Most of what we know of Francis suggests he was a calm man, not given to fighting and plotting, but capable, good at organisation and generally uncontroversial. This is the impression of the man before the death of his friend Richard III, after which he became a passionate rebel, whose desire for revenge seems to have been stronger than any other impulse.
This suggests something of depths previously hidden in Francis, but it is likely that this behaviour was a change in him due to strong grief and rage, not that he was, hidden from chroniclers and rumours, an active man of wild passions.
We cannot know, of course, what he was like emotionally, but the change in what we know of him after Richard`s death is notable, more so since as Rosemary Horrox and Joanne M.Williams, among others, have pointed out, Francis was apparently not interested in having anything but personal political power when Richard was king, and despite having wide-spread possessions, does not seem to have even tried to establish himself as an involved landowner with a large power base.
In fact, there is some evidence that indicates that perhaps he did not only show no interest in it, but that his health prevented him or at least made it more difficult for him.
Naturally, since none of his paperwork, such as account books, survives to this day, this is an assumption based on some circumstantial evidence, unsupported by any hard facts such as frequent recorded payments made to a physician. Despite this, however, there are some hints that could indicate that Francis may not have enjoyed good health throughout his life.
A minor hint towards this could be found in the arrangements he made for his wife Anne in case of her widowhood, in which he made no provisions for possible children she could still have. While, as mentioned in an earlier article, this could be explained by him knowing that at the moment of writing, she could not be pregnant, usually such provisions were still made, since they were not meant to be changed every time something like that happened. That Francis did not take the possibility of becoming a father into account is notable, especially since it is more than likely that he and Anne would have tried and hoped for an heir. The only sensible reason why they would not have is if they were somehow not able to, for example because of some sort of health problem.
In itself, this is not very telling, of course. Maybe they did have hope and it simply did not reflect in the arrangements he made for whatever reason, perhaps because he meant to change them soon. In the light of some other evidence, it could be significant, though.
For example, it is also notable that going by all we know, Francis chose not to travel a lot. As alluded to above, he prefered to stay at court, and even during his early years before he became lord chamberlain, he did not built power bases, as he could have. While he did try to establish himself in Oxfordshire and there is no indication he had any problems there, there is no indication he tried, or succeeded, in building up special loyalty to him there. His attempts to do so apparently limited themselves to his northern lands, where he indeed succeeded in building loyalty to him. In fact, Rosemary Horrox has pointed out that it is remarkable and somewhat unusual that Francis apparently made no attempt to establish himself as local power in the Midlands even after he had been granted even more lands there than he had already had after the Buckingham rebellion. Horrox notes that his lack of personal involvement there was unusual, and there is no indication that he ever even left court to see at least some of his new possessions.
This is remarkable because, as pointed out in an earlier article, there is every indication Francis wanted lands just as much as any other noble at the time. That he did not try to be a well-known lord in all of those he had or even fulfilled expectations of being seen there occassionally is, under these circumstances, rather strange, and argues he must have had a good reason not to do so. Again, we cannot know what it was,, but it gives rise to speculation.
Tying into that is the fact that though Francis was hugely honoured by Richard and given tasks and importance at court, including of course the post of lord chamberlain, all of those did not require him to leave court, nor even appoint a deputy. As lord chamberlain, chief butler, privy counsellor, he was not expected to travel or see that anything was done away from court. Taken together with the last point, it seems that Francis did not want to, nor was expected to by Richard who knew him well, travel more than he had to with court.
Another point of note is that Francis, as discussed somewhere else, was surprisingly absent from any and all plotting, even when he, like in the early summer of 1483, was right in the middle of it, and that not even the most hostile sources suspected him of being involved in it. This may very well have been due to him simply not being a plotter by nature, but again, it shows him as acting somewhat unusual for a man of his standing and in his position at the time.
Similarly, going by all we know, his lack of involvement in politics before Richard became king and lack of entanglement in any large political schemes or plots even during his time as lord chamberlain are notable, and so is the very fact that Francis was often not present during political events when it would have been expected before Edward IV`s death.
For example, despite having fought under Richard of Gloucester in the Scots campaign in 1481 and having apparently distinguished himself enough to be knighted, he took no part in the first bit of the continued campaign Richard led in 1482. This is particularly strange because Francis, a month later, refered in a letter to not being able to come south because if he did so, it would be thought he was trying to run away from the war. Apparently, he did not fear that his lack of participation in the first part of the anewed campaign would be used against him, nor did anyone ever do so.
Another example is the fact he was not at Parliament in 1478. J.M.Williams speculates that he was not summoned, but comments that this is strange since while it is possible he "came of age too late for the wheels of bureaucracy to start turning", he had "receive[d] license to enter his estates two weeks before the summons were issued on 20th November 1477". His absence from Parliament in 1478 is therefore somewhat strange, especially since there is no evidence that he was in any way in Edward`s disfavour and the license to enter his lands had arrived remarkably prompt after his twenty-first birthday. The reason why he had not been summoned must therefore have been one that had nothing to do with any political quarrels and is unlikely to have been due to the slowness of the bureaucracy. What it was, again, is sheerest guesswork, but it is another instance of him not being somewhere he could have been expected to be, for reasons almost certainly not political.
All of this is, of course, just a collection of facts which could have several explanations. Taken together, however, they create a picture of Francis not at all being a particularly active man, and in several instances avoiding physically taxing activities . Since we do know of several instances where he did fight alongside Richard, like in summer 1481 and the latter part of the Scots campaign in 1482, as well as of his activities after Richard`s death, and equally know that his failure to become a local power on his widespread possessions was not because he did not care about owning lands, it seems clear he did not avoid them out of disinterest or cowardice.
Therefore, it may well be that he often chose to avoid strenuous physical activities, and was given honours that would not require him to do such, because his health did not permit him to do so.
