human
_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,
gpt
Cl. which John Boteler oweth me, but he refers to no relationship between the families. Again,
human
John Butteler, Esquier, by his will, dated 7th September, 1513, and proved at Lambeth 11th July, 1515, appoints
gpt
to be supervisor of his will, and bequeaths to him
human
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_,
gpt
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
human
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
gpt
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
human
N. & Q.;