Jane Shore
Jane Shore
2008-03-23 16:20:44
Over the past number of years, I have been given a great many old books,
including Everyman's _Percy's Reliques of Ancient English Poetry, Vol
_ii (1909 Reprint). _Percy's Reliques_ is a collection of _
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballad>_ballads and popular songs
collected by Bishop Thomas Percy
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Percy>.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1765_in_poetry>Included in the collection
is a ballad which tells the story of Jane Shore. Apparently the poem's
title is recorded in a number of ways in the various Percy manuscripts:
* "The Woeful Lamentation of Jane Shore, a Goldsmith's Wife in
London, sometime King Edward the Fourth's Concubine"
* "The Lamentation of Shore's Wife"
* "King Edward and Jane Shore"
I thought I'd pass the ballad along for those who are interested. I'm
sure it is known to some on the forum. The Reliques first appeared in
1765, but I would think this ballad is a fair bit older than that. I
realize that it contains the usual unflattering allusion to Richard, but
I wanted to share it nonetheless.
Links to Information on _Percy's Reliques_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliques_of_Ancient_Poetry
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliques_of_Ancient_Poetry>
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-818459-X.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Percy_(bishop)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Percy_%28bishop%29>
If Rosamond, that was so fair,
Had cause her sorrow to declare,
Then let Jane Shore with sorrow sing,
That was beloved of a king.
Then, wanton wives, in time amend,
For love and beauty will have end.
In maiden years my beauty bright
Was loved dear by lord and knight;
But yet the love that they requir'd,
It was not as my friends desir'd.
My parents they, for thirst of gain,
A husband for me did obtain; '
And I, their pleasure to fulfil,
"Was forc'd to wed against my will.
To Matthew Shore I was a wife,
Till lust brought ruin to my life;
And then my life I lewdly spent,
Which makes my soul for to lament.
In Lombard-street I once did dwell,
As London yet can witness well;
Where many gallants did behold
My beauty in a shop of gold.
I spread my plumes, as wantons do,
Some sweet and secret friende to wooe,
Because my love I did not find
Agreeing to my wanton mind.
At last my name in court did ring
Into the ears of England's king,
Who came and lik'd, and love requir'd,
But I made coy what he desir'd.
Yet Mistress Blague, a neighbour near,
Whose friendship I esteemed dear,
Did say, " It is a gallant thing
To be beloved ,of a king."
By her perswasions I was led
For to defile my marriage-bed,
And wronge my wedded husband Shore,
Whom I had lov'd ten years before.
In heart and mind I did rejoyce,
That I had made so sweet a choice;
And therefore did my state resign,
To be King Edward's concubine.
From city then to court I went,
To reap the pleasures of content;
There had the joys that love could bring,
And knew the secrets of a king.
When I was thus advanc'd on high,
Commanding Edward with mine eye,
For Mistress Blague I in short space
Obtain'd a living from his Grace.
No friend I had, but in short time
I made unto promotion climb;
But yet for all this costly pride,
My husbande could not me abide.
His bed, tho' wronged by a king,
His heart with deadly grief did sting;
From England then he goes away
To end his life beyond the sea.
He could not live to see his name
Impaired by my wanton shame ;
Altho' a prince of peerless might
Did reap the pleasure of his right.
Long time I lived in the court,
With lords and ladies of great sort;
And when I smil'd, all men were glad,
But when I mourn'd, my prince grew sad.
But yet an honest mind I bore
To helpless people, that were poor;
I still redress'd the orphan's cry,
And sav'd their lives condemn'd to dye
I still had ruth on widows tears,
I suceour'd babes of tender years;
And never look'd for other gain
But love and thanks, for all my pain.
At last my royal king did dye,
And then my days of woe grew nigh ;
When crook-back'd Richard got the crown,
King Edward's friends were soon put down.
I then was punish'd for my sin,
That I so long had lived in;
Yea, every one that was his friend,
This tyrant brought to shameful end.
Then for my lewd and wanton life,
That made a strumpet of a wife,
I penance did in Lombard-street,
In shameful manner in a sheet:
Where many thousands did me view,
Who late in court my credit knew;
Which made the tears run down my face,
To think upon my foul disgrace.
Not thus content, they took from mee
My goods, my livings, and my fee,
And charg'd that none should me relieve,
Nor any succour to me give.
Then unto Mistress Blague I went,
To whom my jewels I had sent,
In hope thereby to ease my want,
When riches fail'd, and love grew scant.
