Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Thomas More, the History of King Richard III, and Elizabeth Shore

Thomas More, the History of King Richard III, and Elizabeth Shore Moreana 59.1 (2022): 113–140 DOI: 10.3366/more.2022.0118 © Tim Thornton. The online version of this article is published as Open Access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/) which permits commercial use, distribution and reproduction provided the original work is cited. www.euppublishing.com/more Tim Thornton Thomas More, the History of King Richard III, and Elizabeth Shore Abstract: The inclusion of Elizabeth Shore in Thomas More’s History of King Richard III offers important insights into the decisions made by More in shaping his text. This article explores the evidence available to More as he wrote, emphasizing the near-complete absence of Shore from earlier narratives. Shore’s activity in the 1470s and 1480s is examined, along with evidence for her survival and that of her husband, Thomas Lynom, into the 1510s when More was writing. Lynom’s connections are considered, providing an understanding of intersections of his activities with the environment in which More was shaping the History. As a central figure in the events of 1483 who survived into the 1520s, Shore was a prompt to the creation of More’s account—she was not simply a product of More’s literary and philosophical imagination, but part of his effort to respond to the immediate legacies of conflict in politics and society. Keywords: Elizabeth Shore, History of King Richard III, historiography, Thomas Lynom, London, Thomas Howard duke of Norfolk, William Lord Hastings, Polydore Vergil. Résumé: L’inclusion d’Elizabeth Shore dans l’Histoire du Roi Richard III de Thomas More offre un éclairage important sur les décisions prises par More dans l’élaboration de son texte. Cet article explore les éléments dont disposait More au moment il écrivit son Histoire, et souligne l’absence presque complète de Shore dans les récits antérieurs. On y examine l’activité de Shore dans les années 1470 et 1480, ainsi que les preuves de sa survie et de celle de son mari Thomas Lynom, dans les années 1510, lorsque More rédigeait l’Histoire. Sont étudiées également les connexions de Lynom, ce qui fournit une compréhension du croisement de ses activités avec l’environnement dans lequel More a donné forme à son Histoire. En tant que personnage central des événements de 1486, qui survécut dans les années 1520, Shore représentait un élément de la mise en scène du récit de More—elle n’était pas seulement le produit de l’imagination littéraire et philosophique de More, mais faisait bel et bien partie de sa tentative de réponse aux séquelles immédiates du conflit politique et sociétal de l’époque. Mots-clés: Elizabeth Shore, Histoire du roi Richard III, historiographie, Thomas Lynom, Londres, Thomas Howard duc de Norfolk, William Lord Hastings, Polydore Vergil. 114 Tim Thornton One of the most prominent characters in Thomas More’s History of King Richard III is Mistress Shore, the now notorious mistress of Edward IV, who plays an important role there in the events immediately after Edward’s death. Shore is also one of the most notable additions made by More to the previously existing accounts of the period. The decision to introduce her, and to characterize her in the way that More did, offers routes into a better understanding of More’s writing of this history. An exploration of Shore’s place in the History provides important insights not just into the way More framed the intellectual project represented by the History, but also into the intersections between her world and More’s: it adds to our understanding of the work as not simply an outstanding piece of political metaphor and theoretical exploration, but also a direct response to the living survivors and legacy of civil conflict in the England which More himself inhabited. This article addresses the facts of Shore’s life—building on the efforts of Rosemary Horrox in work for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography on Elizabeth herself and a few years before that Anne Sutton with particular reference to her husband William, all of which has been supported by the expansion of interest over the last couple of decades in the history of women and gender in the late medieval period. My exploration highlights the extent to which our understanding of Shore’s role in the 1470s and 1480s, and especially in 1483, depends on More’s writing. The heavy dependency of the historiography on More, which is for example complete when it comes to something as central to her story as her association with King Edward IV, is noted by John Ashdown-Hill and allows him to express skepticism about whether that connection existed at all. In contrast, I will review what other sources may tell us about Shore in order to focus our attention on the highly distinctive way in which Shore appears in More’s history of Richard III. Shore is unique in being referred to there in an extended way as living and present in More’s London: in the texts eventually published in 1565 at Louvain and in 1557 by William Rastell with clear indications that she was still alive at the time of writing; in the Arundel and Paris MSS even more specifically that she Rosemary Horrox, “Shore [née Lambert], Elizabeth [Jane] (d. 1526/7?), Royal Mistress,” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. H. C. G. Matthew, Brian Harrison, Lawrence Goldman, and David Cannadine, online edn. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004–), accessed January 12, 2021, https://www.oxforddnb.com, hereafter abbreviated as ODNB; Anne F. Sutton, “William Shore, Merchant of London and Derby,” Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 106 (1986): 127–39. For example, Maria M. Scott, Re-presenting Jane Shore: Harlot and Heroine (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005). John Ashdown-Hill, The Private Life of Edward IV (Stroud: Amberley Publishing, 2016), ch. 22. HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 115 was then seventy years old; and in the editions by Grafton of 1543 and 1548 providing the date of her death as 1526–27. Shore was a witness of the events of 1483 living, and then dying, in More’s London, and the ways in which she appears in the texts allow us to understand more of the ways in which More developed his work, of his sources, and of his relationship to his material. While not implying a direct and prime relationship with the oral testimony of eye-witnesses, Shore’s presence reminds us of the originality of More’s insight into the narrative of events and the origins of that insight in his presence in the London of the early sixteenth century, among the survivors and inheritors of the coup of 1483. THE PROBLEM OF MORE’S SOURCES FOR ELIZABETH SHORE Elizabeth Shore plays an important role in More’s work, standing in contrast to Richard’s character and actions, and also set up alongside another Elizabeth, Elizabeth Woodville, Edward IV’s queen, treated first in the History’s structure before the account moves on to address the stories of the recently dead king’s first encounters with Woodville. But the choices More makes in selecting Shore for this purpose are not ones suggested to him by models he was following in his classical reading: for example, it is hard to see Shore as a response to a type More might have found in Tacitus’s Annals, which we know to have been otherwise powerful in shaping his thinking; nor