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.
Thursday, 7 September 2017
Wednesday, 6 September 2017
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.
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.
Friday, 1 September 2017
Francis`s early childhood
The very early life of Francis has barely ever been discussed in any work concerned with his life. Presumably because so little is known, non-fiction and fiction alike tends to ignore the time Francis spent in his father`s household, and begin with his arrival at Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick`s household, at an age that is variously given - wrongly - as eleven or nine. What his early childhood may have been like and how it may have influenced him is a subject that is not usually given any space. Of course, as with so many periods in Francis`s life, not a lot of what was happening can be said for certain and a lot is speculative. However, the few facts we have do already reveal something about the circumstances of his early childhood and how he spent it, making it worth examining.
Francis was, probably, born on 17th September 1456. Though his parents, John Lovell and Joan Beaumont, had been married for ten years at that point, it seems that he was their first child; at least, there is no indication in any of of the scant surviving paperwork for his grandfathers William Lovell and John Beaumont, and for his father John of an earlier-born child. While there can be no complete certainty about this, William`s will, written in 1455, makes it clear that at this time, John did not have an heir.
It is likely, therefore, that Francis`s birth a year after William Lovell`s death was a relief to his parents, but this is an assumption. There is no evidence how his family reacted to his birth. The only thing we know for certain is that his parents chose to go against the tradition the Lovell family had established for three centuries and named their newborn heir not after his father John, nor William after his grandfather, both names also traditional in his maternal family, nor any other familial name. Instead, little Francis was almost certainly called after the saint on whose feast day he was born. There is no indication why John and Joan chose to do so; possibilities range from the infant being small and/or sickly and thought to need special heavenly help, to a gesture of gratitude, or one of reverence to one or both of his parents` favoured saint. It is very probable that whatever their reasons were, they saw to it that he was christened a few days after his birth at the latest. If he seemed sickly or small, it is even possible he was christened immediately after his birth.
If the Lovells followed conventions for people of their standing, then the baby was handed into the care of a nurse soon after birth, and his mother Joan did not breastfeed him. Again, this is only speculation, based on the conventions of the day. Even without evidence about Francis`s very early days, however, it is virtually certain that the day to day care for the baby was not done by his parents. Nicholas Orme, in his book "Medieval Children", describes the way children of his standing were typically cared for: in a nursery under the supervision of a nurse and two rockers, whose task was to rock the baby`s cradle and do other menial work like changing the baby.
Since Francis`s paternal grandmother, Alice Deincourt, was nursemaid to the Prince of Wales, some three years older than Francis, it is possible that she had connections and saw to the appointment of a respected nurse for her grandchild, but once more, this is conjecture. We do not know who was employed to take care of Francis.
What is known is that when he was around a year old, his younger sister was born, named Joan after their mother. J.M.Williams points out that her birthyear was assumed to have been 1457 which, if true, means she was fifteen months younger than Francis at the most. Her conventional name suggests that it was not a whim of his parents` or a simple wish to honour favoured saints why they chose to go against family traditions naming him, but as stated above, this still leaves several different explanations of why they decided to do so, and no indication which is correct.
Though in households of high-ranking nobles, sons and daughters were sometimes raised apart from each other, Orme points out that this was not the norm while all children were still in their parents` household and happened less the lesser the family`s standing was. As a baron`s children, Francis and Joan most likely would have spent their early years together, being looked after by the same people.
The children were born into a tumultuous era, and the fickle changes of fate would not long leave them untouched. Their father, John, was a staunch Lancastrian - as was their maternal grandfather John Beaumont - and by 1459, was known to support their struggle against the Yorkists. Since, as Monika Simon shows in her work "The Lovells of Titchmarsh: An English Baronial Family, 1297 -148?", he was at that point involved in the government - he was on a trier of petitions in Parliament that year, as well as on some commissions of array and oyer and terminer, and even given a reward for his "good services against the Yorkists (Simon, 67) - it is probable that his three-year-old son and two-year-old daughter did not see much of him at that time, less than they might have seen him in the years before. This was not at all unusual at the time and is unlikely to have much upset the toddlers, but by 1460, the tide of events began to turn against the family and may have already affected the children.
Francis was not quite four years old when his maternal grandfather John Beaumont died at the Battle of Northampton. It is not known whether he had ever seen the man, and it is perhaps not likely he already understood what his death meant, but it seems that with it, and perhaps his support as a highranking noble of the Lancastrian government, the fortunes of the Lovell family began to plummet. It is known that John Lovell tried to seize some of his estates in the aftermath of his death, but was eventually unsuccessful. If this was simply greed or an attempt to gain rightful possession of what had been settled on him and his wife, we do not know, but later events suggest John tried to hold onto some money as he was rapidly losing it. If so, it may well be that Francis and Joan jr would have had to abstain from some familiar comforts of luxury at this point. Nor is it unlikely that while they were too young to understand what was young on and what was at stake, they would have noticed some stress when they saw their parents, or realised something important and frightening was happening.
Despite a claim to the contrary found in Nigel Jones`s "Tower: An Epic History of the Tower of London", this does not mean the two children were present during any physically frightening events, such as when their father was involved in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to hold London, and especially the Tower, against the Yorkist powers in 1460. There is no evidence to support the claim that all the lords involved in this, John Lovell included, brought "their ladies and households into the Tower" and that they remained there during the siege the Earl of Salisbury laid on the defenders. However, their father`s support for the Lancastrian side was to affect and cost them less than a year later, when the Yorkists proved victorious for the time being and Edward of March became Edward IV, the first Yorkist king. Unsurpringly, John Lovell was punished for having supported Henry VI to the end, and his lands were forfeited to the crown. Doubtlessly, this would have caused a huge change in the lives of the entire family. For four-year-old Francis and his three-year-old sister, this may have been particularly jarring, but it is also possible that they took it well, their young age protecting them from fears for the future.
Though John Lovell made his peace with Edward IV fairly soon and was given back his lands before 27th December 1461, the family had to get used to living in straitened circumstances. We can only guess how this affected the children and if they noticed much of it, but by 1462, John Lovell was deeply in debt. In 1462, he is recorded to have owed 1000 marks to two men named Richard Quartermayns and Richard Foweler, and another 1000 marks to John and William Crofton. We do not know if he paid these debts soon afterwards or at all, but by the next year, he was clearly struggling to maintain a certain life style while making ends meet, and saw himself forced to sell two manors to a merchant named William Luster, and another one to a merchant named Thomas Stoke. Whether this was to get some money or to settle debts he had to them we do not know, but it does suggest a degree of desperation.