Tuesday 20 June 2017
Sunday 18 June 2017
Francis`s childlessness
When Francis vanished and probably died in 1487, the main male line of the Lovell family died with him. He left no children behind to continue it, to try and gain back the riches Francis had given up or follow in his footsteps as rebel.
Francis was only thirty when he vanished, his wife Anne twenty-six or recently turned twenty-seven. Both were still young enough they might have had several children had they continued living together, and it is possible that this would have happened. Naturally, there is no way to know.
However, it is also possible that the two did face some problems with infertility. In novels, their lack of children is often explained by a reluctance to sleep together to try and conceive an heir, but there is no evidence about this, and customs of the time would have dictated that they had to, that their feelings about it did not matter. Almost certainly, they would have tried for at least an heir.
Some circumstantial evidence, such as a letter by Elizabeth Stonor I mentioned in an earlier article about their marriage already, suggests that by early 1477, Francis was establishing relations with the gentry in Oxfordshire, near his ancestral home of Minster Lovell Hall, and making a place for himself and his wife. This would suggest that perhaps in the year or so before that, he and Anne had first moved there to make their home together. Anne would have been around sixteen at that time.
If so, this would mean that she and Francis lived together as man and wife for around nine years. Given that what little evidence there is indicates their relationship was not a bad one and that they did not spend an unusual amount of time apart, it is interesting that nothing indicates Anne ever conceived a child.
While it is hard if not downright impossible to say if she perhaps had miscarriages, it can be said with reasonable certainty that until February 1483, the couple did not have a living, even if short-lived, child born to them, for there were no prayers for any included in the request then made for prayers to be said annually for Francis and Anne. Had they had children, even children who died shortly after birth or even were stillborn, this would have been conventional.
Since Francis rose to prominence shortly afterwards and was in the public eye from then on, and was almost always at court, it is almost certain that his wife did not give birth in the time from 1483 to 1485, as this would have been noted. Since afterwards, she and Francis did not longer live together as man and wife and it is not known if they even saw each other again after the Battle of Bosworth, it appears that they never had children.
There could have been several reasons for this, of course, but it is quite possible and perhaps even probable that this was because of some medical reason. Even assuming one or both of them simply were not very fertile, and even allowing for time spent apart, nine years is a long time for a couple almost certainly trying for a child to never have one.
Given that we do not know if Anne had miscarriages, it is possible that it was not a problem with conceiving but with carrying a pregnancy to term. This was sadly wide-spread at the time, and many women experienced one or more miscarriages during their life. However, if that was the case for Anne Lovell, it could in itself point to a medical issue, as common though it was, otherwise healthy women who, like Anne would have, had access to all prenatal care there was, usually did not lose all pregnancies over a span of nearly a decade.
As so often with the couple, this is guesswork, of course. It is possible that they were not very fertile to begin with and Anne only conceived two or three time and her losing those pregnancies was "only" a tragedy as so often happened, not indicative of a bigger problem.
Another possibility is, of course, that either Francis or Anne, or possibly both, were infertile. Though both came from fertile families, an infection or injury, or simply nature, could have caused it, making it impossible for them to even conceive children.
If so, it can probably be assumed that by the time of Bosworth, Francis and Anne were starting to worry about the fact that in nine years, there had been no sign of pregnancy. This, however, is sheerest conjecture with nothing to support it except what is known of the customs of the day.
What we do know is that when Francis made arrangements for Anne for the event of his death in 1485, he did not seem to consider it possible that she was pregnant and made no special arrangements for such an eventuality. This could indicate that he no longer expected to become a father, but it could also simply point to the fact he knew that she was not at that point and that timing made it impossible for her to be so without them already knowing.
Similarly, while none of the arrangements Francis made for his possessions for the future that we still know of include a clause allowing for any children yet to be born, but this may simply be because it was thought to be unnecessary since there was no sign of them yet.
To sum up, we do know with near certainty that Francis and Anne never had any children together. Why this was so, we can only guess. However, what little there is and what we know both of the conventions of the day and their relationship suggests it was due to medical issues or perhaps simply bad luck, not because of any choice they made.
Francis was only thirty when he vanished, his wife Anne twenty-six or recently turned twenty-seven. Both were still young enough they might have had several children had they continued living together, and it is possible that this would have happened. Naturally, there is no way to know.
However, it is also possible that the two did face some problems with infertility. In novels, their lack of children is often explained by a reluctance to sleep together to try and conceive an heir, but there is no evidence about this, and customs of the time would have dictated that they had to, that their feelings about it did not matter. Almost certainly, they would have tried for at least an heir.
Some circumstantial evidence, such as a letter by Elizabeth Stonor I mentioned in an earlier article about their marriage already, suggests that by early 1477, Francis was establishing relations with the gentry in Oxfordshire, near his ancestral home of Minster Lovell Hall, and making a place for himself and his wife. This would suggest that perhaps in the year or so before that, he and Anne had first moved there to make their home together. Anne would have been around sixteen at that time.
If so, this would mean that she and Francis lived together as man and wife for around nine years. Given that what little evidence there is indicates their relationship was not a bad one and that they did not spend an unusual amount of time apart, it is interesting that nothing indicates Anne ever conceived a child.
While it is hard if not downright impossible to say if she perhaps had miscarriages, it can be said with reasonable certainty that until February 1483, the couple did not have a living, even if short-lived, child born to them, for there were no prayers for any included in the request then made for prayers to be said annually for Francis and Anne. Had they had children, even children who died shortly after birth or even were stillborn, this would have been conventional.
Since Francis rose to prominence shortly afterwards and was in the public eye from then on, and was almost always at court, it is almost certain that his wife did not give birth in the time from 1483 to 1485, as this would have been noted. Since afterwards, she and Francis did not longer live together as man and wife and it is not known if they even saw each other again after the Battle of Bosworth, it appears that they never had children.
