Francis in the Earl of Warwick`s household

On 13th November 1467, King Edward IV granted to his cousin Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, the custody of the orphaned eleven-year-old ninth baron Lovell, Francis Lovell. This, as was common for such grants also included the "custody of all lordships, manors, lands, rents, services and possessions with advowsons, kinghts` fees, franchises, liberties, warrens, courts leet and other commodities late of John Lovell, knight, deceased, tenant in chief, or Joan his wife or any ancestor of Francis, his son and heir during the minority of said Francis", as well as his "marriage without disparagement".

Because of this grant, it is often assumed that Francis only arrived in Warwick`s household in late 1467. Which is of course a very logical assumption, but nonetheless one that is most likely untrue. All that it definitely says is that with the grant, Warwick legally had the wardship of Francis and his possessions. It does not state if this was simply an affirmation of rights Warwick had informally held for a while, and if not, who else had custody of Francis and his inheritance.

Since a similar grant to someone else between the death of Francis`s father and 1467 would have been recorded, it follows that either the king himself held Francis`s custody and lands, as he indeed did from mid-1473 until Francis came of age in late 1477, or that Warwick did so informally.

Both is, of course, possible, but it seems likely that Warwick had at least some control over Francis as soon as his father died, for only around five weeks after John Lovell`s death, he was married to Warwick`s niece Anne FitzHugh. This could mean that Warwick already had full power of decision over Francis, but it could also mean that Edward granted him the right to pick a bride for the young boy - perhaps as a compensation for marrying his sister-in-law Margaret Woodville to Warwick`s nephew Thomas FitzAlan - but not his entire lands.

Of course, all this does is show that Warwick had some control over young Francis in 1465. It does not indicate exactly how many, or where Francis lived. In 1465, Francis`s mother was still alive, so it is possible that after the marriage, the little boy continued living with her. If it was indeed Edward IV holding his inheritance at that point, this is somewhat more likely than if it was the Earl of Warwick; there is no indication Francis ever lived at court, and it might not have mattered much to Edward whether the eight-year-old boy was raised in the households of one of his men, or in his mother`s household.

However, Francis`s mother Joan died on 5th August 1466, leaving him and his sisters Joan and Frideswide full orphans, with neither father nor mother left to take charge of their upbringing if they were so allowed. There is no definite proof where they went immediately after their mother`s death, but evidence indicates that at least Joan and Frideswide - and Francis if he was indeed still living in his mother`s household when she died - were raised in the household of Alice and Henry FitzHugh following their mother`s death. They were recorded to be there, together with Francis, in 1470, in the pardon for Henry FitzHugh`s rebellion, their inclusion clearly suggesting that they had not just newly arrived there but were considered established members of the FitzHughs` household and extended family.

It is, of course, possible that they only arrived at their household when their brother Francis`s wardship was granted to the Earl of Warwick, but there is no obvious reason to assume this was so. The only other households they could have likely stayed at after their mother`s death would have been that of their paternal grandmother, Alice Deincourt, and her husband Lord Sudeley, or that of their stepfather William Stanley. For neither of whom any documents contradict that they stayed there, but they were both apparently still in good health and finances, allowing them to take care of the children well after 1467. Though Francis might have been forced to leave to join the Earl of Warwick`s household when his custody was granted to him, there would have been no reason for his sisters to leave either the Stanley or the Sudeley household, had they stayed there, at the same time, or really at any time between their mother`s death and 1470.

It seems, therefore, that at least Joan and Frideswide were raised with the FitzHugh children from 1466 on. It stands to reason, therefore, that Francis was either with them or in Warwick`s household at the time. The fact that a grant of 1000 pounds to the Earl of Warwick, for "costs and expenses incurred by him on behalf of the Duke of Gloucester, the king`s brother, and for the exhibition and marriage of the son and heir of the Lord Lovell" exists from 1466 suggests it was the latter. While Warwick could have been compensated for the costs of the the children`s wedding without Francis having to live with him, the fact that "exhibition" was included suggests that he was also responsible for his education and upbringing as a lord, with all that entailed.

The grant is also interesting in that the 1000 pounds were in fact taken from revenues which were part of Francis`s inheritance. This suggests that it was Edward, not the Earl of Warwick, who controlled them at this point, and that the right to arrange Francis`s marriage had been especially granted to the earl, not been part and parcel of getting custody of him and his lands. The fact Edward reimbursted the earl for his upbringing suggests that he had sent Francis to his household, probably to raise him as a good, loyal, lord - like he did with his own brother Richard, equally mentioned in the grant.

It seems pretty certain, therefore, that Francis was in the earl`s household from at least summer 1466 on. It is less certain where he was immediately following his father`s death, but given the customs of the days, it is quite likely Edward made arrangements for him to be sent to be raised in one of his lords` households then, rather than after his mother`s death. The fact that his "exhibition and marriage" were mentioned together in the grant made the earl also suggest so, although this of course speculation.

Why the earl was granted custody of Francis and his inheritance in late 1467, we do not know. Perhaps it was an attempt by Edward to save the slowly fracturing relationship with the earl, or it was a reward for something. However, it seems that for Francis and his upbringing at the time, the grant made no difference, since he had been in the earl`s household for quite a while by then.

Anne FitzHugh Lovell

Sadly little is known about Anne FitzHugh Lovell, Viscountess Lovell, wife of Francis. Though a first cousin to Richard III`s queen Anne Neville and wife of his closest friend, she has been often overlooked. This is understandable for her contemporaries - Francis himself did not cause a lot of comment and was apparently seen as a good but unremarkable man, and since Anne does not seem to have done much out of the ordinary while in the public eye, there was not much to comment on for them. However, even historians looking at Francis`s life have traditionally not assigned her much importance, neither in Francis`s life nor as an independent subject of study. While, again, this is understandable in the light of the lack of evidence about her and her life, it is nonetheless an oversight. Though there are only few facts, they indicate she was far from an uninteresting person, nor someone her husband did not care about.

Anne was born to Henry FitzHugh, 5th Baron FitzHugh and his wife Alice Neville, probably in 1460, according to the Testamenta Eboracenses. This squares with what evidence we have for the ages of her siblings and is therefore likely correct, meaning Anne was four years younger than her husband Francis. At the time of her birth, she had two older sisters, Alice and Elizabeth, and one older brother, Richard. While Alice was significantly older than her, having been born around 1448, Elizabeth and Richard were closer to her in age, Elizabeth being around Francis`s age and Richard`s birthday most likely being in late 1458 or very early 1459. This is supported by the fact that on 25th February 1479, he was given license to enter the lands he had inherited from his father, and clearly means he was, at most, two years older than Anne.

The little girl was born at a very tense time in history. After several years of conflicts, Richard, Duke of York - the baby`s great-uncle by marriage - had either recently claimed the throne for himself and his descendants or was just about to do so, naturally causing protests by the supporters of the sitting king, Henry VI. The rift that caused among the nobility went right through little Anne`s family; her father Henry was a supporter of Henry VI, while her uncle, the famous Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, supported Richard of York and was instrumental in putting Richard`s son, Edward, on the throne after Richard`s death.

