Three concubines

The king would saie that he had three concubins, which in three
diuerse
properties diuerslie excelled. One the merriest, another the wiliest,
the third the holiest harlot in his realme, as one whome no man could
get out of the church lightlie to any place, but it were to his bed.

The other two were somewhat greater personages, and nathelesse of
their
humilitie consent to be namelesse, and to forbeare the praise of
those
properties: but the merriest was Shores wife, in whom the king
therefore tooke speciall pleasure. For manie he had, but hir he loued;

the info above is from holinshed's chronicle.
we know that jane shore aka elizabeth lambert is the merriest
concubine.

given that eleanor butler/boteler nee talbot lived in a convent she
could be the holiest harlot. i think she qualifies as the "greater
personages" unnamed.

therefore, would one consider "elizabeth lucy" the wiliest?

or the unidentified elizabeth waite?

waite doesn't appear to be a "greater personage" surname. if however
waite was an alternative surname, as boteler was for talbot i/we
could be chasing a peerage "related" surname.

the wiliest can't or shouldn't be woodville, as she is "his wife",
and would not be considered a concubine, but his consort by the
writer.

however, if e4 knew is marriage to woodville was invalid because of
the precontract to talbot. he could refer to woodville as his wiliest
concubine.

any thoughts or enlightening information sincerely appreciated.

roslyn

Roslyn wrote: The king would saie that he had three
concubins, which in three diuerse properties diuerslie
excelled. One the merriest, another the wiliest, the
third the holiest harlot in his realme, as one whome
no man could get out of the church lightlie to any
place, but it were to his bed.

[Snip]


the info above is from holinshed's chronicle.
we know that jane shore aka elizabeth lambert is the
merriest concubine.

given that eleanor butler/boteler nee talbot lived in
a convent she could be the holiest harlot. i think she
qualifies as the "greater personages" unnamed.

[Snip]

any thoughts or enlightening information sincerely
appreciated.

****

I can't give any enlightening information, but here
are are my thoughts on the subject:

"The Adventures of Alianore Audley," by Brian
Wainwright identifies the holiest harlot, probably
tongue-in-cheek. It gave me one of the best laughs
I've had in a long time. I won't spoil it for anyone
who hasn't read it. I recommend it to anyone who
enjoys a good joke.

Even though "The Adventures of Alianore Audley" is a
humorous book, it could be right about the identity of
the holiest harlot. It's worth considering, but I
can't remember reading this candidate-for-holiest
harlot's name anywhere else.

I hope someone else on the list has some ideas or
information about this.


Marion, who has no stock in the company that publishes
"The Adventures of Alianore Audley." I just enjoy a
good laugh.







__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Holinshed has lifted this verbatim from More's 'Richard III'. The
problem with it is that Edward must have had far more than three
mistresses during his 22-year reign, jurdging by his reputation. Is
More referring to three he had simultaneously, or three over time? It
sounds to me like the latter, and probably mistresses he had when he
died rather than those he'd discarded along the way. Certainly this
was true of Shore's wife. Given that More (or his source) was either
unaware of Eleanor Butler or - more likely - chose to ignore her, I
doubt that any of them was Eleanor.
The problem for me is, again, how far do you trust More? His little
biography of Mistrsss Shore is highly inaccurate (and designed to
provoke unwarranted sympathy for her). He substitutes Lady Lucy for
Eleanor Butler. He was only a small boy at the time of Edward's
death. His 'history' may well have been mainly Morton's work, and for
Edward's court even what he discovered himself could have come only
from those of Edward's old courtiers who had become courtiers to
Henry VII. Is this tale of three mistresses any more than whimsy?

If you'd had to ask me who the wiliest one was, I'd have said Shore's
wife, given her divorce of her husband, her quick seduction of Dorset
after Edward's death, her role in the Hastings plot and, finally, her
seduction in prison (and marriage) of Richard's own attorney.
However, More categorically tells us she was the merry one:- an
innocent, happy little thing, forever getting Edward to forgive
people - the original 'tart with a heart'.

