stonor from 1477 references Francis and his wife and suggests the two couples were establishing a friendly relationship.

However, it appears that over the years, Francis and William remained a bit distant, if friendly. Their relationship seems to have been functional, but not much more than that. Both Francis`s letters are very polite, but do not give away much about him. In the first letter, in June 1482, Francis reports that he couldn`t go back south as he had intended to, and states that he will have to stay in the north of England to join a potential outbreak of war against the Scots, though he intends to come back south as soon as possible. He then asks Stonor to look after his game, a personal but still very innocuous request. The impression of him created by this letter is of a polite and dutiful but somewhat reserved and stiff man, not someone given to unnecessary flourishes. Nor does the letter suggest that he was given to sharing too much of his life, thoughts or motivations, as he does not tell Stonor why he could not come south before as planned, nor why he wishes to go there as soon as possible.

Of course, as this is a singular instance, it doesn`t have to be particularly telling, but the second letter  supports this impression of Francis. It is a very different missive from the first one, more official as Francis asks Stonor (unsuccessfully, as would turn out) to come to the aid of the king during the Buckingham rebellion. However, the tone of it is slightly awkward, as if Francis wasn`t used to being either a supplicant or a commander, and it equally misses the flourishes other such letters had, the effusive declarations of gratitude in advance and affection. Again, it suggests Francis was a reserved man, who did not say more than was strictly necessary. 

This would, naturally, square with what we know about him. His actions definitely also show a man who wasn`t hankering for the spotlight, who was reserved, calm and didn`t get involved in arguments a lot. While he did, as is to be expected for a man of his standing at the time, show some greediness for lands, even those arguments were usually solved in an unusually non-martial way. His letters, giving a rare glimpse at his own thoughts, thus confirm what his actions also indicate, that he was polite, reserved, calm, unwilling to draw a lot of attention to himself.

Despite this last trait, however, Francis also showed a tendency to be unconventional. Naturally, his decision not to accept Henry VII as king after Richard III`s friend, effectively giving up everything for his love and loyalty to his fallen friend showed this in a rather spectacular way, but for most of his life, it appears Francis was more quietly unconventional. One good example for this is found in the above-mentioned indenture, in which he made arrangements for his wife Anne for the event of his own death. Sealed on 10th June 1485, it was probably made with the upcoming battle in mind, but clearly intended not just for the eventuality of him dying in this conflict, but generally for the possibility of Anne surviving him.

Notably, his arrangement left Anne very wealthy, as they would have made her liege lady of three rich manors and outright owner of two others, a move which would have severely disadvantaged his cousin Henry Lovell, Lord Morley. While the usual arrangement for widows, especially childless widows not holding any possessions during their children`s minority, was to give them lifetime rights to some manors, Francis clearly went above and beyond that for Anne. This indicates some affection for her, as well as a rather unusual way of settling his affairs.

Even more notable is that the indenture obviously shows that Francis was not expecting to have any children, and in fact seemed quite certain of this, as his arrangement could have equally disadvantaged them. Even more strange is that, given that he gave Anne ownership of two manors and thus the possibility to pass them on to her own descendants, he seemed to think their childlessness was his fault and it was possible that after his death, she might remarry and have children.

While it is of course possible Francis plainly knew that it was his fault due to something obvious as him not being able to have sex due to an illness, this is sheerest speculation, and it was more than uncommon for a childless couple of which both partners had never been married before, to blame the man for the infertility, rather than the woman. In fact, given that neither Francis nor Anne were even 30 years of age, it was even quite uncommon for him to have already given up on children rather than having hoped that a miracle could happen.

Perhaps this resignation, and even his thinking their childlessness was his fault, is explained by another trait shown by this indenture, namely what appears to have been a low self-esteem. Rather than, as was completely normal, simply charging his wife with finding priests to read prayers for him after his death - as his grandfather William Lovell charged his heirs in his will - he instead asked her to do it in exchange for the generous arrangements he had made for her. As it was not only standard to request prayers, no matter what the relationship of a couple was, but Anne and Francis seemed to care for each other, it is rather strange Francis believed she would need such an incentive to make sure she fulfilled his wish for prayers. It most definitely suggests he was not certain of her feelings, or potentially of deserving it unless he gave her something in return. Again, this would - sadly, in this case - square well with his actions, and may explain why he prefered to stay out of the spotlight.

Finally, the indenture and his generous provisions for Anne also indicate that Francis was a man of high emotions. He showed his affection for his wife in an unusual and very generous way. Equally, he showed his love for Richard in the most spectacular way possible. On the other hand, he equally showed his hatred for his father in very obvious, unconventional ways.

All in all, what can be gleaned from the few of his own words which still survive, and which is supported by his actions, is that Francis was a polite, reserved and calm man, who didn`t like the spotlight, suffered from a low self-esteem at least in his private life, but at the same time was given to strong emotions and quietly unconventional behaviour to show them.

A letter from Alice FitzHugh to John Paston

After the Yorkist forces lost the Battle of Stoke on 16th June 1487, and many of them died, Francis`s whereabouts are unknown. Sources written some decades, and in one case even nearly a century, after the event sometimes claimed that he was last seen swimming on horseback over the river Trent, but even that cannot be ascertained. All that was said contemporarily is that he was "discomfited and fled". His fate afterwards is up for debate.

Even at the time, those closest to him did not know where he had gone, as can be seen from a letter his mother-in-law Alice FitzHugh wrote to John Paston some eight months after the battle, in which she mentions that her daughter Anne, Francis`s wife, has so far been unsuccessful in finding out her husband`s whereabouts. The full text of the letter is this:

"To my right trusty and welbeloved son, Sir John Paston, be this delyvered.

Jon Paston, I recommaunde me to you in my moste hertely maner. And wher I understande be my doghter Lovell, ye desyre to know whedir I woll have the bargane ye made for me in Norwich or nay, and if I wol, I moste content therefor now in merks. Son, in good faith it is so, I shal receyve no mony of the revenowse of my lyvelod before Mydsommer, and also I have payd accordyng to my promise to Sir William Cabell a great payment, the which ye knoww wel was due to be payde, so that I can not be of power to content therfore, for the which I am right sory, for I know well I shall never have such a bargane.

Also my doghtyr Lovell makith great sute and labour for my sone hir husband. Sie Edwarde Franke hath bene in the North to inquire for hym; he is comyn againe and cane nought understonde wher he is. Wherfore her benevolers willith her to continue his suit and labour, and so I can not departe nor leve hir as ye know well; and if I might be there, I wold be full glad, as knowith our Lorde God, Whoo have you in his blissid kepynge. 

From London, the xxiiiith day of February. 
Your loving moder, Alise, Lady FitzHugh."

This letter, though on the face of it fairly straightforward, has been interpreted variously over the years. Since the year it was written is not given, even that has been disputed. James Gairdner, notably, argued that the year had to be 1486, since there was no knowledge of Francis after 1487. However, this is almost definitely incorrect. For one, Alice addressed John Paston as Sir John, which given that he was only knighted after the Battle of Stoke, means it cannot have been written before 1487. Curiously, Gairdner mentions this but dismisses the address as a mistake, without explaining further why he thinks so.

It is not, however, just the address that shows the year it was written has to be 1488. In 1486, the year Gairdner dates the letter to, Francis`s whereabouts in sanctuary in Colchester were no secret. Moreover, Edward Franke was one of Francis`s co-conspirators in 1486, and would not have to have been sent by Anne Lovell to find him. It is quite clear, therefore, that the letter was written in 1488.

