Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
C.P. Correction/Addition: Thomas Lumley, Esquire (died 1502-3), and his wife, Margaret Plantagenet
679 views
Skip to first unread message
Douglas Richardson
Oct 30, 2013, 2:55:47 AM10/30/13
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
This post revises and expands the one I made yesterday regarding Thomas Lumley, Esq. (died 1502-3).
Complete Peerage 8 (1932): 274 (sub Lumley) contains rather meager information regarding Thomas Lumley, son and heir apparent of George Lumley, Knt., 3rd Lord Lumley. Below is the brief information provided regarding Thomas Lumley:
"Thomas Lumley, son and heir, is said to have married Elizabeth, bastard daughter of Edward IV, and to have died v.p. in 1487." END OF QUOTE.
The footnote reference for this statement reads as follows:
"Surtees, Hist. of co. Durham, vol. ii, p. 163, quoting no evidence for the date." END OF QUOTE.
The source cited by Complete Peerage, namely Surtees, History & Antiquities of Durham, alleges in volume 2 (1820): 140 that Thomas Lumley was a knight. But reviewing my notes, I find that none of the surviving visitation records which mention Thomas Lumley identify him as a knight, which is surely a red flag. As such, I have double checked the primary records of Thomas Lumley's life and it appears that he was always known as Thomas Lumley (or Lomley), esquire. He so styled in the inquisition taken following his own death, a reference to which is published in Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper 36 (1875): 72. This reference may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011698704;view=1up;seq=88
The inquisition indicates that Thomas Lumley, esquire, was "of Beutroby, Durham," which place is evidently Beautrove, Durham, which manor was earlier possessed by Thomas Lumley's grandfather, Sir Thomas Lumley, 2nd Lord Lumley.
The inquisition of Thomas Lumley, esquire is dated in the 1st year of William Severs, Bishop of Durham, who was appointed to that position in June 1502. Thus, it would appear that Thomas Lumley, esquire, died in 1502 or 1503, not in 1487 as alleged by Surtees.
Thomas Lumley is elsewhere styled esquire (not knight) in the three inquisitions taken in 1508, following the death of his father, Sir George Lumley, 3rd Lord Lumley. For the father's inquisitions post mortem, see Calendar of IPM Henry VII 3 (1955): 219–220, 262–263, 326–327, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://archive.org/stream/calendarofinquis03great#page/n5/mode/2up
Thomas Lumley was not his father's son and heir as claimed by Complete Peerage. Rather, Thomas Lumley was his father's son and heir apparent. In the very next paragraph in Complete Peerage 8(1932): 274, the author correctly states that Thomas Lumley's father, George Lumley, Lord Lumley, was succeeded at his death by Thomas' son and heir, Richard Lumley, not by Thomas Lumley.
It has been claimed by various visitation sources, a Lumley family monumental pedigree in Chester-le-Street, Durham, and an early pedigree dated c.1505 that Thomas Lumley married a bastard daughter of King Edward IV. Several of these sources (including the earliest one dated c.1505) do not state the given name of Thomas Lumley's wife. However, several of the visitations including one as early as 1530 claim that the name of his wife was Elizabeth.
That the given name of his wife was actually Margaret, not Elizabeth, is proven by a contemporary license recorded on Membrane 8 of Roll 1 of William Dudley, Bishop of Durham. An abstract of this record was published many years ago in Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper 35 (1874): 134. Mention of this record was made by the historian, Michael Hicks, in his book, Edward V: The Prince in the Tower (2003). My attention to this record was directed by Brad Verity and Matthew Tompkins, whose help is gratefully acknowledged.
The published abstract reads as follows:
"Date: Year 3 of Pontificate"
"William Bille and William Blenkarne have licence to convey their manors or 'dominia' of Hesilden and Morton to Thomas Lumle, knight, 'dominus' of Lumle, for his life, with remainders over, and the manor of 'dominium' of Bewtrove to Thomas Lumle, esquire (son of George Lumle, knight, the son of Thomas Lumle, knight) and Margaret wife of the said Thomas Lumle, esquire, for their lives, with remainder to the right heirs of the said Thomas Lumle, esquire." END OF QUOTE.
The above record is dated the 3rd year of William Dudley, Bishop of Durham. According to Wikipedia, Bishop Dudley was nominated to Durham on 31 July 1476 and was consecrated between 1 September and 12 October 1476. Thus year three of his pontificate would fall in 1478-1479. The record indicates that Thomas Lumley, esquire, and his wife, Margaret, were granted the manor of Beautrove, Durham in the lifetime of his grandfather, Thomas Lumley, Knt., 2nd Lord Lumley. As such, this confirms that he is definitely the Thomas Lumley, esquire, "of Beutroby, Durham," whose inquisition is mentioned earlier in this post.
As to the date of Thomas Lumley's marriage to Margaret Plantagenet, the three inquisitions cited above for Thomas Lumley's father, George Lumley, indicate that Thomas Lumley's son and heir, Richard Lumley, was born about 1478, he being aged 30 in 1508. Thus it would appear that Thomas Lumley and Elizabeth Plantagenet were married in or before 1478. This would be about the time that the manor of Beautrove, Durham was settled on him.
There is a fairly well researched biography of Thomas Lumley, esquire, published in Wedgwood, History of Parliament, 1 (1936): 563. Wedgwood gives the following detail regarding his life:
"On his mother's death a dispute arose as to [his mother] Lady Lumley's inheritance with Giles Thornton, possibly her half-brother; and Thomas Lumley killed him in a ditch at Windsor Castle, an undated achievement which links Thomas with Windsor and so with [King] Edward's bastard [daughter]."
Complete Peerage does not mention the murder of Giles Thornton, who was in fact the bastard half-brother of Thomas Lumley's mother, Elizabeth (Thornton) Lumley. However, the murder is mentioned in a modern pedigree of the Thornton family published in Hodgson, History of Northumberland, Part II, Vol. I (1827): 317, where the following information is given:
"Egidius or Giles Thornton .... But a violent contention arising between him and the Lumleys about the succession to his father's property, he was slain by Thomas Lumley, son of George Lumley & Elizabeth Thornton, in the great garden in Windsor."
Hutchinson, View of Northumberland 2 (1776): 388 also gives an account of the murder of Giles Thornton: "Thomas Lumeley, after Lord Lumeley, slew in the diche of Windsor Castelle Giles Thornton, bastard to rich Thornton. Lel[and] Itin. v. 6. p. 46."
The Itinerary of John Leland 6 (1769): 60 is evidently the original source for the murder of Giles Thornton by Thomas Lumley. Leland's account reads as follows:
"The Advanciment of Lumeley to be Lord was by Mariage of a Bastard Doughter of King Edwarde 4. Thomas Lumeley after Lorde Lumeley slew in the Diche of Windsor Castelle .... Thornton Bastard to riche Thorneton."
The above item may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=goBHAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA60
As we can see, Giles Thornton is not specifically named by Leland, nor is the date of the murder given by Leland. However, Hodgson, History of Northumberland, Part II, Vol. I (1827): 316 reproduces an undated ancient account of the Thornton family which concerns these same parties:
"After the Death of Roger Thorntons wyfe departed unto the mercye of God tc. the sayd Roger Thornton gott upon one Lawes daughter iij sones called Gyles, Roger, & John. this Gyles maryed unto the Erle of Northumberland's Unckle daughter and then Thomas Lumley which claymed the land by his mother did wed King Edwards bastard dawghter & fell in suit for the land, and then at Windsore in the great Gardinge at Wyndsore did kyll the said Gylles Thornton & then Roger Thornton his brother dyd marye John Cartyngtons daughter & heyre & entered upon the said landes ..." END OF QUOTE.
The above account states that Thomas Lumley married an unnamed bastard daughter of King Edward IV. The implication of this account is that Thomas Lumley murdered his uncle, Giles Thornton, following the death of Thomas Lumley's maternal grandfather, Roger Thornton, in 1483.
However, I believe that the murder of Giles Thornton is connected with the royal pardon dated 1480 granted to Thomas Lumley, esquire, then residing at Westminster, Middlesex:
1480. March 6. General pardon to Thomas Lumley late of Westminster, co. Middlesex, esquire, of all offences committed by him before 3 March. Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1476–1485 (1901): 191, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=uL85AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA191
Below is my revised file account of Thomas Lumley, Esquire (died 1502-3), and his wife, Margaret Plantagenet.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + +
THOMAS LUMLEY (or LOMLEY), Esq., of Beautrove, Durham, Westminster, Middlesex, etc., Knight of the Shire for Northumberland, 1495, Governor of Scarborough, 1502, Justice of the Peace for Durham and Sedbergh, 1502, son and heir apparent of George Lumley, Knt., 3rd Lord Lumley, of Lumley, Durham, by Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of Roger Thornton, Esq., of Newcastle. He married MARGARET PLANTAGENET, illegitimate daughter of Edward IV, King of England. They had four sons, Richard [4th Lord Lumley], John, George, and Roger, Esq., and three daughters, Anne (wife of Robert Ogle, 4th Lord Ogle), Sibyl (wife of William Hilton, Knt., de jure 9th Lord Hylton), and Elizabeth (wife of Robert Cresswell, Esq.). In 1478–9 he and his wife, Margaret, had the manor of Beautrove, Durham settled on them for life by feoffees of his grandfather, Thomas Lumley, Knt., 2nd Lord Lumley. In 1480 he received a royal pardon as "Thomas Lumley late of Westminster, co. Middlesex, esquire," for all offences committed by him before 3 March 1480. The pardon is presumably connected with the murder of his bastard uncle, Giles Thornton, who he is alleged to have killed in a ditch at Windsor Castle. In 1486, as “Thomas Lomley, Esq.,” he and his father, George Lomley, Knt., lord of Lomley, witnessed a quitclaim of Robert Tempest to Thomas Haugyrston [Haggerston], Esq. He was appointed a commissioner of array for Easington Ward, Durham in 1491 and 1494, as “Thomas Lomley, esq.” In 1493 he and his father witnessed a feoffment by Ralph, Earl of Westmorland. In 1500, as “noble man Thomas Lumley,” he and his father, George, were granted letters of fraternity by the Prior and Convent of Durham. THOMAS LUMLEY, Esq., styled “of Beutroby [i.., Beautrove], Durham,” died in 1502–3 (date of writ of diem clausit extremum).
