Richard III and the Murder in the Tower
Page 12
Sir Thomas More viewed Richard’s treatment of Jane Shore as harsh and he painted the scene with sufficient pathos such that novelists, artists and playwrights throughout the centuries since have adopted the ‘poor Jane’ motif in both art and literature. She was portrayed as the friendless fallen female, who nevertheless was heroic in the face of public shame and adversity. Nowhere is this expression more richly illustrated than in William Blake’s depiction of her penance. But is this characterisation correct?
If we examine Richard’s general behaviour toward women, we find in a series of cases which can be documented, that Richard was very forgiving and generous toward them.21 For example, following the execution of Lord Hastings, one might suspect that his wife and family would forfeit everything to the Crown, as was common practice. However, this is not so. Richard was generous not only to the memory of Hastings, as we have seen embodied in his chantry chapel at St George’s, Windsor, but he was equally kind to his living family also. Richard was similarly generous to a number of women who for various reasons had either fallen foul of authority or had fallen on hard times. Why then this treatment of Jane?22
First and foremost, it is important to note the celerity with which her penance was imposed. To establish this, we have to appeal to the letter of Simon Stallworth of 21 June, and some inferences that may be tentatively drawn from it (and see Appendix I). In the letter, Stallworth said that Jane was already in prison.23 As we know, Jane’s downfall is associated with Hastings’ execution on Friday 13 June. More noted that Richard, ‘caused the bishop of London to put her to open penance, going before the crosse in procession vpon a sonday with a taper in her hand.’ The only Sunday between Friday 13 June and Saturday 21 June (the date of the Stallworth letter) was Sunday 15 June. If the assumption holds correct that Jane did penance before entering prison, this sequence implies that she was caught up very shortly after Hastings’ death and perhaps even on the very same day as part of the more general purge.24
It is clear that her goods were despoiled and, with this timetable, quickly condemned. For me, this argues that Jane had a very close association with Hastings and was viewed as sharing very heavily in his guilt. She was, of course, according to More, directly accused by the Protector himself. However, if Jane had truly plotted the death of Richard, the mere administration of penance and subsequent imprisonment seems to be a somewhat disproportionately small penalty for such a crime. According to More, Richard accused Jane, that alongside of Hastings, she was ‘of counsel with the lord chamberlein to destroy him.’ Hastings’ penalty for this action was death and, presumably, Rivers, Grey and Vaughan suffered the same fate for the same aspiration, albeit as a part of a separate plot. Although Jane lost her property and was forced to walk in penance, her life was spared. What had she done to raise Richard’s ire to such a degree and what happened to her after the famous walk with a taper?
My suggestion here has been, and remains, that Richard was aware of two, largely separate threats to his continued existence. That of the Woodvilles he knew about in part because of Hastings’ earlier communications. Hastings was guilty of the sin of omission I have referred to earlier, essentially threatening Richard of the deprivation of his rightful position. I hypothesise here that Jane’s assumed guilt was one of association. That is, she had been Edward’s favourite and perhaps privy to some knowledge of his early contract with Eleanor Talbot. Although this is speculation, it would, as we have seen, certainly accord with Edward’s general behaviour with respect to all other married women, and, of course, we have a record of him seducing Jane herself. If not through Edward then most probably through Hastings, she had known, or Richard had been told she had known, of the pre-contract. Although we can well imagine that Richard must have been somewhat unhappy with Mistress Shore and her role and influence in the life of his beloved brother, we cannot, as Thomas More endeavours to do,25 cast Richard in the role of sanctimonious puritan, since he also had children and assumedly a relationship beyond wedlock. Portraying Richard as morally disapproving was another way to inflict a slur upon the now dead king. Jane Shore did penance not for her station in life but for her complicit knowledge. However, like the flaming passion of transient anger that induced Richard to execute Hastings, his similar disapprobation with Jane passed relatively quickly and she found herself in prison but not on the gallows. In fact, it is from prison that we next hear of her.
Jane’s Tragic End?