There could have been several reasons for this, of course, but it is quite possible and perhaps even probable that this was because of some medical reason. Even assuming one or both of them simply were not very fertile, and even allowing for time spent apart, nine years is a long time for a couple almost certainly trying for a child to never have one.
Given that we do not know if Anne had miscarriages, it is possible that it was not a problem with conceiving but with carrying a pregnancy to term. This was sadly wide-spread at the time, and many women experienced one or more miscarriages during their life. However, if that was the case for Anne Lovell, it could in itself point to a medical issue, as common though it was, otherwise healthy women who, like Anne would have, had access to all prenatal care there was, usually did not lose all pregnancies over a span of nearly a decade.
As so often with the couple, this is guesswork, of course. It is possible that they were not very fertile to begin with and Anne only conceived two or three time and her losing those pregnancies was "only" a tragedy as so often happened, not indicative of a bigger problem.
Another possibility is, of course, that either Francis or Anne, or possibly both, were infertile. Though both came from fertile families, an infection or injury, or simply nature, could have caused it, making it impossible for them to even conceive children.
If so, it can probably be assumed that by the time of Bosworth, Francis and Anne were starting to worry about the fact that in nine years, there had been no sign of pregnancy. This, however, is sheerest conjecture with nothing to support it except what is known of the customs of the day.
What we do know is that when Francis made arrangements for Anne for the event of his death in 1485, he did not seem to consider it possible that she was pregnant and made no special arrangements for such an eventuality. This could indicate that he no longer expected to become a father, but it could also simply point to the fact he knew that she was not at that point and that timing made it impossible for her to be so without them already knowing.
Similarly, while none of the arrangements Francis made for his possessions for the future that we still know of include a clause allowing for any children yet to be born, but this may simply be because it was thought to be unnecessary since there was no sign of them yet.
To sum up, we do know with near certainty that Francis and Anne never had any children together. Why this was so, we can only guess. However, what little there is and what we know both of the conventions of the day and their relationship suggests it was due to medical issues or perhaps simply bad luck, not because of any choice they made.
Wednesday 14 June 2017
Where was Francis?
Edward IV`s death on 9th April 1483 set in motion a series of events. Over the next months, those who survived him found themselves locked in a power struggled which eventually ended with Edward`s brother Richard of Gloucester taking the throne as Richard III.
The exact events of these months, plus all possible motives behind them for all those involved, have been detailed and explored elsewhere by people smarter than me. I do not intent to go into them in any detail here, other than where it concerns the question of where Francis was during all of it.
It is recorded that he did attend Edward`s last Christmas court, during which he was elevated to viscouncy on 4th January 1483, and his last Parliament, which ended on 20th February 1483. However, despite owning an inn in London and some lands nearby, it seems he did not stay after Parliament had closed. Perhaps he returned to his ancestral manor of Minster Lovell Hall, or went to visit a relative. We have no way of knowing, but since he was not noted to have attended Edward`s funeral on 19th April, it is most likely he was not nearby in London nor anywhere else in the south where, upon hearing of the death of the king, he could have arrived in time.
We have no knowledge when Francis learnt of Edward IV`s death and when he arrived in London after it, and no mention of him in any of the contemporary or quasi-contemporary reports of what went on there after Edward`s death. Despite this, however, there are some indications he was present at least when the council took up its work, so he probably arrived in late April or early May.
As J.M.Williams points out, he was appointed to several commissions of the peace during the months of May and June. The first of these were for East Riding of Yorkshire and Northamptonshire, which were dated to the 14th of May, the last for Essex and Oxfordshire, dated to 28th June, the day Francis was named the new king Richard III`s lord chamberlain.
Often, being on such commissions was nominal, and clearly Francis could not have been physically present for all of them, so that they do not give a hint to his whereabouts. Nor do his appointments to them have to mean he was present in London. However, while it was far from unheard of to have the appointee not present when such decisions were made, there are other indications that Francis was in London at the time.
For one, he was notably favoured at the time. This was presumably due to his friend Richard of Gloucester`s influence, but could not have gone ahead without the council`s approval. On 19th May, he was given the imprisoned Anthony Woodville`s job as Chief Butler, and on 21st May, he was given the "Rule & Keping" of the manor of Thorpe Waterville and "alle the Landes & tenements belonging to the same", which in Edward IV`s last Parliament had been granted to Richard Grey, but which Francis had been in a dispute over with him.
Both these grants were almost certainly Richard`s idea, but both were officially made in the name of Edward V and would have formally been made by the council, suggesting that Francis was there at the time. While Richard may have trusted Francis implicitly, it is unlikely most of the council would have agreed to bestow a job in the government and a grant of land to a new viscount who had previously not made much if any impact on Edward IV´s reign,, would have been a largely unknown factor to most and could, moreover, not even bothered to come to the capital to do what he could to help a smooth transition from the old to the new government.
In the light of this, his complete absence from any report of what went on in London during May and June is fascinating. There is no indication he was in any way involved in anything controversial, which sets him apart from almost anyone else of any standing who was there at the time. Even if Francis`s relative unimportance at the time prevented people from noticing him, hostile sources from some years later could have easily read his importance in Richard`s reign back unto that stretch of time. In fact, this is what happened to both Sir Richard Ratcliffe and William Catesby, who were of far lesser standing than Francis and became important in Richard`s reign. Writing in 1486, the Croyland Chronicler reports that the two men opposed the supposedly planned marriage of Richard to his niece Elizabeth of York because they were afraid of her becoming queen and wanting revenge on them for their part in the execution of her uncle Anthony and half-brother Richard Grey.