When this had happened, Henry came to terms with the new king, but at the time of his third daughter`s birth, he was still fighting to support Henry VI. Naturally, this would have limited the contact with the Earl of Warwick`s family, and despite the fact that Anne`s mother Alice, Warwick`s brother, is said to have resembled him and been close to him, she seems to have fully supported her husband in 1460. This also means it is unlikely that little Anne was called after her aunt by marriage, Warwick`s wife Anne Beauchamp. However, "Anne" was a Neville family name, and it is quite possible the baby was called after her great-aunt Anne Neville, dowager duchess of Buckingham, or her first cousin once removed, Anne of York, Duchess of Exeter, both of whom were also on Henry VI`s side in the conflict - though Anne of York may very well have felt unhappy about this. Maybe one of these two women was even little Anne`s godmother, but sadly we do not know.

Almost nothing is known about Anne`s childhood. As she grew up, she became an older sister several times, to brothers named George, Edward, Thomas and John. In later, non-contemporary sources, it is sometimes stated that she also had two more sisters, Margery and Joan, the former the first wife of Sir Marmaduke Constable, the latter a nun, but no contemporary source mentions them as the children of Henry FitzHugh and Alice Neville. It is possible they were Henry`s illegitimate daughters, or from another branch of the family, but their connection to Anne is shaky at best.

The exact birth dates of Anne`s siblings are not known, any more than hers, nor is it known how much of an upbringing they shared. If the FitzHugh family, as was usually done in noble families, gave their sons a different (though not necessarily a better) education than their daughters, she would have most likely only shared her lessons with Elizabeth, as Alice was around 12 years older than her and might not have had too much to do with her.

Despite this age difference, however, it was Anne who was married first, not Alice. In fact, it seems that Anne was married first of all her siblings, at the age of four or just five in February 1465. In a match almost certainly arranged by Anne`s uncle, the above-mentioned Earl of Warwick, she was married to the then eight-year-old Francis Lovell, who had become Baron Lovell only around five weeks earlier after his father`s sudden death. How much Anne, or even Francis, understood of what was happening at that age is of course guesswork, but it was not uncommon for children, even that young, to be married at the time.

However, it was rather out of the ordinary for a younger sister to be married before a match for her older sister had been arranged. We have no knowledge why the FitzHughs choose to do it that way, and why Alice, then around eighteen, was only married to in November 1466, and then "only" to Sir John Fiennes, the heir to a barony, and therefore for the time being of lesser status than Anne`s youthful husband. Perhaps Henry and Alice decided that, while age gaps in arranged marriages were hardly out of the ordinary, it would be better to marry Alice to Sir John, who was her age, and Anne to a boy only four years older than her, rather than marry Alice to a boy eight years her junior and Anne to a man twelve years her senior. Perhaps, despite the fact that Francis was already a baron and stood to inherit lots of lands in due time, Henry and Alice also saw that he had probably inherited massive debts from his father and considered him a less good prospect than Sir John. Perhaps it was a mixture of these reasons, or something else entirely. It is all speculation, as is any explanation why Elizabeth, the second sister, was apparently not considered for either match.

Equally, it is speculation how much Anne and Francis saw of each other in the first years of their marriage. It is recorded that in the summer of 1466, her father Henry spent some months as the Earl of Warwick`s guest at Middleham, where Francis was also staying at that time. It is possible that Anne and her mother and siblings joined him there - after all, it was her mother who was Warwick`s sister, and since Anne was already married to a boy in her uncle`s care, there may have been an effort made to get the children to know each other, as sometimes happened with such matches. We cannot know for certain, though.

It is known, however, that it was in the summer of 1466 that Anne`s mother-in-law, Joan Stanley, died, leaving Francis and his sisters Joan and Frideswide full orphans. Joan was around Elizabeth`s age, being almost certainly Francis`s twin, while Frideswide was likely around two years old and therefore likely of an age with Anne`s youngest brothers. After their mother`s death, it seems they were raised together with Anne and her siblings in her parents` household. If Alice and her children joined her husband Henry at Middleham, it was likely there that Joan and Frideswide joined their household, and Anne first met them.

Since almost nothing is known of their relationship, it is impossible to make any speculations what Anne may have thought or felt at the addition to her parents` household, if she was pleased to have more girls to be raised alongside with or not. She may not even have thought too much of it, for it was rather common for nobles to have several wards in their households.

It is quite likely that during this time, Anne knew her sisters-in-law far better than her husband, who even if it is possible she sometimes saw him during visits, did not live in the same household she did. It was only some years later that he seems to have started living in her parents` household. We do not know when exactly he left the Earl of Warwick`s care - possibly during his first rebellion of 1469 - but it is known that by 10th September 1470, he was definitely there, for he is included, together with Anne, her siblings and his sisters, in a pardon granted to Henry FitzHugh for his rebellion that year. While Francis was just a week shy of his fourteenth birthday when this pardon was granted, and therefore too young to have been involved, and the inclusion of ten-year-old Anne and approximately six-year-old Frideswide clearly shows this was nominal in the cases of the children, it clearly argues he was staying with the FitzHughs during the time of rebellion.

If his presence made any difference to Anne, we can`t know. Both were naturally still too young by far to even think of being anything but married in name only, but perhaps there would have been some effort made to acquaint the two with one another, so that when the time came for them to live as man and wife, they would not be complete strangers to each other. It is also possible they did not see much of one another, or that they just saw as much of each other as Anne also saw of her brothers, however much this was.

The next mention of Anne found in contemporary sources is from 1473, by which time quite a lot in her life had changed. Now thirteen, she had lost her father the year before and seen her brother Richard become Baron FitzHugh. Though her father`s death meant that she and her siblings, like her husband, were the king`s wards until they became of age, or in the girls` cases, were old enough to live with their husbands, it seems that their mother Alice, despite her apparent involvement in her husband`s rebellion against Edward IV, had been allowed to keep custody of them. Francis`s wardship had been granted to Edward`s sister and Anne`s first cousin once removed, Elizabeth, Duchess of Suffolk and her husband, on 11st July 1471, an appointment that was confirmed again in February 1472. Francis and his sisters moved into the Suffolks` household. Anne, it seems stayed with her mother and siblings, though she may have visited her husband occasionally.

Whereever she was for most of the time, at least by summer 1473, Anne saw her husband again, for it is recorded that in this year, they joined the prestigious Corpus Christi Guild together with Anne`s mother and some of her siblings. The Register of the Guild of Corpus Christi in the City of York reports this, listing "Dom. Alicia Feithew, Franciscus Lovell, comes, et Anna uxor ejus, Ric., Rog.,Ed.,Tho. et Eliz., filii dictæ Aliciæ Feithew". ("Lady Alice FitzHugh, Francis Lovell, count, and Anne his wife, Richard, Roger, Edward, Thomas and Elizabeth, children to Alice FitzHugh.") The fact that this includes Francis and Anne in the same way the pardon of 1470 does, including them in the midst of the family though as a married couple, suggests it was seen as a family decision of some sort, and it is possible Francis explicitly travelled to York for this, though it is also possible he was visited Anne and her family for a longer while that summer.

