Hughes' data about Richard's sexual puritanism

Richard's supporters often argue that though he had a strain of
personal Puritanism that made it hard for him to understand his
brother's court, Richard was soundly liberal in that he had no desire
to regulate the sexual mores of others. The letter in which Richard
takes a laid back and dryly humored stance on a courtier's marriage
to Jane Shore supports such a view, and so does the fact that Richard
had, recognized and provided fully for several illegitimate children.

Titulus Regius and the speech, "Bastard slips shall not take root"
are strange, but explicable as medieval dealing with political
matters, and I have been inclined to think that the latter was a
colorful statement of simple political reality. Illegitimate
children couldn't inherit the throne. It did appear to say more than
was absolutely necessary on the matter in a very old testament
manner. Richard's speech to young Prince Edward about the people
who had raised him having destroyed his father through sexual
immorality is very strange, but I took it more for a coldly snobbish
sort of neuroticism than for aggressive Puritanism.

When I checked on the sources of Hughes' perception that Richard was
aggressively Puritan and believed he had a mission to return England
to a Puritanical theocracy consistent with Israel in the age of the
Judges, I found that Hughes cites some very well documented evidence
of aggressive Puritanism in Richard that is a good deal stranger than
this.

"Richard's puritanism and obsession with sexual morality... was a
passion that he shared with his sister [whose promiscuity was the
subject of bawdy Burgundian songs when she married Charles of
Burgundy], who founded a house for reformed prostitutes at Mons... In
his statutes for Middleham he issued instructions that his chaplains
were not to haunt taverns or brothels. As protector in 1483 he tried
to drive prostitutes from London and a proclamation was issued by the
mayor: 'for to eschew the stynkynge and horrible synne of lechery in
all such strumpettes and misguyded and idill women... Departe and
withdrawe theymself and in no wise be so hardy to come ayen Resorte
or abide within the said citee or liberte.' (Calender of Letter
Books of the City of London) Prostitutes had been banned from the
city itself since the alte thirteenth century, but the inclusion in
his inhibition of the Bankside brothel quarter in the liberty of the
Bishops of Winchester at Southwark is an indication of the
protector's serious intentions." [Hughes then speaks of Richard's
own sensual strak and his several illegitimate children - which in
true over teh edge and fell off the cliff psychoanalytic fashion, he
thinks are ON ACCOUNT OF Richard's severely repressed Puritan
sexuality. ]

"He was a strict enforcer of daily worship in his own chapel - an
ordinance made by the king for those in his household in the north
stipulated that 'the hour of goddes service, diet adn rising be at a
resonable time and convenient hours.' Anyone breaking this ordinance
was to be punished."

"Richard's proclamation against the leaders of the rebellion of the
southern counties headed by the Duke of Buckingham in October, 1483,
would be expected to include the sexual profiglacy of the Woodvilles -
but it went much further and got alot stranger. This proclation
against high treason and rebellion, now, "was headed, 'Proclamation
for the reform of Morals'. Unlike Titulus Regius, which couched
valid complaints about the Woodvilles in language of sexual
Puritanism and continued with the standard medieval practice of
charging the females involved with witchcraft, this document was
talking variously about men involved in the rebellion, and all of the
people of England. "In it he granted a general pardon to his immoral
and adulterous subjects in August 1483 trusting all 'oppressours and
extortioners of his subjectes, orible (spelling his) adultres and
bawdes, provokying the high indignation and displeasure of God, shuld
be reconsiled and reduced to the wey of trouth and with the abiding
in good disposition. This yet notwithstanding, Thomas Dorset, late
Marques of Dorset, which not ferying God, nor the perille of his
soule, hath many and sundry maydes, widowes, and wifes dampnably and
without shame devoured, defloured and defouled, holding the
unshampful and myschevous woman called Shroe's wife in adultery.' He
named other conspirators of Buckingham who intended 'not only the
destruccion of the riall person oure seid soveraign Lord and other
his true subjects, teh brech of his peace, tranquillite, and common
wele of this his reame, but also in virtue and the letting of virtue
and dampnable maintenaunce of vices and syn as they have done in
tymes passed to the greate displeasu of God and evyll exemple of all
cristen people'. The king then calls on his subjects to resist and
punish 'the grete and dampnable vices of the seid traytours,
adutlrers and bawades so that by true and feithfull assistens virtue
mey be lyfte up and praysed in the reame to teh honour and pleasure
of God, and vice utterly rebuked and dampened."

