Richard III and the Murder in the Tower (15 page)

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.

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) Lucy
¹⁵
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 persistent
¹⁷
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.

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 Dictionary 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.

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 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:

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.