But she deny'd to me the same,
When in my need for them I came;
To recompence my former love,
Out of her doors she did me shove.
So love did vanish with my state,
Which now my soul repents too late;
Therefore example take by me,
For friendship parts in poverty.
But yet one friend among the rest,
Whom I before had seen distress'd,
And sav'd his life, condemn'd to dye,
Did give me food to succour me:
For which, by law it was decreed
That he was hanged for that deed;
His death did grieve me so much more,
Than had I dy'd myself therefore.
Then those to whom I had done good
Durst not afford mee any food;
Whereby in vain I begged all day,
And still in streets by night I lay.
My gowns beset with pearl and gold,
Were turn'd to simple garments old;
My chains and jems and golden rings,
To filthy rags and loathsome things.
Thus was I scorn'd of maid and wife,
For leading such a wicked life;
Both sucking babes and children small,
Did make a pastime at my fall.
I could not get one bit of bread,
Whereby my hunger might be fed:
Nor drink, but such as channels yield,
Or stinking ditches in the field.
Thus, weary of my life, at length
I yielded up my vital strength,
Within a ditch of loathsome scent,
Where carrion dogs do much frequent
The which now since my dying day,
Is Shoreditch call'd, as writers say;
Which is a witness of my sin,
For being concubine to a king.
You wanton wives, that fall to lust,
Be you assur'd that God is just;
Whoredom shall not escape his hand,
Nor pride unpunish'd in this land.
If God to me such shame did bring,
That yielded only to a king,
How shall they scape that daily run
To practise sin with every man?
You husbands, match not but for love,
Lest some disliking after prove;
Women, be warn'd when you are wives,
What plagues are due to sinful lives:
Then, maids and wives, in time amend,
For love and beauty will have end.
including Everyman's _Percy's Reliques of Ancient English Poetry, Vol
_ii (1909 Reprint). _Percy's Reliques_ is a collection of _
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballad>_ballads and popular songs
collected by Bishop Thomas Percy
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Percy>.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1765_in_poetry>Included in the collection
is a ballad which tells the story of Jane Shore. Apparently the poem's
title is recorded in a number of ways in the various Percy manuscripts:
* "The Woeful Lamentation of Jane Shore, a Goldsmith's Wife in
London, sometime King Edward the Fourth's Concubine"
* "The Lamentation of Shore's Wife"
* "King Edward and Jane Shore"
I thought I'd pass the ballad along for those who are interested. I'm
sure it is known to some on the forum. The Reliques first appeared in
1765, but I would think this ballad is a fair bit older than that. I
realize that it contains the usual unflattering allusion to Richard, but
I wanted to share it nonetheless.
Links to Information on _Percy's Reliques_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliques_of_Ancient_Poetry
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliques_of_Ancient_Poetry>
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-818459-X.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Percy_(bishop)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Percy_%28bishop%29>
If Rosamond, that was so fair,
Had cause her sorrow to declare,
Then let Jane Shore with sorrow sing,
That was beloved of a king.
Then, wanton wives, in time amend,
For love and beauty will have end.
In maiden years my beauty bright
Was loved dear by lord and knight;
But yet the love that they requir'd,
It was not as my friends desir'd.
My parents they, for thirst of gain,
A husband for me did obtain; '
And I, their pleasure to fulfil,
"Was forc'd to wed against my will.
To Matthew Shore I was a wife,
Till lust brought ruin to my life;
And then my life I lewdly spent,
Which makes my soul for to lament.
In Lombard-street I once did dwell,
As London yet can witness well;
Where many gallants did behold
My beauty in a shop of gold.
I spread my plumes, as wantons do,
Some sweet and secret friende to wooe,
Because my love I did not find
Agreeing to my wanton mind.
At last my name in court did ring
Into the ears of England's king,
Who came and lik'd, and love requir'd,
But I made coy what he desir'd.
Yet Mistress Blague, a neighbour near,
Whose friendship I esteemed dear,
Did say, " It is a gallant thing
To be beloved ,of a king."
By her perswasions I was led
For to defile my marriage-bed,
And wronge my wedded husband Shore,
Whom I had lov'd ten years before.
In heart and mind I did rejoyce,
That I had made so sweet a choice;
And therefore did my state resign,
To be King Edward's concubine.
From city then to court I went,
To reap the pleasures of content;
There had the joys that love could bring,
And knew the secrets of a king.