The list of family members who joined the guild with Anne is also illuminating in that it shows that with the apparent exception of John, who may have died or simply been too young to join the guild at that time, all of Anne`s siblings survived infancy, or at least all those whose birth was known about. The inclusion of a Roger in the list is somewhat baffling, since it is the only mention of a brother of that name that is known, but while it is possible that he died soon afterwards and/or other mentions of him were lost, it is far more likely this was a scribe`s mistake, and refered to George FitzHugh. His absence is rather inexplicable otherwise, and the register is known to have sometimes made mistakes of such a sort, even calling Richard of Gloucester`s consort "Elizabeth" instead of Anne.

It is possible that Francis stayed with the FitzHughs regularly until Anne was old enough to be his wife in more than name, but there is no way to be certain. Nor do we know when Anne was considered old enough. Marriages were often made when the girl was around 14, as in the case of Cecily Neville for example, but there is some evidence that consummation was often delayed until she was at least 16.

There evidence that this was also the age that Anne began living together with Francis, such as a letter written by Elizabeth Stonor in early March 1477 refers to her and Francis, clearly as their Oxfordshire neighbours. The context makes it clear that their relationship, while friendly, was still comparatively new and uncertain, which would fit perfectly with the Lovells, aged 20 and 16, first moving into Francis`s ancestral home of Minster Lovell Hall together around a year before the letter was written.

The letter also contains an interesting minor mention of Anne, as the recipient of a present, like her husband, to win their good will. This indicates that the Stonors knew, or at least assumed, that Anne held some sway over her husband or meant something to him, and that her friendship as well as his was worth cultivating. Naturally, it does not say too much about what their relationship may have been like it private, but clearly they at least fulfilled convention by appearing as a functional and contented couple.

Sadly, we do not know how much time they spent together and if this was an impression they struggled to uphold at that point or if it was one that was truthful, though there are indications in later years they were close. It is known that Francis spent some time in his mother-in-law`s household, visiting her, in 1482, but while it is quite likely that Anne was with him then, we cannot know for certain, just as we do not know whether she was present when her husband was created viscount and she became a viscountess on 4th January 1483. However, since no one ever commented on any open rift between them and the evidence does not suggest anything of the sort, it is almost certain she was with him then.

What is definitely known, and again points towards at least an impression of conventional happiness being created, in February 1483, Francis included her in a request for prayers to be said, every year on 17th September, in perpetuity.  

It is also known that when her first cousin once removed, Richard of Gloucester, her husband`s closest friend, became king, Anne was present for his coronation. She was in the new queen`s train, like her mother Alice and older sister Elizabeth, and like them and several other ladies of high standing, such as for example the famous Margaret Beaufort, Lady Stanley, she was given "a long gown of blue velvet with crimson satin" and "one gown of crimson velvet and white damask" for the festivities.

It seems, and is supported by Anne Sutton and Peter Hammond`s research presented in "The Coronation of Richard III: The Extant Documents", that unlike her mother and Elizabeth, she was not made a lady-in-waiting to Queen Anne, who was her first cousin, and unlike them, she does not seem to have been favoured in any other way by the new queen. In fact, it seems that after the coronation, she was not even present in her household, suggesting her appointment as one of the queen`s ladies had been nominal.

As to why Anne did not join her mother and sister in becoming a favour lady of the queen, we can once more only speculate. It is possible, of course, that the two women simply did not like each other. However, had Anne wished to be a lady-in-waiting, it is almost impossible Queen Anne could have denied her this, as she was the wife of one of the most important men in the government and lady-in-waiting were often appointed not simply because of the queen`s affections, but also because of political causes. It is therefore most likely Anne herself decided that she was not interested in the position, which may indeed have been because of dislike, as postulated above. It is, however, equally possible that this was due to the fact that Anne`s position in life was different at that point to her mother`s and sister`s. Her mother had been a widow for slightly over a decade when Richard III became king, while Elizabeth`s husband William Parr was ill and could not attend court. It is sometimes postulated that he also opposed Richard`s accession, but there is no evidence for that. Conversely, it is sometimes postulated that he wished for his wife to stay at court to show their suppurt which he, due to illness, could not. Whether Elizabeth went against her husband to make a statement for her support for Richard`s kingship, or whether she stayed at court with his approval and to show both their support, neither of the couple seem to have shown much of a wish to see each other.

Anne, however, was neither required to make a political stand for or to set her apart from her husband nor was she a widow, and part of her reasons not to join her mother and sister in becoming the queen`s ladies may have been because of that. The king`s and the queen`s households were often apart - such as when the king visited her and her husband`s home of Minster Lovell Hall in July 1483, soon after Edward of Middleham`s investment as Prince of Wales, and presumably after Prince Edward`s death, to name a few occasions - and Anne`s husband Francis was, in his capacity as the king`s lord chamberlain, and closest friend, always at court unless dire necessity forced him to leave, like the so-called Buckingham rebellion in autumn 1483 did shortly. It is therefore possible that Anne, when having to choose, chose to stay with her husband, rather than in the queen`s household as her lady-in-waiting.

We cannot know, of course, without a doubt that their relationship was so good at that point that she could have feasibly made such a decision. However, there is a hint in a surviving legal document from 1485 which definitely speaks to affection in the marriage. In an indenture made on 10th June, Francis arranged for Anne to receive several manors in the event of his death, not just to keep for the rest of her life, but to own and be able to pass on to her descendants after her death. This was an unusual arrangement, and not at all one he would have needed to make, indicating he had trust in her and cared for her welfare.

The fact that this arrangement would have enabled her to pass these manors on to her descandants also shows up an oddity. It is certain that Anne never had a child by Francis, yet even after what were likely nine years of living as man and wife, he does not seem to have at all blamed her for it, or, as can be seen from the indenture, even doubted she could have children. Since this arrangement could have disadvantaged any children Anne had by him, giving their half-siblings she potentially could have had by another man after Francis`s death a claim to these manors, it seems he thought or knew that their childlessness was his fault. 

There is no telling why. While it would have been typical for the time to blame the woman if a couple was childless, there are several reasons why Francis could have suspected or known he could not have children. The most obvious would be, of course, that they were not having sex, but since they seemed to get at least along and having an heir would have been expected of them, there would have to have been a good reason for this. All we know is that if that was the reason for Francis`s apparent certainty, the problem lay with him.

What Anne thought of this is, as always, up for speculation, but it does seem that she did not hold it against her husband. Nor does she seem to have held it against her husband that when Richard III was killed in battle, he chose not to accept Henry VII`s pardon. It is of course possible that she would have wished for him to do the same her brother Richard FitzHugh did, accept Henry VII and work against him in secret, or even just accept him and not risk it, but there are indications that she supported his decision. 

There is no telling if she ever saw him again after the Battle of Bosworth, but it is clear that she was at least suspected to be in contact with him and to support him, for in a letter to John Paston written on 16th May 1487, Sir Edmund Bedingfeld warned him that there were rumours he had met with "Lady Lovell", and cautions him that "yt ys well doon we dele wysly thereafter". This suggests Anne was possibly involved in some sort of plotting to support her husband and the then-imminent so-called Simnel uprising, but naturally, there is no indication what exactly she did, or if she was perhaps entirely innocent and it was simply her association to Francis that made her suspect in the eyes of the new government.