does Sallust’s Sempronia, a charming and active but deceiving and murdering political woman, provide a model. The Yale Edition of the Complete Works of St. Thomas More, vol. 2, The History of King Richard III, ed. by Richard S. Sylvester (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1963), 55, 133/6, hereafter abbreviated as CW 2; The Yale Edition of the Complete Works of St. Thomas More, vol. 15, In Defense of Humanism: Letter to Martin Dorp, Letter to the University of Oxford, Letter to Edward Lee, Letter to a Monk, with a New Text and Translation of Historia Richardi Tertii, ed. by Daniel Kinney (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986), 426–27. Hereafter abbreviated as CW 15 and cited by page number. James Harner, “The Place of ‘Shore’s Wife’ in More’s The History of King Richard III,” Moreana 19.2 (1982): 69–76; Alan Clarke Shepard, “‘Female Perversity,’ Male Entitlement: The Agency of Gender in More’s The History of Richard III,” Sixteenth Century Journal 26.2 (1995): 311–28. The suggestion is Sylvester’s, in CW 2:lxxxvii–lxxxviii, countered by Judith H. Anderson, Biographical Truth: The Representation of Historical Persons in Tudor-Stuart Writing (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984), 98–101; Sallust, The War with Catiline; The War with Jugurtha, ed. and trans. J. C. Rolfe, revised John T. Ramsey, Loeb series, revised edn. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013), xxv; for example, “Even before the time of the conspiracy she had often broken her word, repudiated her debts, been privy to murder … Nevertheless, she was a woman of no mean endowments; she could write verses, bandy jests, and use language which was modest, or tender, or wanton; in fine, she possessed a high degree of wit and of charm” (43–45). G. M. Paul, “Sallust’s Sempronia: The Portrait of a Lady,” in Papers of the 116 Tim Thornton Similarly, More was not picking up on an existing tradition in English historical writing, however great his debt was in other respects to Polydore Vergil and some other written (and even printed) sources: before he began writing, Shore’s place in historiography was very limited. The most extensive and best-informed accounts of the seizure of the throne by Richard paid her no attention. For example, the scholar- chronicler Dominic Mancini in an eye-witness report written up before the end of 1483 and drawing on insights from men around the court including Dr John Argentine, the court physician, and a source inside government who could have been a chancery clerk like Pietro Carmeliano, and who was perhaps particularly influenced by those close to Richard as duke of Gloucester and with access to Edward IV’s inner circle, makes no mention of her. Nor does Polydore Vergil, although he was able to access a range of well-placed sources, including Reginald Bray (d. August, 1503) and Christopher Urswick (d. March, 1522), in particular, after his arrival in England in 1502 and as he accumulated materials systematically from c. 1506–7, culminating in the Anglica Historia of which he completed a first draft in 1512–13. The London mercer and chronicler Robert Fabyan in the New Chronicles Liverpool Latin Seminar, V (1985), ed. Francis Cairns, ARCA: Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs, 19 (Liverpool: Francis Cairns, 1986), 9–22. See also Esther Yael Beith-Halahmi, “Angell Fayre or Strumpet Lewd: Jane Shore as an Example of Erring Beauty in 16th Century Literature,” Salzburg Studies in English Literature. Elizabethan & Renaissance Studies 26–27 (1974): 47–48; Lee Cullen Khanna, “No Less Real than Ideal: Images of Woman in More’s Work,” Moreana 14.3 (1977): 35–51, pp. 45–51. See the excellent summary of the growing skepticism against A. F. Pollard’s view that the History was “derived almost exclusively from oral tradition,” especially from Cardinal John Morton himself, in Alison Hanham, Richard III and His Early Historians, 1483–1535 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), 161–66. The Usurpation of Richard the Third: Dominicus Mancinus ad Angelum Catonem de occupatione Regni Anglie per Riccardum Tercium libellus, ed. Charles Arthur John Armstrong, 2nd edn. (London: Oxford University Press, 1969); A. J. Pollard, “Dominic Mancini’s Account of the Events of 1483,” Nottingham Medieval Studies 38 (1994): 152–63; Michael Hicks, Richard III, ebook edn. (Stroud: The History Press, 2012), 145–59. Polydore Vergil, Three Books of Polydore Vergil’s English History: Comprising the Reigns of Henry VI., Edward IV., and Richard III., ed. Henry Ellis, Camden Society, o.s., 29 (1844); Denys Hay, “The Manuscript of Polydore Vergil’s ‘Anglica Historia,’” English Historical Review 54.214 (1939): 240–51; Polydore Vergil, The Anglica Historia of Polydore Vergil, A.D. 1485–1537, ed. Denys Hay, Camden Society, 3rd ser., lxxiv (1950); Denys Hay, Polydore Vergil: Renaissance Historian and Man of Letters (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952), 93–95. Hay lists John Morton (d. 1500), as a third key source of oral testimony for Vergil’s work, which given the date of his death cannot apply, however prominent Morton is in the account of Henry VII. Richard Fox is another likely candidate, though not mentioned by Hay, given reference to his joining Richmond in France: ibid., 198; Vergil, Three Books, 209. HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 117 finalized in 1504 and printed in 1516 did not mention Shore either. Fabyan’s other presentation of the London chronicle tradition, which we know as the “Great Chronicle,” in wording that was developed no later than 1512, does describe how shortly after Richard III’s coronation, on July 6, “a woman namyd [blank] Shoore that beffore dayes, afftyr the comon ffame, the lord Chambyrlayn [William, Lord Hastings] held” was called to a reckoning for part of his goods and other moveables by the sheriffs of London, “and she lastly as a comon harlott put to opyn penaunce, ffor the lyfe that she ledd w [th]e said lord hastyngys & othir grete astatys.” But that is all. WILL THE REAL JANE SHORE PLEASE STAND UP? The narrative accounts of the period which had been developed by c. 1513 were therefore very limited in their discussions of Shore. More could draw little, if anything, from them when he devised his account. Research on the 1470s and 1480s has established, nonetheless, that Shore emerged from a prosperous city mercantile background and married William Shore before encountering distinctive problems with her marriage and embark- ing on a relationship with King Edward IV. At Edward’s death, she was soon arrested, and was the subject of efforts by Richard of Gloucester both to seize her wealth and to characterize her as the center of a culture of sexual immorality at court. Possibly after a release from jail, she was re-imprisoned in the autumn of 1483 on the basis of an association with Thomas, Marquess Dorset. But in the following year she emerged from Ludgate Gaol and married Thomas Lynom, the new King Richard’s solicitor, and her association with him seems to have reinforced the fortunes of her father’s family. It is this evidence, and that for her subsequent experience, which needs to be re-examined if we are to understand the significance of More’s account of Elizabeth Shore. Robert Fabyan, Prima pars cronecarum: For That in the Accomptynge of the Yeres of the Worlde (RSTC 10659; [London], 1516/17) (usually known as the New Chronicles), fols. [227]–228v. (Robert Fabyan, The New Chronicles of