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 required 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) Lucy15and 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 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 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.