Marie




> The king would saie that he had three concubins, which in three
> diuerse
> properties diuerslie excelled. One the merriest, another the
wiliest,
> the third the holiest harlot in his realme, as one whome no man
could
> get out of the church lightlie to any place, but it were to his bed.
>
> The other two were somewhat greater personages, and nathelesse of
> their
> humilitie consent to be namelesse, and to forbeare the praise of
> those
> properties: but the merriest was Shores wife, in whom the king
> therefore tooke speciall pleasure. For manie he had, but hir he
loued;
>
> the info above is from holinshed's chronicle.
> we know that jane shore aka elizabeth lambert is the merriest
> concubine.
>
> given that eleanor butler/boteler nee talbot lived in a convent she
> could be the holiest harlot. i think she qualifies as the "greater
> personages" unnamed.
>
> therefore, would one consider "elizabeth lucy" the wiliest?
>
> or the unidentified elizabeth waite?
>
> waite doesn't appear to be a "greater personage" surname. if
however
> waite was an alternative surname, as boteler was for talbot i/we
> could be chasing a peerage "related" surname.
>
> the wiliest can't or shouldn't be woodville, as she is "his wife",
> and would not be considered a concubine, but his consort by the
> writer.
>
> however, if e4 knew is marriage to woodville was invalid because of
> the precontract to talbot. he could refer to woodville as his
wiliest
> concubine.
>
> any thoughts or enlightening information sincerely appreciated.
>
> roslyn
>

Edward probably had many mistresses at the same time. Along with
Hastings and Edwards eldest step son they shared the same women,
often passing them round when growing tired of them.
This seems to have been the norm for nobles of the time, with even
the puritannical Richard managing to sire at least three bastards.

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
>
> Holinshed has lifted this verbatim from More's 'Richard III'. The
> problem with it is that Edward must have had far more than three
> mistresses during his 22-year reign, jurdging by his reputation. Is
> More referring to three he had simultaneously, or three over time?
It
> sounds to me like the latter, and probably mistresses he had when
he
> died rather than those he'd discarded along the way. Certainly this
> was true of Shore's wife. Given that More (or his source) was
either
> unaware of Eleanor Butler or - more likely - chose to ignore her, I
> doubt that any of them was Eleanor.
> The problem for me is, again, how far do you trust More? His little
> biography of Mistrsss Shore is highly inaccurate (and designed to
> provoke unwarranted sympathy for her). He substitutes Lady Lucy for
> Eleanor Butler. He was only a small boy at the time of Edward's
> death. His 'history' may well have been mainly Morton's work, and
for
> Edward's court even what he discovered himself could have come only
> from those of Edward's old courtiers who had become courtiers to
> Henry VII. Is this tale of three mistresses any more than whimsy?
>
> If you'd had to ask me who the wiliest one was, I'd have said
Shore's
> wife, given her divorce of her husband, her quick seduction of
Dorset
> after Edward's death, her role in the Hastings plot and, finally,
her
> seduction in prison (and marriage) of Richard's own attorney.
> However, More categorically tells us she was the merry one:- an
> innocent, happy little thing, forever getting Edward to forgive
> people - the original 'tart with a heart'.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> > The king would saie that he had three concubins, which in three
> > diuerse
> > properties diuerslie excelled. One the merriest, another the
> wiliest,
> > the third the holiest harlot in his realme, as one whome no man
> could
> > get out of the church lightlie to any place, but it were to his
bed.
> >
> > The other two were somewhat greater personages, and nathelesse of
> > their
> > humilitie consent to be namelesse, and to forbeare the praise of
> > those
> > properties: but the merriest was Shores wife, in whom the king
> > therefore tooke speciall pleasure. For manie he had, but hir he
> loued;
> >
> > the info above is from holinshed's chronicle.
> > we know that jane shore aka elizabeth lambert is the merriest
> > concubine.
> >
> > given that eleanor butler/boteler nee talbot lived in a convent
she
> > could be the holiest harlot. i think she qualifies as
the "greater
> > personages" unnamed.
> >
> > therefore, would one consider "elizabeth lucy" the wiliest?
> >
> > or the unidentified elizabeth waite?
> >
> > waite doesn't appear to be a "greater personage" surname. if
> however
> > waite was an alternative surname, as boteler was for talbot i/we
> > could be chasing a peerage "related" surname.
> >
> > the wiliest can't or shouldn't be woodville, as she is "his
wife",
> > and would not be considered a concubine, but his consort by the
> > writer.
> >
> > however, if e4 knew is marriage to woodville was invalid because
of
> > the precontract to talbot. he could refer to woodville as his
> wiliest
> > concubine.
> >
> > any thoughts or enlightening information sincerely appreciated.
> >
> > roslyn
> >
>