References:
Sandford, Gen. Hist. of the Kings of England (1677): 399. Smollett, Complete Hist. of England 3 (1758): 452. Itinerary of John Leland 6 (1769): 60. Brydges, Collins’ Peerage of England 3 (1812): 693–720 (sub Lumley, Earl of Scarborough). Surtees, Hist. & Antiqs. of Durham 2 (1820): 139 (Lumley monument in Chester-le-Street, co. Durham church: “… inde pater efficitur illius Thomæ qui ex magni Regis Edovardi quarti filia naturali, Richardum susceperat…”), 140 (monumental inscription at Chester-le-Street: “Sir Thomas Lumley, Knight, sonne of George Lord Lumley, maried Elizabeth, daughter naturel to Kinge Edwarde the fourth, and he died in the life of his father, and had issue Richard Lord Lumley”) (Elizabeth’s arms: 1. France and England; 2. a plain cross of Ulster; 3. as 2; 4. barry of six, on a chief three pallets, between two esquires’ bastions, dexter and sinister, an inescutcheon Argent, Mortimer, over all a bar sinister), 162–164 (Lumley chart). Hodgson, Hist. of Northumberland 2(1) (1827): 316 (Ped. of Thornton and Trevelyan: “Thomas Lumley which claymed the land by his mother did wed Kinge Edwards bastard dawghter.”). Coll. Top. et Gen. 1 (1834): 304 (Neville ped. dated c.1505: states “Thomas Lumley wedded bastard daughter of Edward IVth.”). Banks, Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England 4 (1837): 386–389. Obituary Roll of William Ebchester & John Burnby (Surtees Soc. 31) (1856): 114. Fordyce, Hist. & Antiqs. of Durham 2 (1857): 628. Tonge, Vis. of Northern Counties 1530 (Surtees Soc. 41) (1862): 27 (Lumley ped.: “Thomas Lumley, son and heyre to George, maried Elisabeth, bastard doughter to Kyng Edward the iiijth”). Surrey Arch. Colls. 3 (1865): 324–336. Annual Rpt. of the Deputy Keeper 36 (1875): 22, 66, 72. Marshall, Vis. of Northumberland in 1615 (1878): 49–51 (Thornton ped.: “Thomas Lumley.”). Flower, Vis. of Yorkshire 1563–4 (H.S.P. 16) (1881): 189–190 (Lumley ped.: “Thomas Lord Lomley son & heyr to George = Elsabeth bastard doughter to Kyng Edward the Fourth”). Flower et al., Peds. Rec. at the Vis. of Durham (1887): 216 (Lumley ped.: “Thomas Lumley, son and heire = Elizabeth, bastard dau. of Edward IV”). Milner, Recs. of the Lumleys of Lumley Castle (1904): 25. Stratford Edward the Fourth (1910): 319. C.P. 7 (1929): 30 (sub Hylton); 8 (1932): 274 (sub Lumley); 10 (1945): 33–34 (sub Ogle); 14 (1998): 457 (sub Lumley). Wedgwood, Hist. of Parl. 1 (1936): 562–563 (biog. of Sir George Lumley), 563 (biog. of Thomas Lumley). Cal. IPM Henry VII 3 (1955): 219–220, 262–263, 326–327. TAG 50 (1974): 81–86. Byrne, Lisle Letters (1981) [cites Harleian MSS 4033: f.21, (23)v; Leland Itinerary of John Leland 6 (1964): f. 63]. Given-Wilson, Royal Bastards of Medieval England (1984): 160–161, 179. Northumberland Rec. Office: Swinburne (Capheaton) Estate Recs., ZSW/4/65 (available at www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp).
This post revises and expands the one I made yesterday regarding Thomas Lumley, Esq. (died 1502-3).
Complete Peerage 8 (1932): 274 (sub Lumley) contains rather meager information regarding Thomas Lumley, son and heir apparent of George Lumley, Knt., 3rd Lord Lumley. Below is the brief information provided regarding Thomas Lumley:
"Thomas Lumley, son and heir, is said to have married Elizabeth, bastard daughter of Edward IV, and to have died v.p. in 1487." END OF QUOTE.
The footnote reference for this statement reads as follows:
"Surtees, Hist. of co. Durham, vol. ii, p. 163, quoting no evidence for the date." END OF QUOTE.
The source cited by Complete Peerage, namely Surtees, History & Antiquities of Durham, alleges in volume 2 (1820): 140 that Thomas Lumley was a knight. But reviewing my notes, I find that none of the surviving visitation records which mention Thomas Lumley identify him as a knight, which is surely a red flag. As such, I have double checked the primary records of Thomas Lumley's life and it appears that he was always known as Thomas Lumley (or Lomley), esquire. He so styled in the inquisition taken following his own death, a reference to which is published in Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper 36 (1875): 72. This reference may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011698704;view=1up;seq=88
The inquisition indicates that Thomas Lumley, esquire, was "of Beutroby, Durham," which place is evidently Beautrove, Durham, which manor was earlier possessed by Thomas Lumley's grandfather, Sir Thomas Lumley, 2nd Lord Lumley.
The inquisition of Thomas Lumley, esquire is dated in the 1st year of William Severs, Bishop of Durham, who was appointed to that position in June 1502. Thus, it would appear that Thomas Lumley, esquire, died in 1502 or 1503, not in 1487 as alleged by Surtees.
Thomas Lumley is elsewhere styled esquire (not knight) in the three inquisitions taken in 1508, following the death of his father, Sir George Lumley, 3rd Lord Lumley. For the father's inquisitions post mortem, see Calendar of IPM Henry VII 3 (1955): 219–220, 262–263, 326–327, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://archive.org/stream/calendarofinquis03great#page/n5/mode/2up
Thomas Lumley was not his father's son and heir as claimed by Complete Peerage. Rather, Thomas Lumley was his father's son and heir apparent. In the very next paragraph in Complete Peerage 8(1932): 274, the author correctly states that Thomas Lumley's father, George Lumley, Lord Lumley, was succeeded at his death by Thomas' son and heir, Richard Lumley, not by Thomas Lumley.
It has been claimed by various visitation sources, a Lumley family monumental pedigree in Chester-le-Street, Durham, and an early pedigree dated c.1505 that Thomas Lumley married a bastard daughter of King Edward IV. Several of these sources (including the earliest one dated c.1505) do not state the given name of Thomas Lumley's wife. However, several of the visitations including one as early as 1530 claim that the name of his wife was Elizabeth.
That the given name of his wife was actually Margaret, not Elizabeth, is proven by a contemporary license recorded on Membrane 8 of Roll 1 of William Dudley, Bishop of Durham. An abstract of this record was published many years ago in Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper 35 (1874): 134. Mention of this record was made by the historian, Michael Hicks, in his book, Edward V: The Prince in the Tower (2003). My attention to this record was directed by Brad Verity and Matthew Tompkins, whose help is gratefully acknowledged.
The published abstract reads as follows:
"Date: Year 3 of Pontificate"
"William Bille and William Blenkarne have licence to convey their manors or 'dominia' of Hesilden and Morton to Thomas Lumle, knight, 'dominus' of Lumle, for his life, with remainders over, and the manor of 'dominium' of Bewtrove to Thomas Lumle, esquire (son of George Lumle, knight, the son of Thomas Lumle, knight) and Margaret wife of the said Thomas Lumle, esquire, for their lives, with remainder to the right heirs of the said Thomas Lumle, esquire." END OF QUOTE.
The above record is dated the 3rd year of William Dudley, Bishop of Durham. According to Wikipedia, Bishop Dudley was nominated to Durham on 31 July 1476 and was consecrated between 1 September and 12 October 1476. Thus year three of his pontificate would fall in 1478-1479. The record indicates that Thomas Lumley, esquire, and his wife, Margaret, were granted the manor of Beautrove, Durham in the lifetime of his grandfather, Thomas Lumley, Knt., 2nd Lord Lumley. As such, this confirms that he is definitely the Thomas Lumley, esquire, "of Beutroby, Durham," whose inquisition is mentioned earlier in this post.
As to the date of Thomas Lumley's marriage to Margaret Plantagenet, the three inquisitions cited above for Thomas Lumley's father, George Lumley, indicate that Thomas Lumley's son and heir, Richard Lumley, was born about 1478, he being aged 30 in 1508. Thus it would appear that Thomas Lumley and Elizabeth Plantagenet were married in or before 1478. This would be about the time that the manor of Beautrove, Durham was settled on him.
There is a fairly well researched biography of Thomas Lumley, esquire, published in Wedgwood, History of Parliament, 1 (1936): 563. Wedgwood gives the following detail regarding his life:
"On his mother's death a dispute arose as to [his mother] Lady Lumley's inheritance with Giles Thornton, possibly her half-brother; and Thomas Lumley killed him in a ditch at Windsor Castle, an undated achievement which links Thomas with Windsor and so with [King] Edward's bastard [daughter]."
Complete Peerage does not mention the murder of Giles Thornton, who was in fact the bastard half-brother of Thomas Lumley's mother, Elizabeth (Thornton) Lumley. However, the murder is mentioned in a modern pedigree of the Thornton family published in Hodgson, History of Northumberland, Part II, Vol. I (1827): 317, where the following information is given:
"Egidius or Giles Thornton .... But a violent contention arising between him and the Lumleys about the succession to his father's property, he was slain by Thomas Lumley, son of George Lumley & Elizabeth Thornton, in the great garden in Windsor."
Hutchinson, View of Northumberland 2 (1776): 388 also gives an account of the murder of Giles Thornton: "Thomas Lumeley, after Lord Lumeley, slew in the diche of Windsor Castelle Giles Thornton, bastard to rich Thornton. Lel[and] Itin. v. 6. p. 46."
The Itinerary of John Leland 6 (1769): 60 is evidently the original source for the murder of Giles Thornton by Thomas Lumley. Leland's account reads as follows:
"The Advanciment of Lumeley to be Lord was by Mariage of a Bastard Doughter of King Edwarde 4. Thomas Lumeley after Lorde Lumeley slew in the Diche of Windsor Castelle .... Thornton Bastard to riche Thorneton."
The above item may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=goBHAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA60
As we can see, Giles Thornton is not specifically named by Leland, nor is the date of the murder given by Leland. However, Hodgson, History of Northumberland, Part II, Vol. I (1827): 316 reproduces an undated ancient account of the Thornton family which concerns these same parties:
"After the Death of Roger Thorntons wyfe departed unto the mercye of God tc. the sayd Roger Thornton gott upon one Lawes daughter iij sones called Gyles, Roger, & John. this Gyles maryed unto the Erle of Northumberland's Unckle daughter and then Thomas Lumley which claymed the land by his mother did wed King Edwards bastard dawghter & fell in suit for the land, and then at Windsore in the great Gardinge at Wyndsore did kyll the said Gylles Thornton & then Roger Thornton his brother dyd marye John Cartyngtons daughter & heyre & entered upon the said landes ..." END OF QUOTE.
The above account states that Thomas Lumley married an unnamed bastard daughter of King Edward IV. The implication of this account is that Thomas Lumley murdered his uncle, Giles Thornton, following the death of Thomas Lumley's maternal grandfather, Roger Thornton, in 1483.