"The same obession with sexual purity surfaces again when he was
faced with the escape to Brittany of the Woodville faction led by the
Marquis of Dorset. In his proclamation to the sheriffs of the
counties of the realm on 8 December 1484 he claimed that these
men 'be knowen for open murdrers avoutrers and extorcioners contrary
to trouthe, honor and nature.' Furthermore he claimed that in
finding the support of Henry Richmond they had found a like-minded
spirit and that all true Englishmen should defend themselves and
their wives. This proclmation was renewed on 22 June 1485 and issued
from Nottingham to every shire against these same supporters of Tudor
claiming they were adulterers 'contrary to the pleasire of God.'"

These are actual things Richard wrote, said and did, from primary
sources, and not things other people reported that he said and did.
Richard wasn't only complaining in vivid and medieval terms, as all
of the old nobility of England did, that the Woodvilles were a threat
to their wives along with all of their other property, here, nor was
he addressing specifically the Woodvilles' immorality. He was
addressing the morality of all of the people of England. His pardon
was a general pardon. He commanded all of the English to turn from
their orible adultery. Most laughable of all is the notion of Henry
Tudor as a jolly adulterer! In fact, such a speech is the strongest
piece of evidence that Hughes presents that Richard was outright
mentally unstable.

The church did have its own strange politics during this period. One
of my other sources wrote that the church's authority was under
attack by far more than the upper class intellectual inner-oriented
mystics half lost in study of ancient Rome that Hughes discusses at
great depth. The laity were demanding an end to the immorality and
corruption of the Church, and more than a dozen clergy in every
parish in any year were variously charged and thrown in prison, and
outright lynched by angry parishioners. The church had met and was
meeting to deal with this threat, and discussing how to put on a more
unified front for the laity. Richard gained the support of the
majority of the people on hte old king's council, most of them civil
servants who were churchmen, largely by virtue of his strong support
for return to theocracy. When the Church and Richard got together,
the results were at times outright strange, particularly as the
churchmen involved were hardly old-style Catholics! The clergy
attached to Richard's circle, the clergy attached to Edward's court,
and the groups and schools they came from, and indeed virtually
everyone in Richard's circle, subscribed to a new and very inner-
oriented form of extreme Christian mysticism, that emphasized a life
of prayer and personal holiness. These intellectuals were one of the
strains of immediate ancestry of Calvinism and Evangelical
Christianity. It is little surprise if under Richard London at times
bore some resemblance to what it looked like under Cromwell, nor if
the speech "Bastard slips shall not take root" was a bit carried away.

In fact, Hughes clearly describes Richard as surrounded by and
influenced in his reading and private prayers, by a very sick bunch
of high Anglicans who lived their entire lives far more out of touch
with reality than an average very sick high Anglican, and argues
convincingly that in addition to having a clerical temperament,
Richard had once begun training for the priesthood. He basically
draws a very clear picture of a monarchy on the verge of crumbling
completely, that could only have been saved by Henry Tudor's coup.
What is most sad is that poorly supported psychoanalytic notions
about Richard being psychotically manic aside, Hughes is pretty
clearly describing reality.