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
>
> Holinshed has lifted this verbatim from More's 'Richard III'. The
> problem with it is that Edward must have had far more than three
> mistresses during his 22-year reign, jurdging by his reputation. Is
> More referring to three he had simultaneously, or three over time? It
> sounds to me like the latter,

Sorry - I meant the former (ie simultaneous mistresses).

Marie

PS. I bet Edward broke the rules on affinity a few times.

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
>
> Holinshed has lifted this verbatim from More's 'Richard III'. The
> problem with it is that Edward must have had far more than three
> mistresses during his 22-year reign, jurdging by his reputation.
Is
> More referring to three he had simultaneously, or three over time?


I don't know how much we should take these "three concubines" at
face value, anyway. More was big on allegory and puns, usually
Latin/English ones. And allegory was in style in his time and for
long after, as a way to make comments on people and affairs in
relative safety.

The three concubines may have been women, or they might have been
Edward's favorite drinks or horses or laws he sponsored or castles
he owned or favored persons at court or abstracts such as any four
of the ever-popular seven sins, or godwot.

As I've gone on about before, it is very difficult to figure out the
slang, circumlocutions, and nudge-wink contemporary references of
long societies.

Katy

--- In , "mariewalsh2003" <marie@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@> wrote:
> >
> > Holinshed has lifted this verbatim from More's 'Richard III'.

So therefore it is not worth the parchment it is printed on. I think Sir Thomas was just
having a little bit of fun and having a go at writing fiction. He tells of Brackenbury
refusing to take part in the murder of the princes, presumably because he found the
murder of Edwards sons abhorrent when we know that Brackenbury later fought and died
beside Richard at Bosworth! He has Richard waving around a withered arm - while we also
know Richard died fighting 'manfully in the thickest of his foes' at Bosworth (before he
died he brought down Sir John Cheyney) - reputedly an ox of a man- hardly
possible for a man with a withered arm. We know it is fiction Richard had a withered arm
because it would have been mentioned by his contemporaries. He even described Richard
as sitting on the privvie whilst holding one discussion! Oh pleeeese! Sir Thomas was
obviously a very brave man who died for his beliefs after falling foul of Fat Henry - but
historian - Nah!

I dont feel comfortable with the idea of Eleanor Butler being classed as a 'concubine' - in
any case I dont think it was she Sir Thomas was referring to. I think Edward duped her &
promised her marriage. Hence the pre contract. It would seem likely he lied to her got
what he wanted then dropped her like a hot potato. Edward may have made a fine warrior
king in his early days but he had, alongwith many many more the morals of an alley cat.
Probably used the same strategy with Woodville only on that occasion he kept his word
and married the lady. Strange that.

I do wonder how Eleanor came to be in the convent - did she retire there of her own free
will, what went on there? Any ideas/theorys anyone? I wonder if she was there because of
her health - some type of prolonged illness maybe. She was still alive when Edward
married Woodville - why was it she never said anything. Had she been threatened - or
was she too ill to care?

Once again we have a woman who we know so little about - a shadowy figure - BUT one
who left a great impact behind - Edwards bad treatment of this woman was a huge
contributory factor in the downfall of the Plantagenets.