This is quite interesting in itself, as Edward Franke was himself a traitor at that point, and associating with him could have been dangerous to her. However, it seems that neither she nor her mother were afraid of any possible consequences of this.

It is also interesting to note that Anne Lovell apparently had several "benevolers" who supported her in this and were in fact urging her to further try and "continue her suit and labour", arguing she was a popular woman who even in less than good circumstances, as a vanished traitor`s wife, was not abandoned or even simply suffered by her social circle.

The exact nature of her "suit and labour" has equally been disputed over the years. The word "suit" and the fact that at the time of her mother writing this letter, she appears to have been in London, has led some people to argue that she was trying to secure a pardon for her husband. However, this seems a bit unlikely, as Francis had already rejected a pardon in 1485, and none of his actions since then give any indication he had changed his mind at some point. Given that Anne did not know where he was, he could also not have told her he had done so, so that it seems unlikely Anne was trying to secure him a pardon which would avail to nothing.

Moreover, given that Francis had at that point been responsible for two rebellions, one kidnap attempt and one assassination attempt on Henry VII, the likelihood of him being granted a pardon would have been negligible, even without him having already rejected one.

Moreover, her trying to have her husband pardoned does not make sense of Alice`s statements in the text, as she explicitly says because Edward Franke had not found Francis, Anne`s supporters were encouraging her to continue. If she had tried to get him pardoned, she would maybe have tried to continue doing so despite Francis not having been found, but not because of it. The only way this could make sense would be if she tried to get a pardon for herself and hoped to dissociate herself from Francis, but this directly contradicts both her actions and Alice`s words. If she had wanted to dissociate herself from him, Alice would never have said she was doing it for her husband, and Anne would not have associated with traitors, putting herself in some danger, to find him.

Instead, Anne`s suit and labour almost certainly seems to be refering to her trying to find Francis. Why and what she hoped would happen if she found out his whereabouts, there is no hint given in the letter. What is notable, however, is that Alice clearly supported her and does not display any grudges towards Francis and the fact his actions had put her daughter in a bad position. On the other hand, she explicitly refered to him as her son, even when "my daughter`s husband" would have sufficed. She also refered to Anne not as "my daughter Anne" but as the conventional "my daughter Lovell", suggesting neither of them wished to stop her being associated with him.

Finally, it is interesting to note that Alice and Anne clearly had a good relationship, in which Alice supported Anne and her choices and wished to be there for her.

If they ever found out what happened to Francis, we do not know. Anne took a religious vow sometime between the time the letter was written and December 1489, which could indicate she had found out he was dead, but could equally mean she had given up hope to ever find him again. It is, however, notable, that she was still only 29 in December 1489, yet had still chosen to take this vow, which would prevent her from ever marrying again and having children.

Sadly, there is no indication what Alice thought of it and if their relationship stayed as good as it appears to be in February 1488.

Grant to John Beaumont, concerning the lordship of Bardolph

Francis`s maternal grandmother, Elizabeth Beaumont, was the only child of William Phelip, Lord Bardolph, and his wife Joan, Lady Bardolph, and the sole heiress of the lordship of Bardolph. She married John Beaumont around 1428, and died shortly after her father `s death. Her exact date of death is not known, but it was between 6th June and 10th August 1441, and appears to have been sudden.

With William`s and Elizabeth`s death, Elizabeth`s oldest son Henry, then aged 7, became heir of the lordship of Bardolph. Since he was still a minor, Henry VI granted all the possessions and privileges that came with the title to his father, John Beaumont. The full text of the grant, put into English, reads like this:

****

For John Viscount Beaumont. The King, to whom all etc. [1]

Know that although our dear and faithful cousin John Viscount Beaumont was in no small way bereaved, and lost through death Elizabeth, lately his wife, daughter of William Phelip, lately Lord Bardolph deceased, he has come and been received. [2]

We did not fail to see the merits and the good and free service the same viscount spent, gave and dedicated to us. From our gratitude, special grants to the same viscount: custody of all castles, manors, lordships, towns, lands, tenements, rents and services, together with military fees and ecclesiastical advowson, abbeys, priories, hospitals, vicaries, chapels, at Canterbury and whichever other beneficiaries, as far as free and entitled by birth, [3] which Henry, son of the same viscount, as well as son and heir of the same Elizabeth, or another heir, of the same Henry`s body, or for lack of such, after Henry`s death, William, younger son of the same viscount and Elizabeth and brother of the same Henry, or another heir, of the same William`s body, or for lack of such, after Henry`s and William`s death, Joan, daughter of the same viscount [4] and Elizabeth and sister of the same Henry and William, sons, by and after the deaths of the aforesaid William Phelip and Elizabeth as well as Joan, lately wife of the same William Phelip still alive [5] or Anne, wife of Reginald Cobham, knight, similarly still alive, inherit.

Even some of them which [6] by and after the deaths of the others, in fee simple or fee howsoever in feetails it can descend, revert or remain, together with the wardships, marriages, reliefs [7], escheatures, fixtures and all other profits, comforts and remunerations which to some of the aforementioned premises [8] belong or are seen to [9] and that to us or our heirs by reason of the minority some of the aforementioned Henry, William, sons, and Joan, daughter, or other heirs, some of the same Henry, William, sons, and Joan, daughter [10], who can in any possible, always save for us and our heirs and all that concerns us, inherit the said Viscount Beaumont after the death of the said viscount during the minority of some of the aforementioned Henry, William, sons, and Joan, daughter, and other of their heirs [11]. 

Should we have and hold their custody and the aforementioned castles, manors, lordships etc. [12], or some of it, in our hands or in our heirs` hands for a time for some of the above-said reasons which may happen and occur [13] long before the heirs of the abovesaid Elizabeth have reached the full age [14] at which we or our heirs render it to them, and which explicitly mentions the said castles, manors, lordships, towns, lands, tenements, rents, services, military fees, advowsons and other premises as well as their true value. Nothingstanding other gifts and grants by us to the same viscount, which for the present facts [15] do not exist.

Testimony etc. According to the king at Westminster, 10th day of August [16]. By the king himself and on the aforesaid date, made by Parliament.   

(Original text to be found here.)

****

[1] This is the exact form of the grant.

[2] Despite his wife`s recent death and his father-in-law`s death only shortly before that, John followed his summons to the king and was received by him personally.

[3] This affirms that this was Henry Beaumont`s birthright through his mother, which was not mentioned before in the grant.

[4] Joan Beaumont, Francis`s mother. She may have just been an infant at the time the grant was made.

[5] Literally, "still surviving". While her husband William had been Lord Bardolph, he had held that title and the corresponding possessions in her name. It was only with her death in 1447 that the title fell to her grandson William. The older grandson, Henry Beaumont, died only a little over a year after the grant was made.

[6] The phrasing here is unclear, but it seems to say that in case some lands or possessions fall back to Henry, William or Joan Beaumont during their minority, John is entitled to hold them for his children without them falling first to the king.

[7] Money owed after certain actions.

[8] Lands, manors, lordships, etc.

[9] Are considered to belong to the possessions.

[10] The descendants of Henry, William and Joan, in case they have children but predecease their father.

[11] As above.

[12] Again, this is the exact form of the grant.

[13] That is to say, the deaths of the above-named individuals.

[14] Their majority, which in the case of either Henry or William would have been 21, in the case of Joan, would have been 14 if married by that time and 15 if not.

[15] They are irrelevant for that grant and treated as non-existent.

[16] Though it is not explicitly said in the grant, it was made in the 19th year of Henry VI`s reign, that is to say 1441. The grant was made only 4 days before John Beaumont`s 32rd birthday.

