On Edward’s death, we have some evidence that Hastings was actively seeking to help Richard. He acted to limit the size of Edward’s retinue and apparently kept Richard apprised of developments as he prepared to come south. These do not sound like the actions of an antagonist. Indeed, these cordial conditions continued when Richard reached London. Largely, the talk of Hastings being part of a conspiracy of any sort is directly derived from post hoc interpretations of the events of the morning of Friday 13 June. Thus we need to expose these interpretations and their origins. As we have seen, virtually all the inside, contemporary chroniclers elaborated upon what happened and each appear to provide a fairly reasonable degree of concordance as to actual events. It is Mancini and later More who tried to address why this event happened. However, the prior chronicles each seem to agree that the consensus was that Hastings fell because of his loyalty to Edward IV and thereafter his son Edward V. But surely in this, his loyalty to Edward IV would have been applauded by Richard, who shared such loyalty, not represent a source of dispute?
What, then, we must ask, can be the possible circumstances in which Richard would fail to honour this loyalty? Perhaps the only situation we can envisage is that such loyalty coincided with a betrayal of Richard himself. The pre-contract bastardisation of Edward V and his brother and other siblings fulfills these conditions exactly. The traditional post hoc interpretation of why Hastings was executed then become complex. Mancini renders some general account but he provides no direct accusation of conspiracy. What he does confirm is that Richard and Hastings were actually friends. The specification of conspiracy comes from More, and More, as we understand, was heavily influenced by Morton, who had a strong vested interest in smearing Richard’s reputation. I strongly suspect that the purported plot in association with the queen was an indirect result of the way More reported Morton’s verbatim account of the conversation within the council chamber. The implication of the presence of a plot was then derived from an interpretation in respect of who was arrested and detained that day. The particular issue of Jane Shore will be examined in the following chapter.
The various strands can thus be disentangled to a degree. On the one hand, there is the issue of Hastings’ loyalty to the Edwards, father and son. On the other hand, there are the supposed conspirators who range from the Queen Dowager to the former king’s favourite mistress, to the accused clerics and the opportunistic Lord Stanley, later Earl of Derby. Why the latter (Lord Stanley) should be so loyal to Edward V when his loyalty throughout life seems to centre almost completely on himself, and on at least one recorded occasion excluded his own son, is rather difficult to comprehend. If we take Morton as his own man, and subsequent events seem very much to show this, then the supposed alliance being ‘loyal’ to Edward V begins to disintegrate. It is very possible there never was such a conspiratorial alliance in the first place but rather a group who erred on the side of conservatism as the dynamic events played out. Regardless, in the end we find in the words of More that even after the execution ‘the Protector loved him (Hastings) well and was loath to lose him.’31 Loath indeed, for Hastings’ presence may well have tilted the balance at the Battle of Bosworth some two years later. My conclusion must be that the supposed conspiracy is actually an ‘after the fact’ proposition, created to account for the beheading and the detentions that followed this very dramatic meeting. That various strands of the Woodville effort to snatch power mixed with the sudden demise of Hastings is eminently understandable as both insiders and outsiders struggled to make sense of the day’s events. However, I believe these accounts are largely wrong and lead us away from the main issue of why Richard of all people should put Hastings to death at that critical juncture.
5
Jane Shore, Mistress of the king
For many he had, but her he loved.