On a more personal level, I am getting the idea that Richard's
preoccupation about sexual morality was bound to his mood. Clearly
it came and went. He was very on again, off again with it.
Conceivably it came and went with the cycles of a cycling mood
disorder. This spouting and frenzy of running other peoples' lives,
takes place at certain times, most often when Richard is feeling
threatened, or feeling angry. When someone with bipolar disorder is
angry or aroused, they can talk at great length, get very irrational,
and be very hard to shut up, and will often vividly and coldly
describe whoever they are talking about in terms of whatever is their
vision of a particularly disgusting sort of a beetle. It also looks
as if, in bipolar trigger issue manner, traumas in Richard's life and
continued elaboration on the theme caused Richard to rather leave
reality behind on this particular issue. It appears as if if he
decided someone was a cockroach, and he was angry, he went off at
great length about alleged and sometimes imaginary sexual sins they
had committed.

Yours,
Dora

Hello again Dora and all - very interesting post. I recall reading
that the Croyland Chronicler cited Richard's court as being
licientious - was this a true observation or was it a well aimed
insult? It occurs to me that besides Richard's exposure to Edward
IV's sexual activities - which he may well have viewed as weakening
EIV and the government itself - there may have been some relationship
or incident in RIII's own life which contributed to
this 'puritanical' streak. Perhaps he was at one time sexually
betrayed - and of course, it is impossible for us to know this, we
can only speculate. He was certainly sexually active enough to
produce at least 2 illegitimate children, and despite the 'known
regularity of his private life' he may have been simply discreet
after his marriage. I don't dispute that RIII and Anne Neville
appeared to have a warm relationship, considering the times, but I
don't view their marriage as something out of a romance novel. Your
comments on bi-polar illness are also interesting - I have a friend
(also a libra!) who is bi-polar, and can vouch for the fluctuations
in view point and emotions that that condition can instigate,
particularly in relationship matters.

