Francis Lovell after the Battle of Stoke

On 16th June 1487, a battle took place between Yorkist rebels, led by John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, and Francis Lovell, Viscount Lovell, and Gerald FitzGerald, the Earl of Kildare, and Henry VII`s forces, led by Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford, and John de Vere, Earl of Oxford.

The battle, often said to be the last one of the conflicts now known as the Wars of the Roses, hung in balance for a long time and lasted longer than the Battle of Bosworth had two years earlier. When it was over, however, it had turned out to be a crushing defeat for the Yorkists. John de la Pole was killed either in battle or directly afterwards, as were the Earl of Kildare and most German and Irish mercenaries who had been in their employ. Many Yorkist fighters, trying to flee after the battle, were cornered in a ravine and killed there.

Of all the notable Yorkists at the battle, only Francis managed to survive. He was said to have been "discomfited and fled", but he vanished almost immediately afterwards, and nothing is certain about his whereabouts afterwards. There are several possibilites what might have happened to him.

(1) The first one, which must be mentioned, is that he did in fact die at Stoke, and his body was simply not identified. This is said by Vergil, but by no one else, and it is explicitly contradicted by the above-mentioned contemporary statement in the York City Records, which stated he was “discomfited and fled”. It also fails to take into account that at least for a short time afterwards, he was assumed to be alive by allies, such as Edward Franke, who almost certainly fought at Stoke and in 1488 was employed by Francis`s wife to find him. It seems very unlikely, therefore, that he did in fact die during the battle.

(2) The second possibility is that he died escaping from the battlefield after the Battle of Stoke. This is the version of Hall and Holinshed, and it`s at least a little more likely. For one, it does not directly contradict the “discomfited and fled” statement- because, after all, there is no information about what happened during or after the flight. Also, swimming in full armour - with a horse also likely in full armour - after an exhausting battle and fleeing from those trying to take him prisoner could easily have killed him. However, like the first possibility, this theory leaves several questions open, such as why people like Franke did not know of his death, and why he was not listed as a casualty of the battle if he died immediately afterwards, in direct consequence of it.

(3) The third possibility is a very popular one especially in popular history, and repeated for example by Paul Murray Kendall. It is that Francis escaped the battlefield after the battle, went to his ancestral home and died at Minster Lovell Hall. There were supposedly bones found in a secret chamber at Minster Lovell Hall in the early eighteenth century, but that is really all that suggests he might have gone there. The story, as it is usually told, is that these bones fell to dust nearly immediately after the chamber was opened, and we have no first-hand account of this happening. Even if it didl, though, it seems unlikely that those bones were Francis`s. If he had been injured,he would not have ridden about 100 miles so he could hide in a secret chamber in a manor which was at that point owned by the new king`s uncle, where there is little indication he even spent much time when it belonged to him, and where he would not have been in the position to receive any treatment for wounds. And if he was not injured, there would have been no reason for him to go to a manor owned by the new king`s uncle just so he could hide away in a secret chamber and never leave it again.

(4) The fourth possibility, resembling the previous one somewhat but far less popular - also not, as far as I know, repeated in any academic work, only on several sites on the internet - is that hee escaped after the battle, went to Stoke Bardolph Castle, which had been his mother`s, and died there soon afterwards, presumably of injuries got during the battle. This is somewhat more plausible, as at least that castle is somewhat nearer the battle field than Minster Lovell Hall and may have been the first or nearest place he could find to seek treatment for wounds without being sold out to the king`s men. The assumption this is what could have happened is based mainly on a grave in Gelding Church, which was discovered in about the nineteenth century and which was dated to about the right time and whose effigy was said to be possibly that of a knight who fought at Stoke. It is that which makes the assumption a bit questionable to me. The grave would have been nameless so as to make sure Francis would remain buried in hallowed ground, rather than his body being found and publicly displayed. It would therefore be somewhat paradoxical to add an effigy to it which could even centuries later be recognised as that of a rebel knight who`d fought at Stoke. Henry`s government wasn`t stupid, and that leap of logic would hardly have been difficult to make. So while this is distinctly more possible than the first options, I still don`t think it very likely.

(5) The fifth possibility, and in my opinion the most likely, is that he did not die in England, but escaped after the battle and once more fled to Burgundy, where he died between that time and summer 1488. He might have sustained a minor injury at Stoke, which, lacking proper care, might have become infected on the way to Burgundy and killed him soon afterwards, or he could have simply died of illness during the year. Him being there would make more sense of  him being included in the list of rebels to be given a safe-conduct to Scotland by the new Scottish king James IV on 19th June 1488 than him, without any support, asking for it while at the same time flying under the radar in England. Since there is an indication Margaret of York was involved in securing those safe-conducts, it seems likely she would have known Francis was still alive at the time she started asking for them. This would also make sense of there being no indication of any kind of his death or any certainty he was dead. In England, men like Edward Franke would have only known he had been alive last time he had seen him, and Margaret would have had no reason to announce his death to anyone. There would have been no one to announce it to, and perhaps she might have even thought it prudent to keep Henry`s government in the dark as much as possible as to the number and state of the rebels at her court and roaming Europe.

(6) The sixth possibility is also a popular one, namely that he escaped after the battle and fled to Scotland, possibly via Burgundy, and died before 1492. This, in my opinion, is the second most likely thing to have happened. After all, there was a safe-conduct, and it would have been the obvious place for him to go. There is just the problem that unlike for several other rebels of any prominence who received a safe-conduct, there is no real indication he ever arrived in Scotland. The only piece of evidence he might have is that a  "poor and simple man" of York said in 1491 he had spoken with him and Thomas Broughton, who had equally received a safe-conduct, in Scotland. However, the man later recanted, and there is no explanation offered as to how he would have managed to go to Scotland to speak with them in the first place.

(7) The seventh possibility is that he escaped after the battle and lived in hiding somewhere for the rest of a life that went on past 1492, possibly in Burgundy, Scotland or - with Maximilian of Burgundy`s help - the Holy Roman Empire, leaving England behind and no longer caring. It`s a possibility, but in my opinion not a very likely one. It would be a 180° turn to what he had been doing the previous years, and it doesn´t seem very likely he would suddenly decide to settle down peacefully and accept the status quo, not even joining in a rebellion, that of Warbeck, some years later that seemed extremely promising. To explain this, there are theories he vanished together with John of Gloucester, and that the safety of Richard`s son was more important to him than seeking revenge. However, while this is psychologically plausible enough, it seems a bit far-fetched he could manage to reach John of Gloucester, who was probably watched, and vanish with him without there even being even a rumour of it. Nor is there any indication Henry VII made any search for John of Gloucester, which would have been the natural thing to do for him had he vanished and Henry not known where to. It also would not explain why there was never a mention made of Francis or John anywhere that we know of, as mentioned above, unlike other exiles.

(8) He escaped after the battle and lived in hiding somewhere the rest of his life, no longer fighting because he had sustained an injury that rendered him unable to do so. This could have been the loss of an arm or a leg or his eyesight. However, while he might have been injured, such a major injury would presumably have needed immediate medical attention, so his flight over the river argues against it. The only possibility that seems likely is that it was a minor injury to perhaps his hand or foot, which became infected later after he had already fled to safety, and the only way to save his life was considered amputating his arm or leg. He would, however, have been extremely lucky to survive such an operation in his time, and again it does not explain why he was never mentioned again if he lived in exile.