Too Slight a Thing
Of all the individuals who played a part, either directly or indirectly, on that fateful day of 13 June 1483, perhaps none is harder to evaluate than Jane Shore.1 Although she is known to the world through Shakespeare’s plays and Thomas More’s words, we know frustratingly little about her.2 This confusion encompasses her name, and the historical personage we have come to know as Jane almost certainly began her life as Elizabeth Lambert, the daughter of a relatively wealthy London merchant.3 The forename ‘Jane’ appears to have been given to her by a later playwright, Thomas Heywood, who, like Shakespeare, never let facts get in the way of a good story. Contemporary records refer to her only as Mistress Shore or Shore’s wife.4 Perhaps one major reason for this lack of information and confusion is precisely because she was a woman, and in More’s words was, at that time, considered ‘to[o] sleight a thing, to be written of and set among the remembraunces of great matters.’ Although times have indeed changed, some commentators5 have argued that Jane is one of the quintessential expressions of how women are represented as symbols rather than true characters in the melée of sex and politics in any age. As we shall see, Jane’s continuing fame is founded largely upon this symbolism, and it is very hard to disengage Jane the historic individual from the Jane of poetry and tragic theatre, as well as more recently of feminist scholarship. Although the latter perspectives are certainly worthy studies, the purpose here is to find the Jane of history,6 and to seek to understand her actions, motivations and effects in the month of June in the year of three kings.7
The Historical Jane
Any attempt to try to understand the historical figure of Jane Shore must centre on Thomas More’s history of King Richard III. For it was here that Jane featured quite prominently in a story that Helgerson8 opined was, ‘a polemical history, a book intended to blacken the reputation of its principal subject.’ As with the account of the Council meeting in the Tower, we must again look through the lens of More’s text, always remembering that the shadow of Cardinal Morton ever hovers in the background. However, More’s commentary on Jane may be a little more veridical because it seems that she was alive at the time More was writing. He may have even known her.9 More painted a most interesting portrait and I have here quoted from him extensively, since he provides the major source of our knowledge:
Now then by & bi, as it wer for anger not for couetise, the p[ro]tector sent into the house of shores wife (for her husband dwelled not with her) & spoiled her of al that euer she had, aboue the value of .ii. or .iii. M. marks, & sent her body to prison. And when he had a while laide vnto her for the maner sake, that she went about to bewitch him, & that she was of counsel with the lord chamberlein to destroy him: in conclusion, when that no colour could fasten vpon these matters, then he layd heinously to her charge, & the thing that she her self could not deny, that al the world wist was true, & that natheles euery man laughed at to here it then so sodainly so highly taken, that she was nought of her body. And for thys cause (as a goodly continent prince clene & fautles of himself, sent oute of heauen into this vicious world for the amendment of mens maners) he caused the bishop of London to put her to open penance, going before the crosse in processionvpon a sonday with a taper in her hand. In which she went in countenance & pace demure so womanly, & albe it she were out of al array saue her kyrtle only: yet went she so fair & louely, namelye while the wondering of the people caste acomly rud in her chekes (of whiche she before had most misse) that her great shame wan her much praise, among those that were more amourous of her body then curious of her soule. And many good folke also that hated her liuing, & glad wer to se sin corrected: yet pitied thei more her penance, then reioyced therin, when thei considred that the protector p[ro]cured it, more of a corrupt intent then ani vertuous affeccion.
This woman was born in Lodon, worshipfully frended, honestly brought vp, & very wel maryed, sauing somewhat to sone, her husbande an honest citezen, yonge & goodly & of good substance. But forasmuche as they were coupled ere she wer wel ripe, she not very feruently loued, for whom she neuer longed. Which was happely the thinge, that the more easily made her encline vnto the kings appetite when he re
quired her. Howbeit the respect of his royaltie, the hope of gay apparel, ease, plesure & other wanton welth, was hable soone to perse a softe tender hearte. But when the king had abused her, anon her husband (as he was an honest man & one that could his good, not presuming to touch a kinges concubine) left her vp to him al togither. When the king died, the lord Chamberlen toke her. Which in the kinges daise, albeit he was was sore ennamored vpon her, yet he forbare her, either for reuerence, or for a certain frendly faithfulnes. Proper she was & faire: nothing in her body that you would haue changed, but if you would haue wished her somewhat higher. Thus say thei that knew her in her youthe. Albeit some that now se her (for yet she liueth) deme her neuer to haue ben wel visaged. Whose iugement semeth me somwhat like, as though men should gesse the bewty of one longe before departed, by her scalpe taken out of the charnel house: for now is she old lene, withered & dried vp, nothing left but ryuilde skin & hard bone. An yet being euen such: whoso wel aduise her visage, might gesse & deuise which partes how filled, wold make it a faire face. Yet she delited not men so much in her bewty, as in her plesant behauiour. For a proper wit had she, & could both rede wel & write, mery in company, redy & quick of aunswer, neither mute nor ful of bable, sometime taunting without displeasure not without disport.
