5. Scott, M. M. Re-presenting Jane Shore: Harlot and Heroine. Ashgate: Aldershot, 2005.
6. See Barker, N. ‘The Real Jane Shore.’ Etoniana, 125 (1972), 383-391.
7. And see St Aubyn, G. The Year of Three Kings. Atheneum: New York, 1983.
8. Helgerson, R. Adulterous Alliances: Home, State, and History in Early Modern European Drama and Painting (p. 37), University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 2000.
9. See Stephen, L. & Lee, S. (eds). The Dictionary of National Biography (pp 147-148). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1917.
10. For more see Dockray, K. Edward IV: Playboy or Politician. The Ricardian, 131 (1995), 306-325.
11. One is very much reminded of the behaviour of Mel Brooks in his movie The History of the World where, as the lecherous French king, he demands the sexual favours of a young lady in order to save her doomed father. The parallel is almost exact with Edward’s general behaviour.
12. There has, of course, been extensive discussion about the nature and validity of this marriage. And see also Kelly, H.A. ‘The case against Edward IV’s marriage and offspring: Secrecy, witchcraft; secrecy; pre-contract.’ The Ricardian, 142 (1998), 326-335.
13. From Markham (1906), quoted in O’Regan (1976). Made at Grafton Regis, Northamptonshire. ‘Generally accepted the marriage vows were exchanged in a private house not in church’ (O’Regan, 1976).
14. The Great Chronicle of London (p. 202) reported that the marriage occurred on 1 May 1464 (and see Fabyan’s Chronicles, p. 654). The fact of the marriage was apparently not made public until 29 September 1464 at a Council meeting in Reading (see William Worcester, Annales, p. 783); see also Fahy, C. ‘The marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville: A New Italian Source.’ English Historical Review, 76 (1961), 660-672, and see the earlier note in this text on the revelation of the marriage.
15. And see Ashdown-Hill, J. ‘The elusive mistress: Elizabeth Lucy and her family.’ The Ricardian, 145 (1999), 490-505.
16. See http://www.r3.org/basics/basic5.html.
17. Stephen, L. & Lee, S. (eds). The Dictionary of National Biography (pp 147-148). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1917, indicates that Jane began her association with Edward in 1470. However, it is much more logistically appealing to place this at a slightly later date in 1471 after his triumphant return to the throne. Irrespective of the actual date, both interpretations imply that Jane had been the king’s mistress for over a decade and surely this must argue for her appeal in more than just the sexual dimension alone.
18. And see Seward (1995), op. cit., especially pp 230-231.
19. This is More’s assertion that Hastings ‘lay nightly’ with her; however, there is the suggestion that immediately following Edward’s death she became the mistress of the Marquess of Dorset and only attached herself to Hastings following Dorset’s egress from London. Again, this is a suggestion rather than a known fact.
20. Gairdner, op. cit., pp 69-70.
21. Davis, M. A. ‘Lord Hastings dies.’ The Medelai Gazette, 13 (2) (2006), 26-32, reports that: ‘The Duke of Gloucester’s chivalry, especially toward women was legendary’ (p. 28). This may be over-eulogistic, but the general opinion and principle seem well founded.
22. More implied that Richard had his eyes on her goods and possessions, but Gairdner rightly dismisses this suggestion as both illogical and counter to the other ways in which More expressed approbation of Richard’s generosity. More’s slur can be taken as just another attempt to blacken Richard, but it may well be that he genuinely did not understand the reason for Richard’s action.
23. As we know from the controversy surrounding the execution of Hastings, the dating of this letter in respect of the writing of its content has been subject to considerable scrutiny. Here, I am adopting a consistent position by relying on the fact that the letter was not written after 21 June. This reliance does not negate the argument about Hastings’ execution presented in the accompanying Appendix II.
24. It is, of course, conceivable that Jane did penance on Sunday 22 June, in which case she may have represented the ‘opening act’ to Dr Shaa’s sermon, for which Richard may well have wanted the widest possible audience. Such a speculation, while a public relations dream, is most probably incorrect, since this conjunction would have most probably been commented on by one of the contemporary writers. It argues for 15 June as the date for Jane’s penance.
25 It is surely one of the most vitriolic of all of More’s comments when he mockingly offered up Richard as the paragon of virtue and so, by juxtaposition, implied he was completely the opposite, i.e. ‘as a goodly continent prince clene & fautles of himself, sent oute of heauen into this vicious world for the amendment of mens maners.’ And see the full quotation earlier in this chapter.