When I was thus advanc'd on high,
Commanding Edward with mine eye,
For Mistress Blague I in short space
Obtain'd a living from his Grace.
No friend I had, but in short time
I made unto promotion climb;
But yet for all this costly pride,
My husbande could not me abide.
His bed, tho' wronged by a king,
His heart with deadly grief did sting;
From England then he goes away
To end his life beyond the sea.
He could not live to see his name
Impaired by my wanton shame ;
Altho' a prince of peerless might
Did reap the pleasure of his right.
Long time I lived in the court,
With lords and ladies of great sort;
And when I smil'd, all men were glad,
But when I mourn'd, my prince grew sad.
But yet an honest mind I bore
To helpless people, that were poor;
I still redress'd the orphan's cry,
And sav'd their lives condemn'd to dye
I still had ruth on widows tears,
I suceour'd babes of tender years;
And never look'd for other gain
But love and thanks, for all my pain.
At last my royal king did dye,
And then my days of woe grew nigh ;
When crook-back'd Richard got the crown,
King Edward's friends were soon put down.
I then was punish'd for my sin,
That I so long had lived in;
Yea, every one that was his friend,
This tyrant brought to shameful end.
Then for my lewd and wanton life,
That made a strumpet of a wife,
I penance did in Lombard-street,
In shameful manner in a sheet:
Where many thousands did me view,
Who late in court my credit knew;
Which made the tears run down my face,
To think upon my foul disgrace.
Not thus content, they took from mee
My goods, my livings, and my fee,
And charg'd that none should me relieve,
Nor any succour to me give.
Then unto Mistress Blague I went,
To whom my jewels I had sent,
In hope thereby to ease my want,
When riches fail'd, and love grew scant.
But she deny'd to me the same,
When in my need for them I came;
To recompence my former love,
Out of her doors she did me shove.
So love did vanish with my state,
Which now my soul repents too late;
Therefore example take by me,
For friendship parts in poverty.
But yet one friend among the rest,
Whom I before had seen distress'd,
And sav'd his life, condemn'd to dye,
Did give me food to succour me:
For which, by law it was decreed
That he was hanged for that deed;
His death did grieve me so much more,
Than had I dy'd myself therefore.
Then those to whom I had done good
Durst not afford mee any food;
Whereby in vain I begged all day,
And still in streets by night I lay.
My gowns beset with pearl and gold,
Were turn'd to simple garments old;
My chains and jems and golden rings,
To filthy rags and loathsome things.
Thus was I scorn'd of maid and wife,
For leading such a wicked life;
Both sucking babes and children small,
Did make a pastime at my fall.
I could not get one bit of bread,
Whereby my hunger might be fed:
Nor drink, but such as channels yield,
Or stinking ditches in the field.
Thus, weary of my life, at length
I yielded up my vital strength,
Within a ditch of loathsome scent,
Where carrion dogs do much frequent
The which now since my dying day,
Is Shoreditch call'd, as writers say;
Which is a witness of my sin,
For being concubine to a king.
You wanton wives, that fall to lust,
Be you assur'd that God is just;
Whoredom shall not escape his hand,
Nor pride unpunish'd in this land.
If God to me such shame did bring,
That yielded only to a king,
How shall they scape that daily run
To practise sin with every man?
You husbands, match not but for love,
Lest some disliking after prove;
Women, be warn'd when you are wives,
What plagues are due to sinful lives:
Then, maids and wives, in time amend,
For love and beauty will have end.
Jane Shore
2008-06-23 12:23:14
Have I got this correct? - Jane was the mistress of Edward IV AND his son-in-law Thomas
Grey AND Thomas' father-in-law Hastings albeit step-father-inlaw? Surely not all at once
- the mind boggles!
I understand Hastings got the wardship of Thomas Grey after Elizabeth Woodville had
asked for his help in getting her first husband's land back. Did Elizabeth meet Edward
through Hastings or had she shown up at court before? No meeting under an oak tree
then!
How did Hastings take it, his son-in-law having a mistress, the very same one he had.
This leads me to wonder if Hastings had second thoughts about getting rid of the
Woodvilles and one of them was his son-in-law. He may well have been fond of his step-
daughter, Cecily, and been loath to have seen her husband fall. On the other hand maybe
she didnt get on with him. What would Hastings wife have to say about it all, Katherine
(she was a Neville) What a mess.
Jane must have been an absolute beauty - as after all this mistressing Thomas Lynom,
Richards secretary (presumably whilst questioning her) fell head over heels for her and
married her - despite Richard's disbelief.