However, I believe that the murder of Giles Thornton is connected with the royal pardon dated 1480 granted to Thomas Lumley, esquire, then residing at Westminster, Middlesex:
1480. March 6. General pardon to Thomas Lumley late of Westminster, co. Middlesex, esquire, of all offences committed by him before 3 March. Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1476–1485 (1901): 191, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=uL85AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA191
Below is my revised file account of Thomas Lumley, Esquire (died 1502-3), and his wife, Margaret Plantagenet.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + +
THOMAS LUMLEY (or LOMLEY), Esq., of Beautrove, Durham, Westminster, Middlesex, etc., Knight of the Shire for Northumberland, 1495, Governor of Scarborough, 1502, Justice of the Peace for Durham and Sedbergh, 1502, son and heir apparent of George Lumley, Knt., 3rd Lord Lumley, of Lumley, Durham, by Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of Roger Thornton, Esq., of Newcastle. He married MARGARET PLANTAGENET, illegitimate daughter of Edward IV, King of England. They had four sons, Richard [4th Lord Lumley], John, George, and Roger, Esq., and three daughters, Anne (wife of Robert Ogle, 4th Lord Ogle), Sibyl (wife of William Hilton, Knt., de jure 9th Lord Hylton), and Elizabeth (wife of Robert Cresswell, Esq.). In 1478–9 he and his wife, Margaret, had the manor of Beautrove, Durham settled on them for life by feoffees of his grandfather, Thomas Lumley, Knt., 2nd Lord Lumley. In 1480 he received a royal pardon as "Thomas Lumley late of Westminster, co. Middlesex, esquire," for all offences committed by him before 3 March 1480. The pardon is presumably connected with the murder of his bastard uncle, Giles Thornton, who he is alleged to have killed in a ditch at Windsor Castle. In 1486, as “Thomas Lomley, Esq.,” he and his father, George Lomley, Knt., lord of Lomley, witnessed a quitclaim of Robert Tempest to Thomas Haugyrston [Haggerston], Esq. He was appointed a commissioner of array for Easington Ward, Durham in 1491 and 1494, as “Thomas Lomley, esq.” In 1493 he and his father witnessed a feoffment by Ralph, Earl of Westmorland. In 1500, as “noble man Thomas Lumley,” he and his father, George, were granted letters of fraternity by the Prior and Convent of Durham. THOMAS LUMLEY, Esq., styled “of Beutroby [i.., Beautrove], Durham,” died in 1502–3 (date of writ of diem clausit extremum).
References:
Sandford, Gen. Hist. of the Kings of England (1677): 399. Smollett, Complete Hist. of England 3 (1758): 452. Itinerary of John Leland 6 (1769): 60. Brydges, Collins’ Peerage of England 3 (1812): 693–720 (sub Lumley, Earl of Scarborough). Surtees, Hist. & Antiqs. of Durham 2 (1820): 139 (Lumley monument in Chester-le-Street, co. Durham church: “… inde pater efficitur illius Thomæ qui ex magni Regis Edovardi quarti filia naturali, Richardum susceperat…”), 140 (monumental inscription at Chester-le-Street: “Sir Thomas Lumley, Knight, sonne of George Lord Lumley, maried Elizabeth, daughter naturel to Kinge Edwarde the fourth, and he died in the life of his father, and had issue Richard Lord Lumley”) (Elizabeth’s arms: 1. France and England; 2. a plain cross of Ulster; 3. as 2; 4. barry of six, on a chief three pallets, between two esquires’ bastions, dexter and sinister, an inescutcheon Argent, Mortimer, over all a bar sinister), 162–164 (Lumley chart). Hodgson, Hist. of Northumberland 2(1) (1827): 316 (Ped. of Thornton and Trevelyan: “Thomas Lumley which claymed the land by his mother did wed Kinge Edwards bastard dawghter.”). Coll. Top. et Gen. 1 (1834): 304 (Neville ped. dated c.1505: states “Thomas Lumley wedded bastard daughter of Edward IVth.”). Banks, Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England 4 (1837): 386–389. Obituary Roll of William Ebchester & John Burnby (Surtees Soc. 31) (1856): 114. Fordyce, Hist. & Antiqs. of Durham 2 (1857): 628. Tonge, Vis. of Northern Counties 1530 (Surtees Soc. 41) (1862): 27 (Lumley ped.: “Thomas Lumley, son and heyre to George, maried Elisabeth, bastard doughter to Kyng Edward the iiijth”). Surrey Arch. Colls. 3 (1865): 324–336. Annual Rpt. of the Deputy Keeper 36 (1875): 22, 66, 72. Marshall, Vis. of Northumberland in 1615 (1878): 49–51 (Thornton ped.: “Thomas Lumley.”). Flower, Vis. of Yorkshire 1563–4 (H.S.P. 16) (1881): 189–190 (Lumley ped.: “Thomas Lord Lomley son & heyr to George = Elsabeth bastard doughter to Kyng Edward the Fourth”). Flower et al., Peds. Rec. at the Vis. of Durham (1887): 216 (Lumley ped.: “Thomas Lumley, son and heire = Elizabeth, bastard dau. of Edward IV”). Milner, Recs. of the Lumleys of Lumley Castle (1904): 25. Stratford Edward the Fourth (1910): 319. C.P. 7 (1929): 30 (sub Hylton); 8 (1932): 274 (sub Lumley); 10 (1945): 33–34 (sub Ogle); 14 (1998): 457 (sub Lumley). Wedgwood, Hist. of Parl. 1 (1936): 562–563 (biog. of Sir George Lumley), 563 (biog. of Thomas Lumley). Cal. IPM Henry VII 3 (1955): 219–220, 262–263, 326–327. TAG 50 (1974): 81–86. Byrne, Lisle Letters (1981) [cites Harleian MSS 4033: f.21, (23)v; Leland Itinerary of John Leland 6 (1964): f. 63]. Given-Wilson, Royal Bastards of Medieval England (1984): 160–161, 179. Northumberland Rec. Office: Swinburne (Capheaton) Estate Recs., ZSW/4/65 (available at www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp).
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
jhigg...@yahoo.com
Oct 30, 2013, 1:12:25 PM10/30/13
to
On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 7:32:16 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Very interesting, Douglas.
>
>
>
> The 44th Annual Deputy Keeper's Report also refers to Thomas Lomley and wife Margaret and the manor of Beautrove; this reference seemingly shows Margaret Plantagenet still alive in 1485:
>
>
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=IvwUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA451&dq=%22thomas+lomley%22+margaret&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uBZxUpy7Js_ZsAS3jIGQDw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22thomas%20lomley%22%20margaret&f=false
>
>
>
If you compare the reference to Thomas Lumley in the 44th Annual Deputy Keeper's Report, cited here John Brandon, with the reference in the 35th Annual report cited earlier in this thread, something seems amiss - specifically with respect to which Thomas Lumley is involved in the transaction involving the Beautrove manor and the other properties.
The reference in the 44th Annual Report is clearly to the ELDER Thomas Lumley (grandfather to the Thomas who married the bastard daughter of Edward IV), who died in 1485 and was survived by his wife Margaret. The transaction regarding the manors of Hesilden, Morton, and Beautrove is stated in this record to involve the ELDER Thomas Lumley.
The reference in the 35th Annual Report was quoted earlier as follows:
"William Bille and William Blenkarne have licence to convey their manors or 'dominia' of Hesilden and Morton to Thomas Lumle, knight, 'dominus' of Lumle, for his life, with remainders over, and the manor of 'dominium' of Bewtrove to Thomas Lumle, esquire (son of George Lumle, knight, the son of Thomas Lumle, knight) and Margaret wife of the said Thomas Lumle, esquire, for their lives, with remainder to the right heirs of the said Thomas Lumle, esquire." END OF QUOTE
Note that the parentage of Thomas Lumley here is placed in parentheses - perhaps indicating that it was an editorial addition, not contained in the original document. If this parenthetical material is removed, it eliminates the contradiction between the two references and permits the conclusion that both references are to the ELDER Thomas Lumley.
It should also be noted that the language of the 1480 record as quoted in the Michael Hicks book is quite a bit different from the language used in the 35th Annual Report quoted above. This suggests strongly that the version in the 35th Annual Report is simply an abstract and may not accurately reflect the actual document - especially since the transaction involving the three manors is assigned to a different Thomas Lumley in the 44th Annual Report.
I think someone needs to examine the original record, not just the abstracted versions, before we can reach the conclusion that the bastard daughter of Edward IV in question was named Margaret and not Elizabeth.
> Very interesting, Douglas.
>
>
>
> The 44th Annual Deputy Keeper's Report also refers to Thomas Lomley and wife Margaret and the manor of Beautrove; this reference seemingly shows Margaret Plantagenet still alive in 1485:
>
>
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=IvwUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA451&dq=%22thomas+lomley%22+margaret&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uBZxUpy7Js_ZsAS3jIGQDw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22thomas%20lomley%22%20margaret&f=false
>
>
>
If you compare the reference to Thomas Lumley in the 44th Annual Deputy Keeper's Report, cited here John Brandon, with the reference in the 35th Annual report cited earlier in this thread, something seems amiss - specifically with respect to which Thomas Lumley is involved in the transaction involving the Beautrove manor and the other properties.
The reference in the 44th Annual Report is clearly to the ELDER Thomas Lumley (grandfather to the Thomas who married the bastard daughter of Edward IV), who died in 1485 and was survived by his wife Margaret. The transaction regarding the manors of Hesilden, Morton, and Beautrove is stated in this record to involve the ELDER Thomas Lumley.
The reference in the 35th Annual Report was quoted earlier as follows:
"William Bille and William Blenkarne have licence to convey their manors or 'dominia' of Hesilden and Morton to Thomas Lumle, knight, 'dominus' of Lumle, for his life, with remainders over, and the manor of 'dominium' of Bewtrove to Thomas Lumle, esquire (son of George Lumle, knight, the son of Thomas Lumle, knight) and Margaret wife of the said Thomas Lumle, esquire, for their lives, with remainder to the right heirs of the said Thomas Lumle, esquire." END OF QUOTE
It should also be noted that the language of the 1480 record as quoted in the Michael Hicks book is quite a bit different from the language used in the 35th Annual Report quoted above. This suggests strongly that the version in the 35th Annual Report is simply an abstract and may not accurately reflect the actual document - especially since the transaction involving the three manors is assigned to a different Thomas Lumley in the 44th Annual Report.
I think someone needs to examine the original record, not just the abstracted versions, before we can reach the conclusion that the bastard daughter of Edward IV in question was named Margaret and not Elizabeth.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Douglas Richardson
Oct 30, 2013, 2:10:09 PM10/30/13
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
I believe Mr. Higgins has misread the Lumley document in the 44th Annual Report cited by Mr. Brandon. I might say that this is an easy thing to do.