26. Secretary’s copy: British Library Harleian MSS 433 f 259.
27. See Barker, N. ‘Jane Shore: Part 1, the real Jane Shore.’ Etoniana, 125 (1972), 383-391.
28. And see Birley, R. ‘Jane Shore: Part 2, Jane Shore in literature.’ Etoniana, 125 (1972), 391-397.
29. The attribution is noted in Crossland (2006), op. cit., between pp 108-109. Crossland indicates that the figure to Jane’s left is her brother John Lambert and to her right is a portrayal of her own daughter. Whether the young lady was fathered by William Shore, Edward IV or Thomas Lynom is presently unknown.
30. See Crossland (2006), op. cit., p. 6.
31. Dictionary of National Biography (1917), p. 147.
32 See Kendall (1955), op. cit., p. 550, n. 6.
Chapter 6: Robert Stillington: the Bishop of Bath & Wells
1. See http://www.r3.org/bookcase/texts/tit_reg.html.
2. This was not the only reason and was essentially the last of three stated in the act. As Ramsay, J. Lancaster and York. Oxford, 1892, noted: ‘The grounds of invalidity assigned were that no banns had been published; that the service had been performed in a profane place; and that the King already stood married and troth-plight to Dame Eleanor Butler, daughter of the old Earl of Shrewsbury.’
3. Edwards, R. The Itinerary of King Richard III 1483-1485. Alan Sutton, for the Richard III Society: London, 1983.
4. Ashdown-Hill, J. ‘Edward IV’s uncrowned queen: The Lady Eleanor Talbot, Lady Butler.’ The Ricardian, 139 (1997), 166-190.
5. And see Markham, C. R. ‘Richard III: A doubtful verdict reviewed.’ English Historical Review, 6 (22) (1891), 250-283.
6. For fuller details see also Jex-Blake, T. W. ‘Historical notices of Robert Stillington; Chancellor of England, Bishop of Bath and Wells.’ Proceedings of the Somerset Archeological and Natural History Society, 20 (Part II) (1894), 1-18.
7. For example, Markham opined that, ‘Dr. Stillington thus becomes a very important personage in the history of King Richard’s accession; and it will be well to learn all that can be gleaned of his life.’ Markham (1906), p. 94.
8. Kendall, P. M. (1955), op. cit., p. 260.
9. Hammond, P. W. ‘Research notes and queries.’ The Ricardian, 52 (1976), 27-28.
10. It has been reported that he was the second son of Catherine Halthrop and John Stillington, ‘probably to the place of that name in Yorkshire who possess property at Nether Acaster, a short distance from York.’ See Foss, E. A Biographical Dictionary of the Judges of England (p. 632), London, 1870. It interesting to note that the village of Stillington is only about three to four miles from Sheriff Hutton, just to the north of the city of York. It should be noted that Hampton (1977) opines, ‘That the bishop was a gentleman born, and of a family very well connected in the North, has been established …’
11. With this qualification, Stillington must have unequivocally understood the implications of the pre-contract between Edward and Eleanor. And see Jex-Blake (1894), op. cit.
12. Smith, G. The Dictionary of National Biography (pp 1265–1266). Ed. L. Stephen and S. Lee. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1882.
13. Mowat, A. J. ‘Robert Stillington.’ The Ricardian, 53 (1976), 23-28.
14. An
d see Chrimes (1999), p. 242, note; and also Kendall (1955), p. 260.
15. Riley, J. C. Rising Life Expectancy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
16. And see Mowat (1976), p. 23.
17. Greensmith, L. T. ‘Coats of Arms of some Ricardian contemporaries.’ The Ricardian, 56 (1977), 20-22.
18. See Mowat, A. J. ‘Robert Stillington.’ The Ricardian, 53 (1976), 23-28, and also Hampton, W. E. ‘A further account of Robert Stillington.’ The Ricardian, 54 (1976), 24-27. See also Kendall (1955), op. cit., pp 254-264.
19. For an account of Stillington’s extended family and connections see, Hampton, W. E. ‘Bishop Stillington’s Chapel at Wells and his family in Somerset.’ The Ricardian, 56 (1977), 10-16.
20. Stillington later became Archdeacon of Berkshire in 1464 and he was succeeded in this position by both John Morton and Oliver King, whom we have also seen in our story.