William Beaumont`s Proof of Age

Shortly after his father`s death at the Battle of Northampton on 10th July 1460, his son William, Francis`s uncle, made a suit to King Henry VI to be allowed to enter his lands. To be allowed so, he arranged for a proof of age to show he had already attained his majority. This was done on 14th September 1460 and delivered to the king on 20th September 1460. Shortly afterwards, William was allowed to enter his inherited lands and possessions.

The full text of this proof of age, translated into English, reads like this:

****

Proof of age of William Beaumont, knight, Lord Bardolph, son of John, lately Viscount Beaumont and Elizabeth his wife, deceased, cousin and heir of Joan, Lady Bardolph, namely, son of Elizabeth, daughter of the aforementioned Joan, and cousin and heir of Anne, who was the wife of Reginald Cobham, knight, namely, son of Elizabeth, daughter of the said Joan, sister of the same Anne, in this inquiry, shortly put together [1], made and taken at Folkingham, 14th day of September, in the sixth regnal year of King Henry [2].

In the presence of Richard Fishburn, eschaetor [3] of the said Lord King in the county of Lincoln, by virtue of the aforementioned escaetor immediately, by oath twelve good and lawful men of the aforementioned county below. Namely:

Thomas Claymond, armed man, aged 46 years and more, sworn and examined on the majority [4] of the aforementioned William Beaumont, knight, he says that the aforementioned William Beaumont, knight, was born at Edenham in the earlier mentioned county and was baptised in the church of the same town, on the feast of St. George the Martyr, in the 15th regnal year of the current King, and whose godfathers were the abbot of Crowland [5], and Bartholomew Brokesby and godmother of William was Anne, wife of William Poter, knight. He was 22 years on the feast of St. George the Martyr last past, before the taking of evidence [6]. 

And asked how he knows, says on the same feast of St George the Martyr the aforementioned William was born, the same Thomas was sent by John, Lord Beaumont, for which the aforesaid Thomas was delayed, to see to preparations in the said church, and his lord afterwards attested that the second said lord [7] went to the said church and there discovered colourful silken and exquisit vestiments everywhere at the font of the said church, which was also adorned with some cloth of gold of red and pleasing colours, and Robert Wilbraham, armed man, John Trenthall, and a number of other servants of the said Lord Beaumont, father of the aforementioned William, discovered the same, which the aforesaid Robert Wilbraham and John Trenthall themselves said to be true; that the aforementioned William was born on the said feast of St George. Which also means they well remember that the same William was 22 years on the feast of St George last past. 

Thomas Walcote of Pykworth, aged 60 years and more, sworn and examined on the majority of the aforementioned William Beaumont, [8] that he is over age, the day, year and location of the birth of the aforesaid William tally with the earlier mentioned Thomas Claymond. And asked how he knows, says he saw the abbot of Crowland, godfather of the aforesaid William, perform in his office [9] the baptism of the same William, at the time the same William was baptised, which also means he well remembers that the same William was 22 years on the feast of St George last past.

Thomas Bowett, aged 50 years and more, sworn etc. [10], says that he himself was present and saw Anne, godmother of the aforesaid William, lift the said William from the sacred font at the time. Which also means, etc. [11]

John Robinson of Kirkeby, aged 60 years and more, sworn etc., says that he himself saw Margaret, lately the wife of William Armine, carry the aforesaid William to the church at the aforementioned baptism, on the same feast of St George on which the said William was baptised. Which also means, etc.

Henry Everard of Lavington, aged 48 years and more, sworn etc.says that he himself carried a flaming torch [12] before the body of the aforesaid William from the aforementioned church of Edenham to the manor of Grimsthorpe, on the same feast of St George on which the said William was baptised. Which also means, etc.

Simon Messingham of Sandringham, aged 69 years and more, sworn etc. says that he himself carried one pair of gilded, covered, basins from the manor of Grimsthorpe to the aforementioned church of Edenham, for the washing of the hands of the godfather [13] and godmother of the aforesaid William after the baptism of the said William, on the same feast of St George on which the said William was baptised. Which also means, etc.

Walter Bassett, aged 46 years and more, sworn etc. says that Robert his firstborn son was born on the same feast of St George, which etc. [14]

John Trussel, aged 53 years and more, sworn etc. says that he himself on the feast of St George carried carried two robes, called Carpette [15],  spread out before the font of the said church of Edenham on the feast the same William was baptised. Which also means, etc.

Henry Curwyn, aged 51 years and more, sworn etc. says that he himself sold John Lord Beaumont a palfrey of white colour for 10 pounds at Grimsthorpe on the same feast, which etc.

John Newyk, aged 68 and more, sworn etc. says that he himself bought from John Lord Beaumont, father of the aforesaid William, ten acres of wood for 10 pounds, 3 shillings, four pennies, on the same feast, which etc.

Thomas, body servant [16] of the abbot of Crowland, aged 48 years and more, sworn etc. says that at the time he was the abbot`s body servant and rode with the aforementioned abbot to Grimsthorpe on the same feast. which etc.

John Newton, aged 59 years and more, sworn etc. says that on the same feast of St George Simon Selle, father of the aforementioned John, was buried in the church of Edenham, which etc. 

Dated at Folkingham, the aforesaid 14th day of September, the abovementioned year of the Lord King. 

(One source for the text in the original Latin, but typed, to be found here.)

****

[1] This presumably means that it was put together at short notice, only two months after the death of William`s father, rather than the inquiry itself was short, as it has the normal form and length.

[2] 1460 was actually the 38th year of Henry VI`s reign, and calling it his sixth was probably a mistake that happened during a transcription.

[3] The Latin text says "Escaetore".

[4] Literally, "over age".

[5] When William was born, the abbot of Crowland was John Litlington.

[6] That is, 23rd April 1460.

[7] This second lord is not actually named.

[8] Strangely, a verb is missing here, but it should probably be "says", as in all other statements.

[9] His office of priest, not godfather.

[10] From that point on, the text no longer repeats all the formalities.

[11] As above.

[12] There is a spelling mistake in the original text, but it clearly means "torch".

[13] It says "godfather" in the singular, despite William having had two godfathers, as mentioned above. Presumably, it means there was one basin for his godmother and one for his godfathers.

[14] The formalities are shortened even more. 

[15] The name for those cloths probably comes from the French "carpette".

[16] Literally, servant for his hands.

"Summer`s End" by Francis Irwin

The novel "Summer`s End", written by Francis Irwin and published in 2010, purports to tell the story of Francis Lovell`s life from the end of 1467 to his death. It`s written in the first person, and is framed as Francis, shortly before his death, narrating his own life story. This setup could have given the novel the chance to be something rather unusual, illuminating the events of the Wars of the Roses from a perspective that is explored less and giving historical characters who are often only mentioned in passing or ignored completely some spotlight. 

Sadly, however, this is not what this novel does. In fact, the narrative does not even seem to dwell long on the actual events in Francis`s life, and most of the people we have evidence he was close to,  he actually cared about, are not mentioned a lot, instead having to yield the bulk of the narrative to a person we have no evidence he was close to or cared about: Anne Neville. The longer the book goes on, the more it feels like it is meant to be a description of how perfect Anne Neville was and how wonderfully she coped with having the most tragical life in 15th century England, rather than the story about Francis Lovell`s life. 