The record involved in the 44th Annual Report, pp. 451-452, is the inquisition post mortem of Sir Thomas Lumley, Knt., 2nd Lord Lumley, who died 1 April 1485. The inquisition is dated 19 September 1485. Lord Lumley's heir is correctly stated to be his son, George Lumley, aged 40. This document, by the way, was evaluated by Complete Peerage, but its significance regarding Lord Lumley's grandson, Thomas Lumley, esquire, was overlooked.
The 1485 inquisition states that Lord Lumley was seised of [parts] of the manor of Beautrove, Durham until William Billy, William Blencarne, John Astu, and Thomas Lumley disseissed him "to the use of the said Thomas Lomley and Margaret his wife, by virtue whereof they are seized of the same."
The "said Thomas Lumley" must refer to Lord Lumley's grandson, Thomas Lumley, esquire, and to the grandson's wife, Margaret, as it is stated "they ARE seized" of the same as of the date of the inquisition. It can not be Lord Lumley who was then seised as he was obviously dead. And, although Lord Lumley also had a wife named Margaret, there is no evidence that she was living in 1485. Complete Peerage indicates that Lord Lumley's wife was known to be living only as late as 1455.
Moreover, the earlier 35th Annual Report makes it clear that the manor of Beautrove, Durham was settled in 1478-9 on Thomas Lumley, esquire (not knight), and his wife, Margaret. Lord Lumley was then unquestionably a knight. Thus the settlement of Beautrove was not made on him.
Furthermore, we know that Lord Lumley's grandson, Thomas Lumley, esquire, was styled "of Beutroby" [i.e., of Beautrove] at the time of the grandson's own inquisition post mortem in 1502-3. The grandson and his wife, Margaret, were granted possession of Beautrove, Durham for the term of their lives back in 1478-9, which explains the younger Thomas's connection to this place.
For all these reasons, John Brandon has correctly interpreted the 44th Annual Report to indicate that the younger Thomas Lumley, esquire, and his wife, Margaret, were the ones seised of the manor of Beautrove, Durham in 1485, not Lord Lumley himself. And yes, Mr. Brandon is correct in thinking that Margaret Plantagenet was living 19 September 1485 (the date of Lord Lumley's inquisition).
Good eye, Mr. Brandon. Another great find on your part!
I think the next document which should be examined is the inquisition post mortem of Thomas Lumley, esquire, of Beautrove, Durham which is dated 1502-3.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
P.S. Some time ago I noted that authors often leave off the words "and more" when quoting ages from an inquisition post mortem. I note that George Lumley is stated to be "aged 40" in his father's inquisition in the 44th Annual Report. Without seeing the inquisition, I would be willing to bet that the inquisition actually says "aged 40 and more."
I believe Mr. Higgins has misread the Lumley document in the 44th Annual Report cited by Mr. Brandon. I might say that this is an easy thing to do.
The record involved in the 44th Annual Report, pp. 451-452, is the inquisition post mortem of Sir Thomas Lumley, Knt., 2nd Lord Lumley, who died 1 April 1485. The inquisition is dated 19 September 1485. Lord Lumley's heir is correctly stated to be his son, George Lumley, aged 40. This document, by the way, was evaluated by Complete Peerage, but its significance regarding Lord Lumley's grandson, Thomas Lumley, esquire, was overlooked.
The 1485 inquisition states that Lord Lumley was seised of [parts] of the manor of Beautrove, Durham until William Billy, William Blencarne, John Astu, and Thomas Lumley disseissed him "to the use of the said Thomas Lomley and Margaret his wife, by virtue whereof they are seized of the same."
The "said Thomas Lumley" must refer to Lord Lumley's grandson, Thomas Lumley, esquire, and to the grandson's wife, Margaret, as it is stated "they ARE seized" of the same as of the date of the inquisition. It can not be Lord Lumley who was then seised as he was obviously dead. And, although Lord Lumley also had a wife named Margaret, there is no evidence that she was living in 1485. Complete Peerage indicates that Lord Lumley's wife was known to be living only as late as 1455.
Moreover, the earlier 35th Annual Report makes it clear that the manor of Beautrove, Durham was settled in 1478-9 on Thomas Lumley, esquire (not knight), and his wife, Margaret. Lord Lumley was then unquestionably a knight. Thus the settlement of Beautrove was not made on him.
Furthermore, we know that Lord Lumley's grandson, Thomas Lumley, esquire, was styled "of Beutroby" [i.e., of Beautrove] at the time of the grandson's own inquisition post mortem in 1502-3. The grandson and his wife, Margaret, were granted possession of Beautrove, Durham for the term of their lives back in 1478-9, which explains the younger Thomas's connection to this place.
For all these reasons, John Brandon has correctly interpreted the 44th Annual Report to indicate that the younger Thomas Lumley, esquire, and his wife, Margaret, were the ones seised of the manor of Beautrove, Durham in 1485, not Lord Lumley himself. And yes, Mr. Brandon is correct in thinking that Margaret Plantagenet was living 19 September 1485 (the date of Lord Lumley's inquisition).
Good eye, Mr. Brandon. Another great find on your part!
I think the next document which should be examined is the inquisition post mortem of Thomas Lumley, esquire, of Beautrove, Durham which is dated 1502-3.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Brad Verity
Oct 30, 2013, 2:40:47 PM10/30/13
to
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 11:55:47 PM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> That the given name of his wife was actually Margaret, not Elizabeth, is proven by a contemporary license recorded on Membrane 8 of Roll 1 of William Dudley, Bishop of Durham. An abstract of this record was published many years ago in Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper 35 (1874): 134.
> That the given name of his wife was actually Margaret, not Elizabeth, is proven by a contemporary license recorded on Membrane 8 of Roll 1 of William Dudley, Bishop of Durham. An abstract of this record was published many years ago in Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper 35 (1874): 134.
> The published abstract reads as follows:
> "Date: Year 3 of Pontificate"
> "William Bille and William Blenkarne have licence to convey their manors or 'dominia' of Hesilden and Morton to Thomas Lumle, knight, 'dominus' of Lumle, for his life, with remainders over, and the manor of 'dominium' of Bewtrove to Thomas Lumle, esquire (son of George Lumle, knight, the son of Thomas Lumle, knight) and Margaret wife of the said Thomas Lumle, esquire, for their lives, with remainder to the right heirs of the said Thomas Lumle, esquire." END OF QUOTE.
> The above record is dated the 3rd year of William Dudley, Bishop of Durham. According to Wikipedia, Bishop Dudley was nominated to Durham on 31 July 1476 and was consecrated between 1 September and 12 October 1476. Thus year three of his pontificate would fall in 1478-1479.
This is great - a confirmation for Prof. Hicks's statement about Edward IV's daughter actually being named Margaret, not Elizabeth. Many thanks for posting the abstract from the 35th Annual Report, Douglas. And indeed, much thanks to Matt Hopkins for deducing that the specific Durham roll in the National Archives which Prof. Hicks cited to, would be calendared in that volume of the Annual Report series.
> "Date: Year 3 of Pontificate"
> "William Bille and William Blenkarne have licence to convey their manors or 'dominia' of Hesilden and Morton to Thomas Lumle, knight, 'dominus' of Lumle, for his life, with remainders over, and the manor of 'dominium' of Bewtrove to Thomas Lumle, esquire (son of George Lumle, knight, the son of Thomas Lumle, knight) and Margaret wife of the said Thomas Lumle, esquire, for their lives, with remainder to the right heirs of the said Thomas Lumle, esquire." END OF QUOTE.
> The above record is dated the 3rd year of William Dudley, Bishop of Durham. According to Wikipedia, Bishop Dudley was nominated to Durham on 31 July 1476 and was consecrated between 1 September and 12 October 1476. Thus year three of his pontificate would fall in 1478-1479.
On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 10:45:36 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> http://books.google.com/books?id=BHdnAAAAMAAJ&q=%22thomas+lumley%22+thorneton&dq=%22thomas+lumley%22+thorneton&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BkVxUtrUHKevsATQwoDICA&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBzhk
Great find, John - thanks for posting. Just in case anyone can't access your link, it is to a footnote in the book 'The North of England in the Age of Richard III' (1996) by Prof. Anthony Pollard. It reads, "A Giles Thornton esquire (the same man?) was murdered on 29 July 1477 at Windsor Castle by Thomas Lumley esquire, late of Westminster, abetted by Sir George Lumley of Northumberland (KB 9/345, mm. 8-9)."
So we have Thomas Lumley and his father at Windsor Castle in the summer of 1477. My guess is that is the year the king wedded his daughter Margaret to Lumley. If she was born 1461/62, in the first couple years of her father's reign, she would be 15 or 16, of an age to consummate, which clearly happened as she bore a son in the following year. It's horrible that a murder also occurred. I wonder if the original King's Bench roll that Prof. Pollard cited (KB 9/345 mm. 8-9) gives further details?
Your other find - that a historian claimed Edward IV's daughter who married Thomas Lumley was by one "Beatrix the Lady Anguish" - is also very interesting. However, that historian (I'm not clear on his identity, as this 1685 book by Samuel Daniel appears to be a 5th edition, continuing an earlier history by John Trussel, in Henry VII's reign) also mistakenly calls the daughter 'Elizabeth', and speaks of the marriages of the daughters of Arthur Plantagenet, Viscount Lisle, so it had to have been composed well after 1530, probably about 1550 or so. What it does confirm is that Edward IV's best-known bastards, Arthur Viscount Lisle and Margaret (aka Elizabeth) Lumley, were from two different women.
On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 10:12:25 AM UTC-7, jhigg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> If you compare the reference to Thomas Lumley in the 44th Annual Deputy Keeper's Report, cited here John Brandon, with the reference in the 35th Annual report cited earlier in this thread, something seems amiss - specifically with respect to which Thomas Lumley is involved in the transaction involving the Beautrove manor and the other properties.
> The reference in the 44th Annual Report is clearly to the ELDER Thomas Lumley (grandfather to the Thomas who married the bastard daughter of Edward IV), who died in 1485 and was survived by his wife Margaret. The transaction regarding the manors of Hesilden, Morton, and Beautrove is stated in this record to involve the ELDER Thomas Lumley.
When Thomas, 2nd Lord Lumley is being referred to in his IPM, it is always as "the said Thomas Lord Lomley". So Margaret, wife of "the said Thomas Lomley" (grandson of the 2nd Lord), not Margaret, wife of "the said Thomas Lord Lomley".