21. Scofield, C. L. The Life and Reign of Edward IV (p. 94). London, 1923.
22. Smith, G. The Dictionary of National Biography (pp 1265–66). Ed. L. Stephen and S. Lee. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1882. A slightly different set of dates is provided in Maxwell-Lyte (1937), op. cit., pp 1-2. Here the command to Nicholas Carent (dean) and Hugh Sugar (treasurer) of the cathedral was to allow Stillington ‘to have free administration of the bishopric in spirituals …’ was dated 11 January 1466 at Knoll. His confirmation as bishop by George Neville, Archbishop of York is dated 16 March 1466 ‘in the chapel of the Inn of the archbishop of York and others.’ It is possible this citation was to a later, and less formal ceremony. The two sources can be reconciled in this manner but further clarification is still needed.
23. Campbell, J. Lives of the Lord Chancellors (p. 329), John Murray: London, 1868.
24. DNB, op. cit. p. 1265.
25. We do not know exactly where Stillington retired to during the readeption of Henry VI. Intriguingly, he may just have been in sanctuary alongside Queen Elizabeth in Westminster Abbey.
26. See Campbell, J. Lives of the Lord Chancellors. John Murray: London, 1868.
27. See Clive, M. The Son of York. Knopf: New York, 1974. And see also Jacob, E. F. The Fifteenth Century 1399-1485. Oxford, 1961.
28. The 1917 edition of the DNB says he resigned on 25 July 1475, as does Jex-Blake (1894) in an earlier reference. However, Campbell (1868), op. cit., p. 334 records that it was his inability to attend to the duties of his office which resulted in his 8 June resignation.
29. See Kendall (1995), p. 259.
30. See Mowat (1976), op. cit.
31. There is one other possibility, that being Warwick Castle. This comes from a faint hint in Polydore Vergil which occurs in a passage on the falling out of Edward and Warwick the Kingmaker. Vergil reported: ‘and it carryeth some color of truth, which commonly is reported, the King Edward should have assayed to do some dishonest act in the earl’s house; for as much as the king was a man who would readily cast an eye upon young ladies, and love them inordinately.’ Whether this refers to the pre-contract between Edward and Eleanor or some other dalliance of the King we cannot at present say. However, it is suggestive. And see Vergil, P. English History (p. 117) Ed. H. Ellis. Camden Society: London, 1849.
32. In contrast to the wedding with Elizabeth Woodville, there appear to have been no witnesses noted. Concerning the actual event, Kendall (1955) op. cit., notes: ‘He [Stillington] alone had witnessed, or transmitted, the King’s oath to the lady of his desire. Only then had she been willing to surrender to her sovereign, who, however, had sworn troth but to have his use of her.’
33. Ashdown-Hill (2009), op. cit.
34. See Hampton (1976), p. 15.
35. It has been suggested, e.g. Halsted (1844), p. 91, on the authority of Buck, that Eleanor was the first cousin to the Duke of Buckingham.
36. Sir George Buck. The History of the Life and Reign of Richard III (pp 175-176). 1646.
37. Seward, pp 122-123.
38. And see Smith, M. ‘Edward, George and Richard.’ The Ricardian, 77 (1982), 49-49.
39. Campbell (1868), op. cit.
40. There has been, and continues to be, much debate over George, Duke of Clarence and his various motivations and actions. Indeed, they make a prolonged story all of their own. And see: Hicks, M. A. (1981). ‘The middle brother: False, fleeting, perjur’d Clarence.’ The Ricardian, 72 (1981), 302-310; Wigram, I. ‘Clarence still perjur’d.’ The Ricardian, 73 (1981), 352-355; Hicks, M. A. ‘Clarence’s calumniator corrected.’ The Ricardian, 74 (1981), 399-401; Hicks, M. A. False, fleeting, perjur’d Clarence. Alan Sutton: Gloucester, 1980; Wigram, I. ‘False, fleeting, perjur’d Clarence: A further exchange, Clarence and Richard.’ The Ricardian, 76 (1982), 17-20; and Hicks, M. A. ‘False, fleeting, perjur’d Clarence: A further exchange, Richard and Clarence.’ The Ricardian, 76 (1982), 20-21.
41. Habington, T. History of Edward IV. 1640.
42. Sweeney (1996), op. cit., stated this in the following manner: ‘some have suggested that brother, George, Duke of Clarence, knew of the pre-contract and that he tried to use the information against Edward IV, thereby triggering his own execution. There is no proof.’ In respect of the latter statement I believe Sweeney is perfectly correct.
43. The legend of the butt of Malmsey wine might possibly be true if such a vessel had been used to store water. It implies the execution was by drowning.
44. It has been rather picturesquely suggested by Halsted that the Woodville marriage had ‘cast the Lady Eleanora Butler into so perplexed a melancholy, that she spent herself into a solitary life ever after.’