This focus on Anne Neville is achieved by portraying Francis as being one-sidedly in love with her. While there is absolutely no evidence for him even liking her, and in fact some cirumstantial evidence that both he and his wife didn`t, this would not necessarily have to be a problem. There is little enough evidence about any relationship they may have had to not make any changes to it jarring, and fiction is naturally free to make changes to historical fact to create a compelling story. However, in this case, the storyline of Francis being in love with Anne Neville, who is blissfully in love with, and married to, his best friend and does not know anything about his feelings, goes absolutely nowhere. There is no indication anything has changed from the moment Francis first mentions her in 1467, to the moment he dies, there has been no character development resulting from it and no actual conflict resulting from it. The result is that Francis`s long and often tedious exultations of Anne feel like character shilling, and Francis like a mouthpiece to beat the reader over the head with Anne Neville`s perfection.

Over the course of the novel the reader is told Anne is very kind, very brave, very frail (and bravely bearing this), in a marriage of unheard of bliss with Richard of Gloucester, very kind, very brave, very frail, in a marriage .... None of this, however, is really shown. It`s mostly simply told by Francis, who it appears has little else to do but be hopelessly in love.

Most of the events of Francis`s life are referenced, but given rather little spotlight, especially in comparison how much spotlight events he`s only indirectly involved in, such as Richard of Gloucester and Anne Neville`s wedding - where he`s a guest - get. A typical example for this is his elevation to viscouncy, to which only half a page is devoted. The actual ceremony is not shown, and Francis shows so little interest in it that the reader might be forgiven for thinking such an elevation was no more than a common Christmas present. Other notable events in his life not involving Anne Neville in some way, or to a lesser extent Richard of Gloucester, get dismissed just as much. 

This impression of Francis`s own story not really being the centre of the book, or even of much interest to the story it tries to tell, is reinforced by the fact some of what is know about his life is portrayed incorrectly, for no narrative reason. It gets the year he was knighted wrong, makes his sister Frideswide several years older than she really was, and most jarringly, gets his reaction to a pardon by Henry VII`s government completely wrong. While the actual Francis rejected a pardon, choosing to place his loyalty to his fallen friend and king over a quiet life under the victor, in this book he is portrayed as not being offered a pardon and wishing he was.

This is not only insulting to the real man, as it denies him some of his most remarkable traits and decisions, it is also not even portrayed consistently, as Francis also claims to never want to come to terms with Henry VII when in an argument with his wife. Maybe this is because Anne Neville is dead by that point in the narrative and therefore it has lost its centre and has less interest in what happens, maybe it is meant to be a sudden change of mind which is, however, never explored, or maybe it is just an easy excuse for an argument between Francis and his wife, who spent most of their time together in the novel arguing. 

Because the novel is so utterly preoccupied with having Francis borderline obsessed with Anne Neville, it sadly misses its chance to shine some more light on the less famous people in Francis`s life. This really feels like a pity, for it could have done really well. The groundwork is there, such as a nice scene in which Francis talks with one of his associates, Edward Franke, about dogs - but it is not followed up on, and he, as well as most other characters, remain pale. Others, such as his brothers-in-law Richard and George, do not get mentioned at all.

The notable and praiseworthy exception to this is Francis`s mother-in-law, Alice FitzHugh, who is given a sympathetic and rounded portrayal. Her daughter, Francis`s wife, is not quite so lucky. Though nowhere near as badly portrayed as in many other novels about the time, she still has a distinct feel of second-best to her, starting with her name. Inexplicably, she is called Anna, a name often used in fiction but incorrect. Why a book about Francis could not name his wife correctly or, potentially to avoid confusion since readers are used to her being named thus in fiction, at least say "Anna" is a nickname is a mystery.

The incorrectly named Anna seems to be the aware of the medium, and resenting it. While all other characters display a hugely unrealistic tendency to mention, adore, worry about and comment on Anne Neville in any and all situations, or perhaps Francis simply stops listening when they do not, she is the only one who points out the ridiculousness of this, and especially Francis`s complete preoccupation with her. 

This is perfectly understandable and echoed my thoughts as reader more than once, but tellingly, it is meant to be a bad character trait, and one she eventually regrets, though thankfully she never quite gives into the worship many other characters and the narrative afford Anne. Though this is not meant to be sympathetic, it most definitely is, as she is a constant victim of supposedly unflattering comparisons to Anne Neville, during which the latter always is meant to come off better.

One typical example of this is when Francis thinks that "Anna, tall, independent, strong-willed Anna, was the exact opposite of the kind of woman who attracted me". While there is absolutely no evidence the actual Francis found his wife, who genuinely appeared to be indendent and strong-willed, unattractive and he seemed close to her, there is nothing wrong with him thinking so in fiction, and again, it could make for some drama in the narrative. It doesn`t; instead, it is followed up by what is clearly the actual point of this sentence, when Francis thinks "wistfully of my gentle, sweet Anne."

The worst about this is that the narrative is clearly not only sympathetic with this but agrees, trying to make the reader resent "Anna" for being independent and strong-willed, not character traits that are typically seen as bad, and generally committing the crime of not being exactly like Anne Neville. It´s not presented as Francis feeling bad for loving Anne Neville or wanting his wife to be her carbon copy, it`s presented as Anna being in the wrong for not being Anne Neville.

The novel alludes several times to the fact that Francis neglects Anna, so that she really has no choice but to be independent, and that she really cares for Francis, but this is another maddening instance, as with Edward Franke above, where groundwork is laid for something that is not followed through, nor even used in the narrative to treat the character more sympathetically. This is mainly because her husband, providing the first person point of view, is uninterested in anything but what Anne Neville does, how she looks, what she says, and how much in love she is with Richard of Gloucester. 

In fact, this often makes Francis display a complete lack of empathy, and makes it a miracle that Anna still manages to show any loyalty to him. One such case is when Francis dismisses his own sister Joan`s death in six lines without apparent emotion, only to then immediately segue into a far longer, very emotional description of his horror at seeing Anne not look too well. Both the narrative and Francis clearly think Anne Neville looking unwell is a far greater horror than Joan Lovell actually dying. Not that it would have rung as realistic, in this novel, if Francis had been horrified at his sister`s death, for despite the evidence showing the two being close in real life, his interactions with her maybe fill one page taken together, and she is never developed beyond a throw-away comment at the beginning that she is more sedate than Francis`s other sister Frideswide - which is never shown in any way.

This fate she shares with several characters. Richard of Gloucester, arguably one of the, if not the most, important person in Francis`s life, remains curiously pale as well. Francis does mention several times "how much I enjoyed Richard`s friendship", but there is no sense as to why. The two rarely speak from person to person, and one of those interactions is Richard screaming at Francis for no good reason when he tries to offer his condolences for the loss of his son. Another is Richard info-dumping what happened to his famous nephews, the so-called Princes in the Tower. This may be the scene in which the two are shown to be the closest, and Francis barely gets a word in edgewise. Perhaps the greatest show of friendship between the two actually being of any importance in the novel is Richard, age 15, sending a puppy to Francis, age 11. However, naturally, it is then stressed in the immediately following scene how much fun Anne and Francis have playing with the puppy, and it is a sentence from her that names the dog, so that even this gesture feels as if it is far more about Anne than about Richard, Francis, or their friendship. Actual signs of friendship between the two are either not mentioned - such as Richard giving Francis the privilege of knighting two other men after knighting him - or mentioned in a half-sentence. Even Francis being made lord chamberlain is treated like this. He mentions it once, in another argument with his wife, and then it`s promptly forgotten and none of Francis`s actions are in any way informed by it.

