As this Ricardian article shows, it is quite possible to believe that something is highly probable whilst not noticing a piece of evidence that goes a long way towards proving it, or not appreciating the strength of the evidence in question. This particular case is about the widely held hypothesis that Margaret, daughter of Margaret Lewis (Lucy), wife of Sir Thomas Lumley and mother of Richard Lord Lumley, was fathered by Edward IV of whom Margaret (previously known as Elizabeth) Lewis was almost certainly a mistress. The evidence in question is a dispensation (1) dating from January 1489 and originally endorsed by the future Julius II, for the subsequent marriage of Richard Lord Lumley to Anne Conyers, stating that they were consanguine in the third and fourth degrees – that the great-grandparents of one were the great-great-grandparents of the other. The “consanguinity test” is constructed on the basis of that hypothesis, the third cell from the left on the middle row being critical. There is no clash between the groom’s other (75%) ancestors and those of the bride so that cell must cause the clash, it is of the right kind and putting Edward IV in that place does so. The dispensation, when fully translated and the table just screamed “It could easily be Edward IV”.
So, apart from this evidence being consistent with this general belief of historians, what else can we learn?
1) In general, some evidence reveals more than we first notice.
2) In particular, the candidates to be Lady Lumley’s father are limited. He must have been alive and of a fertile age after Margaret Lewis’ husband died but early enough for Lady Lumley to have been born in time for her to marry in 1476 and bear Richard Lord Lumley in 1478. This gives us a window from July (battle of Northampton) 1460 to 1464, or even to late 1462 as Sir Thomas Danvers sought to marry Margaret Lewis then and she died four years later. He, if placed in the third left cell of the middle row of the consanguinity test, must have one or more grandparents that match Anne Conyers’ great-grandparents, whilst not causing any other clash. Of all the men who satisfy both these conditions, only Edward IV is generally agreed to been associated with Margaret Lewis.
Some time soon, this shortlist merits publication, to emphasise the point.
Notes:
1) Borthwick Institute, Archbishops of York’s Registers No. 23 (Thomas Rotherham), ff. 244r-
245r. It should be noted that the published summary, in J.W. Clay and J. Raine, Testamenta
Eboracensia: A Selection of Wills from the Registry of York, vol. 3, Surtees Society vol. 45 (1865), p. 355,
refers only to the relationship in the fourth degree stated in the original dispensation, and not to
the correction to third and fourth degrees issued two days later.
murreyandblue 
As Sherlock Holmes said: “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
As far as I can make out, her husband was Sir William Lucy (1404-1460) who was killed at the Battle of Northampton. Presumably on the Yorkist side, as he was a Marcher. She was his third wife. The first was a Neville, the second a Percy!
His parents were Sir Walter Lucy and Eleanor Archdekne. (Sometimes rendered Archdeacon.)
Is it me, or did Edward IV have a habit of ‘comforting’ widows? He seems to have had a definite pattern of attraction.
LikeLike
Sir Lewis John or John fitz Lewis, her father, was of Welsh origin although there seems to be no absolute certainty as to his parentage. He was a Freeman of London as early as 1401, and knighted in 1439. At the end of his life he had property in Essex, Hertford, Somerset and Dorset. He seems to have had a very successful career! His two wives were both the daughters of earls. One suspects he had a few bob.
LikeLike