The holes in this story, especially concerning Richard`s marital plans, are obvious, but it still shows that men who rose to prominence under Richard, even if they were not very notable before, were included in the events of June 1483 in hostile rumours of the time, whether they were in essence truthful or not. Francis, however, never was. No source, neither contemporary ones nor even hostile ones written in Henry VII`s reign or clearly opposed to Richard`s accession, ever mentioned Francis as involved in any of the scheming, plotting and counterplotting that was rife in London in the summer of 1483.
There is no mention of him in connection with the quarrels of the different factions, with any troops brought to London, with those counselling Richard, with Hastings` summary execution, with the executions for treason of Anthony Woodville, Richard Grey and Thomas Vaughan, with the preparations for Richard taking the crown or any of the other events, up until he was made Richard`s lord chamberlain on 28th June.
What makes this especially strange is that especially in later and hostile sources, there would have been no need to make sure any accusations levelled against him were particularly truthful. Mere rumours would have sufficed, especially to darken the name of an enemy of Henry VII`s when he was king. Actually, the very fact that Francis profited from the Woodville faction`s fall from grace during that time alone should have sufficed to speculate on his part in this and the accession of his friend and benefactor Richard, yet no one did.
This suggests that either, for some reason, Francis somehow managed to stay clear of all the plotting and all sources decided to remain truthful on it and not even comment on the fact that even so, he certainly profited handsomely from it, or he was seen as an unlikely candidate to be involved in plotting, or else there was some widely known reason as to why he did not become involved in all of it.
The second possibility, that he was seen as unlikely to be involved in the plotting, would throw an interesting light on his reputation and character, but it is hard to imagine what could have possibly made hard-headed medieval chroniclers, and moreover hostile chroniclers, think this of a man who had been a soldier and clearly profitted from the new situation. In addition to that, those whose actions were inconvenient to a point being made or seemed not to fit what was known about them - for example, that John Howard, who had always been loyal to Edward IV, was on Richard`s side throughout - were usually said in such hostile sources to have been motivated by fear or greed. The latter of which would have, given the grants Francis received, made a good motive to explain any of his actions, real or invented to make a point.
Given that also more objective sources make no mention of him actually becoming involved, it does seem that he genuinely did not, and there was some obvious, well-known, reason for him not to. Excluding the idea that he was not present in London, as discussed above, there are some other possibilites. One is that he sat on the fence, waiting which side would win, but this is unlikely, for as mentioned, he was favoured by Richard and showed time and again during his life his love for and loyalty to Richard and upon Richard`s accession, the new monarch showed clear trust and affection to him.
Another possibility is that he was physically unable to become involved, perhaps due to some illness, though his apparent good health by the time of Richard`s coronation on 6th July may be evidence against that, and an illness at just the time of crisis would perhaps be too much of a coincidence.
Perhaps the most likely possibility is that Francis, who did not seem to have hold much if any political sway before Edward IV`s death and, as has been noted by Rosemary Horrox and J.M.Williams among others, even during Richard`s reign held power that was "personal rather than formal" (Williams) and was not involved in intrigues, conspiracies or large political schemes, simply was not a plotter by nature and if he was at all involved, was more concerned with personal networking which could have escaped chroniclers` notice. His exclusion from hostile sources at the time may well have been for the same reason, and it is possible that later retellings of these months, written to suit Henry VII, went by those and decided it was better to mention Francis as little as possible rather than give him a larger role as a clever conspirator - which given his actions in Henry`s reign could have made him seem a more formidable enemy.
However, it is all guesswork and must probably remain so. What evidence there is suggests Francis was in London in those critical months of May and June 1483, but that he did not have any significant part at all in the events that happened. Why this was so, we can only guess.
The exact events of these months, plus all possible motives behind them for all those involved, have been detailed and explored elsewhere by people smarter than me. I do not intent to go into them in any detail here, other than where it concerns the question of where Francis was during all of it.
It is recorded that he did attend Edward`s last Christmas court, during which he was elevated to viscouncy on 4th January 1483, and his last Parliament, which ended on 20th February 1483. However, despite owning an inn in London and some lands nearby, it seems he did not stay after Parliament had closed. Perhaps he returned to his ancestral manor of Minster Lovell Hall, or went to visit a relative. We have no way of knowing, but since he was not noted to have attended Edward`s funeral on 19th April, it is most likely he was not nearby in London nor anywhere else in the south where, upon hearing of the death of the king, he could have arrived in time.
We have no knowledge when Francis learnt of Edward IV`s death and when he arrived in London after it, and no mention of him in any of the contemporary or quasi-contemporary reports of what went on there after Edward`s death. Despite this, however, there are some indications he was present at least when the council took up its work, so he probably arrived in late April or early May.
As J.M.Williams points out, he was appointed to several commissions of the peace during the months of May and June. The first of these were for East Riding of Yorkshire and Northamptonshire, which were dated to the 14th of May, the last for Essex and Oxfordshire, dated to 28th June, the day Francis was named the new king Richard III`s lord chamberlain.
Often, being on such commissions was nominal, and clearly Francis could not have been physically present for all of them, so that they do not give a hint to his whereabouts. Nor do his appointments to them have to mean he was present in London. However, while it was far from unheard of to have the appointee not present when such decisions were made, there are other indications that Francis was in London at the time.
For one, he was notably favoured at the time. This was presumably due to his friend Richard of Gloucester`s influence, but could not have gone ahead without the council`s approval. On 19th May, he was given the imprisoned Anthony Woodville`s job as Chief Butler, and on 21st May, he was given the "Rule & Keping" of the manor of Thorpe Waterville and "alle the Landes & tenements belonging to the same", which in Edward IV`s last Parliament had been granted to Richard Grey, but which Francis had been in a dispute over with him.