Apart from his friendship with Francis, Richard of Gloucester`s actions, much like Francis`s, are referenced without generating much interest, except when Francis can gush how lucky he is that he has Anne Neville and how much in love they are and that there is no one in the world but Anne Neville. Absolutely everything in this book is about her, and only her. Francis explicitly says that his friendship with Richard would most likely not have become as it was had they not both looked for Anne when she was hidden away by her brother-in-law George of Clarence in a cookshop. After Richard`s coronation, which is again not shown, his foremost thought is that "it was a wonder the queen had made it through the day so well". Even the put-upon Anna finds herself referencing her when airing very private worries about her childlessness, commenting, for no good reason, on how Anne has a child and has therefore done her duty as wife better than she, despite the fact "everyone thought she was too frail to carry a child to term". 

Anne`s frailness and her supposed immense tragedy are huge parts of the book as well. Everything is tragical for her. She, in Francis`s words "endured [her coronation] without complaint", rather than being happy at being queen or seeing it as something to celebrate, as it was a huge honour and put her above all other women in the realm. She is not just put into a cookshop "in the disguise of a kitchen maid" by George of Clarence, something that was claimed by one source over a decade after the fact and is doubtful if it ever happened, she is said to have had to work very hard there, and George is literally said to have wanted to murder her. Anne`s first husband Edward of Lancaster was "hateful" to her. Anne`s inability to have more than one child gets more sympathy than Anna`s - and Francis`s own - complete lack of children. According to this book, Anne is perfect, kind, a perpetual victim - but has no other character traits. Despite the fact that large bits of the novel treat Francis as a vessel for her worship, after reading it there is no sense of what Anne enjoys doing, what she likes, dislikes, what amuses her, or even why Francis is so focused on her.

In fact, not even Francis himself is a very engaging character, since, as stated above he seems more concerned with summing up what is happening to him rather than showing it happening to him. The fact that his own relationships have so little colour and that the one which has any depth, with Anna, is him mostly arguing with her, does not make him particularly sympathetic. In fact, the most sympathetic characters in the novel are Alice FitzHugh and Anna. If Francis had been shown to be close to them, as he actually was, this book could have been great.

It is really a shame that the book does not make more out of its premise. Some characters were very promising - but the promise was not fulfilled.

George FitzHugh`s last will and testament

Anne Lovell`s brother, and Francis`s brother-in-law, George FitzHugh, died on 20th November 1505. He was a clergyman, and only left a fairly short will. It is mostly notable for his mention of his mother, Alice FitzHugh, whom he names as one of his executors. George appears to have written this will shortly before his death, meaning that Alice was still alive in 1505. 
The original text of the will is in Latin. In English, it reads like this: 

****
George FitzHugh [1], dean of the Catholic Church of happy memory in Lincoln, faithful in the Lord Jesus Christ.
I leave my mind and command my spirit to the mercy and the hands of God Almighty, the Holy Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Ghost, in the firm faith and holy hope of eternal redemption through the same mercy of God and through the sweet merit of the glorious passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, from His holy wounds and the copious effusion of His precious blood and intervention from Their mother, the blessed Virgin Mary and all saints, I firmly hope in cleaning [2] and forgiveness of all my sins.

Then I authorise my body to be buried in the Catholic Church of happy memory in Lincoln, where it will be seen as worthy by them who receive care of my burial. What funerary customs I wish, in no other way than to the glory and by the customs of the abovementioned holy church of Lincoln, and as has been previously done by my predecessors or all other clerics. 

First, pay again the wages of my servants, who daily in my family [3] serve me, determined by the chequer rolls, and whatever is owed them by calculation of food [4], the household, or in any way, will be paid them by my family. I authorise my horses to be shared by my gentlemen and servants. 

I am making executor, so that the same distribute for the well-being of my soul, partly to hear from living voices prayers for me, partly for their wise decisions. Executors I make Lady Alice FitzHugh, my mother [5], who I want to be joined by magister Galfridum [6] Simeon, dean of the king`s chapel and chancellor of the church of Lincoln, magister Roger Lupton, governor of the royal college of Eyton, William Melton, chancellor of the church of York, John Cunstable, magister at the hospital of St. Leonard`s in York, Jacob Bereforde, deputy of Chesterfield, William Clayton, incumbent cantor of the Catholic Church of Lincoln, who are commonly called the Guardians of Peter [7], and two of my servants, Richard Burght and Richard Laveroke, literate. So that in Catholic trust, obeying God in everything, and His most holy church, from this fading light passing [8], I expect to approach and reach eternal light, which God and our Lord Jesus Christ prepared for those that love Him, and for His coming great glory.

(Text in the original Latin here.)

****

[1] George was the second son of Henry and Alice FitzHugh. He had four older siblings - Alice Fiennes, Elizabeth Parr, Richard FitzHugh who would eventually become Baron FitzHugh, and Anne Lovell. He also had three younger brothers. He appears to have been on good terms with his brother-in-law Francis.

[2] His sins being washed away.

[3] George is being rather obscure here, and it`s uncertain whether he means, as he says a bit later, that he wants his family to pay his servants, or whether they are family servants who served him.

[4] Presumably, this does not mean they are owed food, but money for buying food, as seperate from their wages, which would be owed "by the household".

[5] For this request to be made by George, Alice would have to still have been in reasonably good health. In 1505, she was 75.

[6] His name was probably Geoffrey.

[7] St Peter.

[8] That George speaks in the present here, of currently passing from the fading light, could mean he was ailing and expecting to die soon, but he might also be speaking in general terms, of death inevitably coming closer for everyone.

The last will and testament of William Lovell, 7th Baron Lovell, Francis`s grandfather

On 18th March 1455, William Lovell, 7th Baron Lovell, made his will. He was around 58 years old at the time. On 5th June 1455, presumably already ailing, he added two codicils to the will, only eight days before he died on 13th June of that year, of causes unknown.

In the will, William provided generously for his three younger sons, though he was curiously silent about his oldest, John, who would go on to become Francis`s father. Though the bulk of his estates, unless otherwise specified, and of course his baronies, fell to him, William did not name him in the will. He did, however, leave generous amounts to his servants, and as was typical for the time, seemed concerned with both the well-being of his soul and the survival of his family. The complete text of the will, put into modern English, was as follows:

****

"In the name of the blessed trinity, Father and Son and Holy Ghost, I, William Lord Lovell, Burnell and of Holland, whole of mind and of body, make my testament in the manner and form that follows:

First, I bequeath my soul to Almighty God my creature that bought me with his precious blood, and to his blessed Mother, Saint Mary, and to all the holy saints of heaven, and my body to be buried at the Greyfriars in Oxford in such place as I have appointed. [1]

And I will that within eight days after my death, a 1500 masses be done for my soul.

Also I will that my feofees in and of all my manors, lands and tenements, with the appurtenance, In Acton Burnell, Wotton, Croston, Sutton, Holgote, Abbeton, Millynchop, Ewdon Burnell, Acton Raynard, Longedon, Uppynton, Rowton, Ambaston, Chatwall, Wolstauton, Smethcote, Russhebury, Hopebowdelere, and Condour, with the members of the shire of Salop and in all my lands and tenements in Nantwich in the shire of Chester not appointed to my son Harry, the which I have enfeoffed upon great trust, I will that my said feoffes occupy and have all my said manors, lands and tenements  with the appurtenance after my decease by the term of nine years and that there be a sufficient person ordained by the advise of my said feofees and executors to receive all the issues and profites of the said manors, lands and tenements and therewith to pay 222 pounds, thirteen shillings, four pennies that I owe to diverse persons, as it is contained in a paper, unless than I pay it in my life.

Also I will that a chapel and a tomb be made for me and my wife, convenient to our estate that God has called us to, of the same issues and profits, in the place where we shall be buried.[2]

And where I have appointed twenty pounds of livelihood to be purchased with the same issues and profits (unless I purchase it myself in my life) to be amortised for two priests to sing perpetually for the souls of me, my wife and our ancestors. I will that, of the same issues and profits, all the costs about the said amortisment be had and borne.