It could well be that little Francis and Joan suffered under their father`s financial difficulties, but it is by no means certain. Perhaps their way of living had been more lavish during their very first years, or perhaps their circumstances remained the same while their parents had to make changes. There`s no way of saying. However, even with their father in financial difficulties, they would have had a certain standard of living and would have been unlikely to want for necessities.
Whatever their lives were like after Edward IV`s accession, it stands to reason they would have seen more of their father then than they did before his accession. While involved in Henry VI`s government, John Lovell is only recorded to have been given a single task in Edward`s, being in a commission of oyer and terminer in April 1464. Presumably in the same year, Francis and Joan`s younger sister Frideswide was born. Named after the patron saint of Oxford, she was John and Joan`s last child. We do not know if there were other short-lived children between Joan`s and Frideswide`s birth; if so, by the time of John`s death a year later, only Francis, Joan and Frideswide seem to have survived.
By the time Frideswide was born, Francis was already seven years old and may have left the nursery and been taught by a male tutor. This was often done at seven, but not always; so it remains guesswork. The fact that Francis`s handwriting is extremely similar to Richard`s would argue that they were taught to write by the same person, but that does not necessarily have to mean he was not taught anything in his father`s household. Perhaps his father chose to have him focus more on marital than academical achievements, or perhaps Francis only knew the basics of reading and writing when he came to Middleham and was taught everything else there.
Francis was eight years and four months old when his father died, apparently unexpectedly and suddenly, and it seems within weeks, he was taken from his sisters and mother to join the Earl of Warwick`s household at Middleham. This was quite normal for heirs who were still minors after their father`s death, and would most probably not have been surprising to Francis, though it may still have been a stressful and sad change for a little boy.
Again, it is not possible to say. We know almost nothing about what Francis thought and felt about his family, though we have some alarming evidence that he at the very least didn`t like his father, and that his sister Joan may have shared that dislike. We do not know why, but it is likely that this made the later years in his father`s household, when he was likely around much more, quite difficult to them.
Francis was, probably, born on 17th September 1456. Though his parents, John Lovell and Joan Beaumont, had been married for ten years at that point, it seems that he was their first child; at least, there is no indication in any of of the scant surviving paperwork for his grandfathers William Lovell and John Beaumont, and for his father John of an earlier-born child. While there can be no complete certainty about this, William`s will, written in 1455, makes it clear that at this time, John did not have an heir.
It is likely, therefore, that Francis`s birth a year after William Lovell`s death was a relief to his parents, but this is an assumption. There is no evidence how his family reacted to his birth. The only thing we know for certain is that his parents chose to go against the tradition the Lovell family had established for three centuries and named their newborn heir not after his father John, nor William after his grandfather, both names also traditional in his maternal family, nor any other familial name. Instead, little Francis was almost certainly called after the saint on whose feast day he was born. There is no indication why John and Joan chose to do so; possibilities range from the infant being small and/or sickly and thought to need special heavenly help, to a gesture of gratitude, or one of reverence to one or both of his parents` favoured saint. It is very probable that whatever their reasons were, they saw to it that he was christened a few days after his birth at the latest. If he seemed sickly or small, it is even possible he was christened immediately after his birth.
If the Lovells followed conventions for people of their standing, then the baby was handed into the care of a nurse soon after birth, and his mother Joan did not breastfeed him. Again, this is only speculation, based on the conventions of the day. Even without evidence about Francis`s very early days, however, it is virtually certain that the day to day care for the baby was not done by his parents. Nicholas Orme, in his book "Medieval Children", describes the way children of his standing were typically cared for: in a nursery under the supervision of a nurse and two rockers, whose task was to rock the baby`s cradle and do other menial work like changing the baby.
Since Francis`s paternal grandmother, Alice Deincourt, was nursemaid to the Prince of Wales, some three years older than Francis, it is possible that she had connections and saw to the appointment of a respected nurse for her grandchild, but once more, this is conjecture. We do not know who was employed to take care of Francis.
What is known is that when he was around a year old, his younger sister was born, named Joan after their mother. J.M.Williams points out that her birthyear was assumed to have been 1457 which, if true, means she was fifteen months younger than Francis at the most. Her conventional name suggests that it was not a whim of his parents` or a simple wish to honour favoured saints why they chose to go against family traditions naming him, but as stated above, this still leaves several different explanations of why they decided to do so, and no indication which is correct.
Though in households of high-ranking nobles, sons and daughters were sometimes raised apart from each other, Orme points out that this was not the norm while all children were still in their parents` household and happened less the lesser the family`s standing was. As a baron`s children, Francis and Joan most likely would have spent their early years together, being looked after by the same people.
The children were born into a tumultuous era, and the fickle changes of fate would not long leave them untouched. Their father, John, was a staunch Lancastrian - as was their maternal grandfather John Beaumont - and by 1459, was known to support their struggle against the Yorkists. Since, as Monika Simon shows in her work "The Lovells of Titchmarsh: An English Baronial Family, 1297 -148?", he was at that point involved in the government - he was on a trier of petitions in Parliament that year, as well as on some commissions of array and oyer and terminer, and even given a reward for his "good services against the Yorkists (Simon, 67) - it is probable that his three-year-old son and two-year-old daughter did not see much of him at that time, less than they might have seen him in the years before. This was not at all unusual at the time and is unlikely to have much upset the toddlers, but by 1460, the tide of events began to turn against the family and may have already affected the children.
Francis was not quite four years old when his maternal grandfather John Beaumont died at the Battle of Northampton. It is not known whether he had ever seen the man, and it is perhaps not likely he already understood what his death meant, but it seems that with it, and perhaps his support as a highranking noble of the Lancastrian government, the fortunes of the Lovell family began to plummet. It is known that John Lovell tried to seize some of his estates in the aftermath of his death, but was eventually unsuccessful. If this was simply greed or an attempt to gain rightful possession of what had been settled on him and his wife, we do not know, but later events suggest John tried to hold onto some money as he was rapidly losing it. If so, it may well be that Francis and Joan jr would have had to abstain from some familiar comforts of luxury at this point. Nor is it unlikely that while they were too young to understand what was young on and what was at stake, they would have noticed some stress when they saw their parents, or realised something important and frightening was happening.