Both these grants were almost certainly Richard`s idea, but both were officially made in the name of Edward V and would have formally been made by the council, suggesting that Francis was there at the time. While Richard may have trusted Francis implicitly, it is unlikely most of the council would have agreed to bestow a job in the government and a grant of land to a new viscount who had previously not made much if any impact on Edward IV´s reign,, would have been a largely unknown factor to most and could, moreover, not even bothered to come to the capital to do what he could to help a smooth transition from the old to the new government.
In the light of this, his complete absence from any report of what went on in London during May and June is fascinating. There is no indication he was in any way involved in anything controversial, which sets him apart from almost anyone else of any standing who was there at the time. Even if Francis`s relative unimportance at the time prevented people from noticing him, hostile sources from some years later could have easily read his importance in Richard`s reign back unto that stretch of time. In fact, this is what happened to both Sir Richard Ratcliffe and William Catesby, who were of far lesser standing than Francis and became important in Richard`s reign. Writing in 1486, the Croyland Chronicler reports that the two men opposed the supposedly planned marriage of Richard to his niece Elizabeth of York because they were afraid of her becoming queen and wanting revenge on them for their part in the execution of her uncle Anthony and half-brother Richard Grey.
The holes in this story, especially concerning Richard`s marital plans, are obvious, but it still shows that men who rose to prominence under Richard, even if they were not very notable before, were included in the events of June 1483 in hostile rumours of the time, whether they were in essence truthful or not. Francis, however, never was. No source, neither contemporary ones nor even hostile ones written in Henry VII`s reign or clearly opposed to Richard`s accession, ever mentioned Francis as involved in any of the scheming, plotting and counterplotting that was rife in London in the summer of 1483.
There is no mention of him in connection with the quarrels of the different factions, with any troops brought to London, with those counselling Richard, with Hastings` summary execution, with the executions for treason of Anthony Woodville, Richard Grey and Thomas Vaughan, with the preparations for Richard taking the crown or any of the other events, up until he was made Richard`s lord chamberlain on 28th June.
What makes this especially strange is that especially in later and hostile sources, there would have been no need to make sure any accusations levelled against him were particularly truthful. Mere rumours would have sufficed, especially to darken the name of an enemy of Henry VII`s when he was king. Actually, the very fact that Francis profited from the Woodville faction`s fall from grace during that time alone should have sufficed to speculate on his part in this and the accession of his friend and benefactor Richard, yet no one did.
This suggests that either, for some reason, Francis somehow managed to stay clear of all the plotting and all sources decided to remain truthful on it and not even comment on the fact that even so, he certainly profited handsomely from it, or he was seen as an unlikely candidate to be involved in plotting, or else there was some widely known reason as to why he did not become involved in all of it.
The second possibility, that he was seen as unlikely to be involved in the plotting, would throw an interesting light on his reputation and character, but it is hard to imagine what could have possibly made hard-headed medieval chroniclers, and moreover hostile chroniclers, think this of a man who had been a soldier and clearly profitted from the new situation. In addition to that, those whose actions were inconvenient to a point being made or seemed not to fit what was known about them - for example, that John Howard, who had always been loyal to Edward IV, was on Richard`s side throughout - were usually said in such hostile sources to have been motivated by fear or greed. The latter of which would have, given the grants Francis received, made a good motive to explain any of his actions, real or invented to make a point.
Given that also more objective sources make no mention of him actually becoming involved, it does seem that he genuinely did not, and there was some obvious, well-known, reason for him not to. Excluding the idea that he was not present in London, as discussed above, there are some other possibilites. One is that he sat on the fence, waiting which side would win, but this is unlikely, for as mentioned, he was favoured by Richard and showed time and again during his life his love for and loyalty to Richard and upon Richard`s accession, the new monarch showed clear trust and affection to him.
Another possibility is that he was physically unable to become involved, perhaps due to some illness, though his apparent good health by the time of Richard`s coronation on 6th July may be evidence against that, and an illness at just the time of crisis would perhaps be too much of a coincidence.
Perhaps the most likely possibility is that Francis, who did not seem to have hold much if any political sway before Edward IV`s death and, as has been noted by Rosemary Horrox and J.M.Williams among others, even during Richard`s reign held power that was "personal rather than formal" (Williams) and was not involved in intrigues, conspiracies or large political schemes, simply was not a plotter by nature and if he was at all involved, was more concerned with personal networking which could have escaped chroniclers` notice. His exclusion from hostile sources at the time may well have been for the same reason, and it is possible that later retellings of these months, written to suit Henry VII, went by those and decided it was better to mention Francis as little as possible rather than give him a larger role as a clever conspirator - which given his actions in Henry`s reign could have made him seem a more formidable enemy.
However, it is all guesswork and must probably remain so. What evidence there is suggests Francis was in London in those critical months of May and June 1483, but that he did not have any significant part at all in the events that happened. Why this was so, we can only guess.
Saturday 10 June 2017
10th June 1487
In the night of the 10th June 1487, the Yorkist rebel force gathered by John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln and Francis Lovell, Viscount Lovell with the help of Margaret of York first made enemy contact, with some forces of Lord Clifford.
Having only landed in England, on Piel Island near Furness, where Francis had spent some time hiding after his failed rebellion the previous year, six days earlier, the troops had marched over 100 miles in that time, a section of them arriving at Bramham Moor the day before. Lord Clifford, leading around 400 soldiers to join more soldiers at York, does not seem to have been aware quite how close they already were. Arriving at Tadcaster, near Branham Moor, in the afternoon of 10th June, a Sunday, he stopped there for the night.
The present Yorkist forces, led by Francis, attacked Clifford and his men that night, taking them by surprise. The York Civic Records describe the attack, however including an inconsistency about where it happened. At first, quite logically, it claims the Yorkist forces attacked the town where Clifford and his men "loged", saying that "the same night the Kinges ennymes lying negh to the same towne [Tadcaster], cam upon the said Lord Clifford folkes and made a grete skrymisse ther". However, it then goes on to to claim that, suffering defeat, Clifford "with such folkes as he might get, retourned to the Citie again", suggesting at some point Clifford and his men had left Tadcaster to meet Francis and his forces in combat.