Also, I will that the same Greyfriars shall have 200 marks of the value. Whereof part shall be in ready money and the remnants in ornaments of their church (by the discretion of my wife, my feoffees and executors or the more part of them) to pray specially for the souls of me and of my wife.

Also, I bequeath to the other three orders of friars in Oxford to each of them 100 shillings to pray specially for the souls of me and my wife and our said ancestors.

Also, to the abbot and convent of Brewer 11 pounds.

Also, to Anne Ogard, my daughter`s daughter [3], to her marriage if she be married worshipfully and to such as is or shall be a lord of name 200 pounds, of the same issues and profits.

And I will that he that so shall receive the issues and profits of the said manors, lands and tenements, yearly account of them before such auditors as shall be assigned by my wife, executors and feoffees or the more part of them.

Also I will that anon after the said nine years after my decease determined that my said feoffees make estate of all the said manors, lands and tenements with the appurtenance to my next heir [4] and to the heirs of his body lawfully begotten [5]. And for lack of such issue the remainder thereof to my right heirs.

And in the case that the said chantry be founded in my life, then I will that after the term of six years next after my decease determined that my said feoffees of the said manors, lands and tenements make estate unto my next heir and hold to him and to the heirs of his body begotten. And for lack of such issue [6] the remainder thereof to my right heirs.

Also, I will that my feoffees in and of all my manors, lands and tenements that they be enfeoffeed to my use and profit (except the manors, lands and tenements appointed to William, Robert and Henry, my sons, and my manors, lands and tenements in Oxfordshire) anon after my decease make estate unto my next heir [7] and the heirs of his body begotten. And for lack of such issue the remainder thereof to my right heirs.

Also, I will that my feoffees of all my other manors, lands and tenements in the shire of Oxford, except before except, after my decease, of the issues and profits of the same, pay 20 pounds yearly to the sustaining of my said chantry and anniversary unto the time my said chantry be full established and founded, and suffer my next heir to have the issues and profits of all the same manors, lands and tenements over that 20 pounds.

And after the said chantry established and founded of 20 pound of livlihood, I will my feoffees of the same manors, lands and tenements in the said shire of Oxford, except before except, make estate to my next heir and to the heirs of his body begotten, and for lack of such issue the remainder thereof to my right heirs.

Also, I will that my good moveable and unmovable be disposed, after the good discretion of my good executors, by the oversight and survey of my wife.

Also, I charge all my sons, upon my blessing, and as they will answer to God, that they be helping and assisting to my executors to the executing and performing of this my testament and last will.

And executors of this my testament I make Thomas Bylling, sergant of the law, Lucas Laucok, clerk, William Marmeon, William Brawnston.

Also, I will that my wife, in whom I put my most special faith and trust, be surveyor of this my testament, praying and requiring her that she will do her true diligence and part that my said testament may be truly performed, according to my intent. And require and charge my executors that none of them do any great thing touching the execution of my said testament, without they ask advice of her before.

In witness whereof, to this present writing I have put my seal, evening the 18th day of March, the year of our Lord 1455. And the year of the reign of King Henry the Sixth after the conquest 34th.


(First Codicil)

In the name of God, Amen, I, William Lord Lovell, Burnell and of Holland, whole of mind [8], the 5th day of June, the year of our Lord God 1455, and the year of the reign of King Harry the Sixth after the conquest 34th, declare my last will and advice contained in my testament bearing the date of 18th March of the year of our Lord God 1455 and the reign of our sovereign lord the king 34th, and also add to the same testament in manner and form as in this codicil follows:

First, that where I, in the said testament and last will, ordained, disposed and willed that my feoffees in and of all my manors, lands and tenements with their appurtances in Acton Burnell, Wotton, Croston, Sutton, Holgote, Abbeton, Millynchop, Ewdon Burnell, Acton Raynard, Longedon, Uppynton, Rowton, Ambaston, Chatwall, Wolstauton, Smethcote, Russhebury, Hopebowdelere, and Condour with the members of the shire of Salop and in all my lands and tenements in Nantwich in the shire of Chester not appointed to my son Harry, should occupy and have all my said manors, lands and tenements with the appurtenance after my decease by the term of nine years to perform my said will and testament, as is in the same testament expressed, I will that my said feoffees occupy and have all my said manors, lands and tenements with the appurtenance after my decease by the term of eleven years [9] then next and continual following, to execute and perform with the issues and profits thereof my said testament. And that my last will, under form as in the said testament is and in this my codicil shall be declared.

Also where I, in my said testament, have appointed 20 pounds of livelihood to be purchased with the said issues and profits,  to be amortised for two secular priests to sing perpetually for the souls of me, my wife and my ancestors, I, in this my codicil, will and declare that the said purchase and mortisment be so and in such form that it be 20 pounds clear above all manners of charges, and such livelihood as shall be of no less clear yearly value be liklihood hereafterward: of the which 20 pounds I will that my said two priests have yearly twenty marks. And I will that the warden and the convent of Greyfriars of Oxford have yearly the residue of the said 20 pounds therewith to keep my yearly obit and to re-apparell my said chapel after time it is sufficiently belit and performed.

And pay yearly to the chancellor of Oxford for the time being and offering at my obit five shillings, seven pennies. To his commissary so offering in his absence two shillings, three pennies, and to either of the proctors of the university coming with the said chancellor or his commissary and offering at my said obit twenty pennies.

And to the mayor of Oxford for the time being two shillings, three pennies, and to either of the baileys twenty pennies, in case be that they come and offer at my said yearly obit.

Also, I will that my said executors and feoffees, over the said 20 pounds, purvey books, chalices, and vestements, with other ornaments necessary to the said chapel, and also for bread, wine and wax for all manner of priests that will say mass in the said chapel for evermore.

Also, I will that the said two priests be seculars, bachelors of divinity or at the least masters of arts, virtuous and well disposed to learn and for to proceed in degree. And moreover to preach the word of God in relief of simple curates and edification of Christian souls.

And they, in their open sermons, shall pray specially by name for the souls of me, my wife and my ancestors.

And I will that the said two priests every Sunday and double feast, after time the said chapel is belit and fully performed, at five of the bell in the morning begin the matins of the day in my said chapel, and, after matins said, one of them incontinently say the mass of the day, unless they be absent preaching the word of God. And if both be not so absent, then he, that is not so occupied, say the said matins and mass.

And once in the weekday say placebo and dirge with a mass of requiem of me, my wife and my ancestors and of all Christian souls.

Also, I will that the Lord Lovell for the time being [10] name and present the said two priests (so that they be seculars, bachelors of divinity or at the least masters of arts) to the Chancellor of Oxford for the time being [11]. And the said Chancellor, in case he find them by due examination virtuose and of good conversation and diposed to proceed after my will before declared, admit them to sing in my said chapelafter form by me rehearsed. And if by such examination or otherwise, the said two bachelors of divinity or at least masters of art, so named and presented by the Lord Lovell for the time being, be not found of such conditions and virtue as it is in my will before declared, that then they be in no wise admitted to to sing in the said chapel, but then, after notice had thereof, the said Lord Lovell name and present two other in semblance wise to be examined admitted or refused. Wherein I pray and straightly require and (as much as in me is) I charge the said Lord Lovell and chancellor that they, in naming, presenting, examining and admitting the said two priests, put aside all manner of affectuous partiality, favour, service and reward.