--- In , "Dora Smith
<tiggernut24@y...>" <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> Richard's supporters often argue that though he had a strain of
> personal Puritanism that made it hard for him to understand his
> brother's court, Richard was soundly liberal in that he had no
desire
> to regulate the sexual mores of others. The letter in which
Richard
> takes a laid back and dryly humored stance on a courtier's marriage
> to Jane Shore supports such a view, and so does the fact that
Richard
> had, recognized and provided fully for several illegitimate
children.
>
> Titulus Regius and the speech, "Bastard slips shall not take root"
> are strange, but explicable as medieval dealing with political
> matters, and I have been inclined to think that the latter was a
> colorful statement of simple political reality. Illegitimate
> children couldn't inherit the throne. It did appear to say more
than
> was absolutely necessary on the matter in a very old testament
> manner. Richard's speech to young Prince Edward about the people
> who had raised him having destroyed his father through sexual
> immorality is very strange, but I took it more for a coldly
snobbish
> sort of neuroticism than for aggressive Puritanism.
>
> When I checked on the sources of Hughes' perception that Richard
was
> aggressively Puritan and believed he had a mission to return
England
> to a Puritanical theocracy consistent with Israel in the age of the
> Judges, I found that Hughes cites some very well documented
evidence
> of aggressive Puritanism in Richard that is a good deal stranger
than
> this.
>
> "Richard's puritanism and obsession with sexual morality... was a
> passion that he shared with his sister [whose promiscuity was the
> subject of bawdy Burgundian songs when she married Charles of
> Burgundy], who founded a house for reformed prostitutes at Mons...
In
> his statutes for Middleham he issued instructions that his
chaplains
> were not to haunt taverns or brothels. As protector in 1483 he
tried
> to drive prostitutes from London and a proclamation was issued by
the
> mayor: 'for to eschew the stynkynge and horrible synne of lechery
in
> all such strumpettes and misguyded and idill women... Departe and
> withdrawe theymself and in no wise be so hardy to come ayen Resorte
> or abide within the said citee or liberte.' (Calender of Letter
> Books of the City of London) Prostitutes had been banned from the
> city itself since the alte thirteenth century, but the inclusion in
> his inhibition of the Bankside brothel quarter in the liberty of
the
> Bishops of Winchester at Southwark is an indication of the
> protector's serious intentions." [Hughes then speaks of Richard's
> own sensual strak and his several illegitimate children - which in
> true over teh edge and fell off the cliff psychoanalytic fashion,
he
> thinks are ON ACCOUNT OF Richard's severely repressed Puritan
> sexuality. ]
>
> "He was a strict enforcer of daily worship in his own chapel - an
> ordinance made by the king for those in his household in the north
> stipulated that 'the hour of goddes service, diet adn rising be at
a
> resonable time and convenient hours.' Anyone breaking this
ordinance
> was to be punished."
>
> "Richard's proclamation against the leaders of the rebellion of the
> southern counties headed by the Duke of Buckingham in October,
1483,
> would be expected to include the sexual profiglacy of the
Woodvilles -
> but it went much further and got alot stranger. This proclation
> against high treason and rebellion, now, "was headed, 'Proclamation
> for the reform of Morals'. Unlike Titulus Regius, which couched
> valid complaints about the Woodvilles in language of sexual
> Puritanism and continued with the standard medieval practice of
> charging the females involved with witchcraft, this document was
> talking variously about men involved in the rebellion, and all of
the
> people of England. "In it he granted a general pardon to his
immoral
> and adulterous subjects in August 1483 trusting all 'oppressours
and
> extortioners of his subjectes, orible (spelling his) adultres and
> bawdes, provokying the high indignation and displeasure of God,
shuld
> be reconsiled and reduced to the wey of trouth and with the abiding
> in good disposition. This yet notwithstanding, Thomas Dorset, late
> Marques of Dorset, which not ferying God, nor the perille of his
> soule, hath many and sundry maydes, widowes, and wifes dampnably
and
> without shame devoured, defloured and defouled, holding the
> unshampful and myschevous woman called Shroe's wife in adultery.'
He
> named other conspirators of Buckingham who intended 'not only the
> destruccion of the riall person oure seid soveraign Lord and other
> his true subjects, teh brech of his peace, tranquillite, and common
> wele of this his reame, but also in virtue and the letting of
virtue
> and dampnable maintenaunce of vices and syn as they have done in
> tymes passed to the greate displeasu of God and evyll exemple of
all
> cristen people'. The king then calls on his subjects to resist and
> punish 'the grete and dampnable vices of the seid traytours,