> The reference in the 35th Annual Report was quoted earlier as follows:
> "William Bille and William Blenkarne have licence to convey their manors or 'dominia' of Hesilden and Morton to Thomas Lumle, knight, 'dominus' of Lumle, for his life, with remainders over, and the manor of 'dominium' of Bewtrove to Thomas Lumle, esquire (son of George Lumle, knight, the son of Thomas Lumle, knight) and Margaret wife of the said Thomas Lumle, esquire, for their lives, with remainder to the right heirs of the said Thomas Lumle, esquire." END OF QUOTE
> Note that the parentage of Thomas Lumley here is placed in parentheses - perhaps indicating that it was an editorial addition, not contained in the original document. If this parenthetical material is removed, it eliminates the contradiction between the two references and permits the conclusion that both references are to the ELDER Thomas Lumley.
> It should also be noted that the language of the 1480 record as quoted in the Michael Hicks book is quite a bit different from the language used in the 35th Annual Report quoted above. This suggests strongly that the version in the 35th Annual Report is simply an abstract and may not accurately reflect the actual document - especially since the transaction involving the three manors is assigned to a different Thomas Lumley in the 44th Annual Report.
> I think someone needs to examine the original record, not just the abstracted versions, before we can reach the conclusion that the bastard daughter of Edward IV in question was named Margaret and not Elizabeth.
Cheers, -----Brad
Message has been deleted
Douglas Richardson
Nov 2, 2013, 5:11:29 AM11/2/13
to
Dear John ~
In your post earlier this week, you cited Notes & Queries, 5th Series, 9 (1878): 409-410, which alleges that Margaret Fitz Lewis, widow of Sir William Lucy, married (2nd) John Stafford, Esquire. The evidence cited for this marriage by Notes and Queries is:
Stevenson, Letters and Papers illustrative of the Wars of the English in France 2(2) (1864): 773 and Inq. p.m. 1 E. IV. No. 16.
Inq. p.m. 1 E. IV. No. 16 appears to be the inquisition post mortem for Sir William Lucy, which is listed in the online Discovery catalogue:
"Lucy, William, kt Heref, Worcs, Corn, Beds, Bucks
Chancery: Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series I, Edward IV. Lucy, William, kt Heref, Worcs, Corn, Beds, Bucks.
Date range: 04 March 1461 - 03 March 1462
Reference: C 140/1/16"
As for the Stevenson book, Letters and Papers, he quotes Wilhelmi Wyrcester, Annales [William Worcester, Annals] sub A.D. 1460:
“In fine belli servientes Johannis Stafforde, armigeri, occiderunt Wyllelmum Lucy, militem, cujus uxorem idem Johannes sibi maritavit cito postea.”) END OF QUOTE.
See the following weblink for that information:
http://books.google.com/books?id=XvwqRcNr56cC&pg=PA773
Rough translation: "At the battle of Northampton, Sir William Lucy was slain by the servants of John Stafford, esquire, who soon after married his wife."
On the other hand, Wedgwood, History of Parliament 1 (1936): 559–560 (biog. of Sir William Lucy) says Gregory's Chronicle (Camden Soc.) (1876): 207 gives the "best" account which alleges only that a certain Stafford "loved" the wife of Sir William Lucy and caused his death.
Gregory's Chronicle in published in Gairdner, Historical Collections of a Citizen of London in the 15th Century (Camden Soc. 2nd Ser. 17) (1876). On page 207, the following information can be found:
“And that goode knyght Syr Wylliam Lucy that dwellyd be-syde Northehampton hyrde the gonne schotte, and come unto the fylde to have holpyn the Kynge, but the fylde was done or that he come; an one of the Staffordys was ware of hys comynge, and lovyd that knyght ys wiffe and hatyd him, and a-non causyd hys dethe.”). END OF QUOTE.
The above may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=nCM8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207
Wedgwood, History of Parliament 1 (1936): 794–795 (biog. of John Stafford) gives an account of Margaret Fitz Lewis' alleged husband, John Stafford, esquire, lawyer, a Yorkist, who was a Knight of the Shire for Worcestershire, 1460-1. In that account, Wedgwood says the following:
"It is possible but not probable that he married the widow of Sir William Lucy, M.P. slain 1460 ... He had not much time to marry for he was slain himself at Towton fighting on the Yorkist side, 28 March 1461." END OF QUOTE.
Wedgwood supposes that this John Stafford was "son of John (s. of Ralph Stafford)" of Heywards-Frome, Herefordshire, but this can't possibly be correct. That John was living in 1420, when he was deemed to be heir to his father, but he was apparently deceased before 1454, when his younger brother, Humphrey Stafford, held the family estate at Heyward's Frome, Herefordshire.
Notes & Queries, 5th Series, 9 (1878): 409-410 (which you have cited) claims that John Stafford, Esq. (who was responsible for Sir William Lucy's death), was one of the younger sons of Humphrey Stafford, Knt., of Grafton, Worcestershire, by his wife, Eleanor Aylesbury. My sources states that this couple had a younger son of that name.
This appears to the correct parentage for John Stafford, Esq., for the following reason. I find that sometime before 1424 Richard Hawkeslow granted Humphrey Stafford, Knt. (husband of Eleanor Aylesbury) seven messuages and lands in King’s Norton, Worcestershire, afterwards known as the manor of Hawkesley [see VCH Worcester 3 (1913): 179–191]. In 1460 John Stafford, Esq. sued various parties in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass at King's Norton, Worcestershire [see http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no796/bCP40no796dorses/IMG_1554.htm]. John Stafford, Esq., was presumably residing in King's Norton, Worcestershire in 1460, on property previously held by his father, Humphrey Stafford, Knt.
As for evidence that John Stafford never married Margaret Fitz Lewis, I can cite four pieces of evidence. First, in Feb. 1462, Margaret was granted a pardon as "Margaret, who was wife of William Lucy knt. of Dallington, N'Hants widow, which William Lucy was late sheriff for Henry VI in Herefordshire." [Reference: Wedgwood, History of Parliament 1 (1936): 560]. The same year she was assigned dower as William Lucy's widow, for which see the following reference:
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C6544525
Michael Hicks, The Wars of the Roses, 1455-1485 (2003): 79 claims that "Margaret Lucy, widow of Sir William Lucy of Richard's Castle, slain at Northampton, could not obtain her dower. Forced to petition the king, he demanded (and apparently secured) sexual favours." END OF QUOTE.
Mr. Hicks, however, provides no documentation for these statements.
I'm unable to find any reference in the online Discovery catalogue to Margaret Lucy's alleged petition for dower, even through I've searched the Discovery index both for her name and for William Lucy.
As for additional evidence of the later life of Margaret, widow of Sir William Lucy, I find that in 1465 Margaret Lucy widow of William Lucy deceased, late of Dallington, Northamptonshire, knight, late of Dallington, widow, was sued in the Court of Common Pleas by William Russhedon, of Northampton, draper, regarding a debt [Reference: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E4/CP40no814/aCP40no814fronts/IMG_0528.htm]. In the same year Thomas Martyn, Citizen and grocer of London sued Margaret widow of William Lucy, Knt., late of Dallington, Northamptonshire, widow and executrix of the will of the said William, regarding a debt [Reference: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E4/CP40no814/bCP40no814dorses/IMG_1154.htm].
In none of the four records which I've cited above is there any indication that Margaret Fitz Lewis was ever the wife or widow of John Stafford, Esq. As such I suspect Wedgwood is correct to doubt this marriage ever took place.
The second lawsuit cited above proves that Sir William Lucy died testate, which information is not included in the account of Sir William Lucy's life in Complete Peerage 8 (1932): 262-263 (sub Lucy). This would be a Complete Peerage addition.
Margaret Fitz Lewis must have married her next husband, a certain Wake, about 1464, for she died in 1466, leaving a son and heir, John Wake, then aged two. My guess is that the two lawsuits above dated 1465 which involve her are probably continuations of lawsuits from an earlier date before she married Wake.
Besides these two marriages, Margaret Fitz Lewis had another projected marriage with Thomas Danvers, which was the subject of a Chancery lawsuit as indicated in the brief abstract below found in the online Discovery catalogue.
Reference: C 1/31/298
Description:
Plaintiffs: Thomas Danvers.
Defendants: Sir Harry Lowys, brother of Dame Margaret Lucy.
Subject: Money received from complainant in contemplation of a marriage between complainant and the said Dame Margaret which was never effected.
Date: 1465-1471, or perhaps 1480-1483
The original petition for this lawsuit may be viewed in its entirety at the following weblink:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/ChP/C1no31/C1no31nos%201-300/IMG_0421.htm
Reading through the petition (which is mostly legible), it is stated therein that Thomas Danvers and Dame Margaret Lucy had previously entered into a contract to marry within a certain six months time period. Danvers claims that her brother, Sir Harry Lowys, subsequently "moved his said suster to make a new contracte with Thomas Wake and ... caused them to be wedded to gedder contrary to the lawe of god." A Thomas Pachet is mentioned once towards the beginning of the pleading.
This Chancery document proves once and for all that Margaret Fitz Lewis' second husband was definitely Thomas Wake, not John Wake as I had previously assumed. This would be another new addition to Complete Peerage.
The historian, W.E. Hampton, in his article, 'Roger Wake of Blisworth,' published in Richard III Crown and People (1985) suggests that Margaret Fitz Lewis' last husband was possibly Thomas Wake, father of Roger Wake, of Blisworth, Northamptonshire. Here are his comments:
pg. 157: "Roger Wake's name does not appear in any of these documents. He was the eldest surviving son of Thomas Wake by a wife whose name is not recorded. It is just possible that a monumental brass may provide the answer to the problem of her identity. At Ingrave, in Essex, may be seen a brass to Margaret, daughter of Sir Lewes John by Anne, daughter of John Montacute, Earl of Salisbury. She married twice, possibly thrice. Her first husband was Sir William Lucy, and her second husband was a Wake. His Christian name has not survived. The inscription is mutilated."
pg. 160: "Her Wake husband could possibly be Thomas Wake of Mordon, Cambridge, whose will was proved in 1466. In 1465, several notables, and the Sheriffs of six counties, were ordered to arrest her, Dame Margaret Lucy, Thomas Wake, esquire, and Thomas Pachet. They were to be brought before the King in Chancery." END OF QUOTE.
I note that there is a Thomas Wake, of London, who left a PCC will proved in 26 November 1466. Possibly this individual is the man who married Margaret Fitz Lewis. I assume he is the Thomas Wake, of Mordon, Cambridge who Petre says left a will proved in 1466.
As for the above mentioned order to arrest Dame Margaret Lucy, Thomas Wake, esquire, and Thomas Patchet, gentleman, it is recorded in Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1461–1467 (1897): 491. The order is dated 8 October 1465, and may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031079562;view=1up;seq=505
Thomas Wake, esquire, named in this record would surely be Margaret Fitz Lewis' second husband. Thomas Pachet is doubtless the same person named in the Chancery Proceeding petition of Thomas Danvers.