England and France, ed. Henry Ellis (London: printed for F. C. and J. Rivington, 1811), 667–70.) The Great Chronicle of London, ed. A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley (London: printed by George W. Jones at the Sign of the Dolphin, 1938), 233; J. Boffey, “Robert Fabyan’s Two Hats: Compiling The Great Chronicle of London and The New Chronicles of England and France,” in Editing and Interpretation of Middle English Texts: Essays in Honour of William Marx, ed. Margaret Connolly and Raluca Radulescu (Turnhout: Brepols, 2018), 173–88, esp. pp. 182–85; M. T. W. Payne, “Robert Fabyan and The Nuremberg Chronicle,” The Library 7th ser. 12.2 (2011): 164–69 (countering doubts as to his authorship in Charles Lethbridge Kingsford, English Historical Literature in the Fifteenth Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 104); and Mary-Rose McLaren, The London Chronicles of the Fifteenth Century: A Revolution in English Writing (Woodbridge: D. S. Brewer, 2002), 26–28; Mary-Rose McLaren, “Robert Fabyan (d. 1513), chronicler,” in ODNB. 118 Tim Thornton Elizabeth’s father was John Lambert, a Londoner who was one of the most prominent members of the mercer’s company. He was also an alderman of the city, until he lost the office in 1470, probably because of a politically motivated attack during the readeption of Henry VI, given his support for Edward IV. The man chosen as Elizabeth’s husband was William Shore, another mercer, who had been taking apprentices since 1463. William was a man with a background in Derby substantial enough to mean his sister could marry, possibly as her second husband, John Agard of Foston, a “ubiquitous” member of a well-connected gentry family which served the Honour of Tutbury and at that time the interest of William, Lord Hastings. By November, 1474, William Shore may have been looking to travel abroad, or facing major legal expenses: he granted his goods and chattels to a group of associates. He did the same thing again in March, 1475. The previous month he was almost certainly still in London, for the Mercers gave him the responsibility of checking the finances of company members in relation to a benevolence requested by the king. In March, 1476, however, a papal mandate ordered the bishops of Hereford, Sidon, and Ross to hear his wife Elizabeth’s petition to annul their marriage on the grounds of impotence. It was a rare plea, in a still rarer context. Bronach Kane, in her study of impotence and virginity, found just two such cases in the church courts of York in the fourteenth century and four in the fifteenth century. Given this, Elizabeth’s case might well have depended on the support of the king, although as Nicolas Barker, “The Real Jane Shore,” Etoniana 125 (June 4, 1972): 383–91, pp. 385–86. On his background, see Sutton, 127–31; “ubiquitous”: Ian Douglas Rowney, “The Staffordshire Political Community 1440–1500” (PhD thesis, Keele University, 1981), 207. On November 30, 1474, William Shore made a gift of his goods and chattels to a group of men (two mercers, two lawyers, and a tailor; Calendar of Close Rolls, 1468–76 (London: HMSO, 1953), no. 1372; Calendar of Plea and Memoranda Rolls, 1453–82, ed. Philip E. Jones (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961), 171)—usually a sign of an intention either to leave the country or to raise a significant loan, perhaps for legal costs: see the comments by Sutton, 131. Calendar of Plea and Memoranda Rolls, 1453–82, 172. Acts of Court of the Mercers Company, 1453–1527, ed. Lætitia Lyell and Frank D. Watney (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936), 79–80. Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland: Papal Letters, vol. 13, A.D. 1471–1484, ed. J. A. Twemlow (London: HMSO, 1955), 487–88. Bronach Kane, Impotence and Virginity in the Late Medieval Ecclesiastical Court of York, Borthwick Paper 114 (York: Borthwick Publications, 2008), 8; R. H. Helmholz, Marriage Litigation in Medieval England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 87–90; James A. Brundage, “The Problem of Impotence,” in Sexual Practices and the Medieval Church, ed. Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1982), 135–40; Jacqueline Murray, “On the Origins and Role of ‘Wise Women’ in Causes of Annulment on the Grounds of Male Impotence,” Journal of Medieval History 16.3 (1990): 235–49. HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 119 Anne Sutton suggested, it might have been her father’s wealth and standing that gave her the confidence to take this action. Given that the mandate stated, as the court procedure required, that the couple had cohabited for the lawful time, which was three years, but that Elizabeth had found William to be frigid and impotent, we can take it that their marriage might have been celebrated c. 1471, a crisis point reached and proceedings attempted in the London church courts in 1474, and hence after delays there the resort made to the pope resulting in the mandate in the spring of 1476. In December, 1476 William obtained letters of protection for his lands and goods in England and elsewhere under the great seal and he is then apparently absent from London for eight years, trading in East Anglia and elsewhere. A not unreasonable conclusion is that, until the end of Edward IV’s reign, London had become an uncomfortable place for him. KING EDWARD IV’S RELATIONSHIP WITH SHORE Although the resources at Elizabeth’s disposal were doubtless substantial, royal intervention seems all the more likely when other aspects of the episode are more closely examined. The timing of the events is significant in the history of Edward’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. There is no question that the king might have conducted relationships while at the same time maintaining a strong partnership with his queen, including one which resulted in regular pregnancies. Throughout the reign, there was on average only a nine-month interval between the birth of one of their children and Elizabeth conceiving their next child, accounting for Edward’s periods of absence and Elizabeth’s periods of recuperation before churching. The longest gap without the conception of a child (until the late 1470s) came after the birth of Richard of Shrewsbury in August, 1473, until February, 1475: a period of eighteen months, nearly twice as long as any of the preceding periods between pregnancies. There is therefore something distinctive about the autumn and winter of 1473 and the calendar year 1474. It was during 1474, the evidence would suggest, that the crisis in William Shore and Elizabeth’s marriage was reached and events occurred which led William to place his property in the hands of others, possibly to travel abroad and probably to absent himself from As Sutton suggests, 138n31. Calendar of Patent Rolls 1476–85 (London: HMSO, 1901), 9. Hereafter abbreviated as CPR 1476–85. Sutton, 131–32. Hannes Kleineke, Edward IV (London and New York: Routledge, 2009), 78–80. Amy Licence, Edward IVand Elizabeth Woodville: A True Romance (Stroud: Amberley, 2015), 217–18. Anne was born in November, 1475, conceived as a result of intercourse almost certainly in the period February 1–16, 1475. 