Though Henry VII was famously paranoid, it is well possible that in the case of Anne, his suspicions were well-founded. Only three months earlier, Paston had been chided by the Earl of Oxford, one of Henry`s closest men, for accidentally passing on wrong information regarding Francis`s whereabouts, and in May 1486, Oxford`s own wife had written a letter with false information about this. Notably, Margaret of Oxford was Anne`s aunt, and while it could, naturally, have been a coincidence, it is remarkable that two people connected with Anne were provided with wrong information about Francis`s whereabouts at moments crucial for his escape.  

Certainly, if she was connected with this, or in some other way involved in her husband`s rebellions, it was likely never discovered or else could never be proved, for Henry VII`s government enacted no punitive measures against her. While her husband`s attainder of course meant she lost the wealth she must have been accustomed to, she had a rich mother and family who could support her, and it was a sad consquence for the wife of attainted traitors, not limited only to Anne. Similarly, while the lands that made up her jointure were taken, this was standard despite being against the law, and clearly not thought to be a punishment, for in Francis`s second attainder, passed in 1495, her rights were protected. In the face of what had happened to lands she was still entitled to, this was somewhat ironic, but clearly shows she herself was not meant to be punished. 

Interestingly, Anne does not seem to have been afraid of being punished, or else her concern for Francis overrode her fear, for in 1488, she was looking for her husband. We know this from another letter to John Paston, this one from Anne`s mother, in which Alice FitzHugh mentions "my doghtyr Lovell makith great sute and labour for my sone hir husbande." She then goes on to explain that "Sir Edwarde Franke hath bene in the North to inquire for hym; he is comyn agayne, and cane nogth understonde wher he is. Wherfore her benevolers willith hir to continue hir sute and labour; and so I can not departe nor leve hir as ye know well..." 

This has sometimes been taken as meaning that Anne was trying to secure a pardon for her husband, but the complete text of the letter and its context, plus the fact that Francis had in 1485 already rejected a pardon, make it clear that this is not so, and that she was instead trying to find out where Francis was, and perhaps why he was no longer communicating.

What is especially intriguing about this is that, as J.M.Williams points out that Edward Franke, whom Anne sent to look for Francis, was himself a traitor at that point, and knowing of his whereabouts without reporting them would have been treason in itself. It speaks volumes about Anne`s feelings for her husband that she did not care for the danger to herself when trying to find out what had happened to him. It is also an indication that she was courageous, and determined to find the truth. Though so little is known about her, this action does give a telling insight into what kind of person she seems to have been.

The concern Alice expresses in the letter also shows that Anne was close to her mother, and the mention of the "benevolers", whom she seem to have trusted and who seem to have supported her in this risky undertaking, could well show that she was a well-liked woman who had several close, trusted friends. Once more, it is speculation, but in this case it is speculation based on solid evidence.

We do not know if Anne ever found out what happened to her husband. It seems that sometime between February 1488, when her mother wrote the letter to John Paston, and December 1489, she gave up looking. Whether this was because she had learnt what had happened or stopped hoping she ever could, we do, once more, not know, but we do know that by then, she had taken a religious vow, for when Henry VII`s government granted her an annuity of 20 pounds, she was called "our sister in God". This was quite common for noble widows, but it suggests she knew her mind well and had by the age of twenty-eight or twenty-nine already decided she did not want to marry another time and with that, gave up the chance to have children as well. Though of course her marriage prospects were diminished significantly due to her being a traitor`s widow, she was still of high birth and a relative of Henry VII`s queen, so that had she wished, it is likely she could have found someone willing to overlook who her first husband had been. Another option would have been for her to contemplate marrying for her own pleasure, but clearly she had no interest in either of these options. Again, it can be taken as an indicator of feelings of affection for Francis.

We do not know what sort of vow she took, whether she joined a convent or was simply a lay sister. The last mention of her in the sources is in Francis`s second attainder of 1495. As mentioned above, in it, her rights were protected, showing that she was still alive at the time, then 35 years of age. Her brother Richard had died in 1489 at the age of around 31, but her mother was still alive, dying after 1505. Whether Anne outlived her and when she died, we do, like so much of her life, not know, only that it must have been before 1513.

Francis and the rebellion of 1483

In October 1483, Richard III`s first royal progress was abruptly ended by news that there was a rebellion brewing, which found encouragement especially in the southern part of England and which involved (one of) his most important supporter(s), his first cousin once removed, Harry, Duke of Buckingham.

The king`s reaction to his cousin`s betrayal has been amply discussed elsewhere, as have the duke`s possible reasons for his actions. There is no consensus on the latter, though it is mostly accepted that greed of some sort played a part, while the former is more clear. King Richard was obviously shaken and personally insulted by the duke turning traitor, and a postscript written in his own hand on a letter to the Bishop of Lincoln, he labeled Buckingham as "the most untrue creature living" and complained that "there was never false traitor better purveyed for".

However, emotional though he seems to have been, this did not prevent Richard at all from making arrangements to stifle the rebellion, which eventually saw it ended without fighting. Already in the postscript mentioned above, written on 12th October Richard mentioned that "[h]ere, loved be God, is all well and truly determined, and for to resist the malice of him that had best cause to be true, the Duke of Buckingham", and the arrangements he made support his words. He gave orders for the protection of London, among others, to John Howard, Duke of Norfolk.

Francis, too, was given orders to help crush the rebellion. Unlike Howard, he was still with Richard when the news of the rebellion came, which must have been around the time the king left Pontefract for Lincoln on 8th October. By 10th October, Howard was notified of it and wrote a letter pertaining to it to John Paston. A day later - a day before the king penned his emotional letter to the Bishop of Lincoln - still in Richard`s company, Francis was issuing orders to raise men to fight for him. Perhaps already somewhat wary of his alliance, he implored his Oxfordshire neighbour William Stonor to meet him in Banbury on 18th October together with his men, so they could meet up with Richard in Leicester two days later, on 20th October.

It is not known when he and Richard learnt of Stonor`s deflection to the rebels` side, but if it was before the assigned day of meeting, it clearly did not change Francis`s plans, for on 17th October, he is reported to have left the king`s company to go to Banbury to gather what men he could. More likely, he went there expecting to meet with Stonor and his men and  it was there that he learnt of his betrayal.

By 20th October at the latest, Francis would have known for certain that Stonor had turned traitor, and most likely passed the information on to Richard. His reaction to the news is not known, any more than Francis`s is known, but clearly Richard did not blame Francis. On the contrary, shortly afterwards, on 23rd October, Francis was granted a general commission of array "for the resistance of the rebel Henry, Duke of Buckingham".

There is no telling how many men Francis raised, nor even a number how many were raised in total to squash the rebellion. Since it seems to have been roughly equivalent in size and threat to the Stafford&Lovell Rebellion against Henry VII three years later, it can perhaps be speculated that a similar number to the 3000 men raised then were mobilised by Richard and his men. However, this is of course sheerest guesswork.

However many men were raised, they did not have to fight. In another parallel to the rebellion against Henry three years later, it was defused without fighting. Less than a week after the commission of array was granted to Francis, the biggest threat was over, and the Duke of Buckingham had been captured. He was executed for treason on 2nd November 1483.

