Sir Lewis John, Sheriff of Essex & Hertfordshire - Incorrect Birth Year

Biography

A Welshman of dubious origin who became a financier, a landowner of substance and the son-in-law of two earls, Lewis John was an unusual and interesting figure. Petitioning in the Parliament of November 1414 (when himself sitting for Hampshire), he stated that both his parents were Welsh, and a number of documents about his background date from between 1424 and 1427 when, in an attempt to dispel rumours that he was a bondman by birth (which perhaps stemmed from envy of his rapid advancement), he obtained certificates from various Welsh municipal and ecclesiastical authorities testifying to his independent status. The mayor of Carmarthen, for example, declared that John was ‘a gentleman of our country’, free-born and of ‘the best family in this part of Wales from the Conquest to the present day’. It is not known exactly when John settled in London. He claimed to have been made a freeman of the City before 1401 (the date of a statute prohibiting Welshmen from holding office or land in England), and was certainly living there in 1402. The early part of his career was spent in mercantile dealings with a particular interest in wines, and it was on this that he laid the foundation of his future wealth. In 1406 he was referred to as a citizen and vintner of London, and in the same year he acted as administrator of the will of another London wine merchant, Stephen John (almost certainly a relative). He purchased property in the City, where by 1412 his holdings were of an estimated annual value of £20 6s.8d.3

Reads like we no nothing of his birth. Deleted date.

HOP about his name

1. i.e. ap John. His son, Lewis Fitzlewis, was known inter alia as the s. and h. of ‘Lewis Fitz John’ (C67/42 m. 25).

Are parents correct?

Here’s where the parents showing came in.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/John-748

Parentage

The old 1936 HOP 1439-1509 edition describes him as son and heir of Richard Fitz-Lewis, by Elizabeth le Ba (p.503). The 1993 article online describes him as a son of John, apparently based on interpreting his name as a patronymic.[3]
A 28 Sep 2003 posting by Chris Pitt Lewis on SGM explains that Lewis John's parentage is unknown, but there are interesting conflicting clues. [4] - We can ignore the statement in the History of Parliament, apparently deriving from Morant's History of Essex, that he was son of a Richard FitzLewis and Elizabeth le Ba. This is part of a fictitious pedigree of the Mordaunt family, deriving him from an illegitimate son of the Dauphin Louis who invaded England in 1216.

And this is the part that could interest Steven Mitchell Ferry

… The Mayor of Carmarthen said that he was "a gentleman of our country"; the Abbot of Whitland said that he was descended from the ancient lords of Wales (also quoted by Carr). These statements may of course be exaggerations, but it is possible that a careful search of Bartram's pedigrees might turn up something. …

Proposed as father:

Stephen John, “citizen and vintner in London”: Lewis Johan was administrator of the goods of "Stephen Johan, late citizen and vintner of London, who died intestate", (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 12 February 1406).[1]

1. http://mauriceboddy.org.uk/FitzLew.htm (Dead link)

https://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/dbextra.aspx?dbid=2052

In order to be Free of the City, a person has to be:

historically, over 21 years of age. However, the age of admission was lowered by Act of Common Council of 6 November 2008 to 18 years of age

Which puts his birthdate at 1380 or before (“he was certainly living there in 1402”).

Detached parents of Sir Richard Fitz Lewis & Elizabeth le Ba

Men don’t need to “age match” with wives so much, and nobility marriage contract dates can be deceptive (child marriage agreements). But doing business as a vintner in London needed qualifications, and 21 or older was needed, although I imagine there were exceptions.

It seems unlikely by the way that this Lewis ap John, also called at times Lewis fitz John, was son of a Stephen.

Yes, we’re agreeing. It’s a stretch to place him as “Lewis Johan” IMO.

https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/vgmn9SnRlow/m/... Is a good read.

We seem to be missing children on Geni.

https://our-royal-titled-noble-and-commoner-ancestors.com/p1587.htm... Can have typos, but cites Richardson books. I wonder if they got detached.

Here’s the proposed father. I suggest he could have been a relative.