Also, I will and declare that in the case the said two priests, or either of them, be promoted to any benefice, college, chantry, or other office of perpetuity, otherwise be of vicious governance or unclean living before the chancellor lawfully convicted, then that their places in my said chapel, and either of them, so promoted or convicted, be void, and the said Lord Lovell name and present other, in manner and form above rehearsed.

Item, I will and bequeath, in this my codicil, to William my son a bed of bawdkin with cushions and the apparell thereto, paying ten pounds. [12]

Also that, where I willed and ordained in my said testament that, anon after nine years after my decease determined, that my feoffees should make estate of all the said manors, lands and tenements with their appurtenance, under form in my said testament contained, I will that my said feoffees be not charged nor in no wise constrained to make any estate unto the term of eleven years after my decease fully determined.

Also, I will and add to my said testament in this my codicil that my servants be rewarded under form and sums that follow:

- First, to Thomas Lesseller and his wife, 5 shillings
- To Henry Normanvyle, 25 shillings, 7 pennies
- To Thomas Stotesbury, 10 shillings
- To John Gyfford, 25 shillings, 7 pennies
- to Drew Streighley, 25 shillings, 7 pennies
- to Bernard Delamere, 25 shillings, 7 pennies
- to Thomas Conyers, 25 shillings, 7 pennies
- to Thomas Ingelfeld, 4 pounds, 7 shillings, 3 pennies
- Also, to Mawt Denham, of fee, so long as she is sole, yearly ten mark. And, if she be worshipfully and well married, to her mariage, 12 pounds, 5 shillings, 7 pennies.
- Also Sybill Fowler, when time she shall be married and worshipfully, 20 pounds to her marriage
- Also, to the servants of John Densell, 3 shillings, 3 pennies
- Also, to Thomas Aunger, 10 shillings
- to John of Chambre,10 shillings
- to John Appynton, 10 shillings
- to Thomas Clerk, 3 shillings, 3 pennies
- to William Aleyn, 10 shillings
- to John Aden, 3 shillings, 3 pennies of fee
- to John Benet, 10 shillings of fee;
- to Richard Whitfeld, 10 shillings
- to John Churche, 32 shillings, 3 pennies
- to William Wynfray, 10 shillings
- to William Skynner, 10 shillings
- to William Grendon, 10 shillings
- to Thomas Ormeston, 20 shillings
- To Thomas Smyth, 10 shillings
- to Thomas Selby, 3 shillings, 3 pennies
- to William Blakbourne, 3 shillings, 3 pennies
- To Thomas Selman,10 shillings
- to Edmund Blakhall, 3 shillings, 3 pennies
- To Iohn Russell, 3 shillings, 3 pennies, of fee;
- to Iohn Barby, 30 shillings, 7 pennies
- To Thomas hunt, 20 sjillings of fee;
- to Richard Milton, 10 shillings
- to William Trumpet, 10 shillings of fee;
- to Geoffrey Taylour, 10 shillings
- to John Woderoff, 30 shillings, 7 pennies
- to Iohn Cransley, 10 shillings
- to John Whighill, 10 shillings of fee.;
- to Henry Yoxhall, 3 shillings, 3 pennies
- to John Donver, 25 shillings, 7 pennies
- to Iohn Gylford, 3 shillings, 3 pennies, in whole fee;
- to Ralph Herrys, for keeping of a wood at Minster Lovell, 25 shillings, 7 pennies of fee;
- to the baily of Minster Lovell, 10 shillings
- To Ralph, gardener of Minster Lovell, 10 shillings of fee yearly, for keeping of the garden there, yearly receiving and keeping the fruites therof to the behoof of the household there;
- To William Kollyng, 20 shillings, of fee;
- to Frank Martyn,32 shillings, 3 pennies
- to John Morayn, 35 shillings, 8 pennies .
- to John Culneham, 35 shillings, 8 pennies
- to John Grene, 35 shillings, 8 pennies
- to Derik of the kitchen, 20 shillings
- to Richard of the bakehouse, 25 shillings, 7 pennies
- To Edmund of the bakehouse, 25 shillings, 7 pennies
- To John Skirs of the same, 25 shillings, 7 pennies
- to John Carter, 20 shillings
- to John Lane, 25 shillings, 7 pennies
- to Thomas Blakhalle, 32 shillings, 3 pennies
- to Henry Gaddesby, 25 shillings, 7 pennies
- To William Broyne, 25 shillings, 7 pennies
- To Thomas of the Stable, 25 shillings, 7 pennies

And I again require my wife, sons and heirs, in the way of charity and for the love of Almighty God and eschewing the damnation of their souls, that they help and assist, with all such power as God has given them, my feoffees and my executors to execute my said testament and this my will. And that they in no wise let it nor do for to be letted by no manner of mean nor colour.

Item, I will that all my elder feoffees, if there any be in my said manors, lands and tenements, make a release unto Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, and unto his co-feoffees to perform my said testament and will.

Bearing witness hereof: Master Thomas Gascoyne, Doctor of Divinity, Bartholomew Ardern, Thomas Sakvyle, John Grayby, esquires, William Barneville, John Adeen, and John Russell, with other more.


(Second Codicil)

To all true Christian people that this present writing tri-parted intended shall hear or see, William Lord Lovell, Burnell and of Holland, send greeting in our Lord everlasting.

Where that I, the same William Lord Lovell, among other, have enfeoffeed, upon great faith and trust, the right reverend fathers in God, Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England; William, Bishop of Winchester; William Lucy; William Catesby, knights; Robert Danuers (one of the justice of the common place), and other, in and of my manors of Bridelhurst, Obdon, Knoke, Erdescote, Estwamburgh, with the appurtenance, in the shire of Wiltshire and in all my other lands and tenements in the same towns; the manor of Berley with the appurtenance in the shire of Hertford, the manor of Estwycham with the appurtenance in the shire of Kent, and Rotherhith with the appurtenances in the shire of Surrey, the manor of Wodford, with the appurtenance, in the shire of Gloucester, and in all my lands and tenements in Bampton, Little Minster, and elsewhere in the shire of Oxford, with appurtenance, the which were sometimes Eleanor Hill´s, and of a fee form of six pounds, five shillings, seven pennies in the shire of Worcester that the prior of Worcester paid to me for Trympley, the manors of Stene, Hynton, Polebroke, with the appurtenance, in the shire of Northampton, the manor of Crawley with the appurtenance in the shire of Buckes, with all my other lands and tenements in the same towns, and in the twon of Banbury in the shire of Oxford, the manors of Wellington and Pycheford, with the appurtenance, in the shire of Salop, the manors of Bidford and Brome with the appurtenance in the shire of Warwick, the moietie of my lordship of Wolverhampton, with the appurtenance, in the shire of Stafford, with all my other lands and tenements in the same towns,and in all my lands and tenements rents and service with the appurtenance in Nantwich and elsewhere in the shire of Chester, late William Brownyng`s, to have and to hold them and to their heirs forevermore.

I, the said William Lord Lovell, declare my will and intent of the said enfeoffment in manner and form following:

That is to say, that my said feoffees anon after my decease make estate in and of the said manors of Bridelhurst, Obdon, Knoke, Erdescote, Estwamburgh, Berley, Estwycham, Rotherhith, Wodford, fee-form and in all the said other lands and tenements in the same towns, in all the said lands and tenements in Bampton, Little Minster, and elsewhere in the shire of Oxford that were sometime Eleanor Hill`s, with all the appurtenance, to William my second son and to the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, under the form and conditions following, that of the same William my son or any of the heirs male of his body begotten do or suffer anything to be done by the which the said tail should be discontinued and discontinued, in part or in all, longer or otherwise than for term of the life of the said William my son or of the life of any of his heirs male of his body begotten or during the life of any of the wives of my said son or any of the wives of the heirs male of his body begotten, that then all the said manors of Bridelhurst, Obdon, Knoke, Erdescote, Estwamburgh, Berley, Estwycham, Rotherhith, Wodford, fee-form with all the said other lands and tenements in the same towns, and in the towns of Bampton and Little Minster and elsewhere, specified in the said tail, remain unto the right heirs, and the said estate tailed utterly to be void.

