Re: Richard's hero-worship of Edward (was Re: My conclusions on Stil

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington
and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)


> Can I ask what I know is a provocative question? If Richard still
> hero-worshipped Edward why did he put out such criticisms of him and his
> lifestyle after his death? And why put Elizabeth Lambert through that
> particularly humiliating penance?

The penance thing has always bothered me too - it seems vindictive and
contrasts oddly with both his usual respect for women and his later
generosity to Shore/Lambert herself.

I've always suspected that Richard had come to realise how flawed Edward had
been, but he still didn't want to believe that it had been Edward's *fault*.
So he was trying to convince himself that Hastings, Shore and the Woodvilles
had "corrupted" his pure sweet brother and led him astray, and had shortened
his life by encouraging his over-indulgence.

And of course he had only recently been bereaved of his not very old
brother, and would likely have still been at least somewhat in shock.
Certainly when somebody I loved very much died without warning, it took me
weeks to get back onto anything like an even mental keel.

Claire M Jordan wrote:


"The penance thing has always bothered me too - it seems vindictive and
contrasts oddly with both his usual respect for women and his later
generosity to Shore/Lambert herself.
//snip//

Doug here:
Was she involved, or suspected of being involved, in any way with Hastings'
plot against Richard?
IOW, the public penance was her punishment for whatever involvement
Elizabeth Lambert had in that. Might that also explain Richard's treatment
of her *after* she'd received her "punishment"?
Doug

I though she was acting as a go-between, ferrying messages to and fro between EW and MB....She probably got off lightly actually...eileen

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Claire M Jordan wrote:
>
>
> "The penance thing has always bothered me too - it seems vindictive and
> contrasts oddly with both his usual respect for women and his later
> generosity to Shore/Lambert herself.
> //snip//
>
> Doug here:
> Was she involved, or suspected of being involved, in any way with Hastings'
> plot against Richard?
> IOW, the public penance was her punishment for whatever involvement
> Elizabeth Lambert had in that. Might that also explain Richard's treatment
> of her *after* she'd received her "punishment"?
> Doug
>

That's what I understood, too.

I wonder who actually wrote the very moralistic language used to describe
Edward's reign & "Jane Shore's" penance. Although I realize Richard must
have approved at some level, it suggests there were churchmen around with
rather strait-laced views - that they were not all merely in it for the
power & glory.

A J


On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:06 AM, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...
> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I though she was acting as a go-between, ferrying messages to and fro
> between EW and MB....She probably got off lightly actually...eileen
>
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> <destama@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Claire M Jordan wrote:
> >
> >
> > "The penance thing has always bothered me too - it seems vindictive and
> > contrasts oddly with both his usual respect for women and his later
> > generosity to Shore/Lambert herself.
> > //snip//
> >
> > Doug here:
> > Was she involved, or suspected of being involved, in any way with
> Hastings'
> > plot against Richard?
> > IOW, the public penance was her punishment for whatever involvement
> > Elizabeth Lambert had in that. Might that also explain Richard's
> treatment
> > of her *after* she'd received her "punishment"?
> > Doug
> >
>
>
>

'Night walking heralds that trudge between the queen and mistress
Shore'. And then onto MB.
Yes that was her, but she also jumped swiftly into bed with Dorset as
soon as Hastings head was off, so her penance may well have been her
open "immorality" though I see it more as looking after number one in a
difficult age.
I still love Richard's comments about her prospective husband when he
was asked to approve the marriage. Shows he did indeed have a good sense
of humour!
Paul


On 31/05/2013 17:06, EileenB wrote:
> I though she was acting as a go-between, ferrying messages to and fro between EW and MB....She probably got off lightly actually...eileen
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>>
>> Claire M Jordan wrote:
>>
>>
>> "The penance thing has always bothered me too - it seems vindictive and
>> contrasts oddly with both his usual respect for women and his later
>> generosity to Shore/Lambert herself.
>> //snip//
>>
>> Doug here:
>> Was she involved, or suspected of being involved, in any way with Hastings'
>> plot against Richard?
>> IOW, the public penance was her punishment for whatever involvement
>> Elizabeth Lambert had in that. Might that also explain Richard's treatment
>> of her *after* she'd received her "punishment"?
>> Doug
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

AND he agreed to the marriage as well.........eileen

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> I still love Richard's comments about her prospective husband when he
> was asked to approve the marriage. Shows he did indeed have a good sense
> of humour!
> Paul
>
>
> On 31/05/2013 17:06, EileenB wrote:
> > I though she was acting as a go-between, ferrying messages to and fro between EW and MB....She probably got off lightly actually...eileen
> >
> > --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Claire M Jordan wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> "The penance thing has always bothered me too - it seems vindictive and
> >> contrasts oddly with both his usual respect for women and his later
> >> generosity to Shore/Lambert herself.
> >> //snip//
> >>
> >> Doug here:
> >> Was she involved, or suspected of being involved, in any way with Hastings'
> >> plot against Richard?
> >> IOW, the public penance was her punishment for whatever involvement
> >> Elizabeth Lambert had in that. Might that also explain Richard's treatment
> >> of her *after* she'd received her "punishment"?
> >> Doug
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Yes I know what she was suspected of but the penance is moral rather than a punishment for suspected treason. Could you imagine Edward inflicting that on a woman? As you say, that and the language used to describe Edward's reign smack of the Church. It's almost as though Richard was forced to do a deal with them - and no, I have no proof whatsoever. But, as we've said before, so many paths lead to the Church. 


________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 31 May 2013, 17:12
Subject: Re: Richard's hero-worship of Edward (was Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract)


That's what I understood, too.