Eileen


> > problem with it is that Edward must have had far more than three
> > mistresses during his 22-year reign, jurdging by his reputation. Is
> > More referring to three he had simultaneously, or three over time? It
> > sounds to me like the latter,
>
> Sorry - I meant the former (ie simultaneous mistresses).
>
> Marie
>
> PS. I bet Edward broke the rules on affinity a few times.
>

>
> I dont feel comfortable with the idea of Eleanor Butler being
classed as a 'concubine' - in
> any case I dont think it was she Sir Thomas was referring to. I
think Edward duped her &
> promised her marriage. Hence the pre contract. It would seem
likely he lied to her got
> what he wanted then dropped her like a hot potato. Edward may have
made a fine warrior
> king in his early days but he had, alongwith many many more the
morals of an alley cat.
> Probably used the same strategy with Woodville only on that
occasion he kept his word
> and married the lady. Strange that.

I wonder if Elizabeth just refused to take it quietly, and threatened
Henry with her mother making an international scene. If he'd meant to
acknowledge her he would have done so straight away and not kept up
the foreign marriage negotiations.
By the by, a precontract, I recall reading, means a prior contract in
the sense of an earlier marriage, and not a contract prior to
marriage. So when Titulus Regius says Edward IV had a precontract of
marriage it simply means he was already married - rather stronger
than it is usually presented.

>
> I do wonder how Eleanor came to be in the convent - did she retire
there of her own free
> will, what went on there? Any ideas/theorys anyone?

According to John Ashdown-Hill's articles (as I remember them), she
wasn't actually living at the Norwich Carmelites - it was an all-male
establishment! But they had female lay members living out in the
community who got a robe to don on special occasions. It would seem
that she was living a chaste and secluded life, but not
incarcerated.

At 20:58 10/06/2006, you wrote:

>I dont feel comfortable with the idea of Eleanor Butler being classed as a
>'concubine' - in
>any case I dont think it was she Sir Thomas was referring to. I think
>Edward duped her &
>promised her marriage. Hence the pre contract. It would seem likely he
>lied to her got
>what he wanted then dropped her like a hot potato. Edward may have made a
>fine warrior
>king in his early days but he had, alongwith many many more the morals of
>an alley cat.
>Probably used the same strategy with Woodville only on that occasion he
>kept his word
>and married the lady. Strange that.

I have always assumed that Elizabeth Woodville kept her knickers on
(metaphorically) until after marriage, whereas Lady Eleanor thought that a
precontract was enough....


Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Edward probably had many mistresses at the same time. Along with
> Hastings and Edwards eldest step son they shared the same women,
> often passing them round when growing tired of them.
> This seems to have been the norm for nobles of the time, with even
> the puritannical Richard managing to sire at least three bastards.

Do you think Richard really was puritanical? As you say he did father illigitimate children.
Is it because he didnt have mistresses? That would seem unfair as although a lot did there
were some that didnt. For a start his father does not appear to have taken mistresses, nor
his brother George (too drunk maybe??) There are no whispers of Warwick either.

Is he seen as a bit straitlaced because he was gobsmacked when his solicitor Lynom
desired to marry Jane Shore? Because in his correspondence regarding this matter
although he 'marvels' at Lynoms choice he only says he hopes he can be talked out of it -
well, he did have a point didnt he - whatever way you cut it she was a woman you might
quite like but woulnd want your son to marry.

One book I have read on Richard (the name escapes me at this moment) but the author
suggested because Anne and Richard only had one child Richard probably disliked the sex
act!! Altthough I would have thought it was more than likely Anne had become infertile.

Someone says (sorry I forget again) that they cannot go hunting because 'Old Dick' wants
to attend to someother matter - perhaps he was of a serious nature maybe even boring to
some - but puritannical? Is there something I am missing here - can anyone think of
instances which might lead to the conclusion that he was puritannical?