Despite a claim to the contrary found in Nigel Jones`s "Tower: An Epic History of the Tower of London", this does not mean the two children were present during any physically frightening events, such as when their father was involved in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to hold London, and especially the Tower, against the Yorkist powers in 1460. There is no evidence to support the claim that all the lords involved in this, John Lovell included, brought "their ladies and households into the Tower" and that they remained there during the siege the Earl of Salisbury laid on the defenders. However, their father`s support for the Lancastrian side was to affect and cost them less than a year later, when the Yorkists proved victorious for the time being and Edward of March became Edward IV, the first Yorkist king. Unsurpringly, John Lovell was punished for having supported Henry VI to the end, and his lands were forfeited to the crown. Doubtlessly, this would have caused a huge change in the lives of the entire family. For four-year-old Francis and his three-year-old sister, this may have been particularly jarring, but it is also possible that they took it well, their young age protecting them from fears for the future.
Though John Lovell made his peace with Edward IV fairly soon and was given back his lands before 27th December 1461, the family had to get used to living in straitened circumstances. We can only guess how this affected the children and if they noticed much of it, but by 1462, John Lovell was deeply in debt. In 1462, he is recorded to have owed 1000 marks to two men named Richard Quartermayns and Richard Foweler, and another 1000 marks to John and William Crofton. We do not know if he paid these debts soon afterwards or at all, but by the next year, he was clearly struggling to maintain a certain life style while making ends meet, and saw himself forced to sell two manors to a merchant named William Luster, and another one to a merchant named Thomas Stoke. Whether this was to get some money or to settle debts he had to them we do not know, but it does suggest a degree of desperation.
It could well be that little Francis and Joan suffered under their father`s financial difficulties, but it is by no means certain. Perhaps their way of living had been more lavish during their very first years, or perhaps their circumstances remained the same while their parents had to make changes. There`s no way of saying. However, even with their father in financial difficulties, they would have had a certain standard of living and would have been unlikely to want for necessities.
Whatever their lives were like after Edward IV`s accession, it stands to reason they would have seen more of their father then than they did before his accession. While involved in Henry VI`s government, John Lovell is only recorded to have been given a single task in Edward`s, being in a commission of oyer and terminer in April 1464. Presumably in the same year, Francis and Joan`s younger sister Frideswide was born. Named after the patron saint of Oxford, she was John and Joan`s last child. We do not know if there were other short-lived children between Joan`s and Frideswide`s birth; if so, by the time of John`s death a year later, only Francis, Joan and Frideswide seem to have survived.
By the time Frideswide was born, Francis was already seven years old and may have left the nursery and been taught by a male tutor. This was often done at seven, but not always; so it remains guesswork. The fact that Francis`s handwriting is extremely similar to Richard`s would argue that they were taught to write by the same person, but that does not necessarily have to mean he was not taught anything in his father`s household. Perhaps his father chose to have him focus more on marital than academical achievements, or perhaps Francis only knew the basics of reading and writing when he came to Middleham and was taught everything else there.
Francis was eight years and four months old when his father died, apparently unexpectedly and suddenly, and it seems within weeks, he was taken from his sisters and mother to join the Earl of Warwick`s household at Middleham. This was quite normal for heirs who were still minors after their father`s death, and would most probably not have been surprising to Francis, though it may still have been a stressful and sad change for a little boy.
Again, it is not possible to say. We know almost nothing about what Francis thought and felt about his family, though we have some alarming evidence that he at the very least didn`t like his father, and that his sister Joan may have shared that dislike. We do not know why, but it is likely that this made the later years in his father`s household, when he was likely around much more, quite difficult to them.
Wednesday, 30 August 2017
Two letters to William Stonor
Of all the letters Francis may have written in his life, only two still exist. Both of them are addressed to William Stonor, a member of the gentry who owned land close to Francis`s ancestral manor and corresponding lands in Oxfordshire, and both, though fairly short, indicate a friendly if not close relationship between the two men.
The first, written on 24th June 1482, is about the threat of war with England`s Scottish neighbours and the effect this had on Francis`s movements, and offers a rare glance at Francis`s personality. It read as following:
"Cousine Stoner, I commaunde me to yow as hertely as I can, latynge yow have knowledge that I intendide to have bene with the King at the feste of Seynt John Baptist now late passid, to have attende upon his good grace; bot, Cousine, 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: for cause wherof, and yef I shuld as now departe Southwardes it wold be said I withdrew me for the said warre. Bot, Cousine, as hastely as I can have a convenient seasson I purpose to be in the contre. And, Cousine, I pray yow þat ye wull see þat my game be wele kept at Roderfeld. And our lorde ever more have yow in his kepinge. From Tanfeld the xxiiijth day of Juyn.
"Cosyn Stoner, y commawnde me to youe as hartely as y cane: for as
myche as hit plesyth þe Kynges [Richard III`s] grace to have warnyd youe and all other
to attende upon his grace, and your compeny þat ye wolde come in my
conysans and my compeny to come with you: and I ame sewre þat schall
plese his grace beste, and cawse me to thynke þat ye lofe my honor, and y
trust schalbe to your sewrte. Y pray youe remembyr this, as y schall
remembyr youe in tyme to come, by þe grace of Jhesu, who ever preserve
youe. Wreten at Lyncolne þe xj day of Octobyr.
Your hertely lovyng Cosyn ffraunceys Lovell.
Also Cosyn, þe kyng hath commawndyd me to sende youe worde to make youe redy, and all your compeny, in all hast to be with his grace at Leyceter þe Monday þe xx day of Octobyr: for I have sent for all my men to mete me at Bannebery, þe Soterday þe xviij day of Octobyr.
To my Cosyn [Syr] William Stoner."
In modern English, it reads:
"Cousin Stoner, I command me to you as heartily as I can: for as much as it pleases the King`s grace to have warned you and all other to attend upon his grace, and your company that you would come in my cognisance and my company to come with you: and I am sure that shall please his grace best, and cause me to think that you love my honour, and I trust shall be to your surety. I pray you remember this, as I shall remember you in time to come, by the grace of Jesu, who ever preserve you. Written at Lincoln the 11th day of October.
Your heartily loving cousin Francis Lovell.