And I pray and require my said feoffees to be helping and assisting my right heirs in the behalf.

And in case the said William my son die without issue male of his body begotten, or else that he or any of his said heirs male (for lack of other issue of me) inherit me and be Lord Lovell, and no such discontinuance made by him nor none of his said heirs male otherwise than is before rehearsed, that then the one half of the said manors, lands, tenements and fee form, with the appurtenance, remain unto Robert Lovell, my third son, and to the heirs male of his body begotten, under semblance form and conditions to be observed and kept by the same Robert and his heirs male as is before rehearsed to be observed and kept by the said William and his heirs male of his body begotten. And in case the said Robert die without issue males of his body begotten, or else that he or any of his said issue males inherit me and be Lord Lovell, and no discontinuance be made by the same Robert nor none of heirs males of his body begotten, of the said halfendell nor of no parcel thereof otherwise than is before rehearsed, that then the said halfendale remain to Henry Lovell my fourth son and to the heir males of his body begotten, under semblance form and conditions to be observed and kept by the same Henry and his heirs male (as is before rehearsed) to be observes and kept by the said William and his heirs male of his body begotten. And for the lack of such issue male of the said Henry, the remainder thereof unto my right heirs. And that the other half of the said manors, lands and tenements with the appurtenance remain unto the same Henry and to the heirs male of his body begotten, under semblance form and conditions to be observed and kept by him and his said heirs male (as is before rehearsed) to be observed and kept by the same William and his heirs male of his body begotten.

And in case the said Henry die without issue males of his body begotten,the remainder thereof unto the same Robert and the heirs male of his body begotten under semblance forme and conditions as if before rehearsed. And for lack of such issue male of the said Robert, the remainder thereof unto my right heirs.

Also I pray and require my said feoffees that they, anon after my decease, make estate unto the said Robert my son in and of the said manors of Stene, Hynton, Polebroke, Crawley, with all their other lands and tenements in the same towns and in the town of Banbury, with the appurtenance, to have and hold to him and to the heirs male of his body begotten, under the form and conditions following:

That of the same Robert or any of the heirs male of his body begotten do or suffer anything to be done by the which the said tail should be discontinued and discontinued, in part or in all, longer or otherwise than for term of the life of the said Robert my son or term of the life of any of his heirs male of his body begotten or term of the life of any of the wives of the said Robert or term of life of  any of the wives of the heirs male of the said Robert body begotten, that then all the same manors, lands and tenements remain to my right heirs and the said estate utterly to be void.

And I pray and require my said feoffees to be helping and assisting my right heirs in the behalf.

And in case the said Robert die without issue male of his body begotten then the one half of the same manors, lands and tenements, with the appurtenance, so given to the said Robert, shall remain to the same William my son and to the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, under semblance form and conditions as if before rehearsed to be observed by the same William and his heirs male. And if the said William die without issue male of his body begotten or else that he or any of his said issue male inherit me and be Lord Lovell and no discontinuance be made by him nor none of his heirs male of the said halfendell nor of no part thereof otherwise than is before rehearsed, that then the said halfendell with the appurtenance shall remain to the same Henry and to the heirs male of his body begotten under semblance form and conditions as is before rehearsed, and, for lack of such issue, the remainder thereof, to my right heirs, and that the other half of the said manors, lands and tenements with the appurtenance shall remain to the same Henry and to the heirs male of his body begotten under semblance form and conditions as if before rehearsed. And in case the said Henry die without such issue of his body begotten the remainder thereof to the same William and to the heirs male of his body begotten, under semblance form and conditions as before rehearsed. And for lack of such issue of the said William, the remainder thereof to my right heirs.

Also I pray and require my said feoffees that they anon after my decease make estate unto the same Henry my son in and of the said manors of Wellington, Pycheford, Bidford, Brome and moietie of the lordship of Wolverhampton and all other lands and tenements in the same towns and in all lands and tenements rents and farms in Nantwich and elsewhere in the shire of Chester, late William Brownyng`s, with the appurtenance, to have and to hold to the same Harry and to the heirs male of his body begotten, under form and conditions following: that if the same Henry or any of the heirs make of his body begotten do or suffer any thing to be done by the which the same tail should be discontinued and discontinued, in part or in all, longer or otherwise than for term of life for the same Henry or term of the life of any of his heirs male of his body begotten or for term of the life of the wives of the same Henry or term of the life of any of the wives of the heirs make of his body begotten, that then the said manors, lands and tenements remain to my right heirs, and that the said estate utterly to be void.

And I pray and require my said feoffees to be helping and assisting my right heirs in the behalf.

And in case the said Henry die without issue male of his body begotten, that then the one half thereof remain to the same William my son and to the heirs male of his body begotten, under semblance form and conditions as is before rehearsed. And in case the said William die without issue male of his begotten, or else that he or any of his said issue male inherit me and be Lord Lovell and no discontinuance be made by him nor none of his said heirs male of the said halfendell, nor of no part thereof, other than is before rehearsed, that then the said halfendell with the appurtenance shall remain to the same Robert my son and to the heirs male of his body begotten, under semblance form and conditions as is before rehearsed, and for lack of such issue of the said Robert the remainder thereof to my right heirs. And that the other half of the said manors, moietie, lands, tenements, rents and services with the appurtenance so given to the said Henry shall remain to the said Robert and to the heirs male of his body begotten, under semblance form and conditions as before rehearsed. And for lack of such issue of the said Robert, the remainder thereof to the said William my son and to the heirs male of his body begotten, under semblance form and conditions as before rehearsed, and for lack of such issue of the said William, the remainder thereof to my right heirs. 

In witness I have set to my seal of my my arms."

(Text in the original spelling and language found here.)

****

[1] Whatever place William had chosen in Oxford for his burial, it seems he was not buried there. Instead, for reasons unknown, he was put to rest in St.Kenelm`s Church next to his ancestral home of Minster Lovell Hall.

[2] It is not known where William`s wife, Alice Deincourt, was buried, but it was neither in Oxford nor with her husband in Minster Lovell Hall. 

[3] According to Monika Simon, Anne Ogard was the daughter of a Danish knight called Andrew Ogard. He was married to Alice Lovell, perhaps William and Alice`s oldest child, but her birth and death years are unknown. She appears to have been dead by the time her father wrote this will.

[4] His next heir is his oldest son John Lovell, who would go on to become Francis`s father.

[5] These heirs would eventually be Francis and his sisters Joan and Frideswide.

[6] Since William speaks in the conditional here, it is clear that Francis was not yet born when he made the will, nor his birth soon expected. This squares with the evidence of his parents` IPMs and the CPR that he was born in 1456.

[7] It is somewhat bizarre that, having just named his younger sons, William does not identify his "next heir" either by name or relation.

[8] Notably, William leaves out "whole of body" in this codicil, despite having used it for the text of his testament written on 18th March. This and the fact that he died only eight days later suggests he knew his death was imminent when adding these codicils to his will.

[9] What made him decide to add these two years is unknown.

[10]  This means that whoever was Lord Lovell at the time that such an appointment was needed would be required to perform this task.

[11] At the time of William`s death, this was George Neville.

[12] Worth 10 pounds.