I note that Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1467–1477 (1900): 598 records a pardon dated 3 August 1476 granted to "Roger Wake, esquire, son and heir of Thomas Wake, esquire, late sheriff of Northampton ... and to grant him license to enter freely into all lordships, manors ... which the said Thomas .... was seised."
Thomas Wake, esquire, named is the above Patent Rolls record dated 1476 was of Blisworth, Northamptonshire and served as Sheriff of Northamptonshire in 1461-4 [see List of Sheriffs for England & Wales (PRO Lists and Indexes 9) (1898): 93]. He was born about 1434 (aged 24 in 1458). It would make sense that this is the Thomas Wake who was the last husband of Margaret Fitz Lewis, as Margaret Fitz Lewis' earlier husband, Sir William Lucy, resided at Dallington in the same county. But, if so, she would necessarily have to have been his second wife, as this Thomas Wake's son and heir, Roger Wake, was of age in 1476, and could not possibly be Margaret's son.
My research indicates that Thomas Wake, Esq., of Blisworth, Northamptonshire was the son and heir of Thomas Wake, Esq., of Blisworth, Northamptonshire and Clevedon, Somerset, Knight of the Shire for Northamptonshire, 1433, 1437, Knight of the Shire for Somerset, 1449, by Agnes (or Anne), daughter and co-heiress of Thomas Lovel. As stated above, he was born about 1434 (aged 24 in 1458). He married as his last wife before 14 Dec. 1472 (date of presentation) Elizabeth Beauchamp, widow of George Neville, Neville, Knt., 1st Lord Latimer (died 1469), and daughter of Richard Beauchamp, K.G., K.B., 13th Earl of Warwick, Lord Despenser and Lisle, hereditary Chamberlain of the Exchequer, by his 1st wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Berkeley, Knt., 5th Lord Berkeley. She was born at Warwick Castle about 1417 (aged 22 in 1439). He presented to the church of Burton Latimer, Northamptonshire in 1472, in the name of his wife, Elizabeth, Lady Latimer. He presented to a moiety of the churches of Milton Malsor and Collingtree, Northamptonshire, 1472, and to the church of Blisworth, Northamptonshire, 1473. Thomas Wake, Esq., died 20 May 1476. In Easter term 1480, as “Elizabeth Latymere, widow, late of Stowe Nine Churches, Northamptonshire, alias late of Blisworth, Northamptonshire,” she was sued by John Hunte, Citizen and mercer of London, regarding a debt of 15 marks. Elizabeth, Lady Latimer died shortly before 2 October 1480. She left a will dated 20 Sept. 1480, requesting burial in the Beauchamp Chapel (St. Mary’s), Warwick, between the tombs of her late son, Henry Neville, and her late son-in-law, Oliver Dudley.
In summary, it appears that Margaret Fitz Lewis, widow of Sir William Lucy, is not likely to have married John Stafford, Esquire as claimed by Worcester, Annales. Following Sir William Lucy's death, she was briefly contracted to marry Thomas Danvers, which contract was the subject of a later lawsuit. This marriage never took place. Instead Margaret married (2nd) Thomas Wake, Esquire, possibly of Blisworth, Northamptonshire. She died in 1466, leaving a son and heir, John Wake, then aged two.
The historian Michael Hicks claims that Margaret Fitz Lewis was the mistress of King Edward IV, but I haven't yet seen the evidence on which this claim is based. If it can be proven that she was the king's mistress about the year 1462, the chronology would seemingly permit her to be the mother of the king's illegitimate daughter, Margaret, wife of Thomas Lumley, Esq., of Beautrove, Durham.
In your post earlier this week, you cited Notes & Queries, 5th Series, 9 (1878): 409-410, which alleges that Margaret Fitz Lewis, widow of Sir William Lucy, married (2nd) John Stafford, Esquire. The evidence cited for this marriage by Notes and Queries is:
Stevenson, Letters and Papers illustrative of the Wars of the English in France 2(2) (1864): 773 and Inq. p.m. 1 E. IV. No. 16.
Inq. p.m. 1 E. IV. No. 16 appears to be the inquisition post mortem for Sir William Lucy, which is listed in the online Discovery catalogue:
"Lucy, William, kt Heref, Worcs, Corn, Beds, Bucks
Chancery: Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series I, Edward IV. Lucy, William, kt Heref, Worcs, Corn, Beds, Bucks.
Date range: 04 March 1461 - 03 March 1462
Reference: C 140/1/16"
As for the Stevenson book, Letters and Papers, he quotes Wilhelmi Wyrcester, Annales [William Worcester, Annals] sub A.D. 1460:
“In fine belli servientes Johannis Stafforde, armigeri, occiderunt Wyllelmum Lucy, militem, cujus uxorem idem Johannes sibi maritavit cito postea.”) END OF QUOTE.
See the following weblink for that information:
http://books.google.com/books?id=XvwqRcNr56cC&pg=PA773
Rough translation: "At the battle of Northampton, Sir William Lucy was slain by the servants of John Stafford, esquire, who soon after married his wife."
On the other hand, Wedgwood, History of Parliament 1 (1936): 559–560 (biog. of Sir William Lucy) says Gregory's Chronicle (Camden Soc.) (1876): 207 gives the "best" account which alleges only that a certain Stafford "loved" the wife of Sir William Lucy and caused his death.
Gregory's Chronicle in published in Gairdner, Historical Collections of a Citizen of London in the 15th Century (Camden Soc. 2nd Ser. 17) (1876). On page 207, the following information can be found:
“And that goode knyght Syr Wylliam Lucy that dwellyd be-syde Northehampton hyrde the gonne schotte, and come unto the fylde to have holpyn the Kynge, but the fylde was done or that he come; an one of the Staffordys was ware of hys comynge, and lovyd that knyght ys wiffe and hatyd him, and a-non causyd hys dethe.”). END OF QUOTE.
The above may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=nCM8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207
Wedgwood, History of Parliament 1 (1936): 794–795 (biog. of John Stafford) gives an account of Margaret Fitz Lewis' alleged husband, John Stafford, esquire, lawyer, a Yorkist, who was a Knight of the Shire for Worcestershire, 1460-1. In that account, Wedgwood says the following:
"It is possible but not probable that he married the widow of Sir William Lucy, M.P. slain 1460 ... He had not much time to marry for he was slain himself at Towton fighting on the Yorkist side, 28 March 1461." END OF QUOTE.
Wedgwood supposes that this John Stafford was "son of John (s. of Ralph Stafford)" of Heywards-Frome, Herefordshire, but this can't possibly be correct. That John was living in 1420, when he was deemed to be heir to his father, but he was apparently deceased before 1454, when his younger brother, Humphrey Stafford, held the family estate at Heyward's Frome, Herefordshire.
Notes & Queries, 5th Series, 9 (1878): 409-410 (which you have cited) claims that John Stafford, Esq. (who was responsible for Sir William Lucy's death), was one of the younger sons of Humphrey Stafford, Knt., of Grafton, Worcestershire, by his wife, Eleanor Aylesbury. My sources states that this couple had a younger son of that name.
This appears to the correct parentage for John Stafford, Esq., for the following reason. I find that sometime before 1424 Richard Hawkeslow granted Humphrey Stafford, Knt. (husband of Eleanor Aylesbury) seven messuages and lands in King’s Norton, Worcestershire, afterwards known as the manor of Hawkesley [see VCH Worcester 3 (1913): 179–191]. In 1460 John Stafford, Esq. sued various parties in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass at King's Norton, Worcestershire [see http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no796/bCP40no796dorses/IMG_1554.htm]. John Stafford, Esq., was presumably residing in King's Norton, Worcestershire in 1460, on property previously held by his father, Humphrey Stafford, Knt.
As for evidence that John Stafford never married Margaret Fitz Lewis, I can cite four pieces of evidence. First, in Feb. 1462, Margaret was granted a pardon as "Margaret, who was wife of William Lucy knt. of Dallington, N'Hants widow, which William Lucy was late sheriff for Henry VI in Herefordshire." [Reference: Wedgwood, History of Parliament 1 (1936): 560]. The same year she was assigned dower as William Lucy's widow, for which see the following reference:
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C6544525
Michael Hicks, The Wars of the Roses, 1455-1485 (2003): 79 claims that "Margaret Lucy, widow of Sir William Lucy of Richard's Castle, slain at Northampton, could not obtain her dower. Forced to petition the king, he demanded (and apparently secured) sexual favours." END OF QUOTE.
Mr. Hicks, however, provides no documentation for these statements.
I'm unable to find any reference in the online Discovery catalogue to Margaret Lucy's alleged petition for dower, even through I've searched the Discovery index both for her name and for William Lucy.
As for additional evidence of the later life of Margaret, widow of Sir William Lucy, I find that in 1465 Margaret Lucy widow of William Lucy deceased, late of Dallington, Northamptonshire, knight, late of Dallington, widow, was sued in the Court of Common Pleas by William Russhedon, of Northampton, draper, regarding a debt [Reference: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E4/CP40no814/aCP40no814fronts/IMG_0528.htm]. In the same year Thomas Martyn, Citizen and grocer of London sued Margaret widow of William Lucy, Knt., late of Dallington, Northamptonshire, widow and executrix of the will of the said William, regarding a debt [Reference: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E4/CP40no814/bCP40no814dorses/IMG_1154.htm].
In none of the four records which I've cited above is there any indication that Margaret Fitz Lewis was ever the wife or widow of John Stafford, Esq. As such I suspect Wedgwood is correct to doubt this marriage ever took place.
The second lawsuit cited above proves that Sir William Lucy died testate, which information is not included in the account of Sir William Lucy's life in Complete Peerage 8 (1932): 262-263 (sub Lucy). This would be a Complete Peerage addition.
Margaret Fitz Lewis must have married her next husband, a certain Wake, about 1464, for she died in 1466, leaving a son and heir, John Wake, then aged two. My guess is that the two lawsuits above dated 1465 which involve her are probably continuations of lawsuits from an earlier date before she married Wake.
Besides these two marriages, Margaret Fitz Lewis had another projected marriage with Thomas Danvers, which was the subject of a Chancery lawsuit as indicated in the brief abstract below found in the online Discovery catalogue.
Reference: C 1/31/298
Description:
Plaintiffs: Thomas Danvers.
Defendants: Sir Harry Lowys, brother of Dame Margaret Lucy.
Subject: Money received from complainant in contemplation of a marriage between complainant and the said Dame Margaret which was never effected.