Also cousin, the king hath commanded me to send you word to make you ready, and all your company, in all haste to be with his grace at Leicester the Monday the 20th day of October, for I have sent for all my men to meet me at Banbury, the Saturday the 18th day of October.
To my cousin [Sir] William Stoner."
The tone of this letter is remarkably different to the previous one. The formality is unsurprising, as Francis clearly states this is not a personal letter but one which he has been commanded to write by the king to assure he and his men are ready to fight for him against the rebels. Clearly this also reflects in what is being said, as it is strictly about this one subject. However, even so, there is a change in language that is notable. While Francis couches the letter in conventional assurances of affection, there is an undertone of suspicion. While of course it is easy to read this letter with hindsight and project the knowledge of what happened later and the fact Stonor did not obey the king`s orders but instead joined the rebels onto Francis`s words, there is no mistaking Francis`s repetition of the these orders, nor the assurance that this would be for his best and please not only the king but also earn him Francis`s thanks. Interestingly, Francis also seems to appeal to Stonor to not only do this for the king but also for him, and offers assurances that if he does as asked, he will not find him ungrateful.
In fact, while Francis naturally mentions the king`s wishes prominently from the first, it are these motivations he first mentions, before, in the bit after his signature, going into details about the king`s orders and even directly mentioning that it is because of them that he is writing the letter. The impression that gives is that Francis, somewhat awkwardly, tries to appeal to Stonor to follow the king`s orders by reminding him of their previously friendly relationship. However, again, it seems that this relationship was not too close, not only because Stonor failed to do as Francis asked, but also because Francis apparently saw the need to add that doing this for him would carry rewards for Stonor in the future and did not rely on the strength of their relationship itself to try and stop him from joining the rebels.
The first, written on 24th June 1482, is about the threat of war with England`s Scottish neighbours and the effect this had on Francis`s movements, and offers a rare glance at Francis`s personality. It read as following:
"Cousine Stoner, I commaunde me to yow as hertely as I can, latynge yow have knowledge that I intendide to have bene with the King at the feste of Seynt John Baptist now late passid, to have attende upon his good grace; bot, Cousine, 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: for cause wherof, and yef I shuld as now departe Southwardes it wold be said I withdrew me for the said warre. Bot, Cousine, as hastely as I can have a convenient seasson I purpose to be in the contre. And, Cousine, I pray yow þat ye wull see þat my game be wele kept at Roderfeld. And our lorde ever more have yow in his kepinge. From Tanfeld the xxiiijth day of Juyn.
ffraunceys Louell.
To my Cousine William Stonor, knight."
In modern English, it translates as:
"Cousin Stoner, I command me to you as heartily as I can, letting you have knowledge that I intended to have been with the King [Edward IV] at the feast of Saint John Bapist now late passed, to have attended upon his good grace; but, cousin, it is said in this country the King purposes to send northwards my lord of Gloucester and my brother Parr and such other folk of worship as has any rule in the north parties, trusting we shall have war of the Scots, for cause whereof, and if I should now depart southwards it would be said I withdrew me for the said war. But, cousin, as hastely as I can make a convenient season I purpose to be in the country. And, cousin, I pray you that you will see that my game be well kept at Rotherfield. And our lord ever more have you in his keeping. From Tanfield, the 24th day of June.
Francis Lovell
To my cousin William Stonor, knight."
As dry as this all is, it nonetheless reveals quite a lot about Francis, especially since it is the only declaration of what he wished and intended to do in his own hand we have, The first sentence indicates that Francis and William Stonor were not in regular contact and Francis had not been keeping him informed about his actions and/or intentions while being at his mother-in-law`s manor at Tanfield, or at least not so that he though to inform him when he intended to return south. This might have been expected if they had been close friends, but the letter clearly suggests that theirs was a friendly but nonetheless slightly distant relationship. Francis does not hesitate to inform Stonor of what he intends to do, but nonetheless the letter is rather impersonal. Citing affairs of state and going into some detail about them, he explains his decision to stay in the north, but does not mention why he wants to return south as soon as possible after having failed to do so to "attend to" the king. The only personal touch he adds is his request to Stonor to look after his game.
This is particularly fascinating as it is the best indication pointing to an interest Francis had we have. Clearly, his game was important to him, and coupled with the fact that we know he had hunting lodges built - one of which survives to this day as Ufton Court - it can be said with reasonable certainty that he enjoyed hunting.
Even aside from these indications as to the personal relationship between Francis and William Stonor and the insight into one of Francis`s interests, the letter offers interesting tidbits. For one, Francis`s lack of delight when mentioning the campaign is notable. While he clearly knows it is his duty and has no intention of shirking it, he does not seem to look forward to it, instead mentioning his wish to return south as soon as possible, which seems to indicate that while Francis could and did fight when he had to, he did not really enjoy it, and that his focus lay on other things.
It is also curious that this letter was written twelve days after Richard of Gloucester was made Lieutenant-General of the North at Fotheringhay Castle and charged with leading the campaign against the Scottish, as well as a good month after Richard first led an attack against the Scots. This indicates that news were travelling slowly and Francis as yet had heard only rumours of the appointment, and confirms that for some reason, despite his involvement in the previous year`s campaign and full intention to join the one that was about to start, Francis had not taken place in this earlier attack. Why this was, we can only speculate, as well as about the fact that he did not mention this attack in the letter to Stonor. Perhaps this was because he was annoyed or embarrassed about not having taken part in it and didn`t want to mention it, or because he thought Stonor would have heard about it already, but this is speculation heaped on speculation and there is simply no way of confirming any of it.
This letter, though not too revealing about Francis and his personality, was clearly a personal one. The second one to survive to this day is more formal. Written on 11th October 1483, during the so-called Buckingham rebellion, it goes like this:
Your hertely lovyng Cosyn ffraunceys Lovell.
Also Cosyn, þe kyng hath commawndyd me to sende youe worde to make youe redy, and all your compeny, in all hast to be with his grace at Leyceter þe Monday þe xx day of Octobyr: for I have sent for all my men to mete me at Bannebery, þe Soterday þe xviij day of Octobyr.
To my Cosyn [Syr] William Stoner."