45. A letter from Elizabeth Stonor to her husband, dated 6 March 1478 reads: ‘Ye shall understand that the Bishop of Bath is brought into the Tower since you departed.’
46. De Commines (1855), Vol I p. 395, and Vol II p. 64.
47. And see Kendall (1955), op. cit., p. 237.
48. Ross, C. Edward IV. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1974.
49. A passage in Scofield, C. L. The Life and Reign of Edward IV (p. 213). New York, Longmans 1923, reads: ‘bishop accused of violating his oath of fidelity by some utterances prejudicial to the king, but on being summoned before the king and certain lords spiritual and temporal, was able to prove his innocence and faithfulness.’ One wonders, the Duke of Clarence being now dead, how Stillington proved his innocence. Also, if the arrest was in relation to the precontract, such innocence would absolve the bishop of having revealed it.
50. And see Mowat (1976).
51. Hammond, P. W. ‘Stillington and the pre-contract.’ The Ricardian, 54 (1976), 31.
52. Levine, M. ‘Richard III – Usurper or lawful King?’ Speculum, 34 (1959), pp. 394-395.
53. De Commines is estimated to have written the first six of his books, including the material quoted here, between 1488 and 1494; hence a middle date for his writings, i.e. 1491, has been cited. And see de Comines, P. The Historical Memoirs of Philip de Comines. Ed. A. R. Scobie. H. G. Bohn: Covent Garden, London, 1855.
54. In the original French the term used is ‘decouvrit.’
55. Mancini. The Usurpation of Richard the Third. Ed. C. A. J. Armstrong.(commentary);
56. Lander, J. R. ‘Edward IV: The modern legend, and a revision.’ History, 61 (1956), 41. And also see Armstrong, op. cit.
57. Wood, C.T. (1975), op. cit., p. 273.
58. Hammond, P. W. ‘Stillington and the Pre-contract.’ The Ricardian, 54 (1976), 31.
59. The Year Book of the first year of the reign of Henry VII (App. No. 75). And see Lingard, J. The History of England from the First Invasion by the Romans to the Accession of William and Mary in 1688. 6th edn, 10 vols. Charles Dolman: London, 1855. Vol. I, p. 6.
60. Letters and Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII, Volume VI, p. 618; see also Kendall (1955), p. 554.
61. Mowat (1976), op. cit., p. 26.
62. Markham, (1906), op. cit., p. 93.
63. See, for example, www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/chapter_72.htm
64. Markham (1906), op. cit., p. 97.
65. Grafton’s Chronicle, p. 126.
66. For example, Levine (1959) op. cit., takes this information and uses it in an interesting fashion, although he does correctly identify Richard as the person who brought in the depositions and materials, as opposed to attributing this act to Stillington.
67. Kendall (1955), op. cit., pp. 260-261.
68. DNB, op. cit., p. 1266.
69. Many motivations have been attributed to Stillington, among them, as we have seen, revenge on Edward and his Woodville relations. However, another even more strained motivation has been suggested as his abhorrence of a minority reign. As I have pointed out elsewhere, this minority reign would have been a rather brief one and thus this motive seems poorly supported, but it is one that must still be considered.
70. In support of such an opinion, Campbell (1868), op. cit., p. 331 wrote of Stillington that ‘He was a zealous legitmist.’
71. The one, very minor exception seems to be the approval of a petition from the masters of Stillington’s collegiate chapel at Nether Acaster to enclose forty acres of land the bishop had given them. This seems much more a mere passage of a request from others and can’t really be regarded as Stillington’s reward for so great a service to his king.
72. See Jex-Blake (1894), op. cit., p. 4 and note A, which cites Henry’s letter that reads: ‘Henry by the grace of God King of England, and of France, and Lord of Ireland, to our trusty and well-beloved Robert Rawdon gentleman, greeting. For as much as Robert Bishop of Bath and Sir Richard Ratcliff Knights, adherents and assistants to our great enemy Richard late duke of Gloucester, to his aid and assistance, have by diverse ways offended against the crown to us of right appertaining, we will and charge you and by this our warrant commit and give you power to attach unto us the said bishop and knight, and them personally to bring unto us, and to seize into your hands all such goods moveables and immoveables as the 22nd day of August the first year of our reign appertained and belonged unto them wheresoever they be found … Given under our signet at our town of Leicester the 23rd day of August, the first year of our reign.’ It must have been one of the very first documents signed by Henry as king and indicates the importance and celerity with which the bishop was sought.
Richard III and the Murder in the Tower Page 26