Jane’s phenomenal capacity to attract men of influence and stature was not bound by the happy confines of a court or elegant surroundings. Our next insight into Jane is provided by a letter of Richard himself to his Chancellor, John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln. It reads:
By the King. Right reverend father in God etc. Signifying unto you, that it is showed unto us, that our servant and solicitor, Thomas Lynom, marvelously blinded and abused with that late wife of William Shore, now being in Ludgate by our commandment, hath made a contract of matrimony with her, as it is said, and intendeth, to our full great marvel, to proceed to effect the same. We for many causes, would be very sorry that he should be so disposed. Pray you therefore to send for him, and in that ye goodly may exhort and stir him to the contrary. And, if ye find him utterly set for to marry her, and none otherwise would be advertised, then, if it may stand within the law of the church, we be content, the time of the marriage being deferred to our coming next to London, that upon sufficient surety being found for her good a-bearing, ye do send for her keeper, and discharge him of our said commandment by warrant of these; committing her to the rule and guiding of her father, or any other, by your discretion in the mean season.
To the right Reverend father in God etc. The Bishop of Lincoln our chancellor26
This letter, most probably written in later 1483, refers to Jane still within the confines of Ludgate prison and having had sufficient influence over the Solicitor-General, Thomas Lynom, to induce from or submit to a proposal of marriage. Richard very much wondered at this development, but he did not oppose it, ‘if ye find him utterly set for to marry her …’ There were many potential implications of this letter. First, we might well assume that Lynom had visited Jane in his official capacity and, unless he was totally dazzled be her in a single flash of ‘love at first sight,’ we might well assume that he has visited on multiple occasions; again, presumably between June and possibly October 1483. What was the initial purpose of such a visit or visits? Assuredly, this must have been in connection with the events at the Tower. Perhaps Richard was exploring the degree of her involvement with Hastings, or indeed any other plotters, if we are to follow the traditional notion of a conspiracy. Clearly, by this time, he must have largely absolved her of any malfeasance, since he stated that she may be released from prison by ‘committing her to the rule and guiding of her father, or any other, by your discretion in the mean season.’ In essence, Jane had been punished enough and could be released on parole if a sufficiently responsible individual will take charge of her.
Note also that this letter serves to provide reference to Jane’s current state. Richard sought assurance from his Chancellor that any potential religious barriers to the match were not insurmountable, stating that, ‘then, if it may stand within the law of the church, we be content, the time of the marriage being deferred to our coming next to London.’ This confirms that Jane was now divorced and free to marry. After all, the person proposing to her was essentially the highest practicing legal official in the country. Surely Thomas Lynom would not have proposed marriage if any legal barrier remained? Richard also imposed a de facto cooling-off period. He dictated that the marriage be deferred until he was in London. Exactly why this was so is not clear. It may have been that he meant actually to attend the wedding if it had gone forward. To the best of our knowledge, the cooling-off period did not seem to have worked, as it appears Richard suspected it would not. Our information comes directly from the evidence of the will of Jane Shore’s father.27 This will was dated 24 September 1487 and contains
the following quote:
Also I bequeath to Thomas Lyneham gentilman xxs. To Elizabeth Lyneham my daughter a bed of arras with the velour tester and cortaynes [and] a stayned cloth of mary magdalen and Martha. Also I bequeath to Julyan Lyneham xls.
From this we may assume that the marriage occurred and that John Lambert was happier with his second son-in-law than his first by showing his appropriate testamental concern for his wife and their son and his grandson. Assumedly, this also meant some degree of gratification for Jane (Elizabeth) herself, who now had the son that she desired. Given her family connections with many rich relatives and the fact that Thomas Lynom seems to have done well, even after the death of Richard III, it seems hard to square More’s account of the impoverished and bereft Jane of legend with that which seems to have been the implication of reality. It is not the first time upon which we have occasion to doubt More’s veracity. Of course, the picture of women sinking from the highest ranks of the land into the lowest form of poverty, seems to be a much more attractive literary figure.28
There is an appealing but wholly misleading story that the London area of Shoreditch was named after poor Jane, who was supposedly found dead in a ditch in the area. The story is untrue. However, what was reported by More is that late in her life she had fallen very low from the exalted heights of Edward IV’s company. Poignantly, More noted that, ‘how much she is now in the more beggarly condition, friendless and worn out of acquaintance.’ More decries this state, pointing out how much many influential people owed to her past kindness. However, if she was as he portrayed her, then she was a relatively unwelcome memory of a now past and disfavoured age. We get the impression of someone beggared by circumstances and neglected by those who should very much have reason to be grateful. It is the epitome of tragedy and it is in that light that Jane has been portrayed throughout the ages. But was this really her fate?