The king would say that he had .iii. concubines, which in three diuers properties diuersly exceled. One the meriest, an other the wiliest, the thirde the holiest harlot in his realme, as one whom no man could get out of the church lightly to any place, but it wer to his bed. The other two were somwhat greter parsonages, & Natheles of their humilitie content to be nameles, & to forbere the praise of those properties. But the meriest was this Shoris wife, in whom the king therfore toke speciall pleasure. For many he had, but her he loued, whose fauour to saithe trouth (for sinne it wer to belie the deuil) she neuer abused to any mans hurt, but to many a mans comfort & relief: where the king toke displeasure, she wolud mitigate & appease his mind: where men were out of fauour, she wold bring them in his grace. For many that had highly offended, shee obtained pardon. Of great forfetures she gate men remission. And finally in many weighty sutes, she stode many men in gret stede, either for none, or very smal rewardes, & those rather gay then rich: either for that she was content with the dede selfe well done, or for that she delited to be suid vnto, & to show what she was able to do wyth the king, or for that wanton women and welthy be not alway couetouse. I doubt not some shal think this woman to sleight a thing, to be written of & set amonge the remembraunces of great matters: which thei shal specially think, that happely shal esteme her only by that thei now see her. But me semeth the chaunce so much the more worthy to be remembred, in how much she is now in the more beggerly condicion, vnfrended & worne out of acquantance, after good substance, after as gret fauour with the prince, after as gret sute & seking to with al those that those days had busynes to spede, as many other men were in their times, which be now famouse, only by the infamy of their il dedes. Her doinges were not much lesse, albeit thei be muche lesse remembered, because thei were not so euil. For men vse if they haue an euil turne, to write it in marble: & whoso doth vs a good tourne, we write it in duste which is not worst proued by her: for at this daye shee beggeth of many at this daye liuing, that at this day had begged if she had not bene.
In respect of his three concubines, it may well be merry Jane, wily Elizabeth and holy Eleanor. It is primarily on this story, but also the rare contemporary sources that mention Jane, that the present analysis is founded.
The Behaviour of Edward IV
One of the critical issues in the present thesis concerns the consistency and motivations of the individuals involved, and we must consider in detail the actions of one of the prime movers of events: Edward IV. In particular, we need here to examine Edward IV’s behaviour in relation to women,10 and one of the first we know about is Eleanor Butler. The pre-contract between Edward and Eleanor seems to have been almost completely driven by Edward’s sexual desire.11 This form of motivation again appears directly to underlie a subsequent major event upon which, of course, we have much more information. That is, we know that in September 1464 Edward IV announced he had married Elizabeth Grey in a secret ceremony.12 At this secret ceremony had been a priest, Elizabeth’s mother Jacquetta, Duchess of Bedford and two gentlewomen.13 There may also have been a boy member of the choir to help the priest with the ceremony. A sign formerly outside the church in Grafton Regis (see Figure 12) implied that the marriage had occurred within the confines of the parish, but not necessarily within the church itself (although this sign has itself now been removed). It is not the fact of this marriage itself which is under immediate discussion, since detailed records are to hand.14 Rather, it is the nature and character of the marriage and the way in which Edward IV approached and used women that is of present concern. One suspects that Edward’s apparently lusty appetites would have certainly been expressed among the less gentle females of the day, and this characteristic is observed by a number of contemporary or near-contemporary commentators, including de Commines, More and Croyland. For example, in Mancini we read: ‘He was licentious in the extreme: moreover it was said that he had been most insolent to numerous women after he had seduced them, for, as soon as he grew weary of dalliance, he gave up the ladies much against their will to other courtiers …’ In respect of these liaisons with ladies from the upper classes, Edward seems to have had a penchant for married women, especially those in a degree of distress. Of those that we know he seduced and bedded, all were either married or recently widowed. The list includes Eleanor (Talbot) Butler, Elizabeth (Woodville) Grey, Elizabeth (Wayte) Lucy15 and Elizabeth ‘Jane’ (Lambert) Shore. We have some evidence, for example, that Edward had numerous children out of wedlock, including some attributed to Elizabeth Lucy.16