Despite this, the fallout of the rebellion had to be dealt with, and Francis was employed for that as well. On 13th November, he led a commission "to arrest and imprison all rebels in the counties of Oxford and Berks[hire], to take their castles, lordships, manors,lands, chattels and possessions into the king`s hands and to enquire into the value and receive the issue of the same, and to certify thereon to the king and council." This commission also included Francis`s close associate Edward Franke, as well as William Catesby and one Richard Harcourt. Since William Stonor fled after the rebellion failed, he was not among those this commission arrested. If they were more successful finding and detaining other rebels is not known.

Whatever the success or lack thereof of the commission, Richard was clearly happy with Francis, and he was to receive several of the lands forfeited by the rebels, especially in the Midlands, including a lot of Stonor`s former property. This may have been, as Rosemary Horrox for example speculated, to foster more loyalty to Richard through Francis, but Francis is not known to have ever even visited or taken an interest in his new lands. It may also simply have been a reward or gift, though it is unlikely this was done without some sort of political motivation.

How much Francis actually managed to accomplish to help quell the rebellion and earn the reward is, again, sadly not known. He clearly tried, but what is remembered most of his involvement in it is his lack of success in getting William Stonor to support Richard. It is possible he was more successful in the other tasks he was given, and whatever his actual success, he remained very high in Richard`s favour, but the only known outcome of one of his actions in connection with it was a failure.

A letter from John Lovell to John Beaumont (ca. 1455?)

By all surviving evidence we have, Francis`s father, John Lovell, was not an easy man. Disliked if not downright hated by his immediate family, deeply in debt by the time he was around 30, what little we know of him does not speak in his favour. There is not much to go on to make guesses as to why he ended up as he did, what caused the dislike towards him; how he ended up in debt; not even what caused his early and apparently sudden death.

Nor do we know if his actions for Henry VI in the early stages of the series of conflicts now known as the Wars of the Roses gained him respect, or if he was simply endured but never liked. There is little indication about any of his relationships but the apparently dysfunctional ones with his immediate family.

The only piece of evidence that still survives to shed some light on his connections to people other than his immediate family is a letter to his father-in-law John, Viscount Beaumont, written between 1455, when he became Lord Lovell upon his father`s death, and 1460, when Viscount Beaumont died. It is mostly a very formal missive:

"Right worshipful, and my most best-beloved lord father, I recommend me unto your good lordship; please it you to weet, I have conceived your writing right well, and forasmuch as ye desire the stewardship of Baggeworth for your well-beloved Thomas Everingham, which I trow verily be right a good and a faithful gentleman. Howbeit, my lord, your desire shall be had in all that is in me; and at the instance of your lordship; I, by the advice of my council, shall give it him in writing, under such form as shall please you; wherein I would be glad to do that that might please your good lordship, praying you right heartily ye would be mine especial good lord and father in all such as ye can think should grow to my worship or profit in any wise, as my singular trust is most in you, and I always ready to do you service with God`s grace, who have you, my right worshipful and my most best-beloved lord father, ever in his blessed keeping. Written at Rotherfield Gray, the 24th day of July.
Furthermore, my lord, and it like you, my lady my mother recommended her unto your good lordship, in whom her most faith and trust is in, praying you ye will be good brother unto her, for she hath taken you for her chief counsel. John Lord Lovell."

Obviously, John writes in response to a letter he received from John Beaumont, asking him to give the stewardship of the manor of Bagworth to one Thomas Everingham - Viscount Beaumont`s second cousin. John agrees to this, couching his letter in conventionally deferential language. There is nothing surprising or unexpected about this, but it is notable that he almost presents himself as the supplicant. The plea to his father-in-law to remember him and do all he can for his "worship or profit" supports this impression.

Notably, so does the last part of the letter, perhaps the most unusual and personal part. Whereas John humbling himself to his father-in-law in the letter is slightly overdone but in itself hardly unheard of, the inclusion of a plea for a good relationship between John Beaumont and Alice Deincourt is more unexpected in a letter like this. Given the tone of the entire missive, it seems that John is very eager to either establish or maintain a friendly relationship with his father-in-law, yet not entirely certain how this overture will be received. Unlike all other relationships we know John had, that to John Beaumont does not appear to have been hostile, but nor does it seem to have been anything approaching a friendship or anything but a formal connection.

Since this is the only letter from John we have, there is no saying if their relationship changed at some point to something less formal and more friendly or, conversely, a more hostile one. Nor do we even know for how long they had been working together at the time the letter was written, for the year it was penned is not known, though the fact that Alice Deincourt does not appear to have been at court at the time of writing, despite being Edward of Lancaster`s nurse, indicates it was in 1455, a month after her husband`s death. This could be supported by John`s statement that his mother had taken Viscount Beaumont "for her chief counsel" - just after her husband`s death - but naturally, it is guesswork.

All in all, the letter indicates that John Lovell was eager for a cordial relationship with his father-in-law, perhaps for profit, perhaps for other reasons. There is no indication John Beaumont regarded him with the same dislike his father did or his son and oldest daughter later would, but also none of any affection or trust. All that can be said is that they apparently could work together without obvious trouble, and that John and his mother wished for a good relationship with him.

Francis`s time in St. John`s Abbey in Colchester

With Richard III`s defeat and death at the Battle of Bosworth on 22nd August 1485, Francis`s life changed drastically for the worse. Though it is not completely certain where Francis was during the battle, if he was perhaps not present during the battle, and if so, when and how he learnt of its outcome, he would have realised its significance as soon as he became aware of it, whether he was there or not. It was doubtlessly a devastating personal blow to him, but he would also have been aware that politically, it placed him in a difficult position. He would have had no way of knowing how the newly made king Henry VII would react to those who had been closest to the king he had usurped.

There is nothing known about Francis`s immediate reaction, or even if his politically suddenly precarious situation mattered to him at that time. His movements in the days and even weeks after the battle are unknown. All that is known is that at some point, he arrived in Colchester and took sanctuary in St.John`s Abbey there, but there`s no way of saying when exactly. It seems likely that it was soon afterwards; the fact that Francis was not made to swear allegiance to Henry VII, imprisoned for refusing to do so - or, like Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, simply for his support of Richard - or seemed to have come into contact at all with the new king`s men, argues he was somewhere he could not be affected by the strong arm of Henry`s government. It is, however, also possible that before taking sanctuary, he was in hiding somewhere else, though of course that would open the questions as to where and why, as well as why he then took sanctuary.

Whenever he arrived in the abbey in Colchester, we know that he spent some time there, together with Humphrey and Thomas Stafford, who definitely did fight for Richard at Bosworth. It is possible they arrived together with him, or perhaps arranged to meet him in the abbey. It`s also possible that it was only a coincidence they were there, though their joint rebellion in the following spring makes somewhat unlikely. It is not impossible, but that Francis would have just happened to have met two supporters of Richard who were ready to risk everything in a rather underplanned rebellion with him when he took sanctuary is perhaps somewhat unlikely.