In modern English, it reads:
"Cousin Stoner, I command me to you as heartily as I can: for as much as it pleases the King`s grace to have warned you and all other to attend upon his grace, and your company that you would come in my cognisance and my company to come with you: and I am sure that shall please his grace best, and cause me to think that you love my honour, and I trust shall be to your surety. I pray you remember this, as I shall remember you in time to come, by the grace of Jesu, who ever preserve you. Written at Lincoln the 11th day of October.
Your heartily loving cousin Francis Lovell.
Also cousin, the king hath commanded me to send you word to make you ready, and all your company, in all haste to be with his grace at Leicester the Monday the 20th day of October, for I have sent for all my men to meet me at Banbury, the Saturday the 18th day of October.
To my cousin [Sir] William Stoner."
The tone of this letter is remarkably different to the previous one. The formality is unsurprising, as Francis clearly states this is not a personal letter but one which he has been commanded to write by the king to assure he and his men are ready to fight for him against the rebels. Clearly this also reflects in what is being said, as it is strictly about this one subject. However, even so, there is a change in language that is notable. While Francis couches the letter in conventional assurances of affection, there is an undertone of suspicion. While of course it is easy to read this letter with hindsight and project the knowledge of what happened later and the fact Stonor did not obey the king`s orders but instead joined the rebels onto Francis`s words, there is no mistaking Francis`s repetition of the these orders, nor the assurance that this would be for his best and please not only the king but also earn him Francis`s thanks. Interestingly, Francis also seems to appeal to Stonor to not only do this for the king but also for him, and offers assurances that if he does as asked, he will not find him ungrateful.
In fact, while Francis naturally mentions the king`s wishes prominently from the first, it are these motivations he first mentions, before, in the bit after his signature, going into details about the king`s orders and even directly mentioning that it is because of them that he is writing the letter. The impression that gives is that Francis, somewhat awkwardly, tries to appeal to Stonor to follow the king`s orders by reminding him of their previously friendly relationship. However, again, it seems that this relationship was not too close, not only because Stonor failed to do as Francis asked, but also because Francis apparently saw the need to add that doing this for him would carry rewards for Stonor in the future and did not rely on the strength of their relationship itself to try and stop him from joining the rebels.
Unlike the first letter, it doesn`t really reveal anything about Francis`s personality. However, it suggests again, as does the 1482 letter to Stonor and Elizabeth Stonor`s 1477 letter to her husband, that the relationship between the two men was friendly but never an actual friendship. It also suggests that unlike what is often said, Francis was not completely unaware of Stonor`s loyalties. However, it confirms that while he was not, as sometimes claimed, hated in the Midlands, and it seemed to him at least worth trying to get Stonor to follow the king`s orders because of loyalty to him, his word didn`t carry too much weight there.
Saturday, 26 August 2017
William Catesby and Francis
On 25th August 1485, three days after the Battle of Bosworth, William Catesby, lawyer and close advisor to Richard III, was executed. Before he met his death - supposedly by hanging, though the Croyland Chronicle reports he was beheaded - he was allowed to draw up a will, which has since caused considerable speculation. The main cause of this is the fact that Catesby stated in it that the newly made king Henry VII is "callid a full gracious prince" and goes on to claim that he "never offended hym by my good and Free will; for god I take to be my juge I have ever lovid hym."
This, of course, may indicate that he was plotting against Richard, though this would make his execution almost immediately after Bosworth rather inexplicable. It could also mean that Catesby was simply afraid for the future of his family; a speculation very much supported by the fact that the above-quoted statements were made in direct connection to his expression of hope Henry would treat them well. William Catesby would not have been the first, nor the last, to suppress his real feelings and say what he expected the person in power wanted to hear before his death to protect his family, and a claim to have worked for Richard under duress, while not born out by what evidence we have of his actions, could not be contradicted by anyone still alive and in a position to be heard and could well have been designed to please Henry.
Whatever Catesby`s motivations were, his will shows he was thinking of those he was leaving behind in the hours before his death, as well as some worry about his immortal soul. In this context, William, Thomas and George Stanley are mentioned, in another controversial sentence which seems to accuse them of not trying to prevent his execution, as well as Francis, too. Near the end of the document, Catesby expressed his wish that "my lord Lovell come to grace than that ye shew hym that he pray for me".
Despite the fact the sentence sounds rather rushed, it is informative. For one, as stated before, it shows that Catesby was certain Francis was still alive at the moment of writing, which certainty suggests that if he was present at the battle, he survived physically unscathed. It also indicates that the relationship between the two men was at least cordial, for Catesby to wish to have his prayers. This is supported somewhat by the fact that his mention of Francis is not accompanied by a complaint like the reproach against the Stanleys they had not tried to "[pray] for my body as I trusted in you" and the somewhat passive-aggressive plea for his uncle John to "remembrer my soule as ye have done my body; and better."
It is of course possible that Catesby had no such complaints against Francis because he was not close enough to him to have ever expected any help from him, or for him to take amiss not having received it. However, the evidence from Richard`s reign, when they were both in positions of power, suggests that they often worked together and that their relationship, whether it was only a business relationship or developed into a friendship as well, was a fruitful one.
In fact, it is quite possible that they knew each other and were connected in some way before Richard became king, while he was still Duke of Gloucester, Francis not yet a viscount and Catesby primarily connected to William Hastings. Certainly, their families had a connection; Francis`s grandfather William Lovell mentioned William`s father as one of his feofees, alongside men as Thomas Bourchier, in his will. However, we do not know if William Catesby the younger and Francis continued the connection at any point before 1483.
As soon as Richard was king, though, the two are often found in accounts together. Notably, Francis included Catesby in a list of feofees of some of his estates, among men he is known to have been close to such as the brothers Franke and his brother-in-law George FitzHugh. He was also one of the men Francis entrusted, in arrangements he made for the event of his death, with transfering some of his manors and lands to his wife, Anne. The two were also granted the constableship of Rockingham together, and Francis, with conventional expressions of love, passed a manor granted to him on to Catesby. Why this was done, we have no indication.
An intriguing note is, of course, that they were thrown together in William Collyngbourne`s famous rhyme, but it is most likely that this had nothing to do with any relationship between the two men and all with their relationship to the king. While William Catesby and the equally mentioned Richard Ratcliffe were rumoured as plotting together in other sources such as the Croyland Chronicle, Collyngbourne was the only to mention Francis in a sinister connection with them. Again, as so often with Francis, contemporarily his actions seem to have been mostly considered unremarkable and above reproach.