Eileen
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@> wrote:
> >
> > Holinshed has lifted this verbatim from More's 'Richard III'. The
> > problem with it is that Edward must have had far more than three
> > mistresses during his 22-year reign, jurdging by his reputation. Is
> > More referring to three he had simultaneously, or three over time?
> It
> > sounds to me like the latter, and probably mistresses he had when
> he
> > died rather than those he'd discarded along the way. Certainly this
> > was true of Shore's wife. Given that More (or his source) was
> either
> > unaware of Eleanor Butler or - more likely - chose to ignore her, I
> > doubt that any of them was Eleanor.
> > The problem for me is, again, how far do you trust More? His little
> > biography of Mistrsss Shore is highly inaccurate (and designed to
> > provoke unwarranted sympathy for her). He substitutes Lady Lucy for
> > Eleanor Butler. He was only a small boy at the time of Edward's
> > death. His 'history' may well have been mainly Morton's work, and
> for
> > Edward's court even what he discovered himself could have come only
> > from those of Edward's old courtiers who had become courtiers to
> > Henry VII. Is this tale of three mistresses any more than whimsy?
> >
> > If you'd had to ask me who the wiliest one was, I'd have said
> Shore's
> > wife, given her divorce of her husband, her quick seduction of
> Dorset
> > after Edward's death, her role in the Hastings plot and, finally,
> her
> > seduction in prison (and marriage) of Richard's own attorney.
> > However, More categorically tells us she was the merry one:- an
> > innocent, happy little thing, forever getting Edward to forgive
> > people - the original 'tart with a heart'.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > The king would saie that he had three concubins, which in three
> > > diuerse
> > > properties diuerslie excelled. One the merriest, another the
> > wiliest,
> > > the third the holiest harlot in his realme, as one whome no man
> > could
> > > get out of the church lightlie to any place, but it were to his
> bed.
> > >
> > > The other two were somewhat greater personages, and nathelesse of
> > > their
> > > humilitie consent to be namelesse, and to forbeare the praise of
> > > those
> > > properties: but the merriest was Shores wife, in whom the king
> > > therefore tooke speciall pleasure. For manie he had, but hir he
> > loued;
> > >
> > > the info above is from holinshed's chronicle.
> > > we know that jane shore aka elizabeth lambert is the merriest
> > > concubine.
> > >
> > > given that eleanor butler/boteler nee talbot lived in a convent
> she
> > > could be the holiest harlot. i think she qualifies as
> the "greater
> > > personages" unnamed.
> > >
> > > therefore, would one consider "elizabeth lucy" the wiliest?
> > >
> > > or the unidentified elizabeth waite?
> > >
> > > waite doesn't appear to be a "greater personage" surname. if
> > however
> > > waite was an alternative surname, as boteler was for talbot i/we
> > > could be chasing a peerage "related" surname.
> > >
> > > the wiliest can't or shouldn't be woodville, as she is "his
> wife",
> > > and would not be considered a concubine, but his consort by the
> > > writer.
> > >
> > > however, if e4 knew is marriage to woodville was invalid because
> of
> > > the precontract to talbot. he could refer to woodville as his
> > wiliest
> > > concubine.
> > >
> > > any thoughts or enlightening information sincerely appreciated.
> > >
> > > roslyn
> > >
> >
>

This matter is always seen as an example of Richard's sense of
humour, not of any puritanical bent.
Paul

On 11 Jun 2006, at 20:44, eileen wrote:

> Is he seen as a bit straitlaced because he was gobsmacked when his
> solicitor Lynom
> desired to marry Jane Shore? Because in his correspondence
> regarding this matter
> although he 'marvels' at Lynoms choice he only says he hopes he can
> be talked out of it -
> well, he did have a point didnt he - whatever way you cut it she
> was a woman you might
> quite like but woulnd want your son to marry.

"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"

Hard working yes. And it was Stanley who said it, so there you go!
Says more about Tom than Richard.
Paul


On 11 Jun 2006, at 20:44, eileen wrote:

> Someone says (sorry I forget again) that they cannot go hunting
> because 'Old Dick' wants
> to attend to someother matter - perhaps he was of a serious nature
> maybe even boring to
> some - but puritannical?

"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"