Eileen
Grey AND Thomas' father-in-law Hastings albeit step-father-inlaw? Surely not all at once
- the mind boggles!
I understand Hastings got the wardship of Thomas Grey after Elizabeth Woodville had
asked for his help in getting her first husband's land back. Did Elizabeth meet Edward
through Hastings or had she shown up at court before? No meeting under an oak tree
then!
How did Hastings take it, his son-in-law having a mistress, the very same one he had.
This leads me to wonder if Hastings had second thoughts about getting rid of the
Woodvilles and one of them was his son-in-law. He may well have been fond of his step-
daughter, Cecily, and been loath to have seen her husband fall. On the other hand maybe
she didnt get on with him. What would Hastings wife have to say about it all, Katherine
(she was a Neville) What a mess.
Jane must have been an absolute beauty - as after all this mistressing Thomas Lynom,
Richards secretary (presumably whilst questioning her) fell head over heels for her and
married her - despite Richard's disbelief.
Eileen
Re: Jane Shore
2008-06-26 18:26:35
woodville's mother jacquetta was a close member of margaret d'anjou's court. they were both french, so a little bit of a connection on that aspect. additionally jacquetta and h6 were half cousins on a couple of levels (valois descent). moreover, jacquetta's first husband, before he died had been an heir presumptive to h6. so, she would have circulated quite well in amongst the upper nobility, especially as a potential queen of england.
once widowed, jacquetta secretly married woodville. h6 eventually accepted the marriage and elevated woodville to earl rivers in 1449.
by the 1450's jacquetta's children were marrying into the british nobility. ergo, before e4's father went into dispute with marg and h6, the plantagenet/yorks would have intermingled with the woodville family at court. edward and elizabeth probably knew each other from childhood, albeit elizabeth would have been considered somewhat lower in rank than e4.even so, elizabeth would have had significant social standing because she was a cousin to h6.. also, jacquetta would have also known that after e4's father, e4 was heir to h6.
jacquetta and her husband richard woodville were an extremely attractive couple. jacquetta would have taught her children to use their looks and ancestry to attract higher ranking spouses. jacquetta was a charlemagne descendent, and cousin to the holy roman emporer, this ancestry was nothing to be sneezed at in the 15thC. wealth and breeding were interchangeable commodities. money bought you power, and breeding gave you power. if one had both, they had it all, so to speak.
my understanding of jane shore's relationships went: e4, and upon his demise, hastings, and upon hastings demise, thomas grey. so it was serial, rather than a free for all.
there is some dispute that shore was actually hastings' mistress. he may have been her protector vs lover. shore may have assisted in grey's escape. her sexual relationships after e4 may have just been gossip.
even in today's world, a woman associating with a man can often get her labelled as "being in bed" with him. shore may not have been quite the tart history depicts her as being.
roslyn
--- On Mon, 6/23/08, eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
Subject: Jane Shore
To:
Received: Monday, June 23, 2008, 7:23 AM
Have I got this correct? - Jane was the mistress of Edward IV AND his son-in-law Thomas
Grey AND Thomas' father-in-law Hastings albeit step-father- inlaw? Surely not all at once
- the mind boggles!
I understand Hastings got the wardship of Thomas Grey after Elizabeth Woodville had
asked for his help in getting her first husband's land back. Did Elizabeth meet Edward
through Hastings or had she shown up at court before? No meeting under an oak tree
then!
How did Hastings take it, his son-in-law having a mistress, the very same one he had.
This leads me to wonder if Hastings had second thoughts about getting rid of the
Woodvilles and one of them was his son-in-law. He may well have been fond of his step-
daughter, Cecily, and been loath to have seen her husband fall. On the other hand maybe
she didnt get on with him. What would Hastings wife have to say about it all, Katherine
(she was a Neville) What a mess.
Jane must have been an absolute beauty - as after all this mistressing Thomas Lynom,
Richards secretary (presumably whilst questioning her) fell head over heels for her and
married her - despite Richard's disbelief.