It is also not known why Francis chose to go to Colchester. It is sometimes suggested that this was because of a secret mission Richard gave him to fulfil in the event of his death. This is possible, but it`s not the obvious reason, which is that St. John`s Abbey, like Westminster Abbey - where Elizabeth Woodville twice took sanctuary - and Beaulieu Abbey - where Anne Beauchamp stayed in sanctuary after her husband`s death - had extended rights of sanctuary. While usually, the right to sanctuary only lasted for forty days, abbeys who held these extended rights could shelter those who fled there for however long they wished. As John Ashdown-Hill points out in "The Dublin King", St. John`s Abbey had been granted these special rights as early as 1109 and had them confirmed by Henry VI on 13th May 1453. It seems likely that this special protection was something Francis wanted or thought he needed when he arrived there, possibly because he did not yet know what to do next or, if he was already planning to rebel, when and how to realise his plans. Perhaps he even hoped to find help there; the abbot, Walter Stansted, was, as Ashdown-Hill states, known to support the Yorkist cause and had had ties with John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, who had fallen at the Battle of Bosworth fighting for Richard and who had himself stayed in sanctuary in the abbey during the Lancastrian re-adaption of 1470/1.

Though Francis`s motives are naturally speculative, it does seem he was there before Henry VII`s first parliament passed several attainders on 9th December 1485, for it seems that Henry tried to reach out to Francis and offer him a pardon and a place in his government. Just what this would have been is unknown - it`s unlikely it would have been anywhere near as influential as the role he had in Richard`s government - but whatever it was, Francis rejected it. Though scholars such as Livia Visser-Fuchs and Anne Sutton have stressed Henry`s attempt to "bring into the fold men [...] who were still dissident", we do not know how he tried to convince Francis. The claim that Francis was offered a place in Henry`s coronation is not supported by evidence, for the list concerning attendance and honours given to attending nobles for his coronation was clearly a barely modified one from Richard`s coronation, also included the above-mentioned John Howard and moreover lists as Francis`s task carrying a sceptre in the queen`s train - which originally was meant to be Francis`s part in Richard and Anne`s joint coronation - despite Henry not even being married yet when he was crowned.

Since Francis rejected Henry´s offer, whatever exactly it was, he was attainted in Henry`s first Parliament, along with Richard and a number of Richard`s other supporters, most of whom had died with him at Bosworth. This was reportedly an unpopular move, but we do not have any idea how Francis reacted to it. The act made him officially a traitor and dispossessed him, which does not support the sometimes proposed theory that Henry and Francis were still negotiating about the terms for the latter`s emergence from sanctuary. However, it could be that Henry still hoped he would; attainders had been overturned before and could have been in Francis`s case as well. If Henry still had such a hope, though, there is no evidence he did anything to make Francis reconsider his decision. It`s possible he did not care much, thinking that stripped off his wealth and with no easy way of contacting co-conspirators even if he wished, Francis couldn`t do much harm.

If so, this was clearly a miscalculation. We do not know when, but at some point during his stay in the abbey, Francis started to make plans for a rebellion. As he might have hoped, he seems to have found support and help for this in the abbey and the town of Colchester; for example, one Sir Thomas Pilkington`s pardon for being involved in the rebellion described him as "alias late of Colchestre", while two named rebels later connected with Humphrey Stafford are also known to have come from there. St.John´s Abbey was fined by Henry VII some time after the rebellion, though while the timing is suggestive, it is not known if this was indeed a punishment for giving Francis and the Staffords help or some other transgression now lost to history.

Whichever it was, it is clear that Francis and the Stafford found a way to plot more effectively than Henry seems to have foreseen. They also appear to have to found a way of contacting those whose support they wanted/hoped for without Henry learning of it, until someone entrusted with Francis`s plans told them to Henry. Called Sir Hugh Conway, he was, according to his own words, given information about Francis`s plans and even when exactly he intended to leave sanctuary by a friend, with instructions not to tell anyone about it, a promise Conway broke. He describes giving the news first to Sir Reginald Bray, then to the king himself, who at first refused to believe him and "said that it could not be so, and reasoned with me always to the contrary of my sayings."

This reported reaction has also sometimes been taken as evidence that he must still have been in negotiations with Francis and didn`t want to believe they were failing and Francis would go behind his back. Again, while it is not impossible, it is unlikely, as it would not have made sense for Henry to attaint Francis while still doing so. Nor does Henry`s reaction appear to have been unusual, for, according to Professor Stanley Chrimes, he often reacted with initial denial to bad news. The fact that Francis was the opposite of a plotter and even contemporary sources seemed to struggle seeing him the role of the instigator of a rebellion may have contributed to this as well.

We have no record whether Francis learnt that his plans had been betrayed to the king, and if he changed them because of it. Since he managed to leave sanctuary and start the rebellion, it is probable he either knew or suspected of the betrayal and at least left at a different time than originally planned, but since it is neither known when exactly he left nor what date and time Conway gave to the king, it is once more guesswork.

In fact, we know extremely little about Francis`s time in St.John`s Abbey, not when exactly he arrived or left, nor definitely why he chose to go there. All we do know for a fact is that while there, Francis started to plan the first of his attempts to unseat Henry VII.

"The Survival of the Princes in the Tower: Murder, Mystery and Myth" by Matthew Lewis

And now for something completely different, a book review. It only mentions Francis in some places, but it is still very much worth reading.

As the title suggests, this book is concerned with the fate of Richard III`s most famous nephews, Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury. Like so many before him, author and historian Matthew Lewis tackles the subject of what happened to them after their last verified sighting in the Tower of London, shortly after Richard`s accession. It examines several possibilities, all based on thorough research, without trying to push one on the readers or trying to get them to dismiss another on nothing but personal preference, which several other books on this subject are guilty of.

The book follows a loosely chronological timeline, shortly summing up how the Princes in the Tower became the Princes in the Tower and who those boys were when stripped of this moniker, then offering several theories as to what could have happened to them during their uncle`s reign. After that, it goes into what happened after Richard`s death. Naturally, special focus is put on the two major Yorkist challenges to Henry VII`s throne - the so-called "Lambert Simnel rebellion" and the threat from "Perkin Warbeck" - since they were based on the uncertainty of what had happened to the Yorkist heirs, not just Edward V and his brother Richard, but also Edward of Warwick. These rebellions, the people involved and their actions form the centrepiece of the book, though in the end, some more unorthodox theories of what might have happened to the titular princes are given some space.

The book`s great advantage is that it is based on logic, and avoids the trap of basing theories on sweeping assumptions about the characters of those involved. While, as the title already shows, this book`s premise is to show up the possibility of the princes surviving their uncle`s reign and not, as traditionally assumed, dying in the Tower in 1483, the basis of this is not Richard`s character or any alleged nobility of nature on his or someone else`s part, but simply that the few facts available do not fit the traditional assumption. Matt shows exactly why he believes this is so, backing himself up with verifiable facts, not vague beliefs about the personalities and motives of men and women dead for over 500 years, and illustrates the holes in the story of Edward and Richard being killed in 1483.

Naturally, to do so and built convincing arguments, this book heavily relies on primary sources. The book, presumably for easier readability, does not have footnotes, but any sources which are used and any quotes which are used are scrupulously named and easy to find and check. (I`ll admit I didn`t follow up every last one. I picked a few at random and checked, and all of those were flawless.) In some cases, it is not just what the sources say, but also where they are lacking which is discussed, but the fine line between fact - "this is where the sources are missing/lacking" - and speculation - "this is what it could mean" - is always clearly marked. Most crucially, at no point is speculation passed off as fact to base a theory on it. Speculation there naturally is, as it is impossible to write about something the solution to which is at this moment in time, and perhaps will always remain, unknowable, but where there is speculation, it is clearly stated. Said speculation is easy to follow; there are no leaps of logic which leave the reader baffled as to how this conclusion was reached from what was stated before. 