His preference for married women of the upper classes may have been based upon a natural reticence to seduce unmarried females and be thus involved with the attendant complications. However, this is speculation based upon our state of understanding, not necessarily on Edward’s actual propensity. The primary concern here surrounds Jane. All of the others I have noted were of high or noble birth, and it says much for Edward’s attachment that Jane is arguably the most persistent17 and perhaps the most loved of the women in his life, for, as More noted, ‘… the merriest was this Shore’s wife, in whom the king therefore took special pleasure. For many he had, but her he loved.’ More was also complimentary about Jane in general, noting her kindness and her influence over the king when he was out of temper. We get the impression of a companionable and calming presence; in fact, More leaves us with a very positive picture of the woman who was the mistress of the king. Despite his philandering and his high living, it must have been a tremendous blow to Jane when Edward died. It was then that she was caught up in the turmoil of the summer of 1483.
The Pertinence of Penance
Much as Jane is an interesting character in and of her own right, and much as she is worthy of study in the context of her life and times,18 there is only one focal issue with which I am concerned here, and it centres around her role and influence in respect of the Council meeting of 13 June. In this respect, we can say that Jane suffered in the fall-out of the events of that day. Popular legend has it that Jane was originally ‘spotted’ by William, Lord Hastings, and came to the attention of the king through him. Assumedly, Jane was a beautiful woman, although her charms encompassed more than her physical appearance (see Figure 26). To what degree Hastings was initially attached to and involved with her we cannot at present say with any certainty. However, after Edward’s death it does appear that he assumed the protection, and presumably the favours, of ‘Shore’s wife.19 It was her association and involvement with Hastings that appeared to have fired Richard’s wrath, and she was accused of plotting with the Lord Chamberlain (Hastings) against the then-Protector.
The story that Jane Shore and William, Lord Hastings plotted together with the queen appears to me to be most implausible. The Dictionar
y of National Biography observed that, ‘Mr Gairdner’s theory that she was employed as a go-between by Hastings and the queen is very reasonable.’ I would suggest exactly the opposite. The queen and Hastings had a degree of recorded antipathy, especially in light of his rivalry with her sons and brothers, and had indeed lately argued about the size of Edward V’s escort coming to London. That the queen consorted with her husband’s favourite mistress is perhaps vaguely possible, since each may have retained a strong loyalty to the dead king. However, this seems extremely unlikely, and with Hastings’ involvement, totally implausible. Indeed, when we look further into Gairdner’s opinion, we find the following: ‘We probably do not know, after all, the whole extent of the accusation against either the Queen of her [Jane]; and the fact that they were accused of acting in concert seems in itself to imply a better understanding than we should naturally expect between the widow and the mistress of King Edward.’20 Perhaps here we can conclude with Thomas More that, ‘For well they wist, that the queen was too wise to go about any such folly [i.e., enter into a conspiracy]. And also if she would, yet would she of all folk least make Shore’s wife of counsel, whom of all women she most hated, as that concubine whom the king her husband had most loved’. Here again we see an example of Sir Thomas More implying two radically, indeed diametrically opposed, views at two differing parts of his narrative. I am here suggesting that the Woodville intrigues with Hastings’ omission to tell his legitimate sovereign the truth about his nephews’ status have here been inappropriately mixed together, and most probably intentionally so. I here sense the mind of Morton. To further understand the nuances of Jane’s story, we need to consider her treatment in light of Richard’s overall behaviour, and especially that toward women.
Richard III and the Murder in the Tower Page 11