Eileen
once widowed, jacquetta secretly married woodville. h6 eventually accepted the marriage and elevated woodville to earl rivers in 1449.
by the 1450's jacquetta's children were marrying into the british nobility. ergo, before e4's father went into dispute with marg and h6, the plantagenet/yorks would have intermingled with the woodville family at court. edward and elizabeth probably knew each other from childhood, albeit elizabeth would have been considered somewhat lower in rank than e4.even so, elizabeth would have had significant social standing because she was a cousin to h6.. also, jacquetta would have also known that after e4's father, e4 was heir to h6.
jacquetta and her husband richard woodville were an extremely attractive couple. jacquetta would have taught her children to use their looks and ancestry to attract higher ranking spouses. jacquetta was a charlemagne descendent, and cousin to the holy roman emporer, this ancestry was nothing to be sneezed at in the 15thC. wealth and breeding were interchangeable commodities. money bought you power, and breeding gave you power. if one had both, they had it all, so to speak.
my understanding of jane shore's relationships went: e4, and upon his demise, hastings, and upon hastings demise, thomas grey. so it was serial, rather than a free for all.
there is some dispute that shore was actually hastings' mistress. he may have been her protector vs lover. shore may have assisted in grey's escape. her sexual relationships after e4 may have just been gossip.
even in today's world, a woman associating with a man can often get her labelled as "being in bed" with him. shore may not have been quite the tart history depicts her as being.
roslyn
--- On Mon, 6/23/08, eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
Subject: Jane Shore
To:
Received: Monday, June 23, 2008, 7:23 AM
Have I got this correct? - Jane was the mistress of Edward IV AND his son-in-law Thomas
Grey AND Thomas' father-in-law Hastings albeit step-father- inlaw? Surely not all at once
- the mind boggles!
I understand Hastings got the wardship of Thomas Grey after Elizabeth Woodville had
asked for his help in getting her first husband's land back. Did Elizabeth meet Edward
through Hastings or had she shown up at court before? No meeting under an oak tree
then!
How did Hastings take it, his son-in-law having a mistress, the very same one he had.
This leads me to wonder if Hastings had second thoughts about getting rid of the
Woodvilles and one of them was his son-in-law. He may well have been fond of his step-
daughter, Cecily, and been loath to have seen her husband fall. On the other hand maybe
she didnt get on with him. What would Hastings wife have to say about it all, Katherine
(she was a Neville) What a mess.
Jane must have been an absolute beauty - as after all this mistressing Thomas Lynom,
Richards secretary (presumably whilst questioning her) fell head over heels for her and
married her - despite Richard's disbelief.
Eileen
Re: Jane Shore
2008-07-01 14:35:59
I suspect she had a captivating personality, which does not necessarily
go with great beauty. As far as Lynom is concerned, Richard's reaction
seems like a tolerant disapproval, along the lines of "if you must, you
must", which given Jane's form shows him as a forgiving man not holding
grudges. Of course, in the Stanley's case, this trait proved fatal for
him.
Richard G
--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> Jane must have been an absolute beauty - as after all this
> mistressing Thomas Lynom,
> Richards secretary (presumably whilst questioning her) fell head over
> heels for her and married her - despite Richard's disbelief.
>
> Eileen
>
go with great beauty. As far as Lynom is concerned, Richard's reaction
seems like a tolerant disapproval, along the lines of "if you must, you
must", which given Jane's form shows him as a forgiving man not holding
grudges. Of course, in the Stanley's case, this trait proved fatal for
him.
Richard G
--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> Jane must have been an absolute beauty - as after all this
> mistressing Thomas Lynom,
> Richards secretary (presumably whilst questioning her) fell head over
> heels for her and married her - despite Richard's disbelief.
>
> Eileen
>
Re: Jane Shore
2008-07-02 14:15:25
I agree with Richard. Jane need not have been a great beauty. Allegedly
Cleopatra, another famous enchantress,
was not beautiful (at least not according to our standards!)
But both must have been intriguing and possessors of that infamous "great
personality". Maybe they just
listened well :-).
L.M.L.,
Janet
Cleopatra, another famous enchantress,
was not beautiful (at least not according to our standards!)
But both must have been intriguing and possessors of that infamous "great
personality". Maybe they just
listened well :-).
L.M.L.,
Janet
Re: Jane Shore
2008-07-02 17:53:10
Eileen
> Jane must have been an absolute beauty - as after all this
> mistressing Thomas Lynom, Richard's secretary
> (presumably whilst questioning her) fell head over
> heels for her and married her - despite Richard's disbelief.
Ann:
I had the sense from Richard's famous note that when he asked the Bishop to delay the marriage until he, Richard, arrived in London, that Richard intended to talk to Lynom himself. Like a Dutch uncle, probably. Not that it did any good, since, as you said, Lynom did marry her and they eventually had a daughter. Besides, maybe he'd admired her for years, since her influence was said to be used for others and apparently she wasn't rapacious for herself, even in tempting circumstances. We'll never know . . . .