Matt does not ignore the possibility that Edward and Richard were, in fact, killed in the Tower of London in 1483. He shows what of the scant evidence as to their fate could point to this conclusion, and which contemporaries believed, or affected to believe, it. While he does state some questions this theory does not answer, he does not spent much time dissecting and trying to debunk it. It is simply another theory, and stands as such next to the other theories. Arguably, this is more effective than spending much time on discussing the flaws; by simply contrasting the evidence to support it with the evidence to support other theories, just how thin the theory is on what little we currently have is becomes obvious.

As mentioned above, the main part of the book is concerned with what happened during the "Simnel rebellion" and the "Perkin Warbeck" threat. Matt postulates that it is perfectly possible that not only was "Warbeck" who he claimed to be, but that it is equally possible that the "Simnel" uprising was in fact in Edward V`s name. While the former goes over a lot of facts and claims that anyone who has done some reading about the "Warbeck" situation will be familiar with, the latter explains a theory less well known. Of course, readers are going to have to decide for themselves whether they think the conclusions reached are plausible, but it is explained with as much aplomb as the rest of the theories of the book. However, there are some minor errors regarding Francis`s involvement and some niggles I have with the theories regarding him.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the statement that his actions after Richard`s death were unusual; it is one I have made myself and which I am likely to repeat in the future. There is, though, one claim which does not quite hold up to scrutiny, concerning Francis`s decision to take sanctuary in St.John`s Abbey in Colchester. Like David Baldwin did in his own book on the subject, "The Lost Prince", which in my opinion is vastly inferior to this one, Matt assumes that Francis`s stay in the abbey was extraordinary because it lasted much longer than the typical 40 days of sanctuary. However, as John Ashdown-Hill pointed out in "The Dublin King", St. John`s Abbey had extended rights of sanctuary, like Westminster Abbey, for example, also did, which explains why Francis could stay there for so long. While of course this may not have been the (only) reason Francis chose to go there, it is something that should be considered, especially since another staunch Yorkist, John Howard, had equally done so during the Lancastrian re-adaption one and a half decades earlier.

Equally, while Francis does seem to have been offered a pardon by Henry VII, this could have been a publicity action as much as an attempt by Henry to negotiate with him. Certainly, Francis was attainted in Henry`s first Parliament, which strongly suggests that even if he did attempt so, he had given up by November 1485. Henry`s own bafflement and refusal to believe that Francis had broken sanctuary some months later could be simply because, as Professor Chrimes pointed out in his biography of him, Henry often acted with initial denial to bad news. None of this debunks the theory suggested in the book, but it does offer a different theory, which is not mentioned.

Another minor niggle I have concerning Francis is in connection with his 1486 rebellion. While his movements are not entirely known, I do not quite agree with the book that the assassination attempt on Henry may have been a smoke screen for an attempt to fetch one of the princes still in the north of the country. Again, it is possible, but it`s not entirely true that this kidnap and assassination attempt "did not get off the ground". Several people were hanged for it in York in April 1486. Naturally, they could have been hanged for something else, but it is a far easier explanation that they tried to help Francis kidnap and kill Henry than that they were involved in an attempt at freeing one of the princes.

These, however, are the only small problems I have with this book. Of course, I do not agree with every theory in it; the ones towards the end involving Thomas More and Robert Dudley, while perfectly well explained and the speculations supported by some facts, rest too much on everyone`s silence and speculation heaped on speculation for me to think entirely plausible, but that`s a personal preference.

All in all, it`s a great book. It rests on logic not personal opinions, it explains its theories well while admitting their flaws, it does not claim to have found the definite answer to a mystery more than 500 years old and, perhaps most importantly, it is thought provoking and challenges the readers to make up their own minds. I can only advise everyone to go read it, now.

William Stanley jr, Francis`s half-brother?

In John Seacome`s "The History of the House of Stanley", William Stanley, who was for a short time Francis`s stepfather, is said to have "[b]y Joyce, his wife, daughter of Edward, Lord Powis, [...] had issue one son, named William". However, William Stanley is only known to have been married twice; the first time to Francis`s mother, Joan Beaumont, from shortly after 12th November 1465 until her death on 5th August 1466, and the second time to Elizabeth Hopton, from around 1471 to his own death on 16th February 1495. Unless he had another marriage in his youth of which no mention has survived, any legitimate child would therefore have been the son of one of those two ladies. In the case of William having a son by his first wife, this child would also have been a half-brother to Francis.

However, there is no certainty if William Stanley even had a son, much less by whom. The Complete Peerage only lists one child by him, Jane or Joan Stanley, born after 1471 by his second wife Elizabeth. Several other sources, including Seacome`s History mentioned above, claim he had three children, one son named William and two daughters, Jane/Joan and Catherine. Modern historians have by no means accepted the existence of all these children, and even when they are assumed to have existed, there are differing assumptions as to their maternity.

Barbara Coulton, in her article "The Wives of Sir William Stanley: Joan Beaumont and Elizabeth Hopton", claims they were all born to Joan Beaumont. However, the problem with her claim is that it does not fit the time frame of William and Joan`s marriage. Coulton states that Joan died on 24th August 1469, but does not give any source for this claim, and all actual contemporary sources place her death three years earlier. Her marriage to William did not even last a year, and while they were married just long enough for her to have given birth to a slightly premature child conceived in wedlock before her death, she could not have possibly given birth to three unless she gave birth to triplets, an extreme rarity that would have been commented upon. Jean M.Gidman, on the other hand, in her article "The wives and children of Sir William Stanley of Holt", claims that all three children were Elizabeth Hopton`s. Though Elizabeth might have been nearing the end of her childbearing years by the time she married William, having given birth for the first time in 1448, this is completely possible, though Gidman also offers no evidence how she came to the conclusion that they were all Elizabeth`s. J.M.Williams, in her article "The Political Career of Francis, Viscount Lovell (1456 -1487?)" seems to assume that William`s son was Francis`s mother Joan`s, but apart from mentioning him as Francis`s half-brother in the family tree, she does not elaborate on this theory.

Though most casual retellings of William`s life include only his daughter Jane/Joan, most which go into more depth seem to agree on the existence of his son William. Born, at the earliest, in August 1466 and quite possibly after 1471, this son was either too young to fight at the Battles of Bosworth and Stoke, or else fought at his father`s side and as a minor of not too much importance besides his well-known father simply not mentioned. He was, it seems, mentioned in a grant made to his father on 19th February 1489, of the constableships of Flint and Ruddlan Castles, with, as Gidman put it, "the promise that his son would obtain the later". He is also sometimes said to have succeeded his father as sheriff of Chester at around the same time, though Seacome points out that there is some confusion on this point, as another Sir William Stanley, of Hooton, was sheriff of Cheshire. The similarity between "Holt" and "Hooton" and "Chester" and "Cheshire" did, according to Seacome, cause enough confusion to throw doubt on whose son the third William Stanley - not a knight - was. This is also the conclusion found here, perhaps based on Seacome`s statement.