William Catesby`s request for prayers suggests that whatever their relationship was, he found it satisfactory too and had no cause for complaint.
This, of course, may indicate that he was plotting against Richard, though this would make his execution almost immediately after Bosworth rather inexplicable. It could also mean that Catesby was simply afraid for the future of his family; a speculation very much supported by the fact that the above-quoted statements were made in direct connection to his expression of hope Henry would treat them well. William Catesby would not have been the first, nor the last, to suppress his real feelings and say what he expected the person in power wanted to hear before his death to protect his family, and a claim to have worked for Richard under duress, while not born out by what evidence we have of his actions, could not be contradicted by anyone still alive and in a position to be heard and could well have been designed to please Henry.
Whatever Catesby`s motivations were, his will shows he was thinking of those he was leaving behind in the hours before his death, as well as some worry about his immortal soul. In this context, William, Thomas and George Stanley are mentioned, in another controversial sentence which seems to accuse them of not trying to prevent his execution, as well as Francis, too. Near the end of the document, Catesby expressed his wish that "my lord Lovell come to grace than that ye shew hym that he pray for me".
Despite the fact the sentence sounds rather rushed, it is informative. For one, as stated before, it shows that Catesby was certain Francis was still alive at the moment of writing, which certainty suggests that if he was present at the battle, he survived physically unscathed. It also indicates that the relationship between the two men was at least cordial, for Catesby to wish to have his prayers. This is supported somewhat by the fact that his mention of Francis is not accompanied by a complaint like the reproach against the Stanleys they had not tried to "[pray] for my body as I trusted in you" and the somewhat passive-aggressive plea for his uncle John to "remembrer my soule as ye have done my body; and better."
It is of course possible that Catesby had no such complaints against Francis because he was not close enough to him to have ever expected any help from him, or for him to take amiss not having received it. However, the evidence from Richard`s reign, when they were both in positions of power, suggests that they often worked together and that their relationship, whether it was only a business relationship or developed into a friendship as well, was a fruitful one.
In fact, it is quite possible that they knew each other and were connected in some way before Richard became king, while he was still Duke of Gloucester, Francis not yet a viscount and Catesby primarily connected to William Hastings. Certainly, their families had a connection; Francis`s grandfather William Lovell mentioned William`s father as one of his feofees, alongside men as Thomas Bourchier, in his will. However, we do not know if William Catesby the younger and Francis continued the connection at any point before 1483.
As soon as Richard was king, though, the two are often found in accounts together. Notably, Francis included Catesby in a list of feofees of some of his estates, among men he is known to have been close to such as the brothers Franke and his brother-in-law George FitzHugh. He was also one of the men Francis entrusted, in arrangements he made for the event of his death, with transfering some of his manors and lands to his wife, Anne. The two were also granted the constableship of Rockingham together, and Francis, with conventional expressions of love, passed a manor granted to him on to Catesby. Why this was done, we have no indication.
An intriguing note is, of course, that they were thrown together in William Collyngbourne`s famous rhyme, but it is most likely that this had nothing to do with any relationship between the two men and all with their relationship to the king. While William Catesby and the equally mentioned Richard Ratcliffe were rumoured as plotting together in other sources such as the Croyland Chronicle, Collyngbourne was the only to mention Francis in a sinister connection with them. Again, as so often with Francis, contemporarily his actions seem to have been mostly considered unremarkable and above reproach.
William Catesby`s request for prayers suggests that whatever their relationship was, he found it satisfactory too and had no cause for complaint.
Tuesday, 22 August 2017
Francis`s decision
Henry Tudor`s victory at the Battle of Bosworth was arguably a turning point in English, and indirectly European, history. It is doubtful that any of the involved could guess at the whole consequences of the defeat of one king and the making of the new one, consequences which, in one way or another, would be felt over centuries.
However, even at the time, it would have been clear that the outcome of the battle would change a lot, not only in the government of the kingdom and the lives of the bereaved, but also in the lives of those who had survived the battle, on both the winning and the losing side. Francis, of course, fell into the latter category.
Having either escaped from the battlefield after the day was lost or not been present, his situation was better than that of others who had fought for Richard, like Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey`s, or Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland`s. While these two were taken prisoner, Francis had the advantage over them. He could have thrown himself at the victor`s mercy with the expectation of leniency; Surrey`s and Northumberland`s imprisonment already caused some unhappiness, and treating someone who came to terms with Henry of his own volition badly would have been both bad for his image and completely unnecessary. In fact, having Francis, who was known to have been high in Richard`s favour and moreover fairly well-liked, at his court would have much profitted Henry and helped his claim of wanting to unite the warring Yorkist and Lancastrian factions.
Clearly, Henry was aware of this, too. As Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs show, though he, in a rather controversial move, predated his reign by a day to be able to convict those who had fought for Richard of treason, he chose to offer Francis a pardon for having done so. Perhaps this was done to show some goodwill, or perhaps he and his men expected Francis, who seems to have been a calm and comparatively peaceful man, to accept it to save his wealth and thereby provide, in modern terms, some good press for Henry and his stated claim of wanting peace.
Francis, however, did not accept the pardon. At some point after the battle, he took sanctuary in St.John`s Abbey in Colchester, which is presumably where Henry`s men found him to convey Henry`s offer to him. It is sometimes assumed that Francis did not outright reject it, but instead began negotiating with Henry, as he was allowed to stay in sanctuary for longer than 40 days. However, there is no indication of this; the reason why he could stay longer in sanctuary than the usual span was because St John`s Abbey had extended rights of sanctuary. These were also used by John Howard during the Lancastrian readaption of 1470/1. Perhaps knowledge of this was the reason why Francis chose to go there after the Battle of Bosworth, perhaps there were other reasons.
There is no certainty of this, any more than there is an account of what exactly happened when Francis was offered a pardon by Henry VII. Only the result is known, which was that Francis was attainted, alongside others who had fought, and in most cases died, for Richard when Henry`s first Parliament opened on 7th November 1485.
This meant, for Francis, that not only all his possessions were forfeit to the crown, it also meant that he himself was outlawed. At any time he ventured outside St.John`s Abbey, he could be caught by the new king`s men and if that happened, he would be executed for treason. By rejecting Henry`s pardon he, in short, gave up literally everything. It was not a political decision, or a cunning one.