> adutlrers and bawades so that by true and feithfull assistens
virtue
> mey be lyfte up and praysed in the reame to teh honour and pleasure
> of God, and vice utterly rebuked and dampened."
>
> "The same obession with sexual purity surfaces again when he was
> faced with the escape to Brittany of the Woodville faction led by
the
> Marquis of Dorset. In his proclamation to the sheriffs of the
> counties of the realm on 8 December 1484 he claimed that these
> men 'be knowen for open murdrers avoutrers and extorcioners
contrary
> to trouthe, honor and nature.' Furthermore he claimed that in
> finding the support of Henry Richmond they had found a like-minded
> spirit and that all true Englishmen should defend themselves and
> their wives. This proclmation was renewed on 22 June 1485 and
issued
> from Nottingham to every shire against these same supporters of
Tudor
> claiming they were adulterers 'contrary to the pleasire of God.'"
>
> These are actual things Richard wrote, said and did, from primary
> sources, and not things other people reported that he said and
did.
> Richard wasn't only complaining in vivid and medieval terms, as all
> of the old nobility of England did, that the Woodvilles were a
threat
> to their wives along with all of their other property, here, nor
was
> he addressing specifically the Woodvilles' immorality. He was
> addressing the morality of all of the people of England. His
pardon
> was a general pardon. He commanded all of the English to turn from
> their orible adultery. Most laughable of all is the notion of
Henry
> Tudor as a jolly adulterer! In fact, such a speech is the
strongest
> piece of evidence that Hughes presents that Richard was outright
> mentally unstable.
>
> The church did have its own strange politics during this period.
One
> of my other sources wrote that the church's authority was under
> attack by far more than the upper class intellectual inner-oriented
> mystics half lost in study of ancient Rome that Hughes discusses at
> great depth. The laity were demanding an end to the immorality and
> corruption of the Church, and more than a dozen clergy in every
> parish in any year were variously charged and thrown in prison, and
> outright lynched by angry parishioners. The church had met and was
> meeting to deal with this threat, and discussing how to put on a
more
> unified front for the laity. Richard gained the support of the
> majority of the people on hte old king's council, most of them
civil
> servants who were churchmen, largely by virtue of his strong
support
> for return to theocracy. When the Church and Richard got together,
> the results were at times outright strange, particularly as the
> churchmen involved were hardly old-style Catholics! The clergy
> attached to Richard's circle, the clergy attached to Edward's
court,
> and the groups and schools they came from, and indeed virtually
> everyone in Richard's circle, subscribed to a new and very inner-
> oriented form of extreme Christian mysticism, that emphasized a
life
> of prayer and personal holiness. These intellectuals were one of
the
> strains of immediate ancestry of Calvinism and Evangelical
> Christianity. It is little surprise if under Richard London at
times
> bore some resemblance to what it looked like under Cromwell, nor if
> the speech "Bastard slips shall not take root" was a bit carried
away.
>
> In fact, Hughes clearly describes Richard as surrounded by and
> influenced in his reading and private prayers, by a very sick bunch
> of high Anglicans who lived their entire lives far more out of
touch
> with reality than an average very sick high Anglican, and argues
> convincingly that in addition to having a clerical temperament,
> Richard had once begun training for the priesthood. He basically
> draws a very clear picture of a monarchy on the verge of crumbling
> completely, that could only have been saved by Henry Tudor's coup.
> What is most sad is that poorly supported psychoanalytic notions
> about Richard being psychotically manic aside, Hughes is pretty
> clearly describing reality.
>
> On a more personal level, I am getting the idea that Richard's
> preoccupation about sexual morality was bound to his mood. Clearly
> it came and went. He was very on again, off again with it.
> Conceivably it came and went with the cycles of a cycling mood
> disorder. This spouting and frenzy of running other peoples'
lives,
> takes place at certain times, most often when Richard is feeling
> threatened, or feeling angry. When someone with bipolar disorder
is
> angry or aroused, they can talk at great length, get very
irrational,
> and be very hard to shut up, and will often vividly and coldly
> describe whoever they are talking about in terms of whatever is
their
> vision of a particularly disgusting sort of a beetle. It also
looks
> as if, in bipolar trigger issue manner, traumas in Richard's life
and
> continued elaboration on the theme caused Richard to rather leave
> reality behind on this particular issue. It appears as if if he
> decided someone was a cockroach, and he was angry, he went off at
> great length about alleged and sometimes imaginary sexual sins they
> had committed.
>
> Yours,
> Dora