We know that Jane had three brothers and we can, to a degree, be sure that the individual shown in Figure 27 is a memorial brass of Jane (it is in the church of Hinxworth in Hertfordshire; for greater detail see also Figure 25).29 This shows Jane, one of her brothers, John, and her daughter, but the full brass actually features Jane’s father, John Lambert, and his wife, Amy, and the attributed date of creation is 1487. Thus, this might well show Jane in a happier state, especially if the brass had been commissioned earlier. Whatever the truth of her later poverty, Jane seems to have lived to a very old age for that time. We cannot say precisely how old she was, but, if, as has been speculated, she was born around 1450 or perhaps even as early as 1445,30 then by the time of her death, again estimated to have occurred in 1527,31 Jane could have been as old as eighty-two. At that age, she would have been living history. Indeed, her mere persistence to that age seems to argue against a life of the most abject poverty. It has also been suggested that Jane actually strewed flowers at the funeral of Henry VII in 1509. We know that she was a resident of London, at least for most of her lifetime, and had she been present as one of the populace in the streets this legend might well be true.
Her form of penance always carried the subtext of sexual infidelity or more general harlotry.32 However, the confiscation of her property, the very public nature of the humiliation she was forced to endure and particularly the way these punishments seemed to follow very quickly after Hastings’ fall of 13 June seem to argue for something very much more involved than simple sexual disapprobation on Richard’s behalf. Indeed, his own explicit accusation and contemporary observations by Simon Stallworth confirm as much. Although most probably not present at the Tower of London that morning, Jane remains a pivotal player in Hastings’ demise, and a very intriguing one at that, mostly due to the dearth of accurate information about her.
6
Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath & Wells
a man of rather mediocre talents
An Introduction to the Bishop
In respect to the events surrounding the assumption of the throne by Richard, Duke of Gloucester, I, like others, have argued here that the fulcrum upon which the balance of judgment turns is the legitimacy of his claim to the crown of England. The document which argues for the legitimacy of this claim is the Titulus Regius.1 It named Edward IV’s pre-contract with Eleanor Butler as perhaps the primary reason2 for the illegitimacy and thus the disinheritance of Edward’s two sons, Edward V and Richard, Duke of York. By the time this pre-contract came to be at the centre of events in the summer of 1483, the two youngest of the three people involved in the precontract ceremony were already dead. It was of course the death of Edward IV himself on the 9 April of that year which had precipitated events.3 The lady in question, Eleanor Butler, had died some fifteen years earlier, on 30 June 1468.4 Thus, the only known witness to such events still alive at this critical juncture was the officiating priest, by then Bishop of Bath & Wells, Robert Stillington (see Figure 28).5 Following the precedent of others, a brief assessment of his life, career6 and subsequent actions in relation to the pre-contract is presented in this chapter to endeavour to understand his role in the making of Richard of Gloucester’s critical decision.7
The Life of Robert Stillington
Robert Stillington has been treated rather dismissively by some modern historians. Kendall, for example, characterised him up as ‘a man of rather mediocre talents not remarkable for strength of character.’8 Given his most probable, relatively humble beginnings, his survival and periodic prosperity through the reigns of several sometimes antagonistic monarchs and his crucial role in the key events of the lives of some of those kings, Kendall’s assessment might be viewed as somewhat harsh. Tentatively identified as a Yorkshireman,9 we do not have the exact date of Robert Stillington’s birth, which lacuna might support the contention that his origins were less than marked.10 However, we do know that he graduated from the University of Oxford as a Doctor of Civil and Canon Law in 1442,11 where he is supposed, perhaps erroneously, to have been a Fellow of All Souls’ College.12 It is most probable, although not certain, that he was over the age of twenty at that time,13 and knowing that Stillington died in 1491 this would suggest that he lived to be at least seventy years old.14 As we shall see, at the time of the pre-contract, around 1461, when Edward IV was only nineteen and Eleanor Butler a little older at approximately twenty-five, Robert Stillington, at just over forty, was not a young man, particularly by the standards of the day.