Recommended reading: The Mysterious Mistress: The Life and Legend of Jane Shore, by Margaret Crosland, http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mysterious-Mistress-Life-Legend-Shore/dp/075093851X/ref=pd_sim_b_4. The author found the Lambert family documents associated with Eton.
L.P.H.,
Ann
Feudalism: when it's your Count that votes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jane must have been an absolute beauty - as after all this
> mistressing Thomas Lynom, Richard's secretary
> (presumably whilst questioning her) fell head over
> heels for her and married her - despite Richard's disbelief.
Ann:
I had the sense from Richard's famous note that when he asked the Bishop to delay the marriage until he, Richard, arrived in London, that Richard intended to talk to Lynom himself. Like a Dutch uncle, probably. Not that it did any good, since, as you said, Lynom did marry her and they eventually had a daughter. Besides, maybe he'd admired her for years, since her influence was said to be used for others and apparently she wasn't rapacious for herself, even in tempting circumstances. We'll never know . . . .
Recommended reading: The Mysterious Mistress: The Life and Legend of Jane Shore, by Margaret Crosland, http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mysterious-Mistress-Life-Legend-Shore/dp/075093851X/ref=pd_sim_b_4. The author found the Lambert family documents associated with Eton.
L.P.H.,
Ann
Feudalism: when it's your Count that votes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: Jane Shore
2008-07-02 23:05:16
--- In , "Janet Trimbath" <forevere@...> wrote:
>
> I agree with Richard. Jane need not have been a great beauty.
Yes, come to think about it I think Richard is probably right - it brings to mind that other
famous mistress nearly two hundred years later, Nell Gwynn, who was renowned for her
wit. Charles must have thought very highly of her, as we all know, his famous last words,
were "Let not poor Nelly starve".
Eileen
Allegedly
> Cleopatra, another famous enchantress,
>
> was not beautiful (at least not according to our standards!)
>
>
>
> But both must have been intriguing and possessors of that infamous "great
> personality". Maybe they just
>
> listened well :-).
>
>
>
> L.M.L.,
>
> Janet
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I agree with Richard. Jane need not have been a great beauty.
Yes, come to think about it I think Richard is probably right - it brings to mind that other
famous mistress nearly two hundred years later, Nell Gwynn, who was renowned for her
wit. Charles must have thought very highly of her, as we all know, his famous last words,
were "Let not poor Nelly starve".
Eileen
Allegedly
> Cleopatra, another famous enchantress,
>
> was not beautiful (at least not according to our standards!)
>
>
>
> But both must have been intriguing and possessors of that infamous "great
> personality". Maybe they just
>
> listened well :-).
>
>
>
> L.M.L.,
>
> Janet
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Jane Shore
2008-07-03 08:03:29
And Wallis Simpson was no oil painting, either, yet Edward VIII gave
up the throne for her.
--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Janet Trimbath"
<forevere@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Richard. Jane need not have been a great beauty.
>
> Yes, come to think about it I think Richard is probably right - it
brings to mind that other
> famous mistress nearly two hundred years later, Nell Gwynn, who was
renowned for her
> wit. Charles must have thought very highly of her, as we all know,
his famous last words,
> were "Let not poor Nelly starve".
> Eileen
>
>
> Allegedly
> > Cleopatra, another famous enchantress,
> >
> > was not beautiful (at least not according to our standards!)
> >
> >
> >
> > But both must have been intriguing and possessors of that
infamous "great
> > personality". Maybe they just
> >
> > listened well :-).
> >
> >
> >
> > L.M.L.,
> >
> > Janet
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
up the throne for her.
--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Janet Trimbath"
<forevere@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Richard. Jane need not have been a great beauty.
>
> Yes, come to think about it I think Richard is probably right - it
brings to mind that other
> famous mistress nearly two hundred years later, Nell Gwynn, who was
renowned for her
> wit. Charles must have thought very highly of her, as we all know,
his famous last words,
> were "Let not poor Nelly starve".
> Eileen
>
>
> Allegedly
> > Cleopatra, another famous enchantress,
> >
> > was not beautiful (at least not according to our standards!)
> >
> >
> >
> > But both must have been intriguing and possessors of that
infamous "great
> > personality". Maybe they just
> >
> > listened well :-).
> >
> >
> >
> > L.M.L.,
> >
> > Janet
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.