Stephen John

AKA Steven John FitzLewis

From the revisions tab:

Steven John FitzLewis was merged into Stephen ap John by Robert Turner.
Feb 22, 2015 at 3:00 AM · view · undo

Sir Lewis John, Sheriff of Essex & Hertfordshire was disconnected from his parents Steven John FitzLewis and Julian FitzLewis by Robert Turner.
Mar 15, 2020 at 10:34 AM · undo

I have not found him in Bartrum. I would caution against calling him Lewis ap John. Although many did take their fathers name as a surname, they could have just as easily taken the surname from a grandfather, uncle, or anyone they revered. Sometimes it was just a word that described where they live. There was no hard and fast procedure, they just knew that English law required it.

But Stirnet has him as Sir John FitzLewis (aka Lewis John), son of Sir Richard FitzLewis and Elizabeth le Baude. Sir Richard as the son of Sir John FitzLewis and Elizabeth de Harpenden

I think that’s what is described as the Mordaunt Fraud?

https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/vgmn9SnRlow/m/...

Which Stirnet Link?

That Sir John is the son of Lewis FitzLewis and Margaret of Essex.

I note from Our Royal Titled etc.. that, even though they cite Richardson, they take the line no further back. (I think Erica already said that)

This caveat is at the top of the Stirnet page:

Wright wrote that this family "we are informed, were derived from Lewis, dauphin of France, afterwards king Lewis the eighth, who was invited here by the barons in the time of king John. During his stay, he had an intrigue with an English lady, co-heiress of a great estate, by whom he had a son, Lewis Fitz-Lewis. This lady was afterwards married to a nobleman, from whom some of our greatest families are descended." This kind of 'derivation' makes us nervous so we have placed this family in this temporary page pending finding a source which gives us more confidence in this pedigree.

Erica Howton https://www.stirnet.com/genie/data/british/zwrk/temp69.php#fl1

Your quote would definitely be the Mordaunt Fraud.

The dauphin of France? Really?

https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/vgmn9SnRlow/m/...

“ It's all a big FitzMess.”

I connected on Geni Sir Lewis John’s unmerged son

Sir Lewis Fitzlewis

But still need to find Richard Fitz Lewis

Recent notes by medievalist Andrew Lancaster here: https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/0qUjHP3k2ks/m/...

I’m showing Sir Lewis John, of West Horndon, M.P is your fourth great aunt's 12th great grandfather. via Jemima Hill

This is the origin of the Mordaunt fraud:

From Chris Pitt Lewis (Sep 28, 2003) post at “MORDAUNT and FITZLEWIS - CP error?”< soc.genealogy.medieval >

We can ignore the statement in the History of Parliament, apparently deriving from Morant's History of Essex, that he was son of a Richard FitzLewis and Elizabeth le Ba. This is part of a fictitious pedigree of the Mordaunt family, deriving him from an illegitimate son of the Dauphin Louis who invaded England in 1216. …

Couldn’t resist.

https://archive.org/details/b30455583/page/212/mode/2up

Page 213
We have no account after this, for feveral years, of the owners of this eftate. . At laft it appears, in the reign of K. Henry VI. in a Family surnamed Lodowic John, not mentioned before in the records relating to Essex, and that had at once very large possessions in this County. In a pedigree of the noble Family of Mordaunt Earls of Peterborough (p), [one of whom, John Mordaunt Efq; in the reign of K. Henry VII. married Ela, or Ellen, daughter and heir of Sir Richard Fitz-Lewis,] we have this account of the origin of the Fitz-Lewis Family. Acccording to that, they were derived from Lewis, Dauphin of France, ….

This is quite a lot better.

Rev. H.L. Elliot (1898) "Fitz Lewes, of West Horndon, and the brasses at Ingrave" Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society vol.4 New Series. Page 35. < Archive.Org >

"Sir Lewes John, in his Will, makes provision for the following children : Lewes, Henry, John, Philip, Edmond, Margaret, Elizabeth, Alice, and another Margaret. In this document all the sons are called by the surname of Fitz Lewes, and were probably the first of the family to bear it.”