Richard's sexual puritanism of course was essential as propaganda for
his claim to the throne. Elizabeth Woodville - 'Lady Elizabeth Grey'
in Titulus Regius - I suspect was never very popular because of her
relatively parvenu paternal family, her lack of virginity when she
married Edward IV, the fact that he didn't make a better 'catch' & the
fact that she'd been married to an enemy Lancastrian. The fact that
her parvenu, ex-Lancastrian relatives did so well under Edward
would've exasperated some, e.g. Buckingham. Dorset, Elizabeth's son
by the earlier marriage, representing the Woodvile faction, in his
attempt to knock Richard off his perch in April 1483 may've been the
last straw for Richard, who out of fear & loathing for the Woodvilles
& a natural ambition, had to remove the half Woodville Edward V.
Being puritanical about Edward IV having all of his children born out
of wedlock served Richard's purpose, but, as has been said, Richard
wasn't averse to licentious behaviour himself. So, how much of this
puritanism was a genuine belief or hypocritical propaganda, is the
question? Whether Richard was subject to mood changes? Well,
everyone is too some degree.

I wrote up my reactions to Hughes' book yesterday - I wonder whether
to post it or not? I basically think Hughes misunderstood every
single piece of evidence he presented, and missed an entire fleet of
boats - but he still provided alot of good information on the
situation that left me with greater insight into what was going on.

I'm going to have to look at where Croyland says RICHARD's court was
licentious. I suspect though that if it was, it wasn't some kind of
psychoanalytic reaction to being Puritans that was to blame, but had
alot more to do with the serious neuroticism of those north country
mystics who seem to have composed Richard's entire circle and much of
Edward's court.

Croyland himself, or, seemingly, themselves, seem to have been a
case. Markham writes that both notes on the text itself, and
internal logic and chronology, force one to the conclusion that the
document was written by two people, both monks at Croyland. One of
them had been a doctor of common law or something of the sort and
seemingly a member of the royal court, and the other was a naive and
not very bright monk. The royal official appears to have been a very
interesting man himself. He appears to write in something of the
tone of the Stonor letters. Does anyone know what happened to John
Russell, because some thing it is he who was the Croyland chronicler!

If it was the naive and not too bright monk who made that statement,
Markham says he just wrote down pretty much whatever came to him -
and he was a naive and not bright monk in an isolated setting.

Yours,
Dora

I think you missed it. Richard both called Henry Tudor and all his
followers 'orrible adulterers - and believed it.

Dora


-- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> Richard's sexual puritanism of course was essential as propaganda
for
> his claim to the throne. Elizabeth Woodville - 'Lady Elizabeth
Grey'
> in Titulus Regius - I suspect was never very popular because of her
> relatively parvenu paternal family, her lack of virginity when she
> married Edward IV, the fact that he didn't make a better 'catch' &
the
> fact that she'd been married to an enemy Lancastrian. The fact
that
> her parvenu, ex-Lancastrian relatives did so well under Edward
> would've exasperated some, e.g. Buckingham. Dorset, Elizabeth's
son
> by the earlier marriage, representing the Woodvile faction, in his
> attempt to knock Richard off his perch in April 1483 may've been
the
> last straw for Richard, who out of fear & loathing for the
Woodvilles
> & a natural ambition, had to remove the half Woodville Edward V.
> Being puritanical about Edward IV having all of his children born
out
> of wedlock served Richard's purpose, but, as has been said, Richard
> wasn't averse to licentious behaviour himself. So, how much of
this
> puritanism was a genuine belief or hypocritical propaganda, is the
> question? Whether Richard was subject to mood changes? Well,
> everyone is too some degree.

Propaganda interests?!! Come back to this planet, Willison. What
kind of propaganda interest did telling Edward of York that the
people who had raised him had killed his father by being immoral and
were trying the same game with him serve?

Politics of the situation explain much, but they just don't explain
the stranger and more off the deep end thigns that the man said and
did.

Dora

--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> Richard's sexual puritanism of course was essential as propaganda
for
> his claim to the throne. Elizabeth Woodville - 'Lady Elizabeth
Grey'
>

--- In , "Dora Smith
<tiggernut24@y...>" <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> Propaganda interests?!! Come back to this planet, Willison. What
> kind of propaganda interest did telling Edward of York that the
> people who had raised him had killed his father by being immoral and
> were trying the same game with him serve?
>
> Politics of the situation explain much, but they just don't explain
> the stranger and more off the deep end thigns that the man said and
> did.
>
> Dora

Richard was very good at using immorality as a reason for doing away
with people who he didn't want around. Richard may've thought that he
was morally superior to everyone else, but it was also politically
convenient to use immorality as an excuse to Edward V to imprison &
later execute Rivers, Grey... If Richard was really so highly moral
he seemed to forget that trials are moral, which he conveniently let
go for Rivers, Grey & Hastings. In fact, his morality was very
flexible. He could father bastards himself & probably felt as
attracted by women as most men, but saw this as terrible in others:
Edward IV, Dorset, Hastings, Tudor... Richard may've been
shortsighted about his hypocrisy or he may've been an astute
politician using the morality card as a means of getting his own way.