120 Tim Thornton London. And when action was taken to resolve the issues in his marriage with Elizabeth, the bishops of Hereford, Sidon, and Ross were a significant choice for her. There has been comment on the bishop of Hereford, Thomas Mylling, until recently the abbot of Westminster and a close ally of the Crown: he was the man who had protected the queen and her children during the readeption in 1470–71 while Edward IV was in exile in the Low Countries. Edward promoted him in the service of the prince of Wales, born in the abbey during that time, and it was that service which took Mylling from Westminster into the Marches of Wales as bishop of Hereford. Little if anything has been written of the other men involved, however, the bishops of Sidon and Ross. Both were suffragan bishops, living in England away from their nominal dioceses, the former in Asia Minor, the latter in Ireland, and in practice fulfilling other roles in the church. In the former case, the bishop of Sidon was William Westkarre, a monastic superior of some distinction, the first to fulfill the role of suffragan bishop, having earlier served as head of the recently founded Augustinian college, St Mary’s, in Oxford, and at times acting Chancellor of the University. Westkarre had been abbot of Mottisfont since the late 1450s, and among many activities he was primarily associated with the service of William of Waynflete and acted as his suffragan in the diocese of Winchester. During the 1470s he was resident in London and was well accustomed to handling marital issues under papal jurisdiction. The bishop of Ross was John Hornse alias Skipton or Shipton, a Cistercian from Roche Abbey near Rotherham who had been promoted to the bishopric in 1464. He took his first degree, in theology, before the end of the 1450s, and survived to resign the benefice of Leeds in the West Riding of Yorkshire in 1499, in the meanwhile acting as suffragan from 1466 to 1469 in Norwich (during which time he was vicar of Caister), and then Bath and Wells from 1479 to 1481. In the earlier 1470s he was probably assisting in the diocese of London, and as well as being rector of St Andrew Undershaft in the City at the end of the decade he had been in 1474–75 vicar of Broxbourne in Hertfordshire. These were very substantial and well-connected figures to handle Elizabeth’s case. Douglas Seward, A Brief History of the Wars of the Roses (London: Robinson, 2007), 303. Martin Heale, The Abbots and Priors of Late Medieval and Reformation England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 198; Michael Riordan, “William Westkarre (d. 1486), Augustinian Canon and Suffragan Bishop,” in ODNB; A. B. Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford to A.D. 1500, 3 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957–59), vol. 3, 2021. In London, he was rector of St Martin’s Ludgate from 1465 to his death. Emden, vol. 2, 966–67. HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 121 If we can see the resort to the pope as more likely than not a royally supported initiative, then it is also entirely consistent with other evidence that it was in the latter part of 1473 and in 1474 that the relationship with Elizabeth is likely to have begun. There is little exceptional in Edward’s movements to undermine the possibility, for example. Edward’s time in and around the capital in the autumn of 1473, the following winter, and perhaps especially in the summer of 1474 offered plentiful opportunity for the relationship to start. After the birth of his son Richard on August 17, 1473 in Shrewsbury, Edward arrived back in Westminster in time for the opening of Parliament on October 6. Then during the following year, he was in and around London, and so one might assume close to Elizabeth Shore, for all but about three months. Early in 1474, there is a trip into the Thames Valley with Windsor reached at least by February 18, and then further, to Nottingham on March 23, and Derby, Burton, and Coventry were also visited, before the king returned to the capital for Parliament’s opening on May 9. He then spent the rest of the spring and summer in and around London and Westminster, only leaving in August for a week in Windsor, and at the end of the month a short trip to Guildford and Farnham. In September, he headed for Woodstock and Kenilworth, and then on to Worcester, Gloucester, Bristol, and Cirencester, during October, returning via Kenilworth and Bedford in the early part of November, to be back in London in the middle of the month. There is nothing in this pattern of movement which would in itself seem to explain the failure of the queen to conceive her next child; and much to provide opportunities for the relationship with Shore to develop. William Westkarre may provide a link to another previously elusive element of the story of the connection between Elizabeth and Edward. Westkarre’s strong association with William of Waynflete throughout his career leads us to the episodes of crisis in the history of Eton College experienced in the 1460s and 1470s. After the ambitious foundation of the college by Henry VI, in 1463 Edward IV transferred its properties and endowments to St George’s Windsor, and progress on building the chapel at Eton ceased. Edward changed his mind in 1467, but delays hindered the process of restoration, only for him to reverse his decision again in May, 1474. Edward then gave the order for some of the restored properties, and others which he had himself in the meanwhile added, to be given to St George’s. But these orders were not fulfilled. It was in this period that The itinerary is based on Cora L. Scofield, The Life and Reign of Edward the Fourth, King of England and France and Lord of Ireland, 2 vols., new impression (London: Cass, 1967), vol. 1, 60, 85, 104–6, itself based on Privy Seal writs in TNA, C 81/845–50. Robert Birley, “Jane Shore and Eton,” Etoniana 126 (December 2, 1972): 408–10; R. A. Brown, H. M. Colvin, and A. J. Taylor, The History of the King’s Works, vol. 1, The Middle Ages (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1963), 279, 283–84, 288, 291. 122 Tim Thornton Edward’s relationship with Shore may have been at an important initial stage—perhaps when she was especially well placed to exercise influence in this matter. Waynflete was heavily involved in the effort to reinvigorate the development program at Eton in the 1470s. The subsequent association of Eton with Shore, which makes her the College’s protectress and led to the preservation of portraits of her there, is hard to evince in specific terms earlier than the early eighteenth century, but the existence of this story is difficult to account for otherwise, and a connection to Shore and influence exerted through Waynflete’s clerical connections may provide an explanation for the changes in the king’s attitude to the college in the 1470s. ELIZABETH SHORE AND THE CRISIS OF 1483 There was therefore more than likely royal influence involved in the annulment of Shore’s marriage during 1476, and although the historio- graphy before 1513 is almost silent on the subject, other sources testify to the repercussions of her influence in the immediate aftermath of Edward IV’s death on April 9, 1483. Sometime between June 13 and 21, Simon Stallworth, writing to Sir William Stonor, described Shore’s arrest, saying, “Mastres Chore is in prisone: what schall happyne hyr I knowe nott.” As mentioned above, the “Great Chronicle” indicated that “shortly afftyr” the July coronation of Richard III: was a woman namyd [blank] Shoore that beffore dayes, afftyr the comon ffame, the lord Chambyrlayn held, contrary his honour, callid to a Reconnyng ffor part of his goodys & othyr thyngys, In soo much that alle hyr movablys were attachid by [th]e Shyrevys of london, and she lastly as a common harlot