Date: 1465-1471, or perhaps 1480-1483
The original petition for this lawsuit may be viewed in its entirety at the following weblink:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/ChP/C1no31/C1no31nos%201-300/IMG_0421.htm
Reading through the petition (which is mostly legible), it is stated therein that Thomas Danvers and Dame Margaret Lucy had previously entered into a contract to marry within a certain six months time period. Danvers claims that her brother, Sir Harry Lowys, subsequently "moved his said suster to make a new contracte with Thomas Wake and ... caused them to be wedded to gedder contrary to the lawe of god." A Thomas Pachet is mentioned once towards the beginning of the pleading.
This Chancery document proves once and for all that Margaret Fitz Lewis' second husband was definitely Thomas Wake, not John Wake as I had previously assumed. This would be another new addition to Complete Peerage.
The historian, W.E. Hampton, in his article, 'Roger Wake of Blisworth,' published in Richard III Crown and People (1985) suggests that Margaret Fitz Lewis' last husband was possibly Thomas Wake, father of Roger Wake, of Blisworth, Northamptonshire. Here are his comments:
pg. 157: "Roger Wake's name does not appear in any of these documents. He was the eldest surviving son of Thomas Wake by a wife whose name is not recorded. It is just possible that a monumental brass may provide the answer to the problem of her identity. At Ingrave, in Essex, may be seen a brass to Margaret, daughter of Sir Lewes John by Anne, daughter of John Montacute, Earl of Salisbury. She married twice, possibly thrice. Her first husband was Sir William Lucy, and her second husband was a Wake. His Christian name has not survived. The inscription is mutilated."
pg. 160: "Her Wake husband could possibly be Thomas Wake of Mordon, Cambridge, whose will was proved in 1466. In 1465, several notables, and the Sheriffs of six counties, were ordered to arrest her, Dame Margaret Lucy, Thomas Wake, esquire, and Thomas Pachet. They were to be brought before the King in Chancery." END OF QUOTE.
I note that there is a Thomas Wake, of London, who left a PCC will proved in 26 November 1466. Possibly this individual is the man who married Margaret Fitz Lewis. I assume he is the Thomas Wake, of Mordon, Cambridge who Petre says left a will proved in 1466.
As for the above mentioned order to arrest Dame Margaret Lucy, Thomas Wake, esquire, and Thomas Patchet, gentleman, it is recorded in Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1461–1467 (1897): 491. The order is dated 8 October 1465, and may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031079562;view=1up;seq=505
Thomas Wake, esquire, named in this record would surely be Margaret Fitz Lewis' second husband. Thomas Pachet is doubtless the same person named in the Chancery Proceeding petition of Thomas Danvers.
I note that Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1467–1477 (1900): 598 records a pardon dated 3 August 1476 granted to "Roger Wake, esquire, son and heir of Thomas Wake, esquire, late sheriff of Northampton ... and to grant him license to enter freely into all lordships, manors ... which the said Thomas .... was seised."
Thomas Wake, esquire, named is the above Patent Rolls record dated 1476 was of Blisworth, Northamptonshire and served as Sheriff of Northamptonshire in 1461-4 [see List of Sheriffs for England & Wales (PRO Lists and Indexes 9) (1898): 93]. He was born about 1434 (aged 24 in 1458). It would make sense that this is the Thomas Wake who was the last husband of Margaret Fitz Lewis, as Margaret Fitz Lewis' earlier husband, Sir William Lucy, resided at Dallington in the same county. But, if so, she would necessarily have to have been his second wife, as this Thomas Wake's son and heir, Roger Wake, was of age in 1476, and could not possibly be Margaret's son.
My research indicates that Thomas Wake, Esq., of Blisworth, Northamptonshire was the son and heir of Thomas Wake, Esq., of Blisworth, Northamptonshire and Clevedon, Somerset, Knight of the Shire for Northamptonshire, 1433, 1437, Knight of the Shire for Somerset, 1449, by Agnes (or Anne), daughter and co-heiress of Thomas Lovel. As stated above, he was born about 1434 (aged 24 in 1458). He married as his last wife before 14 Dec. 1472 (date of presentation) Elizabeth Beauchamp, widow of George Neville, Neville, Knt., 1st Lord Latimer (died 1469), and daughter of Richard Beauchamp, K.G., K.B., 13th Earl of Warwick, Lord Despenser and Lisle, hereditary Chamberlain of the Exchequer, by his 1st wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Berkeley, Knt., 5th Lord Berkeley. She was born at Warwick Castle about 1417 (aged 22 in 1439). He presented to the church of Burton Latimer, Northamptonshire in 1472, in the name of his wife, Elizabeth, Lady Latimer. He presented to a moiety of the churches of Milton Malsor and Collingtree, Northamptonshire, 1472, and to the church of Blisworth, Northamptonshire, 1473. Thomas Wake, Esq., died 20 May 1476. In Easter term 1480, as “Elizabeth Latymere, widow, late of Stowe Nine Churches, Northamptonshire, alias late of Blisworth, Northamptonshire,” she was sued by John Hunte, Citizen and mercer of London, regarding a debt of 15 marks. Elizabeth, Lady Latimer died shortly before 2 October 1480. She left a will dated 20 Sept. 1480, requesting burial in the Beauchamp Chapel (St. Mary’s), Warwick, between the tombs of her late son, Henry Neville, and her late son-in-law, Oliver Dudley.
In summary, it appears that Margaret Fitz Lewis, widow of Sir William Lucy, is not likely to have married John Stafford, Esquire as claimed by Worcester, Annales. Following Sir William Lucy's death, she was briefly contracted to marry Thomas Danvers, which contract was the subject of a later lawsuit. This marriage never took place. Instead Margaret married (2nd) Thomas Wake, Esquire, possibly of Blisworth, Northamptonshire. She died in 1466, leaving a son and heir, John Wake, then aged two.
The historian Michael Hicks claims that Margaret Fitz Lewis was the mistress of King Edward IV, but I haven't yet seen the evidence on which this claim is based. If it can be proven that she was the king's mistress about the year 1462, the chronology would seemingly permit her to be the mother of the king's illegitimate daughter, Margaret, wife of Thomas Lumley, Esq., of Beautrove, Durham.
Brad Verity
Nov 2, 2013, 2:06:46 PM11/2/13
to
On Saturday, November 2, 2013 2:11:29 AM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> The historian Michael Hicks claims that Margaret Fitz Lewis was the mistress of King Edward IV, but I haven't yet seen the evidence on which this claim is based. If it can be proven that she was the king's mistress about the year 1462, the chronology would seemingly permit her to be the mother of the king's illegitimate daughter, Margaret, wife of Thomas Lumley, Esq., of Beautrove, Durham.
Here is what historian Michael Hicks says, in full, about Margaret Fitzlewis Lucy, in his 2003 book 'Edward V: The Prince in the Tower', pp. 34-37. I've already posted what he says about Margaret (aka Elizabeth) Plantagenet Lumley, and what he says about the non-existent (as it turns out) mistress of Edward IV, Elizabeth Lucy. The material in parentheses () are Hicks's footnotes. The material in brackets [] are my own comments:
> The historian Michael Hicks claims that Margaret Fitz Lewis was the mistress of King Edward IV, but I haven't yet seen the evidence on which this claim is based. If it can be proven that she was the king's mistress about the year 1462, the chronology would seemingly permit her to be the mother of the king's illegitimate daughter, Margaret, wife of Thomas Lumley, Esq., of Beautrove, Durham.
“Dame Margaret Lucy was born soon after her parents’ marriage in 1432 as the eldest daughter
[sic - She was actually born in 1440, and was the younger surviving daughter]
"of Sir Lewis John (d. 1442) by his second wife Anne Montagu (d. 1457), daughter of John Earl of Salisbury (d. 1400) and subsequently Duchess of Exeter. Apart from siblings by her mother’s first Hankford marriage, Margaret had three younger whole sisters - Alice, Elizabeth Wingfield and another Margaret.
[This "another Margaret" was actually the one who survived and married Sir William Lucy]
"The Duchess Anne chose her great-nephew Warwick as her supervisor in 1457: he had her and her daughters included in the ‘Salisbury Roll’ in 1463 (PRO PROB 11/4 (PCC 11 Stockton); A. Payne, ‘The Salisbury Roll of Arms, 1463’, England in the Fifteenth Century, ed. D. Williams (Woodbridge, 1987), 197). In 1453
[sic - Sir William Lucy's second wife Elizabeth Percy Burgh did not die until 28 September 1455, so Margaret could not have married him until after that date. They probably married about 1456/57, when Margaret was age 16/17]
"Margaret became the second wife of Sir William Lucy of Dallington (Northants.), who was killed on the Lancastrian side in battle in 1460 almost next door outside Northampton. There were no offspring. Sir William’s heirs were his nephew Walter Hopton, also slain at Northampton, and his great-nephew William Vaux, who was attainted at Edward IV’s first parliament, so the reversion of half and perhaps all his estate (including Margaret’s dower and jointure) belonged to the crown. Her husband too had settled her jointure without a royal licence. Margaret’s dower was not authorised for sixteen months, until 24 November 1461, and was not assigned until March 1462, when the coheirs strangely declined to participate (It was delivered to chancery only on 16 Nov. 1463 by Thomas Pachet, PRO C 140/8/18/1; GEC viii. 262; CCR 1461-8, 5). Her brother Sir Henry Lewis had also been attainted. Perhaps, therefore, we have here another Lancastrian widow in her late twenties needing royal favour to secure her rights.
“Margaret, however, may have had a succession of sexual liaisons and was the object of slander and ill-fame. Pseudo-Worcestre claims that John Stafford, her husband’s killer, married her. Any connection must have been temporary, however, since Stafford was killed nine months later at Towton, and informal, certainly not amounting to marriage, since it passes unremarked in her pardon of 5 February 1462. Warwick was then one of her addresses, suggesting that she was in the earl’s household and perhaps also that it was she that the King supposedly essayed there. She required royal favour for her pardon (Annales rerum anglicarum, Letters & Papers Illustrative of the Wars of the English in France, ed. J. Stevenson, Rolls Series, 2 vols (1864), ii(2), 783; PRO C67/45 m.33; Vergil 1, 117). It was in 1461-2, therefore, that any liaison with the King and consequent pregnancy belongs. Next she was courted by a rich lawyer Thomas Danvers, servant to Bishop Waynflete, her brother Sir Henry Lewis first acting as go-between in January/February 1463, about the time that he himself was pardoned and restored in blood.
[It should be noted that the Fitzlewises were never more than pragmatic, and certainly not enthusiastic, Yorkists, at least in the early years of Edward IV's reign. The Sir Henry Fitzlewis to whom Hicks is referring had a Beaufort wife - Lady Elizabeth, one of the daughters of the slain Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset. Their daughter Mary Fitzlewis was born on 30 May 1468, and her birth was likely the cause of her mother Lady Elizabeth's death. Margaret Fitzlewis Lucy's key to the household of the Kingmaker was her relationship to him through their Montagu mothers - a blood tie that Margaret's half-brothers the Fitzlewises did not share.]
