According to Archbold, W. A. J. "Francis Lovell, Viscount Lovell."
The Dictionary of National Biography. Vol XII. Sidney Lee, Ed.
New York: The Macmillan Company, 1909. 172-3 (quoted in this profile) and other scholarly sources:
Viscount Lovell d.1485 and left no issue.
Yet the connection between him and a supposed son, William Lovell b.1512, persists without any support. Is this another case of wishful thinking to gain royal ancestry? Is there anything that will support this claim besides rote copying of GEDCOM lists?
In my opinion, all the online genealogy sites need to insist on proper sourcing. A smart match is presently listed as a direct and primary source. That's bogus! Am I wrong? Too stuffy?
Verum in historia. spc
Sir Francis Lovell, KG, 1st Viscount Lovell
"Lovell Our Dog" (remember that little bit of doggerel from Shakespeare's Richard III?) survived until at least 1487, as he was up to his ears in the Lambert Simnel affair. He was last heard of when on 19 June 1488 James IV of Scotland issued a safe conduct to him (it is unknown whether Lovell ever received it, or was still alive to do so). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Lovell,_1st_Viscount_Lovell
Here's the Geni Link: Sir Francis Lovell, KG, 1st Viscount Lovell or William Lovell
Maven, are you saying that his death date should be after 1488? Or that he might have had issue after Bosworth? spc
The last time anybody reliably saw hide or hair of Viscount Lovell, was during the battle of Stoke (16 June 1487). There were reports of his being seen alive right after the battle, but after that - nothing. The King of Scotland wrote out a safe-conduct, as noted above - this may have been just a contingency measure in case Lovell surfaced in or near Scotland, and there is no information as to whether he was ever able to take advantage of it.
Some scholars think Lovell holed up somewhere after the battle, and died within hours or days of wounds received.
Then there's the popular legend of him starving to death in a hidey-hole in one of his houses (but probably not at Minster Lovell, which was then in the hands of Jasper Tudor, uncle of Henry VII).
He was indeed a colorful character and his life a testament to personal loyalty. But the question remains: where is the connection to William of London...a leap of faith?
Short of spending a bunch of money to hire a pro researcher who will in all probability find nothing new, I can see no reason to assume that there is any real link. It is, as far as I can tell, nothing but wishful thinking.
But still, it's interesting to ponder. This one question has led me into a wonderful study of medieval Europe and especially Richard III and the Plantagenet kings of England. spc