Yet Another C.P. Correction: Parentage of Philippe Lovel, 3rd wife of John Dinham,
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage 4 (1916): 374377 (sub Dinham) had a good account of
the life of Sir John Dinham, Knt., of Hartland, Kingskerswell, and
Nutwell, Devon, Buckland Denham, Somerset, etc., which individual was
born about 1358–59, and died in 1428.
Sir John Dinham's third wife (and the mother of his heir) was Philippe
Lovel, who Complete Peerage identifies as the "daughter of Sir John
Lovel, of Titchmarsh, Northants, and Minster Lovell, Oxon [Lord
Lovel], by Alianore, daughter of Sir William la Zouche, of
Harringworth, Northants [Lord Zouche]."
Checking for a source for this information, surprisingly none is
given. Fortunately, however, there exists a contemporary record which
identifies Lady Dinham's parentage, but it puts her one generation
back in the Lovel family tree. This source is a letter written by
John Austell to Henry Fillongley dated 14 January 1450, in which
Austell wrote:
"And yf y fynnde hit not y shalle ryde to my lady Dynham that was
doughter to the worthi lord Lovell in kynge Richardys daye and to haue
the informacion of hir." END OF QUOTE.
A more full citation of this letter may be found in Lewis, Essays in
Later Medieval French Hist. (1985): 227. For those in America, this
information may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=7gL-DiPh3W4C&pg=PA227&dq=Ralph+Lovel+Castle+Cary
Philippe Lovel was, of course, living at the date of this letter, as
she did not die until 1465. As for her parents, they can readily be
identified as Sir John Lovel, K.G. (died 1408), 5th Lord Lovel, and,
in right of his wife, Lord Holand, by Maud, daughter and heiress of
Robert de Holand, of Nether Kellet, Lancashire (descendant of King
Henry II).
Once again, we see the importance of relying on contemporary primary
sources to find our answers, not secondary printed sources.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of 17th Century New World
immigrants that descend from Philippe Lovel and her husband, Sir John
Dinham:
Charles Calvert, Mary Launce, William & Elizabeth Pole, Mary Johanna
Somerset
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
pgrho...@tiscali.co.uk
> Dear Newsgroup:
>
> Complete Peerage 4 (1916): 374377 (sub Dinham) had a good account of
> the life of Sir John Dinham, Knt., of Hartland, Kingskerswell, and
> Nutwell, Devon, Buckland Denham, Somerset, etc., which individual was
> born about 1358–59, and died in 1428.
>
> Sir John Dinham's third wife (and the mother of his heir) was Philippe
> Lovel, who Complete Peerage identifies as the "daughter of Sir John
> Lovel, of Titchmarsh, Northants, and Minster Lovell, Oxon [Lord
> Lovel], by Alianore, daughter of Sir William la Zouche, of
> Harringworth, Northants [Lord Zouche]."
>
> Checking for a source for this information, surprisingly none is
> given. Fortunately, however, there exists a contemporary record which
> identifies Lady Dinham's parentage, but it puts her one generation
> back in the Lovel family tree. This source is a letter written by
> John Austell to Henry Fillongley dated 14 January 1450, in which
>
> Austell wrote:
>
> "And yf y fynnde hit not y shalle ryde to my lady Dynham that was
> doughter to the worthi lord Lovell in kynge Richardys daye and to haue
> the informacion of hir." END OF QUOTE.
>
> A more full citation of this letter may be found in Lewis, Essays in
> Later Medieval French Hist. (1985): 227. For those in America, this
> information may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
>
> Philippe Lovel was, of course, living at the date of this letter, as
> she did not die until 1465. As for her parents, they can readily be
> identified as Sir John Lovel, K.G. (died 1408), 5th Lord Lovel, and,
> in right of his wife, Lord Holand, by Maud, daughter and heiress of
> Robert de Holand, of Nether Kellet, Lancashire (descendant of King
> Henry II).
>
> Once again, we see the importance of relying on contemporary primary
> sources to find our answers, not secondary printed sources.
>
> For interest's sake, the following is a list of 17th Century New World
> immigrants that descend from Philippe Lovel and her husband, Sir John
> Dinham:
>
> Charles Calvert, Mary Launce, William & Elizabeth Pole, Mary Johanna
> Somerset
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
I don't know a lot about John Austell. How reliable is he and how
well did he know the Dinhams? I notice that the previous Lady Dinham
had been dead for only six months when Austell wrote his letter. It
may be that he was referring to her, not knowing that she had died.