It is therefore not quite certain what exactly happened that night, except that Francis and the part of the Yorkist rebel forces he led made a surprise attack on Lord Clifford and his men and defeated them, sending him fleeing. If they attacked the town to get to them or if, lookouts seeing them coming, Clifford and his men came to meet them, there is no certainty.
However, according to the York Civic Records, Francis and his troops were at one point in the city, and some of what it says suggest that the whole skirmish took place inside it, making this the somewhat more likely version. It is stated that "at that same skrymisse were slain and maymed diverse of the said toune", and that "thinhabitants ther were spoled and robbed". The latter was a sadly typical result of skirmishes and battles in or near cities, but the former definitely states that those of the city who died did so during the skirmish, not in any excesses of violence afterwards.
In fact, whatever devastation was wreaked on the town seems to have been comparatively mild, as there were no records of it being burned, of buildings otherwise destroyed, of any non battle-related deaths or, another horribly frequent crime after such skirmishes, of rapes.
Whatever truly happened, the York Civic records do not go into detail, instead, after shortly mentioning the terrible occurences during the skirmish, focusing on what was probably the reason for the attack, namely the loss of Lord Clifford`s equipment and luggage to the Yorkist rebels: "...and the gardewyans and trussing coffers of the Lord Clifford was taken of the brig by misfortune, and had unto the other partie."
It was, in comparison to what was to follow, a small skirmish, though a resounding success for the Yorkist rebel forces. Clifford, without much equipment and a decimated force, retreated to York, while Francis, with his successful rebel force, went on to meet with Lincoln.
Having only landed in England, on Piel Island near Furness, where Francis had spent some time hiding after his failed rebellion the previous year, six days earlier, the troops had marched over 100 miles in that time, a section of them arriving at Bramham Moor the day before. Lord Clifford, leading around 400 soldiers to join more soldiers at York, does not seem to have been aware quite how close they already were. Arriving at Tadcaster, near Branham Moor, in the afternoon of 10th June, a Sunday, he stopped there for the night.
The present Yorkist forces, led by Francis, attacked Clifford and his men that night, taking them by surprise. The York Civic Records describe the attack, however including an inconsistency about where it happened. At first, quite logically, it claims the Yorkist forces attacked the town where Clifford and his men "loged", saying that "the same night the Kinges ennymes lying negh to the same towne [Tadcaster], cam upon the said Lord Clifford folkes and made a grete skrymisse ther". However, it then goes on to to claim that, suffering defeat, Clifford "with such folkes as he might get, retourned to the Citie again", suggesting at some point Clifford and his men had left Tadcaster to meet Francis and his forces in combat.
It is therefore not quite certain what exactly happened that night, except that Francis and the part of the Yorkist rebel forces he led made a surprise attack on Lord Clifford and his men and defeated them, sending him fleeing. If they attacked the town to get to them or if, lookouts seeing them coming, Clifford and his men came to meet them, there is no certainty.
However, according to the York Civic Records, Francis and his troops were at one point in the city, and some of what it says suggest that the whole skirmish took place inside it, making this the somewhat more likely version. It is stated that "at that same skrymisse were slain and maymed diverse of the said toune", and that "thinhabitants ther were spoled and robbed". The latter was a sadly typical result of skirmishes and battles in or near cities, but the former definitely states that those of the city who died did so during the skirmish, not in any excesses of violence afterwards.
In fact, whatever devastation was wreaked on the town seems to have been comparatively mild, as there were no records of it being burned, of buildings otherwise destroyed, of any non battle-related deaths or, another horribly frequent crime after such skirmishes, of rapes.
Whatever truly happened, the York Civic records do not go into detail, instead, after shortly mentioning the terrible occurences during the skirmish, focusing on what was probably the reason for the attack, namely the loss of Lord Clifford`s equipment and luggage to the Yorkist rebels: "...and the gardewyans and trussing coffers of the Lord Clifford was taken of the brig by misfortune, and had unto the other partie."
It was, in comparison to what was to follow, a small skirmish, though a resounding success for the Yorkist rebel forces. Clifford, without much equipment and a decimated force, retreated to York, while Francis, with his successful rebel force, went on to meet with Lincoln.
Friday 9 June 2017
Francis and the Scottish campaign 1482
In the last years before Edward IV`s death, the king intended to resolve the always difficult relations with England`s northern neighbours, which frequently burst into violence on both sides, by an invasion. Preparations were made by men of such high standing as his (only remaining) brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester and Lord Howard. Edward himself intended to lead the invasion but eventually decided against it due to "adverse turmoil", instead leaving the campaigns to his brother Richard.
The details of this campaign have been covered elsewhere, but as happens sadly often, little to no attention has been paid to Francis`s part in the campaign and where he was during them. This is understandable since he was of comparatively low standing as compared to many others involved with it, and not then much of a political player, of much interest to observers. However, despite this, a bit has survived about Francis`s involvement and actions during the campaigns.
It is known that Francis was knighted by Richard, on 22nd August 1481, (though the year is disputed and sometimes put as 1480), in Hutton-by-Berwick. He was not the only one to be knighted there and then by Richard - so was his brother-in-law, Richard FitzHugh, for example - but it suggests he had been comporting himself well during what fighting there had been.