put to opyn penaunce, ffor the lyfe that she led w [th]e said lord hastyngys & other grete astatys. Richard’s proclamation of October 23, 1483 referred to Thomas late Marquess Dorset “holding the unshampfull and myschevous Woman called Shores Wife in Adultry.” And in an undated letter, Richard wrote to his chancellor, the bishop of Lincoln, in response to news that Thomas Lynom his solicitor—“merveillously blynded and abused” with Elizabeth, described as the late wife of William Shore, and as now in Kingsford’s Stonor Letters and Papers, 1290–1483, ed. Christine Carpenter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 417. The report is in the later part of the letter, in Stallworth’s own hand, and close to the dating clause of June 21, so most probably from that date. Great Chronicle, 233. Thomas Rymer, Foedera, 10 vols., 3rd edn. (The Hague: apud Joannem Neaulm, 1739–45), vol. 5, pt. 3, 138 (CPR 1476–85, 371). HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 123 Ludgate—had contracted marriage with her. The king expressed his desire that Lynom be dissuaded from that course of action by the chancellor. If, however, he could not be persuaded, the chancellor was to delay the wedding until Richard’s arrival in London, and until surety was given for her good behavior. ELIZABETH SHORE AS A SOURCE FOR MORE’S HISTORY, AND THE CAREER OF THOMAS LYNOM But the above is the sum of the contemporary and near-contemporary evidence for Shore. The treatment of this period in Polydore Vergil’s writing highlights the challenge to interpreting the much more prominent role given to her by More. Vergil does not mention Shore at all, even for example in his treatment of William, Lord Hastings and the council chamber coup against him on June 13, 1483, in spite of there being many commonalities to the account of those events with More’s narrative. Those commonalities are due in part to More’s probable dependence on Vergil, and the two writers potentially sharing an ultimate source in John Morton, archbishop of Canterbury (d. 1500), who had been one of those arrested and whom More respected greatly. Given this, it seems unlikely that Morton included Shore in his reminiscences of the reign, however they were provided to Vergil or to More. The implication of this omission by Vergil is therefore that More’s access to information about Shore is independent of Vergil’s sources, including those best placed to speak or write about her such as Morton. It is a logical next step to consider which sources for Shore were available to More and not to Vergil—and the most obvious possibility is Shore herself. Thomas Lynom and his wife Elizabeth were certainly alive when More began writing his History of King Richard III. When Richard died at Bosworth, their future was perhaps uncertain for a while. Lynom was after all very much Richard’s servant, having been his receiver and probably solicitor before his accession, and after it becoming solicitor general and, for example, being intruded into East Anglian politics and society in the aftermath of the 1483 rebellions. But Lynom was able to secure a pardon British Library Harleian Manuscript 433, ed. Rosemary Horrox and P. W. Hammond, 4 vols. (Gloucester: Alan Sutton for the Richard III Society, 1979), vol. 3, 259. See the discussion in Charles Ross, Richard III, 2nd edn. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999), 81–82. Lynom entered the law via the Inner Temple, practicing from 1467; John H. Baker, The Men of Law 1440 to 1550: A Prosopography of the Inns of Court and Chancery and the Courts of Law, 2 vols., Selden Society Supplementary Series Volume 18 (London: Selden Society, 2012), vol. 2, 1045; Anne F. Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs with Hannes Kleineke, “The Children in the Care of Richard III: New References. A Lawsuit between Peter Courteys, Keeper of Richard III’s Great Wardrobe, and Thomas Lynom, Solicitor of Richard III, 1495–1501,” The Ricardian 24 (2014): 31–62, pp. 51–58; Rosemary Horrox, 124 Tim Thornton from the new king Henry VII as early as September 18, 1485. In July, 1486 he became surveyor and receiver of the lordship of Middleham, and August of the same year saw him granted a role giving out pardons and receiving former rebels into the king’s allegiance in Yorkshire. Elizabeth lost her father and mother in these years. John Lambert had been deprived of a valuable group of West Country manors, part of the inheritance of the Courtenay earls of Devon and given to him in 1470, when these were restored to Edward Courtenay with the earldom in 1485. He continued to have property in Hertfordshire, in the form of Hinxworth, which he had bought in 1484. It was there that John was buried on his death in 1487, his grave marked with a monumental brass which depicted his family, including a distinctive individual figure of each of his children including larger ones of his son William, who was parson of St Leonard, Foster Lane, in London and of his eldest daughter— Elizabeth. His status as citizen, mercer, and alderman of London was proudly described on the monument, despite the fact that he had lost the rank of alderman in 1470. In his will, John remembered Elizabeth with the bequest of a bed of arras with “the vilour tester and cortaynes,” and a stained cloth of Mary Magdalene and Martha, prompting some recently to wonder if his tongue was at that point in his cheek. Lynom was one of the “ouersears” of John’s will, as well as witnessing it, and received 20 shillings; and John and Elizabeth’s daughter Julyan received 40 shillings. John also remembered one of Thomas Lynom’s servants, Richard III: A Study in Service, paperback edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 219; British Library (hereafter abbreviated as BL), Cotton Julius B XII, fol. 224; Kew, The National Archives of the United Kingdom (hereafter abbreviated as TNA), C 81/1640/39–42; Calendar of Fine Rolls, 1471–85 (London: HMSO, 1961), no. 801; CPR 1476–85, 166, 460, 523–24, 559–60. Materials for a History of the Reign of Henry VII, ed. William Campbell, 2 vols. (London: Longman, 1873–77), vol. 1, 65, 527, 535; Calendar of Patent Rolls 1485–94 (London: HMSO, 1914), 12, 112, 126, hereafter abbreviated as CPR 1485–94. That these appointments in Yorkshire were Lynom the solicitor’s was discounted by Barker (p. 390) and Sutton and Visser-Fuchs with Kleineke (p. 55), in the latter case not just on the basis that loyalty to Richard would have precluded it, but because they preceded his pardon—but the pardon was in September, 1485, the first appointment in July, 1486. As a result, there is no need to posit the existence of multiple Thomas Lynoms, as suggested by these authors. CPR 1485–94,28–29. Henry Chauncy, The Historical Antiquities of Hertfordshire, 2 vols., 2nd edn. (Bishops Stortford: J. M. Mullinger and B. J. Holdsworth, 1826), vol. 1, 64–65, buying it on the death of John Ward, lord mayor of London; The Victoria History of the County of Hertford, ed. William Page et al., 4 vols. (London: Constable; St Catherine Press, 1902–23), vol. 3, Will dated September 24, proved October 20, 1487: TNA, PROB 11/8/82; Barker, 389–90. The brass is illustrated in “The Story of Jane Shore,” Etoniana 126 (December 2, 1972): 410–14, pp. 411–12; Monumental Brass Society, Portfolio, vol. 1, pt. 3, plate 5. HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 125 Isabell Thomson, with a “vilett gown.” The Hertford property was left to John’s wife for her life, and then to their sons, in