SOME ACCOUNT OF THE FAMILY OF LOWE. ye 
Lowes of Alderwasley derived their descent.* Lawrence Lowe 
appears to have embraced the legal profession 
= and became a Serjeant-at-Law. In 1474, he 
Vi is said to have been in the service of William, 
a? Lord Hastings ; and he is obviously identical 
—— with .that Lawrence Lowe who became 
Recorder of the Borough of Nottingham, in or 
about the year 1480. The fact that he was 
q twice married is sufficiently established, and 
there can be but little doubt that his first 
wife was the heiress of the family of Rossell, 
of Denby, and that through her the chief share 
of the Manor of Denby came into his possession ; but evidence 
of this marriage is altogether wanting, and even her parentage 
is unknown. His second wife was Alice, daughter and coheiress 
of William Mylton, of Gratton, in the County of Derby (son of 
Ranulph de Milneton, or Mylton, of Milton, in Cheshire, by 
Mary, his wife, daughter and sole heiress of . . . Gratton, 
of Gratton), and widow of Oliver de Newton, of Newton, in 
Cheshire, who died in London of the plague in 1452, and was 
buried in St. Andrew’s Church, Holborn.t This second marriage 
* Adam Wolley distinctly speaks of Laurence Lowe as the younger brother 
of Thomas Lowe, of Alderwasley ; and in the charter of 1473, wherein four 
of the sons of Geoffrey del Lowe are mentioned, Lawrence is the one who is 
named last. But, at the same time, it must not be overlooked that there is 
proof that Lawrence Lowe was married to his second wife in 1455, whilst 
Thomas, who is assumed to have been the elder, was not married until 1471, 
and must have survived his brother Lawrence, at least five-and-twenty years. 
That Thomas and Lawrence Lowe were brothers has already been sufficiently 
_ proved, notwithstanding the apparent discrepancy in the dates ; and the state- 
_ ment that Thomas was a younger son of Lawrence, and not his brother is quite 
untenable, unless we admit the hypothesis that confusion has arisen between 
two persons of the same name, and that Lawrence Lowe, serjeant-at-law, and 
Thomas Lowe, of Alderwasley, were the sons of another Lawrence Lowe. 
Thus, supposing that it was the elder Lawrence who married the heiress of 
Rossell, some of the heraldic anomalies which have been referred to, would be 
clearly obviated. But a careful analysis of the various statements that have 
_ been given, will show many difficulties to such an explanation of the descent. 
+ By her first husband, Alice, the daughter and co-heiress of William Mylton, 
had, with other issue, a son, Richard de Newton, who married Janet, the 
daughter of Lawrence Lowe, his mother’s second husband. We have here 
“sufficient evidence that Lawrence Lowe must have been twice married. It 
Seems more probable that his son and heir was the issue of his first marriage, 