Despite this and the honour, as I have pointed out in an earlier article, there is some indication Francis, while apparently not bad at fighting when he had too, was not very keen on doing do. A letter written by him to William Stonor in the next year, 1482, survives and indicates as much. Writing on 24th June, almost exactly a month after Richard first led an attack into Scotland, which saw Dumfries burned, and the Duke of Albany arrive in England to ask for his support for his claim to the throne, Francis stated that "it is said in this contre the King purposes to send Northwardes my lorde of Gloucestre, and my broder Parr and such other folke of worship as hath eny reule in the said northe parties, trustyng we shall have warr of the Scottes". Since, as Wendy E.A. Moorhen points out, in an article that can be read on the website of the Richard III Society, Richard had been "confirmed as Lieutenant-General of the North" twelve days earlier at Fotheringhay, it seems that news were travelling slow, as Francis, writing at Tanfeld, had only heard unspecific rumours about this.
The letter, interestingly, also makes it clear that Francis was not involved in the attacks led into Scotland a month earlier, though it gives no clue as to why. It also does not explain why Francis apparently did not see those attacks as "warre", though the suggestion is that a larger Scottish army was expected, rather than just such attacks at the border, which there had been several of on both sides in the previous years.
As alluded to above, Francis did not show much enthusiasm about the prospect. Apologising to Stonor for not having returned south (from his mother-in-law`s manor of Tanfeld) to be "with the King at the feste of Seynt John Baptist now late passid, to have attende upon his good grace", he states that he intents "as hastely as I can have a convenient seasson" to return to the south.
Sadly, we do not know when Francis was contacted by Richard and/or someone else preparing the invasion, but given his involvement in the fighting the year before and his stated intention to remain in the north for the reason for joining it, it is probably safe to say that he did join Richard`s army, likely bringing some men of his own.
According to Moorhen, the "army crossed the border" in the middle of July, laying siege to Berwick, which surrendered to the army, though only partially, the citadel refusing to do so. Richard deputised Lord Stanley to remain at Berwick, marching on through Scotland mostly unopposed, due to the infighting at the Scottish court. Not long after the English army crossed into Scotland, the Scottish "dissatisfied subjects had taken their king prisoner" (Moorhen), his captors were fine with trying to come to terms with Richard, and Richard could take Edinburgh without a fight.
Where Francis was during all this, we do not know. However, it has been pointed out by J.M.William`s in her essay ‘The Political Career of Francis Viscount Lovell (1456-?)’ that on 10th August 1482, Francis was "among the lessors of the manor of Remenham, Berkshire, to Thomas Lovell for twenty years, to the use of Edmund Mountfort, knight". She speculates that this means Francis was then back south, where this agreement was made.
While this is of course guesswork, it is an idea worth looking at. While the details of such a business interaction would have been handled by Francis`s and the other men`s lawyers, and the transaction would not have required his presence, it is a safe assumption that he would have been consulted about it before any decisions were made final. This would suggest the final agreement was made before Francis joined Richard`s army bound for Scotland and then for some reason delayed for several weeks, or that Francis had already returned by then.
Since the paperwork for the transaction is, according to Williams, in the Westminster Abbey Muniments and was therefore in all likelihood completed somewhere in the south or middle of England, Francis however had been in the north for a while before going to war and had, moreover, mentioned wanting to return to the south as soon as he could after that, it seems that there is something to Williams` speculation, and Francis was possibly no longer with Richard and the rest of the army, men of high standing and common men alike, in Scotland.
If so, the question as to why naturally arises. Since Francis had explicitly mentioned staying in the north to fight, if apparently without much liking the idea, it is quite unlikely that he did not join the fighting after all, more so since he had also fought the year before. Nor is it likely that he left Scotland early without a good reason, which a transaction like that would not have been. Again, it is unlikely that he would have simply chosen, or in fact been allowed, to leave after clearly having expected to fight and having done so into late summer in 1481.
Added to that is the fact that not half a year later, Edward IV bestowed a signal honour on Francis by elevating him to viscouncy, an honour he only bestowed on one other man during his reign. While, as I have addressed before, it is probable that Richard may have spoken to Edward about this and used his influence to see it happened, it is very improbable Edward would have obliged him in this and honoured a man who had chosen to stay away from the fighting or left it early for his own reasons.
In fact, it even seems somewhat unlikely he would have so honoured a man who left the fighting early for some perfectly understandable and pressing, yet unrelated, reason over many who had remained, such as Francis`s above-mentioned brother-in-law, who was moreover related to Edward by blood.
Therefore, if Francis genuinely was back in the south by 10th August 1482, it is likely he left Richard`s army and company because he could not stay anymore, possibly because he sustained a minor injury, for example when first laying siege to Berwick. This could have rendered him unable to fight for some time, for example if it was on his fighting arm or a leg, making him a liability to take along on the ride through Scotland, where Richard continued to take and burn cities, yet have left him healthy enough to undertake a less strenous journey back south.
Such an injury could even explain Edward`s decision to honour Francis in January 1483 even more, as at the time, the whole capital, and even Parliament was singing Richard`s praises for his successful campaign. Rewarding a friend of his who had been involved in the campaign and had moreover gotten injured during it, would have been a popular move and pleased Richard at the same time.
Again, it is sheerest speculation. All we do know is that Francis was involved in the fighting in 1481, apparently doing a good job at it, was not involved in the early part of the campaign in 1482 but, apparently, was part of the invasion that happened later that year. How long he stayed with that army, if he left earlier and if so why, there are only hints about. All we do know is that whatever he did, it apparently earned him the favour of King Edward IV.
The details of this campaign have been covered elsewhere, but as happens sadly often, little to no attention has been paid to Francis`s part in the campaign and where he was during them. This is understandable since he was of comparatively low standing as compared to many others involved with it, and not then much of a political player, of much interest to observers. However, despite this, a bit has survived about Francis`s involvement and actions during the campaigns.