This William Stanley married Joan Massey, only child of Sir Geoffrey, of Tatton, and had a daughter with her, also called Joan. He disappears into complete obscurity towards the end of his life, and seems to have died comparatively young in December 1498.

If it is accepted that this man was indeed Sir William Stanley of Holt`s child, that then poses the question of who his mother was and if he was indeed Francis`s half-brother and second grandson to John, Viscount Beaumont.

While Seacome assigns William Stanley the younger`s maternity to a woman named "Joyce, daughter of Edward, Lord Powis", as noted above, who was never married to William Stanley of Holt, the link between the Lords Powis and the Tiptofts, of whom John Tiptoft was the second husband of William`s second wife, points to Elizabeth as the mother. However, given that name and paternity of her are stated wrongly, it would perhaps be a mistake to attach too much weight to it. It is of course entirely possible; but it is equally possible that the fact that even if William the younger was Joan Beaumont`s child, he would have grown up with Elizabeth Hopton`s children from the age of five and probably have politely refered to her as mother, could have caused more confusion. This could be especially so since Sir William`s first marriage was only of short duration and at a time when he was not yet that widely-known and involved in the government and might therefore not be widely known/remembered, especially long after their deaths, when Seacome`s History was written.

To try and find out who the mother of Sir William`s child was, it is therefore not all too revealing to look at people`s assumptions, particularly since these assumptions were made at least two centuries after the event, but instead try to look what indications primary sources offer.

Sadly, there is nothing in the little paperwork we have of Francis which indicates that he might have had a half-brother or definitely did not. In fact, there is even extremely little about his relationship with his full sisters, whom he definitely had. We do know that he had business transactions with Sir William in the 1470s, but these do not shine any light on their personal relationship nor do they mean that these were conducted for the sake of anyone but themselves. What survives are only the dry facts of the transactions. Nor are there any indications in the few actions known of Elizabeth`s Corbett sons that they had a younger brother, but there is also none that indicates any sort of care for Edward, Earl of Worcester, who was definitely their brother and who died aged sixteen in August 1485. This does not mean there was no care taken of William the younger by either Francis or the Corbetts, it just means that if so, no evidence for it survives.

The matter is made even more difficult by the fact that whoever young William`s brother(s) was/were, it is quite possible he didn`t have much to do with them. In the case of Francis, he would have been almost exactly ten years older than his younger half-brother and never lived in the same place as him, while in the case of the Corbetts, they would be over twenty and around twenty years older than him and in the case of the oldest one, already married with a child by the time of William jr`s birth. Looking for any close brotherly relationship between young William and any of these men might therefore not prove very fruitful.

Perhaps more telling is the fact that when Elizabeth Hopton died in November 1498, no mention of a son named William is made in her Inquisition Post Mortem. This, however, might be because he died only a month after her and by the time the IPM was made, was already dead. It might also be because as her youngest son, with his older brother already having his own heir, he was not expected to inherit anything of her possessions.

Equally, there are reasons why the Beaumont lands which were not under attainder went to Francis, unchallenged by anyone else. By the time Francis was attainted in November 1485, William the younger would have still been a minor and not been able to challenge Francis; and even after attaining his majority, he might not have had much of a chance; apart from the fact that Francis, as the older brother, would very likely have been entitled to hold/inherit all of it unless otherwise stated, after 1483 his position as the king`s chamberlain and closest friend would have made challenging him an endeavour unlikely to succeed. However, in this case, young William might have been seen as Francis`s heir to the Beaumont lands he held. Unfortunately, we do not have any paperwork to dismiss or confirm this. When Francis`s uncle William Beaumont died without heirs in 1507, his viscouncy would have fallen to his oldest nephew by his sister Joan, but not only was Francis attainted and most likely dead by this point, young William too was dead and had left only a daughter, so that there can be no conclusion reached by the title falling into abeisance about whether or not William the younger had Beaumont blood.

With Francis`s attainder, the fact that William the younger, if he indeed was his half-brother, would have been heir to some of his lands became insignificant, as all his possessions were forfeit to the throne. However, it is notable that Sir William did receive a large amount of Francis`s lands. This, of course, was presumably because of the significant role he had played helping Henry VII win the throne, but it may have also served the purpose of pre-empting any suit by William`s son, once he reached majority, to get back some of the Beaumont lands by claiming that not all of them had been Francis`s by right and therefore should not have been subject to the attainder. In a similar way, claming his mother had lost them to coercion, the Earl of Oxford got back some lands which had belonged to his family and which the crown held in the 1490s. Granting some of the lands his son might have an interest in to Sir William, so that William the younger stood to inherit them at his father`s death, would have pre-empted such a claim while at the same time not stripping the son of one of Henry`s most important supporters of something he might consider himself entitled to and thereby running the risk of angering him.

Of course, this is purest speculation. Perhaps the most telling as to whose son William the younger was is what deductions can be made about his age. Clearly, whether he was born in summer 1466 or after 1471, he was still a minor when the Battles of Bosworth and Stoke were fought, though if he was Joan Beaumont`s son, just barely when Stoke happened. This might not have stopped him from fighting - Edward Hastings, son of William, born in 1466, did so in both battles - but it could well mean he did not have too much significance yet and there was no reason to mention him in the case of him fighting alongside his far more important and high-profile father. It does not mean he wasn`t there - though if he was born after 1471, he likely would not have been as he would have been too young - but if he was, it shows he was not considered of particular interest.

It is notable, though, that by 1489, he was apparently old enough to be included in grants, and to be acting alone as sheriff. This may well have been possible had he been born in 1472 and around seventeen, but it is curious and somewhat unlikely that if so, the fact he was still a minor would not have been mentioned. If, however, he was born to Sir William and Joan Beaumont in August 1466, he would have come of age between the Battle of Stoke and this arrangement, which fits what we know about both these instances.

Finally, Sir William already having a son by his first wife could well explain why after her death, he waited so long to remarry, though of course there could be any number of other reasons for this, such as grief for a wife he may have genuinely loved, no marriage prospect he liked presenting itself in the meantime or a failed courtship are just some. However, in the face of hardly any evidence being there for when and to whom William the younger was born, all that could throw a light on it should be considered, and Sir William`s comparatively long widowhood would be notable if he didn`t have a son already.

If William the younger was indeed Joan Beaumont`s son, it seems she died in childbed, or just after his birth of childbed fever. Her older son Francis was already in the care of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, by then, and it seems when she died, her daughters by John Lovell were given into the care of their brother`s mother-in-law, Alice FitzHugh. William the younger would have presumably stayed with his father; at least, he definitely did not grow up with his half-siblings in either the Warwick or the FitzHugh household. How well he and his Lovell half-siblings would have known each other is hard to say, but most likely not very well, having little to nothing to do with each other at least until Francis and Joan Lovell were grown up. What feelings they had towards each other, if any, is of course impossible to say.

All that can be said is that evidence suggests Sir William Stanley had a legitimate son, and that circumstantial evidence shows it to be somewhat more likely he had this son by his first wife, meaning that Francis, and his sisters Joan and Frideswide, had a Stanley half-brother.