turn should each have no issue, John, Robert, the priest William, and then Elizabeth. Elizabeth’s mother Amy made her will at the very end of the following year, and she divided her property equally between her children, including Elizabeth. Thomas Lynom was one of those appointed executors. Lynom’s position is relatively difficult to track for the next few years at the end of the 1480s and the turn of the decade. The Thomas Lynom gentleman whose plea for trespass Edward Danyell failed to answer in May, 1488 was described as “late of London,” but this gives us relatively little guide as to his location and activity. What is more significant is that he was at Lichfield in May, 1492, and this is a first sign that he was associated with the service of Arthur, prince of Wales, and of the Council in the Marches of Wales, which had been operating at least since March, 1490, soon after Arthur’s creation as prince. In January, 1495, in that connection, with four others—Sir Richard Pole, Sir Richard Croft, Roger Bodenham, and James Inglefield—Lynom was commissioned to inquire what lands John Grey lord of Powis held on his death. Lynom can be seen handling considerable sums of money on behalf of the prince’s administration by 1502, as his controller. This prominence led to his playing a central role after Arthur’s death on April 2 that year. The prince’s lands were retained by the king, but the council petitioned for a continuation of its role, with Lynom featuring in the request that revenues from North Wales, Cheshire, and the earldom of March be dedicated for its use. The council did continue its judicial and administrative activity, and Lynom, as receiver in the principality of North Wales and Chester, received the balance of the revenues from the TNA, PROB 11/8/191. CPR 1485–94, 186. Nor is there relevance to the reference to his escheatorship of Essex (and Hertfordshire) in October, 1498, which is to him as removed from office and relates back to his time there in 1483–84: Calendar of Fine Rolls, 1485–1509 (London: HMSO, 1962), no. 629; TNA, E 153/829; Barker, 390; Seward, 452; A. C. Wood, List of Escheators for England and Wales, List and Index Society, vol. 72 (London: Swift, 1971), 44. Canterbury Cathedral Archives, CCA-DCc-ChAnt/L/236. S. B. Chrimes, Henry VII, paperback edn. (London: Eyre Methuen, 1977), 250; Penry Williams, The Council in the Marches of Wales under Elizabeth I (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1958), 9–10; J. Beverley Smith, “Crown and Community in the Principality of North Wales in the Reign of Henry Tudor,” Welsh History Review 3.2 (1966–67): 145–71, pp. 160–61. CPR 1494–1509, 27. Douglas Seward (p. 378) suggests that when he first appears it seems to pick up on one of the actions of Lynom in 1484. His absence in the Marches may account for his failure to appear in a case in Common Pleas from January, 1495 until late in 1498: Sutton and Visser-Fuchs with Kleineke, 31–32, 42–50. 126 Tim Thornton principality to support the continuing activities of the commissioners. While Lynom had not been on the commission of the peace in Shropshire issued in 1497, from 1502 he was appointed a justice of the peace (JP) there, through to the end of Henry VII’s reign, and in 1506 he was on two further commissions, to enquire into goods of wards and outlaws, in Herefordshire, Shropshire, and the Marches of Wales, the second of which added Merioneth and Caernarvon to its sphere of action. He became an official of the Chester Exchequer in 1505, retaining that post until he agreed to relinquish it in 1509–10. Lynom was also involved in the government of the principality of North Wales, as controller of the rolls. Lynom’s significance more generally as a result of this activity is evident, for example, from his appearance in the records of a conciliar court of audit in the last months of Henry VII’s reign. In these years, a bequest from Thomas Barowe, archdeacon of Colchester, highlights Lynom’s continuing connections with a group that spanned his former Ricardian network (such as the son of John Kendall, Richard’s secretary), through others who had very successfully made the transition from Richard’s service to Henry VII’s such as Sir James Tyrell, and yet others, such as Reginald Bray, who were at the heart of the group who had brought Henry to the throne. Some sense of the implications of all this for where Thomas Lynom and Elizabeth might have been residing is given when Thomas took advantage of the pardon issued at the accession of Henry VIII. He appears as late clerk controller of Prince Arthur, of London and Hertford, indicating that they retained connections in the localities where the Lambert inheritance lay, but also of “Bewdesert” (Beaudesert, a hunting lodge of the bishops of Lichfield on the southern edge of Cannock Chase in Staffordshire) and Ludlow in Shropshire, where they would have lived TNA, E 101/415/3, fol. 92v: April 10, 1502 payment of £200 to “lynam my lorde prince seruant.” Further in following years: BL, Add. MS 59899, fol. 210v; BL, Add. MS 21480, fol. 188; TNA, E 101/413/2/3, fols. 30, 68, 98v. There were two payments in 1511: TNA, E 36/215, fols. 104, 108; BL, MS Cotton Vitellius C. 1, fols. 3–5; Beverley Smith, 167–68; Paul Worthington, “Royal Government in the Counties Palatine of Lancashire and Cheshire, 1460–1509” (PhD thesis, University of Swansea, 1990), 293–301; Chrimes, 250–51; Tim Thornton, Cheshire and the Tudor State, 1480–1560 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2000), 83, 152. CPR 1494–1509, 488, 489, 655–56. Beverley Smith, 162. It may be that he appeared not as a member of the court on this occasion but before it, successfully representing the abbot of Bardsey. J. A. Guy, “A Conciliar Court of Audit at Work in the Last Months of the Reign of Henry VII,” Historical Research 49.120 (1976): 289–95, pp. 290, 293; Sutton and Visser-Fuchs with Kleineke, 56. TNA, PROB 11/11/672; Sutton and Visser-Fuchs with Kleineke, 55–56. HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 127 while he discharged his duties in the Marches and Wales. There is no doubt in the ensuing period that Thomas was still heavily committed in the administration of the Marches. In 1510 he was a commissioner in Denbigh and other nearby lordships, with responsibilities with his fellows including to take fealties, conclude for recognizances, mises, tallages, and other dues, and to be surveyors and appruators, with power to examine letters patent of all officers and ministers there, and cancel such as were insufficient, and also to determine accounts, levy fines, and let farms. Lynom’s activity in the Marches of Wales is not entirely unexpected given the connection he formed with Elizabeth. Her first husband, William Shore, was from a Derby family, and the Derbyshire connection continued despite William’s great success in trade in London. William’s sister married John Agard of Foston in Derbyshire in the early 1470s. Agard had been born in 1427 and this was his second marriage: he was already a considerable figure in the region. Agard’s first wife was Jane, daughter of Thomas Wolseley (d. 1478), and sister of Ralph Wolseley, of Wolseley Hall, Colwich (Staffordshire), another lawyer and a baron of the Exchequer from 1478 to 1484, who survived until 1504. John and Jane had four children, Ralph, Nicholas, Clement, and Margery. A close relationship grew up between William Shore and both John and Ralph Agard. Shore’s sister died sometime in the period 1490–95, at which