It is known that Francis was knighted by Richard, on 22nd August 1481, (though the year is disputed and sometimes put as 1480), in Hutton-by-Berwick. He was not the only one to be knighted there and then by Richard - so was his brother-in-law, Richard FitzHugh, for example - but it suggests he had been comporting himself well during what fighting there had been.
Despite this and the honour, as I have pointed out in an earlier article, there is some indication Francis, while apparently not bad at fighting when he had too, was not very keen on doing do. A letter written by him to William Stonor in the next year, 1482, survives and indicates as much. Writing on 24th June, almost exactly a month after Richard first led an attack into Scotland, which saw Dumfries burned, and the Duke of Albany arrive in England to ask for his support for his claim to the throne, Francis stated that "it is said in this contre the King purposes to send Northwardes my lorde of Gloucestre, and my broder Parr and such other folke of worship as hath eny reule in the said northe parties, trustyng we shall have warr of the Scottes". Since, as Wendy E.A. Moorhen points out, in an article that can be read on the website of the Richard III Society, Richard had been "confirmed as Lieutenant-General of the North" twelve days earlier at Fotheringhay, it seems that news were travelling slow, as Francis, writing at Tanfeld, had only heard unspecific rumours about this.
The letter, interestingly, also makes it clear that Francis was not involved in the attacks led into Scotland a month earlier, though it gives no clue as to why. It also does not explain why Francis apparently did not see those attacks as "warre", though the suggestion is that a larger Scottish army was expected, rather than just such attacks at the border, which there had been several of on both sides in the previous years.
As alluded to above, Francis did not show much enthusiasm about the prospect. Apologising to Stonor for not having returned south (from his mother-in-law`s manor of Tanfeld) to be "with the King at the feste of Seynt John Baptist now late passid, to have attende upon his good grace", he states that he intents "as hastely as I can have a convenient seasson" to return to the south.
Sadly, we do not know when Francis was contacted by Richard and/or someone else preparing the invasion, but given his involvement in the fighting the year before and his stated intention to remain in the north for the reason for joining it, it is probably safe to say that he did join Richard`s army, likely bringing some men of his own.
According to Moorhen, the "army crossed the border" in the middle of July, laying siege to Berwick, which surrendered to the army, though only partially, the citadel refusing to do so. Richard deputised Lord Stanley to remain at Berwick, marching on through Scotland mostly unopposed, due to the infighting at the Scottish court. Not long after the English army crossed into Scotland, the Scottish "dissatisfied subjects had taken their king prisoner" (Moorhen), his captors were fine with trying to come to terms with Richard, and Richard could take Edinburgh without a fight.
Where Francis was during all this, we do not know. However, it has been pointed out by J.M.William`s in her essay ‘The Political Career of Francis Viscount Lovell (1456-?)’ that on 10th August 1482, Francis was "among the lessors of the manor of Remenham, Berkshire, to Thomas Lovell for twenty years, to the use of Edmund Mountfort, knight". She speculates that this means Francis was then back south, where this agreement was made.
While this is of course guesswork, it is an idea worth looking at. While the details of such a business interaction would have been handled by Francis`s and the other men`s lawyers, and the transaction would not have required his presence, it is a safe assumption that he would have been consulted about it before any decisions were made final. This would suggest the final agreement was made before Francis joined Richard`s army bound for Scotland and then for some reason delayed for several weeks, or that Francis had already returned by then.
Since the paperwork for the transaction is, according to Williams, in the Westminster Abbey Muniments and was therefore in all likelihood completed somewhere in the south or middle of England, Francis however had been in the north for a while before going to war and had, moreover, mentioned wanting to return to the south as soon as he could after that, it seems that there is something to Williams` speculation, and Francis was possibly no longer with Richard and the rest of the army, men of high standing and common men alike, in Scotland.
If so, the question as to why naturally arises. Since Francis had explicitly mentioned staying in the north to fight, if apparently without much liking the idea, it is quite unlikely that he did not join the fighting after all, more so since he had also fought the year before. Nor is it likely that he left Scotland early without a good reason, which a transaction like that would not have been. Again, it is unlikely that he would have simply chosen, or in fact been allowed, to leave after clearly having expected to fight and having done so into late summer in 1481.
Added to that is the fact that not half a year later, Edward IV bestowed a signal honour on Francis by elevating him to viscouncy, an honour he only bestowed on one other man during his reign. While, as I have addressed before, it is probable that Richard may have spoken to Edward about this and used his influence to see it happened, it is very improbable Edward would have obliged him in this and honoured a man who had chosen to stay away from the fighting or left it early for his own reasons.
In fact, it even seems somewhat unlikely he would have so honoured a man who left the fighting early for some perfectly understandable and pressing, yet unrelated, reason over many who had remained, such as Francis`s above-mentioned brother-in-law, who was moreover related to Edward by blood.
Therefore, if Francis genuinely was back in the south by 10th August 1482, it is likely he left Richard`s army and company because he could not stay anymore, possibly because he sustained a minor injury, for example when first laying siege to Berwick. This could have rendered him unable to fight for some time, for example if it was on his fighting arm or a leg, making him a liability to take along on the ride through Scotland, where Richard continued to take and burn cities, yet have left him healthy enough to undertake a less strenous journey back south.
Such an injury could even explain Edward`s decision to honour Francis in January 1483 even more, as at the time, the whole capital, and even Parliament was singing Richard`s praises for his successful campaign. Rewarding a friend of his who had been involved in the campaign and had moreover gotten injured during it, would have been a popular move and pleased Richard at the same time.
Again, it is sheerest speculation. All we do know is that Francis was involved in the fighting in 1481, apparently doing a good job at it, was not involved in the early part of the campaign in 1482 but, apparently, was part of the invasion that happened later that year. How long he stayed with that army, if he left earlier and if so why, there are only hints about. All we do know is that whatever he did, it apparently earned him the favour of King Edward IV.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)