When involved in the disgrace and execution of George, Duke of Clarence in 1478, he was, assumedly, over fifty-six years of age and then, in 1483, as Richard III ascended the throne, Stillington at over sixty years of age must have been considered an elder statesman; all this at a time when average life expectancy was below the age of forty. Even adjusting for the fact that life expectancy figures were skewed by high infant mortality,15 Robert Stillington was, at the critical points of his life, essentially an old man immersed in younger men’s actions. Nor at the crucial time, in the summer of 1483, can he have been in the best of health, since we have evidence of earlier bouts of illness suggested by, for example, his inability to attend the opening of parliament in 1472.16 Despite these respective advancements and adversities in his life, Stillington survived under six kings and served in an official capacity under at least four of these, receiving some degree of preferment from each. On the darker side, he was imprisoned by Edward IV and suffered disgrace twice under Henry VII. The latter imprisonment suffered under the first of the Tudors should not be unexpected given the reported events surrounding Richard III’s ascension to the throne. However, it is not Stillington’s life per se which is of dominant interest here, but rather it is the insights that such a biographical survey permits into his critical actions in respect of the life of Richard III. With this overarching goal in mind, let us proceed to an abbreviated summary of the bishop’s accomplishments.
Many of the specific details of his preferments and his appointments and grants can be found in modern sources18 and I have drawn on these reports concerning his official appointments
. Until 1461, Stillington primarily held ecclesiastical positions, the first of which appears to have been the post of Principal at Deep Hall in 1442. He had collected a number of such appointments, as, for example, when he became a canon of Wells Cathedral on 2 August 1445, which was followed on by his promotion to Cathedral Chancellor on 6 June 1447. Such appointments suggest an ambitious and able individual, especially in light of Stillington’s suspected humble beginnings. Although from a landed family, he did not have the advantage of royal or noble birth and hence his early success must be attributed more to character than to connections.19 This record of early achievement, such as his appointment as Archdeacon of Taunton on 20 April 1450, runs counter to Kendall’s assessment of Stillington as a man of simply mediocre talents.20 However, Kendall is talking largely of his achievements as an older individual and, on the much larger national stage which he later graced. Kendall does admit, however, that Henry VI was reputed to have said of Stillington that he possessed ‘great cunning, virtues, and priestly demeaning.’21
Stillington’s first obvious step toward wider pre-eminence was with his 1 November 1461 appointment by Edward IV as Keeper of the Privy Seal. From this start, he began to see diplomatic duty as an ambassador dealing with both Scottish and Continental concerns. We can presume that he accomplished such tasks satisfactorily, since the Calendar of Patent Rolls informs us that on the 20 January 1466 he was granted the custody of the temporalities of the Bishopric of Bath & Wells, later ascended to the vacant See itself, succeeding the late John Phreas (Free) as bishop.22 His consecration by George Neville, Archbishop of York and the brother of ‘Warwick the Kingmaker,’ took place on 10 March in Westminster Abbey. This religious elevation was augmented some short time later on the 20 June 1467,23 when Edward appointed him Chancellor of England, to succeed the same George Neville, who, as Warwick’s brother, was dismissed following his involvement in the turbulence between the king and the Kingmaker.24 Not unexpectedly, as a Yorkist adherent, Stillington’s star declined with the readeption of Henry VI,25 but rose again with Edward IV’s return to the throne in 1471, when Stillington resumed his position as Chancellor.26