point John Agard married again, this time to Maud, the daughter of Sir John Stanley and widow of Sir John Ferrers (d. 1490). The Agard family was Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, ed. J. S. Brewer, James Gairdner, and R. H. Brodie, 21 vols. in 37 (London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans and Roberts; HMSO, 1864–1932), hereafter abbreviated as LP, vol. 1, item 438 (3 m. 16); The Itinerary of John Leland in or about the Years 1535–1543, ed. Lucy Toulmin Smith, 5 vols. (London: Bell, 1906–10), vol. 5, 22; The Victoria History of the County of Stafford, ed. William Page et al., 14 vols., continuing (London: Archibald Constable, and others, 1908–), vol. 3, 22–23; Anthony Emery, Greater Medieval Houses of England and Wales, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996–2006), vol. 2: East Anglia, Central England and Wales, 363, 409–11. There has been some confusion over the identification of Beaudesert, as the place-name is not uncommon; the Pardon Roll makes clear the identification with the Staffordshire location and not that in Warwickshire, as suggested in Sutton and Visser-Fuchs with Kleineke, 57. The apparent continuing connection with Hertfordshire is otherwise unevidenced: there is no sign of either Elizabeth or Thomas in, for example, the will of John Lambert, probably Elizabeth’s eldest brother, proved in February, 1510/11: TNA, PROB 11/16/970. John was a Hospitaller; he mentions nephews William and Robert. The Hinxworth property passed to a Thomas Lambert: Chauncy, vol. 1, 65. LP vol. 1, item 414(48). For the Derbyshire connection outlined in this paragraph, see Sutton, 127–39, and on its wider context, Susan M. Wright, The Derbyshire Gentry in the Fifteenth Century, Derbyshire Record Society, VIII (1983), esp. 83–92; Rowney, 39, 104–5, 133–34, 145–50, 207, 252, 344, 387–91, 420, 430–31, 448, 467, 476. 128 Tim Thornton associated with royal service in the Honour of Tutbury: Foston lies only a very short distance from Tutbury itself, to the northwest across the River Dove. Through this they were connected with prominent national figures and regionally significant families such as the Blounts (lords Mountjoy), Gresleys, Wolseleys, Babingtons, Fitzherberts, and Powtrells. Involvement in George, duke of Clarence’s administration, and that of William, Lord Hastings, in Tutbury resulted in John and Nicholas his brother being retained by Hastings in 1474, and Ralph being retained in 1480. John Agard founded a chantry at Scropton, the parish church adjacent to Foston, in his will of 1516, remembering his patrons Clarence, Hastings, and Lord Mountjoy among those who benefited from the prayers said there. When William Shore died in 1495, estranged from his wife and many of his other connections, it seems that it was his Agard relations who were some of the few upon whom he still relied—and he was buried among them at Scropton. It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that sometime in the period 1486–1515 Thomas Lynom was litigating in Chancery with John Agard over land in Elmhurst (Staffordshire), just over a mile north of Lichfield. If Elizabeth and Thomas Lynom’s residence in the Marches was at Beaudesert, then this was only about five miles across country from Elmhurst, and twenty miles from Scropton and Foston. It is also unsurprising that when Thomas Lynom found sureties in a case in Common Pleas in 1498, they were led by John Snede, who was most likely a connection of the family of that name that was increasingly influential in South Cheshire and North Staffordshire. In 1510, 1512, and 1513 Thomas Lynom was a justice of oyer and terminer in the Marches of Wales. In 1510–14, he was a JP in Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, and Shropshire. During 1515, he was appointed to commissions of the peace covering not just Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Shropshire, and Gloucestershire, but also Cheshire and Flintshire, and South Wales and the Marches. In all this work, Lynom’s closest association would have been with the assiduous and influential President of the Council in the Marches, William Smith. Smith had become a member of the Council of the Prince in 1493, following his advancement to the diocese of Lichfield in the final months TNA, C 1/114/19. Sutton and Visser-Fuchs with Kleineke, 31, 42. LP vol. 1, items 414(52), 1123(20), 1316(9), 2055(42). Ibid., vol. 1, items 1537–38, 1543, 1546. The first commission in the sequence in Worcestershire is that dated November 13, 1511, i.e. he was not on the February 16, 1510 commission in that county, and his first introduction came in Shropshire on February 26, 1510, then on the 2nd commission of the reign in Gloucestershire in May, 1510, then the 3rd in Herefordshire in December, 1510, and finally Worcestershire in 1511. LP vol. 2, items 207, 709, 719, 726, 1192, 1247 (Worcestershire, December 4). HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 129 of the previous year. This role continued in spite of his elevation to the diocese of Lincoln just a few months later, in 1495: all this reflected the closeness of Smith’s relationship with the king and especially with his mother, Margaret Beaufort. Smith was from Widnes, in Prescot parish, Lancashire, which was the heartland of the Stanley earls of Derby, and from 1472 Margaret was the wife of Thomas, Lord Stanley, and after Henry’s accession earl of Derby. In some of the first grants of Henry VII’s reign Smith had become dean of Wimborne, where Margaret’s parents lay buried, and keeper of the hanaper of the Chancery. The recognition that Smith received, such as his chancellorship of Oxford University in 1500, Margaret’s celebration of his promotion to Lincoln, and his prominent role in critical moments in the life of the dynasty, such as the betrothal of Arthur to Katherine of Aragon in 1501, and then the prince’s funeral rites in April of the following year, indicated his position of unusual intimacy with those at the heart of the regime. Thomas Lynom was a commissioner of the peace again in May, 1518 in North and South Wales, and in the Marches, Cheshire and Flintshire, and Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, and Shropshire, alongside the other members of the Marcher Council. But this was his last appearance in that role, and probably sometime between the May 1 date of that commission and early July he died. On July 6, 1518 a grant was made to Richard Pole, yeoman usher of the chamber, of land in Sutton upon Derwent in Yorkshire, which had been granted previously to Thomas Lynom, now deceased. This property was described as “formerly belonging to one Cathwaite,” and this identifies it with the land in Sutton which had been granted to Thomas Lynom, commissioner in the Marches, in August, 1516 as a “messuage called Cathwayte.” Michael K. Jones and Malcolm G. Underwood, The King’s Mother: Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 189–90, 194; R. M. Warnicke, “The Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond (d.1509), as seen by John Fisher and Lord Morley,” Moreana 19 (1982): 47–55; Margaret Bowker, “William Smith [Smyth] (d. 1514), bishop of Lincoln and founder of Brasenose College Oxford,” in ODNB. LP vol. 2, item 4141. Strangely, the commission of October 24, 1518 for the same areas simply added Sir Richard Thomas, and did not remove Lynom’s name: LP vol. 2, item 4528. The Gloucestershire commission which followed, on November 16, 1520, did not include Lynom or any kinsman of that name: LP vol. 3, item 1081(16). There is no subsequent Herefordshire Commission of the Peace before that of February 2, 1521, on which a Thomas “Lynon” again appears, so it is impossible to establish the extent of any interruption in the same way: LP vol. 3, item 1186(2). In Worcestershire, the first subsequent commission of the peace was that of July 26, 1522, and that included a Thomas Lynon: LP vol. 3, item 2415. The oyer and terminer commission for the principality and marcher counties of March 7, 1522 does not include him: LP vol. 3, item 2145. LP vol. 2, items 2267, 4349. Lynom’s death is referred to again in an undated grant of 18 Henry VIII: LP vol. 4, item 3087, and see also that in vol. 4, item 2132. 