However, the Rev. Elliot may have missed - or deliberately left out - Information about one of Sir Lewis John’s daughters:

1. “Woman’s lover kills husband with axe! William Lucy,his wife Margaret and the king.” (Posted on May 7, 2017) < thehistoryjar.com > cites
   1. Carson, Annette. (2008) Richard III: The Maligned King Stroud: The History Press
2. Payling, S.J. Widows and the Wars of the Roses: The Turbulent Marital History of Edward IV’s Putative Mistress, Margaret, daughter of Sir Lewis John of West Hornden Essex. in Clark, Linda (ed.) (2015) The Fifteenth Century: Essays Presented to Michael Hicks Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer.

Margaret Wake

Eliot describes her with an unproveable 3rd husband, no Stafford husband, and no King Edward lover.

https://archive.org/details/transactionsess04socigoog/page/n57/mode...

https://thehistoryjar.com/2016/01/28/edward-ivs-wily-mistress-or-sh...

So just who was Dame Elizabeth Lucy? Ashdown-Hill, pro-Richardian historian, identifies her as the daughter of Thomas Wayte of Hampshire. Further digging around reveals that this is not necessarily the case. Michael Hicks notes that More was wrong about the pre-contract and goes on to suggest that he was also wrong about the lady’s name as there is no one by the name of Elizabeth Lucy in the records – at least not some one of reasonably noble birth. Digging around on the Internet yielded an interesting forum discussion which identifies Margaret FitzLewis widow of Sir William Lucy. Its perhaps not surprising then that historians have placed her social status as anything from the wife/daughter of the peer of the realm to good-time girl or as the Seventeenth Century historian Buck described her – a ‘wanton wench.’

https://thehistoryofparliament.wordpress.com/2015/07/08/the-battle-...

The battle of Northampton and the strange death of Sir William Lucy MP

Other evidence indirectly implicates Lucy’s wife Margaret in the murder. Another chronicle account specifically identifies the killer as John Stafford, who, very soon after the battle, took Lucy’s widow as his wife. Thus one likely explanation for these events is that Lucy’s wife, who was some 40 years his junior, had begun a liaison with Stafford and that Stafford had then taken advantage of the chaos of battle to remove her troublesome husband.

Stafford’s interest in Margaret may have been as much financial as emotional. On his marriage to Margaret, his third wife, in 1457, Sir William had settled upon her a life interest in a valuable part of his extensive estates. As Stafford had few lands of his own, her hand promised him the acres he lacked. For Margaret the advantages of the match are less obvious, and, in any event, their marriage was to be very brief. A marriage that began with death in battle quickly ended in the same way. Stafford enjoyed a brief period of prominence due to Margaret’s lands, sitting as MP for Worcestershire in the Yorkist Parliament of October 1460 before being killed in the Yorkist ranks at the battle of Towton in the following March.

Margaret’s own subsequent history was also short. Having lost two husbands in the space of eight months, she found herself under pressure to marry again and took as her third, Thomas Wake of Blisworth (Northamptonshire), a servant of the earl of Warwick. She has also been tentatively and probably mistakenly identified as one of Edward IV’s mistresses.

Her eventful life ended on 4 August 1466 at the age of only about 28, and the probability is that she died of complications arising from childbirth. A son, John, had been born to her and Wake only three months before she died. A brass to her memory survives in the church of Ingrave in Essex. She may also have a unique claim to fame as the wife of two MPs, the second of whom was responsible for the death of the first.

Did she marry John Wake or his brother Thomas Wake The HOP blog says Thomas.

https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/7g__mErVKHs/m/...

Douglas Richardson
unread,
Nov 2, 2013, 2:11:29 AM

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...]. 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...]. 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...].

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;s...

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.

https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/7g__mErVKHs/m/...

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:

“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,

https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/7g__mErVKHs/m/...

Douglas Richardson
unread,
Nov 6, 2013, 8:58:08 AM



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...