"Whatever happened (and evidently Margaret requited some of her suitor’s affection), Danvers fancied ‘that he loved the said Margaret as [much as] was possible for any earthly man to love a woman’, that the contract was secured by promises (never legally enforceable recognisances) from Lewis and her servant Thomas Pachet of £1,000 in default. Danvers accepted, however, that their match was a mésalliance in the eyes of her high-ranking kin, most notably her cousin Warwick the Kingmaker, and needed to be concealed. Whether her ardour cooled or she never saw it that way, she resisted, ‘marvelled greatly that he could find in his heart to trouble, defame, or spread wrongful rumours about her’ and complained of his ‘slanderous labour’. She married instead, publicly and with the full backing of friends and kinsmen, Thomas Wake of Blisworth, a prominent Northamptonshire squire, formerly sheriff, and a Warwick retainer. Danvers sued for confirmation of his marriage and the annulment of Margaret’s new one in the church courts: the Bishop of Lincoln delegated the case to Warwick’s brother Lord Chancellor Neville, perhaps by November/December 1464, when Pachet was bound to appear before him. Alleging the power of Thomas Danvers, Margaret appealed to Rome, whence the case was referred back to be settled by three English bishops (23 August 1465). About the same time Danvers sued in chancery for payment of the promises of £1,000. Lewis appeared, admitted much of the story, but denied any binding contract. Wake, Lucy and Pachet evidently defaulted, ignoring subpoenas from chancery, so a commission was issued from Archbishop Neville’s palace of Cawood (Yorks.) on 8 October 1465 to arrest them and bring them to chancery (Calendar of Papal Registers, 1458-71, 405; CPR 1461-7, 491; CCR 1461-8, 271, 273; PRO C1/31/298 (which makes it clear her husband was Thomas, not John, as in Biographies, 912); C4/2/6-7. Both suits began with Neville as Bishop of Exeter and ended when he was archbishop. For Danvers, see Biographies, 256-7). We do not know what ensued in either suit. When Margaret died on 4 August 1466, still only about thirty and apparently at her family’s home at Horndon in Essex, she left an infant son twelve weeks old (and her heir) called John Wake, presumably conceived about August 1465. Although her magnificent brass at Ingrave (Essex) calls her Margaret Wake, neither writs nor inquisitions post-mortem call her other than Margaret late the wife of Sir William Lucy, so she may not have been confirmed as married to Thomas Wake. His heir Roger Wake, already adult in 1476, was his son by an earlier marriage (GEC viii. 263; PRO C140/20/6/1-16; CPR 1467-77, 598; W.E. Hampton, Monuments of the Wars of the Roses (Upminster, 1979), no. 76; W.E. Hampton, ‘Roger Wake of Blisworth’, Richard III: Crown & People, ed. J. Petre (1985), 160 n5). Perhaps Edward IV and another bastard lie in between. Warwick would certainly have found the Danvers connection disparaging. And later dealings with her brother Richard FitzLewis indicate that Richard III may have known her history.”
And there you have it. Yesterday Paul Reed kindly sent me two articles relevant to the issue of Edward IV's mistresses, and to his illegitimate daughter Margaret, wife of Thomas Lumley. I've read one in full and skimmed the other. I want to digest both and make notes today, and hopefully I'll have another post before I leave for work tonight.
Cheers, -----Brad
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Douglas Richardson
Nov 6, 2013, 10:58:08 AM11/6/13
to
Dear John ~
The heraldic evidence makes it clear that Margaret Fitz Lewis had a third marriage to someone, but I believe that the arms attributed to Golsham have been wrongly identified. I've tried to find an alternative identification of these arms but I haven't been successful.
Although it has been alleged that Margaret Fitz Lewis married (2nd) John Stafford, Knt., his arms should have been the same or similar to his father's arms, which were Or, a chevron gules, a canton ermine. Thus, the heraldic evidence confirms that she did not marry John Stafford, Esq.
The azure shield with a central cross had nothing to do with King Edward IV.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Saturday, November 2, 2013 2:01:18 PM UTC-6, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Good work, Doug and Brad.
>
>
>
> It seems Margaret Lucy had an unconventional and turbulent life.
>
>
>
> What do you (either of you) make of the argument that the fourth shield on Margaret Lucy's brass is for one "Goshalm," a last husband, after Wake?
>
>
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=SOkGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA40&dq=%22for+the+third%22+%22a+cross+arg+between+twenty%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QoVyUtz-OtCDkQen64GYDw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22for%20the%20third%22%20%22a%20cross%20arg%20between%20twenty%22&f=false
The heraldic evidence makes it clear that Margaret Fitz Lewis had a third marriage to someone, but I believe that the arms attributed to Golsham have been wrongly identified. I've tried to find an alternative identification of these arms but I haven't been successful.
Although it has been alleged that Margaret Fitz Lewis married (2nd) John Stafford, Knt., his arms should have been the same or similar to his father's arms, which were Or, a chevron gules, a canton ermine. Thus, the heraldic evidence confirms that she did not marry John Stafford, Esq.
The azure shield with a central cross had nothing to do with King Edward IV.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
> Good work, Doug and Brad.
>
>
>
> It seems Margaret Lucy had an unconventional and turbulent life.
>
>
>
> What do you (either of you) make of the argument that the fourth shield on Margaret Lucy's brass is for one "Goshalm," a last husband, after Wake?
>
>
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=SOkGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA40&dq=%22for+the+third%22+%22a+cross+arg+between+twenty%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QoVyUtz-OtCDkQen64GYDw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22for%20the%20third%22%20%22a%20cross%20arg%20between%20twenty%22&f=false
Douglas Richardson
Nov 6, 2013, 12:07:06 PM11/6/13
to
Dear Brad ~
Thank you for posting the entirely of Michael Hicks' comments regarding Margaret Fitz Lewis. Much appreciated.
As best I can tell, Mr. Hicks has failed to produce sufficient evidence that Margaret Fitz Lewis was ever the mistress of King Edward IV. Rather he only provides suggestion and innuendo. He has a theory about Margaret Fitz Lewis, but that is all.
Mr. Hicks claims that Margaret Fitz Lewis "may have had a succession of sexual liaisons and was the object of slander and ill-fame." But there is no evidence for such a statement. History is not written by what "might" have been, only by what actually occurred.
Neither Worcester and Godfrey who mention Margaret in passing imply that anything negative about her reputation, nor do they suggest that she incited John Stafford to kill her husband, Sir William Lucy. Yes, it is stated that John Stafford "loved" her. But that does not mean Margaret encouraged such an attachment. In any case, I've disproven the claim by Worcester that Margaret Fitz Lewis married John Stafford. Worcester being wrong about Stafford having married Margaret Fitz Lewis doesn't seem to have fazed Mr. Hicks at all.
As to Hicks' statement that Margaret Fitz Lewis and Sir William Lucy were married in 1453, he stands on better ground there. Trans. Essex Archaeological Society n.s. 6 (1898): 41 cites a specific charter dated 6 October 1453 [32 Henry VI], whereby William Lucy and Margaret his wife were stated to then be jointly seised of various Lucy properties. However, I believe you are correct that Sir William's previous wife, Elizabeth Percy, died 28 Sept. (or 16 October) 1455. If so, there must be something wrong with the date of the charter.
Unfortunately Trans. Essex Arch. Society does not give its source for this charter. My guess is that it is taken from Sir William Lucy's inquisition post mortem.
Earlier historians have alleged that the king's mistress was Lady Elizabeth Lucy, not Lady Margaret Lucy. I've also had trouble finding Lady Elizabeth Lucy, but that does not mean she didn't exist. If she remarried, she might be hiding right under our noses with a different surname.
To create a liaison between King Edward IV and Margaret Fitz Lewis, one must have evidence. In another book, Hicks claims that Margaret Fitz Lewis petitioned the king to obtain her Lucy dower lands and that the king demanded sexual favors in order for him to grant this request. But I find no evidence of such a petition or any request for sexual favors. If such a petition exists, I would certainly like to know about it.
All this reminds me of the flimsy evidence set forth that King Henry VIII was the father of Mary Boleyn's two children, Henry and Katherine Carey. This is the stuff of Hollywood, but not history.
Thank you for posting the entirely of Michael Hicks' comments regarding Margaret Fitz Lewis. Much appreciated.
As best I can tell, Mr. Hicks has failed to produce sufficient evidence that Margaret Fitz Lewis was ever the mistress of King Edward IV. Rather he only provides suggestion and innuendo. He has a theory about Margaret Fitz Lewis, but that is all.
Mr. Hicks claims that Margaret Fitz Lewis "may have had a succession of sexual liaisons and was the object of slander and ill-fame." But there is no evidence for such a statement. History is not written by what "might" have been, only by what actually occurred.
Neither Worcester and Godfrey who mention Margaret in passing imply that anything negative about her reputation, nor do they suggest that she incited John Stafford to kill her husband, Sir William Lucy. Yes, it is stated that John Stafford "loved" her. But that does not mean Margaret encouraged such an attachment. In any case, I've disproven the claim by Worcester that Margaret Fitz Lewis married John Stafford. Worcester being wrong about Stafford having married Margaret Fitz Lewis doesn't seem to have fazed Mr. Hicks at all.
As to Hicks' statement that Margaret Fitz Lewis and Sir William Lucy were married in 1453, he stands on better ground there. Trans. Essex Archaeological Society n.s. 6 (1898): 41 cites a specific charter dated 6 October 1453 [32 Henry VI], whereby William Lucy and Margaret his wife were stated to then be jointly seised of various Lucy properties. However, I believe you are correct that Sir William's previous wife, Elizabeth Percy, died 28 Sept. (or 16 October) 1455. If so, there must be something wrong with the date of the charter.
Unfortunately Trans. Essex Arch. Society does not give its source for this charter. My guess is that it is taken from Sir William Lucy's inquisition post mortem.
Earlier historians have alleged that the king's mistress was Lady Elizabeth Lucy, not Lady Margaret Lucy. I've also had trouble finding Lady Elizabeth Lucy, but that does not mean she didn't exist. If she remarried, she might be hiding right under our noses with a different surname.
To create a liaison between King Edward IV and Margaret Fitz Lewis, one must have evidence. In another book, Hicks claims that Margaret Fitz Lewis petitioned the king to obtain her Lucy dower lands and that the king demanded sexual favors in order for him to grant this request. But I find no evidence of such a petition or any request for sexual favors. If such a petition exists, I would certainly like to know about it.
All this reminds me of the flimsy evidence set forth that King Henry VIII was the father of Mary Boleyn's two children, Henry and Katherine Carey. This is the stuff of Hollywood, but not history.
0 new messages