I wonder who actually wrote the very moralistic language used to describe
Edward's reign & "Jane Shore's" penance.  Although I realize Richard must
have approved at some level, it suggests there were churchmen around with
rather strait-laced views - that they were not all merely in it for the
power & glory.

A J


On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:06 AM, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...
> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I though she was acting as a go-between, ferrying messages to and fro
> between EW and MB....She probably got off lightly actually...eileen
>
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> <destama@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Claire M Jordan wrote:
> >
> >
> > "The penance thing has always bothered me too - it seems vindictive and
> > contrasts oddly with both his usual respect for women and his later
> > generosity to Shore/Lambert herself.
> > //snip//
> >
> > Doug here:
> > Was she involved, or suspected of being involved, in any way with
> Hastings'
> > plot against Richard?
> > IOW, the public penance was her punishment for whatever involvement
> > Elizabeth Lambert had in that. Might that also explain Richard's
> treatment
> > of her *after* she'd received her "punishment"?
> > Doug
> >
>
> 
>






------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Also, after seeing what happened to George, would Richard not be wary of speaking up against the King? After all if Edward could execute one brother, he could execute another...

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 9:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington
> and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>
> > Can I ask what I know is a provocative question? If Richard still
> > hero-worshipped Edward why did he put out such criticisms of him and his
> > lifestyle after his death? And why put Elizabeth Lambert through that
> > particularly humiliating penance?
>
> The penance thing has always bothered me too - it seems vindictive and
> contrasts oddly with both his usual respect for women and his later
> generosity to Shore/Lambert herself.
>
> I've always suspected that Richard had come to realise how flawed Edward had
> been, but he still didn't want to believe that it had been Edward's *fault*.
> So he was trying to convince himself that Hastings, Shore and the Woodvilles
> had "corrupted" his pure sweet brother and led him astray, and had shortened
> his life by encouraging his over-indulgence.
>
> And of course he had only recently been bereaved of his not very old
> brother, and would likely have still been at least somewhat in shock.
> Certainly when somebody I loved very much died without warning, it took me
> weeks to get back onto anything like an even mental keel.
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes I know what she was suspected of but the penance is moral rather than a punishment for suspected treason. Could you imagine Edward inflicting that on a woman? As you say, that and the language used to describe Edward's reign smack of the Church. It's almost as though Richard was forced to do a deal with them - and no, I have no proof whatsoever. But, as we've said before, so many paths lead to the Church. 

Carol responds:

I don't know about Mistress Shore's punishment, which certainly does seem ecclesiastically motivated, but all the evidence points to the wording of Titulus Regius, condemnation of Edward's morals and all, as being Stillington's. Still, though, as I said, Richard had his own concerns about morality and was specifically asked by the church fathers, Russell and Langton among them, to help the Church look after these matters. (I don't have the whole petition, only the part about Richard's "blessed disposition, so I don't know the details of what they were requesting.)

Does anyone know what the powers of a chancellor are? Maybe Russell had a hand in Mistress Shore's punishment (which, by the way, doesn't strike me as particularly horrible--she had certainly be seen by many men wearing much less than a kirtle though to be sure walking barefoot for that distance probably hurt her delicate feet). But if she really was involved in the plot against Richard's life, she certainly got off easily to be punished for a sin of which she was certainly guilty. Had she been a man committing adultery with the queen, she would have died for that crime.

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes I know what she was suspected of but the penance is moral rather than a punishment for suspected treason. Could you imagine Edward inflicting that on a woman? As you say, that and the language used to describe Edward's reign smack of the Church. It's almost as though Richard was forced to do a deal with them - and no, I have no proof whatsoever. But, as we've said before, so many paths lead to the Church. 
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't know about Mistress Shore's punishment, which certainly does seem ecclesiastically motivated, but all the evidence points to the wording of Titulus Regius, condemnation of Edward's morals and all, as being Stillington's. Still, though, as I said, Richard had his own concerns about morality and was specifically asked by the church fathers, Russell and Langton among them, to help the Church look after these matters. (I don't have the whole petition, only the part about Richard's "blessed disposition, so I don't know the details of what they were requesting.)
>
> Does anyone know what the powers of a chancellor are? Maybe Russell had a hand in Mistress Shore's punishment (which, by the way, doesn't strike me as particularly horrible--she had certainly be seen by many men wearing much less than a kirtle though to be sure walking barefoot for that distance probably hurt her delicate feet). But if she really was involved in the plot against Richard's life, she certainly got off easily to be punished for a sin of which she was certainly guilty. Had she been a man committing adultery with the queen, she would have died for that crime.
>
> Carol
>

Marie responds:
I'm sure I once heard someone - perhaps it was Anne Sutton - saying that the penance would have been imposed by the city authorities, not the king.

Hilary Jones wrote:

"Yes I know what she was suspected of but the penance is moral rather than a
punishment for suspected treason. Could you imagine Edward inflicting that
on a woman? As you say, that and the language used to describe Edward's
reign smack of the Church. It's almost as though Richard was forced to do a
deal with them - and no, I have no proof whatsoever. But, as we've said
before, so many paths lead to the Church."

Doug here:
That's why I placed "punishment" in quotations. She was punished for her
moral failings, rather than the more serious criminal acts she had
committed; public penance was embarassing, but she kept her head.
Misprision(sp?) of treason meant, I believe, *any* involvement in treasonous
activities and, even if Mistress Shore didn't know what was in letters she
carried, by carrying them she could be charged with treason, quite probably
convicted and either lose her head or spend a long time in the Tower.
And *not* in the Royal apartments...
Doug