"was an old font wherein it is said Edward the Confessor was baptized, being brought thither from an old decayed chapel at Islip (the birth-place of that religious prince), where it had been put up to an indecent use, as well as the chapel."--Extracted from _The English Baronets, being a Historical and Genealogical Account of their Families_, published 1727.
The Viscounts Montague, and consequently the Brownes of Kiddington, traced their descent from this king through Joan de Beaufort, daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster.
"_As good as a Play._"--I note this very ordinary phrase as having royal origin or, at least, authority. It was a remark of King Charles II., when he revived a practice of his predecessors, and attended the sittings of the House of Lords.
The particular occasion was the debate, then interesting to him, on Lord Roos' Divorce Bill.
It is stated in all the pedigrees of this family which I have seen, that Thomas Lovett, Esq., of Astwell in Northamptonshire, who died in 1542, married for his first wife Elizabeth, daughter (Burke calls her "heir," _Extinct Baronetage_, p. 110.) of John Boteler, Esq., of Woodhall Watton, in Hertfordshire. The pedigree of the Botelers in Clutterbuck's _Hertfordshire_ (vol. ii. p. 476.) does not notice this marriage, nor is there any distinct allusion to it in the wills of either family. Thomas Lovett's will, dated 20th November, 1542, and proved on the following 19th January, does not contain the name of Boteler. (_Testamenta Vetusta_, vol. ii. p. 697.) His father Thomas Lovett, indeed, in his will dated 29th October, 7 Henry VII., and proved 28th January, 1492 (_Test. Vetust._, vol. ii. p. 410.), bequeaths to Isabel Lovett and Margaret, his daughters, "Cl. which John Boteler oweth me," but he refers to no relationship between the families. Again, "John Butteler, Esquier," by his will, dated 7th September, 1513, and proved at Lambeth 11th July, 1515, appoints "his most gracious Maister, Maister Thomas Louett," to be supervisor of his will, and bequeaths to him "a Sauterbook as a poore remembraunce;" but he alludes to no marriage, nor does he mention a daughter Elizabeth. This John Boteler is said by Clutterbuck to have married three wives: 1. Katherine, daughter of Thomas Acton; 2. Margaret, daughter of Henry Belknap, who died 18th August, 1513; 3. Dorothy, daughter of William Tyrrell, Esq., of Gipping in Suffolk: the last-mentioned was the mother of his heir, Sir Philip Boteler, Kt.; but I can nowhere find who was the mother of the son Richard, and the daughters Mary and Joyce mentioned in his will, { 364} or of Thomas Lovett's wife. I cannot help fancying that Elizabeth Lovett was his only child by one of his wives, and was perhaps heir to her mother. Can one of your contributors bring forward any authority to confirm or disprove this conjecture? Whilst I am speaking of the Lovett pedigree, I would also advert to two other contradictions in the popular accounts of it. That most inaccurate of books, Betham's _Baronetage_, vol. v. p. 517., says, Giles Pulton, Esq., of Desborough, married Anne, daughter of Thomas Lovett, Esq., of Astwell: the same author, vol. i. p. 299., calls her Catherine; which is correct? Neither Anne nor Catherine is mentioned in Thomas Lovett the Elder's will (_Test. Vetust._, vol. ii. p. 410). Again, Betham, Burke, and Bridges (_History of Northamptonshire_, "Astwell") have rolled out Thomas Lovett into two persons, and in fact have made him appear the son of his second wife Joan Billinge, who was not the ancestress of the Lovetts of Astwell at all. Nor was it possible she could be; for Thomas Lovett, in his will, dated 1492, speaks of her as "Joan, my wife, late the wife of John Hawys, one of the Justices of the Common Pleas." Now this John Hawys was living in 1487, and Lovett's son and heir, Thomas, was seventeen years old in 1492. The abstract of Lovett's will in the _Test. Vetust._, calling Thomas Lovett the Younger "my son and heir by the said Joan my wife," must therefore be manifestly incorrect. I will not apologise for the minuteness of this account, as I believe the correction of detail in published pedigrees to be one of the most valuable features of "N. & Q.;" but I am almost ashamed of the length of my communication, which I hope some of your readers may throw light upon.