It was tantamount to a declaration of loyalty and love to his fallen friend and king.
However, even at the time, it would have been clear that the outcome of the battle would change a lot, not only in the government of the kingdom and the lives of the bereaved, but also in the lives of those who had survived the battle, on both the winning and the losing side. Francis, of course, fell into the latter category.
Having either escaped from the battlefield after the day was lost or not been present, his situation was better than that of others who had fought for Richard, like Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey`s, or Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland`s. While these two were taken prisoner, Francis had the advantage over them. He could have thrown himself at the victor`s mercy with the expectation of leniency; Surrey`s and Northumberland`s imprisonment already caused some unhappiness, and treating someone who came to terms with Henry of his own volition badly would have been both bad for his image and completely unnecessary. In fact, having Francis, who was known to have been high in Richard`s favour and moreover fairly well-liked, at his court would have much profitted Henry and helped his claim of wanting to unite the warring Yorkist and Lancastrian factions.
Clearly, Henry was aware of this, too. As Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs show, though he, in a rather controversial move, predated his reign by a day to be able to convict those who had fought for Richard of treason, he chose to offer Francis a pardon for having done so. Perhaps this was done to show some goodwill, or perhaps he and his men expected Francis, who seems to have been a calm and comparatively peaceful man, to accept it to save his wealth and thereby provide, in modern terms, some good press for Henry and his stated claim of wanting peace.
Francis, however, did not accept the pardon. At some point after the battle, he took sanctuary in St.John`s Abbey in Colchester, which is presumably where Henry`s men found him to convey Henry`s offer to him. It is sometimes assumed that Francis did not outright reject it, but instead began negotiating with Henry, as he was allowed to stay in sanctuary for longer than 40 days. However, there is no indication of this; the reason why he could stay longer in sanctuary than the usual span was because St John`s Abbey had extended rights of sanctuary. These were also used by John Howard during the Lancastrian readaption of 1470/1. Perhaps knowledge of this was the reason why Francis chose to go there after the Battle of Bosworth, perhaps there were other reasons.
There is no certainty of this, any more than there is an account of what exactly happened when Francis was offered a pardon by Henry VII. Only the result is known, which was that Francis was attainted, alongside others who had fought, and in most cases died, for Richard when Henry`s first Parliament opened on 7th November 1485.
This meant, for Francis, that not only all his possessions were forfeit to the crown, it also meant that he himself was outlawed. At any time he ventured outside St.John`s Abbey, he could be caught by the new king`s men and if that happened, he would be executed for treason. By rejecting Henry`s pardon he, in short, gave up literally everything. It was not a political decision, or a cunning one.
It was tantamount to a declaration of loyalty and love to his fallen friend and king.
Saturday, 19 August 2017
Where was Francis? (2)
On 26th June 1485, Francis received a royal order to guard the coast against Henry Tudor, who was at that point preparing to invade. This order meant that he had to go to Southampton, away from court and king, to await the invasion there. His tasks included outfitting the ships
and doing all that needed to be done for them to be able to engage in
battle, as well as actually taking command of the fleet, in the hopes of stopping the invasion and taking Henry Tudor prisoner.
As history records, he failed at these tasks, not least due to the fact Richard was wrongly informed (or mixed up) about where Henry intended to land. Francis and the fleet at his command could not prevent him from landing, which he did on 7th August 1485 at Milford Haven. By 11th August at the latest, Richard was aware of this, for a letter exists from him written on this day to Henry Vernon, informing him of this and ordering him to come to him.
There is no certainty, however, if he also at that time sent orders to Francis to join him as well and, if so, if he managed to arrive at Richard`s side in time to fight at Bosworth. There is no account of him either being asked to stay at Southampton or in the south of England, nor one of him taking an explicit part in the Battle of Bosworth. All that can be said with reasonable certainty is that Francis did not ride with Richard in his last charge, for even had he unlike the others involved in it survived it, he would have been surrounded by enemy fighters by the end of it and would have never managed to escape. What exactly this means as to his exact whereabouts is debatted.
The only directly contemporary source about his whereabouts during the battle is an announcement made by the new king Henry VII afterwards, which listed him among the dead. While this was of course incorrect, it could well indicate that he was in fact at the battle and simply at first assumed to be dead along many if not most others of Richard`s closest supporters. It is not impossible, however, that such a mistake could have also been made if he had not been at the battle, because of Francis`s known closeness to Richard. Another theory is that Francis was declared dead, as it is commonly assumed John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, who was definitely not at Bosworth, was, to discourage rebels. However, while declaring Lincoln, who was Richard`s heir, dead had the advantage of sowing confusion and stopping potential rebels from rising in his name, there would have been no such reason for declaring Francis dead.
Other sources do not help clear up the question of Francis`s movements. The Crowland Chronicle does not mention him at all after a short note that he was meant to guard the coast; the Great Chronicle of London, perhaps influenced by Henry`s announcement, reports wrongly he was slain during the battle. Polydore Vergil states he was at the battle but fled to sanctuary after it was lost. This might be true, but given Vergil`s many provable mistakes and deliberate changes made to known facts in his report of the battle, it is not a reliable source.
This ultimately means that it`s unlikely to ever be quite certain where Francis was and if he fought at Bosworth, though what we know of his actions and those of others before and afterwards might provide some hints. It is known, for example, as pointed out in Joe Ann Ricca`s "Time Reveals All Things", that Lord Audley, who was with Francis at Southampton, was still there on 21st August 1485. It is quite possible that Francis was still with him then. However, it is equally possible that Audley was ordered to remain in Southampton because most of his land holdings and power base was in the south, to try and use his influence to stop people from joining Henry, while Francis, whose power base lay in the north, was ordered to come to Richard`s aid in battle.
Another interesting fact which might hint at Francis`s movements is found in William Catesby`s will, made just before he was executed on 25th August 1485. It includes a wish by Catesby that "lett my lord Lovel come to grace; then that ye show him that he pray for me". It clearly shows that at that time, Catesby knew Francis was alive; but it sadly it does not indicate if this was because he was aware Francis had not been involved in the battle or because he knew he had escaped afterwards. It does indicate, however, that it was not an injury got during battle which prevented Francis from joining Richard`s last charge, as in such a case Catesby could not have been certain he still lived after escaping once the battle was lost. Equally, it indicates that Francis`s survival was not anything controversial that was supposed to stay hidden, as naturally, clearly to protect his family, Catesby wrote a will that was very positive towards the conqueror Henry VII, and would have been unlikely to include something likely to displease him. Therefore it can be surmised that Francis`s initial inclusion in the list of casualties of the battle was an honest mistake, though as above, there is no knowing how it came to happen.