Peter G R Howarth
Douglas Richardson
<pgrhowa...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
< I don't know a lot about John Austell. How reliable is he and how
< well did he know the Dinhams? I notice that the previous Lady
Dinham
< had been dead for only six months when Austell wrote his letter. It
< may be that he was referring to her, not knowing that she had died.
<
< Peter G R Howarth
Before anyone else rushes to give Peter Howarth five stars for his
brilliant post, I suggest they (and he) actually read the source I
gave which identifies Philippe Lovel, wife of Sir John Dinham, as the
daughter of John Lovel, K.G., 5th Lord Lovel[, by his wife, Maud
Holand].
Besides the evidence of the contemporary letter dated 1450 which I
quoted, there is also a list of 5th Lord Lovel's children prepared
about the same time by a certain Worcester, an agent of Sir John
Fastolf. This list likewise includes Philippe Lovel, wife of Sir John
Dinham, among the children of 5th Lord Lovel. So there can be no
question that 5th Lord Lovel (not 6th Lord Lovel) was Philippe Lovel's
father.
As I indicated in my first post, this material may be easily viewed at
the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=7gL-DiPh3W4C&pg=PA227&dq=Ralph+Lovel+Castle+Cary#PPA227,M1
If we're going to bother to use contemporary evidence to document our
records, we should at least be willing to look at it. Opinions are
dandy, but they're usually just that: opinions. Right guys?
genm...@gmail.com
> On Jan 7, 2:01 am, "pgrhowa...@tiscali.co.uk"
>
> <pgrhowa...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> < I don't know a lot about John Austell. How reliable is he and how
> < well did he know the Dinhams? I notice that the previous Lady
> Dinham
> < had been dead for only six months when Austell wrote his letter. It
> < may be that he was referring to her, not knowing that she had died.
> <
> < Peter G R Howarth
>
> Before anyone else rushes to give Peter Howarth five stars for his
> brilliant post, I suggest they (and he) actually read the source I
> gave which identifies Philippe Lovel, wife of Sir John Dinham, as the
> daughter of John Lovel, K.G., 5th Lord Lovel[, by his wife, Maud
> Holand].
>
> Besides the evidence of the contemporary letter dated 1450 which I
> quoted, there is also a list of 5th Lord Lovel's children prepared
> about the same time by a certain Worcester, an agent of Sir John
> Fastolf. This list likewise includes Philippe Lovel, wife of Sir John
> Dinham, among the children of 5th Lord Lovel. So there can be no
> question that 5th Lord Lovel (not 6th Lord Lovel) was Philippe Lovel's
> father.
>
> As I indicated in my first post, this material may be easily viewed at
> the following weblink:
>
>
> If we're going to bother to use contemporary evidence to document our
> records, we should at least be willing to look at it. Opinions are
> dandy, but they're usually just that: opinions. Right guys?
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
This enthusiastic poster clearly didn't read enough of the Lewis work
he cites to properly identify "an certain Worcester" whom he casually
mentions above. He was William Worcester, a noted topographer and
author who has an extensive biography in ODNB and is most noted for
writing "The Boke of Noblesse". The enthusiastic poster also failed
to note that Lewis mentions [p. 212] that Worcester was "rather
careless to give reference[s]" - a comment which might bear on one's
judgment of Worcester's statements.
Lewis also notes that Worcester's list of the children of John V Lovel
includes his heir John Vi and Philippe as well as two other daughters,
but says that Worcester inexplicably omits his son Robert who married
the dau. of Sir Guy Bryan although he is mentioned elsewhere in
Worcester's document. Not exactly a model of accuracy, it seems.
Finally, Lewis (published in 1985) notes in a footnote on the page
cited by DR that this issue probably represents a correction to
Cokayne's CP - so this is hardly a new "discovery" to be claimed by
our enthusiastic poster.
Douglas Richardson
<
< Finally, Lewis (published in 1985) notes in a footnote on the page
< cited by DR that this issue probably represents a correction to
< Cokayne's CP - so this is hardly a new "discovery" to be claimed by
< our enthusiastic poster.
Posts like this one from gen makes you wonder why people are so
vicious and why they feel the need to hide their identity.
Whatever, this is still a correction to Complete Peerage.
And that' is what matters.
genm...@gmail.com
Aww....poor Dougie has had his feeling hurt by my "vicious"
post....I'm so sorry.
And of course his posts, and their personal attacks, are never
"vicious"....