Perhaps the most telling hint as to where Francis was is found in the fact that he, together with Humphrey and Thomas Stafford, was in sanctuary in Colchester for several months after Bosworth. Though it is not known when any one of them arrived in Colchester, it would maybe be too much of a conicidence dor them to have arrived there seperately and independent of each other to then stay there for several months and start a rebellion together. If they arrived together, though, it would mean Francis was at Bosworth, for the Staffords are known to have fought there for Richard.
If Francis was at Bosworth, then that poses the question of why he did not join in Richard`s last charge. If it was not an injury, then it seems that most likely, Richard ordered him to stay back during that last charge. Potentially he could have done this because he wanted him to fulfill some duties in case he himself did not survive - often, the mysterious fate of his disinherited and vanished nephews Edward and Richard, and the strange cases of Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, are brought up in this context, which however opens questions about the parts of the Staffords` - or else because he wished for Francis to live even if he did not survive.
In the end, where Francis was when the Battle of Bosworth happened, and if he fought, cannot conclusively be answered. There are more indications he was there than there are for the opposite assumption, but it rests on speculation. All we know is that one way or another, either by not asking him to join him in battle or else by asking him to stay back during his last charge, Richard made sure Francis would survive.
As history records, he failed at these tasks, not least due to the fact Richard was wrongly informed (or mixed up) about where Henry intended to land. Francis and the fleet at his command could not prevent him from landing, which he did on 7th August 1485 at Milford Haven. By 11th August at the latest, Richard was aware of this, for a letter exists from him written on this day to Henry Vernon, informing him of this and ordering him to come to him.
There is no certainty, however, if he also at that time sent orders to Francis to join him as well and, if so, if he managed to arrive at Richard`s side in time to fight at Bosworth. There is no account of him either being asked to stay at Southampton or in the south of England, nor one of him taking an explicit part in the Battle of Bosworth. All that can be said with reasonable certainty is that Francis did not ride with Richard in his last charge, for even had he unlike the others involved in it survived it, he would have been surrounded by enemy fighters by the end of it and would have never managed to escape. What exactly this means as to his exact whereabouts is debatted.
The only directly contemporary source about his whereabouts during the battle is an announcement made by the new king Henry VII afterwards, which listed him among the dead. While this was of course incorrect, it could well indicate that he was in fact at the battle and simply at first assumed to be dead along many if not most others of Richard`s closest supporters. It is not impossible, however, that such a mistake could have also been made if he had not been at the battle, because of Francis`s known closeness to Richard. Another theory is that Francis was declared dead, as it is commonly assumed John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, who was definitely not at Bosworth, was, to discourage rebels. However, while declaring Lincoln, who was Richard`s heir, dead had the advantage of sowing confusion and stopping potential rebels from rising in his name, there would have been no such reason for declaring Francis dead.
Other sources do not help clear up the question of Francis`s movements. The Crowland Chronicle does not mention him at all after a short note that he was meant to guard the coast; the Great Chronicle of London, perhaps influenced by Henry`s announcement, reports wrongly he was slain during the battle. Polydore Vergil states he was at the battle but fled to sanctuary after it was lost. This might be true, but given Vergil`s many provable mistakes and deliberate changes made to known facts in his report of the battle, it is not a reliable source.
This ultimately means that it`s unlikely to ever be quite certain where Francis was and if he fought at Bosworth, though what we know of his actions and those of others before and afterwards might provide some hints. It is known, for example, as pointed out in Joe Ann Ricca`s "Time Reveals All Things", that Lord Audley, who was with Francis at Southampton, was still there on 21st August 1485. It is quite possible that Francis was still with him then. However, it is equally possible that Audley was ordered to remain in Southampton because most of his land holdings and power base was in the south, to try and use his influence to stop people from joining Henry, while Francis, whose power base lay in the north, was ordered to come to Richard`s aid in battle.
Another interesting fact which might hint at Francis`s movements is found in William Catesby`s will, made just before he was executed on 25th August 1485. It includes a wish by Catesby that "lett my lord Lovel come to grace; then that ye show him that he pray for me". It clearly shows that at that time, Catesby knew Francis was alive; but it sadly it does not indicate if this was because he was aware Francis had not been involved in the battle or because he knew he had escaped afterwards. It does indicate, however, that it was not an injury got during battle which prevented Francis from joining Richard`s last charge, as in such a case Catesby could not have been certain he still lived after escaping once the battle was lost. Equally, it indicates that Francis`s survival was not anything controversial that was supposed to stay hidden, as naturally, clearly to protect his family, Catesby wrote a will that was very positive towards the conqueror Henry VII, and would have been unlikely to include something likely to displease him. Therefore it can be surmised that Francis`s initial inclusion in the list of casualties of the battle was an honest mistake, though as above, there is no knowing how it came to happen.
Perhaps the most telling hint as to where Francis was is found in the fact that he, together with Humphrey and Thomas Stafford, was in sanctuary in Colchester for several months after Bosworth. Though it is not known when any one of them arrived in Colchester, it would maybe be too much of a conicidence dor them to have arrived there seperately and independent of each other to then stay there for several months and start a rebellion together. If they arrived together, though, it would mean Francis was at Bosworth, for the Staffords are known to have fought there for Richard.
If Francis was at Bosworth, then that poses the question of why he did not join in Richard`s last charge. If it was not an injury, then it seems that most likely, Richard ordered him to stay back during that last charge. Potentially he could have done this because he wanted him to fulfill some duties in case he himself did not survive - often, the mysterious fate of his disinherited and vanished nephews Edward and Richard, and the strange cases of Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, are brought up in this context, which however opens questions about the parts of the Staffords` - or else because he wished for Francis to live even if he did not survive.
In the end, where Francis was when the Battle of Bosworth happened, and if he fought, cannot conclusively be answered. There are more indications he was there than there are for the opposite assumption, but it rests on speculation. All we know is that one way or another, either by not asking him to join him in battle or else by asking him to stay back during his last charge, Richard made sure Francis would survive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)