130 Tim Thornton It is very likely therefore that Elizabeth Shore’s husband died early in 1518. A Thomas Lynom appears on the subsequent commissions of the peace for Herefordshire in 1521 and 1522, and then in 1525 and another in Worcestershire in 1524, 1526, and 1531. This would appear to be a younger kinsman of Thomas, probably a son and possibly from an earlier marriage. The hiatus in service, between 1518 and 1521, is suggestive of this transition. Lynom’s activity and increasing prominence from the turn of the century, which would have brought him periodically to the capital, and in particular his apparent death in 1518, coincide with the period of More’s own increasing prominence and growing interest in the history of the reigns of Edward IVand Richard III. Soon after his father John was called, in 1503, to be a serjeant-at-law, Thomas served in the House of Commons in 1504; in 1509 Thomas became a member of the influential Mercers’ guild, joined the commission of the peace for Middlesex, and sat again, for Westminster, in Parliament. More’s legal career led to his becoming one of two under-sheriffs for the city of London in 1510. In May, 1515 he was commissioned, with others including Cuthbert Tunstall, to undertake an embassy to Bruges, the first of a series of government roles drawing on his expertise and contacts. On his return from Bruges, as Andrea Ammonio observed in February, 1516, More continued to engage with the court, haunting “those smoky palace fires,” and attending early on Cardinal Wolsey. The professional and probably social world shared by Thomas Lynom and More’s family is hinted at by the well-known anecdote in the History of King Richard III in which More tells of the moment at which the death of Edward IV was reported: [O]ne Mystelbrooke longe ere mornynge, came in greate haste to the house of one Pottyer dwellyng in reddecrosse strete without crepulgate : and when he was with hastye rappyng quickly letten in, LP vol. 3, items 1186(2), 2415(6); August 11, 1525 (?“Lymon”): LP vol. 4, item 1610(11). LP vol. 4, items 137(12), 2002(6); vol. 5, item 166(46). Barker, 391, says that Lynom was a JP in Worcestershire in 1527, and appears to give as a reference for this LP vol. 4, item 3087; but this is in practice the grant to William Lelegrawe of possessions in Sutton-on-Derwent, on surrender by Richard Pole, who held the same from the decease of Lynom, and there does not appear to be a commission of that date. TNA, SP 1/11, fol. 126 (LP vol. 2, item 977); The Correspondence of Erasmus: Letters 298 to 445, 1514 to 1516, trans. R. A. B. Mynors and D. F. S. Thomson, annotated J. K. McConica, Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 3 (Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1976), 239; and more generally, J. A. Guy, The Public Career of Thomas More (Brighton: Harvester Press, 1980). HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 131 hee shewed vnto Pottyer that kynge Edwarde was departed. By my trouthe manne quod Pottier then wyll my mayster the Duke of Gloucester bee kynge. In an important addition (which appears only in the Latin versions of the History), More indicates “quem ego sermonem ab eo memini, qui colloquentes audiuerat, iam tum patri meo renuntiatum” [I remember hearing these words reported to my father at that time by a man who had heard Mistlebrook and Potyer speak them]—this is based on a personal recollection from the time. Mistlebrook was William Mistelbrook, auditor, who was successively a servant of Edward IV, of Richard III, and then of Henry VII. After 1485 he worked in the group of professional royal servants that also included Lynom, for example in their activity in Wales and the Marches, and it was in Denbigh that Mistelbrook died in 1492. Lynom and Thomas Potyer were long-standing associates, because in 1482 they had taken charge of the goods and chattels of Sir Thomas Greenfield when this servant of Richard of Gloucester became an alms knight at Windsor. More calls Potyer a servant of Gloucester’s, and he became attorney in Chancery of the Duchy of Lancaster on September 20, 1483. It was in Potyer’s house in which this incident occurred, close to the More household in Milk St., but both Mistelbrook and More’s father’s informant were evidently trusted visitors there. These were men whose professional and personal lives intersected over the years, in London and in some cases beyond. CW 2:9. CW 2:lxvii–lxviii, 9, 101; CW 15:326–29. CPR 1485–94, 219 (Campbell, vol. 2, 341–42); Beverley Smith, 162. For Mistelbrook’s activities more generally, see B. P. Wolffe, The Royal Demesne in English History: The Crown Estate in the Governance of the Realm from the Conquest to 1509 (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1971), 183, 201, 205, 300, 304; Horrox, Richard III,211–12; CW 2:170; Robert Somerville, History of the Duchy of Lancaster (London: Duchy of Lancaster, 1953), 441; W. C. Richardson, Tudor Chamber Administration (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1972), 60–61; Harleian Manuscript 433, vol. 1, 184, 190, 221, 250; vol. 2, 11, 31; vol. 3, 145, 214; John Weever, Ancient Funerall Monuments (London: printed by Thomas Harper, and are to be sold by Laurence Sadler at the signe of the Golden Lion in little Britaine, 1631), 538–39; Campbell, vol. 1, 54–55; vol. 2, 91; LP vol. 1, item 1804(6); A. F. Pollard, “The Making of Sir Thomas More’s Richard III,” in Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait, ed. J. G. Edwards, V. H. Galbraith, and E. F. Jacob (Manchester: printed for the subscribers, 1933), 223–38, p. 235. Calendar of Close Rolls 1476–85 (London: HMSO, 1954), no. 941; CPR 1476–85, 306; noticed by Seward, 378. For the alms knights, and the sudden increase in their number at this point, see Hannes Kleineke, “Lobbying and Access: The Canons of Windsor and the Matter of the Poor Knights in the Parliament of 1485,” Parliamentary History 25.2 (2006): 145–59, pp. 150–53. CW 2:9 (qui Richardo familiaris erat), 170; CW 15:326–27; Somerville, 457; Harleian Manuscript 433, vol. 1, 5, 92. 132 Tim Thornton ELIZABETH SHORE AND THOMAS MORE We have already established that there was no specific classical inspiration for Shore’s role in the History, and minimal prompt in the existing English historiography for More’s decisions to represent her as he did. It may be that some of what he wrote was simply the conjuring of a fertile imagination to serve an overall narrative and, more importantly, philosophical purpose. But, on the basis of our understanding of the intersections between More’s world and Shore’s world as a survivor of 1483, it is worth considering how knowledge of her personally might have prompted More’s writing. Some of what More adds to the historiography about Elizabeth Shore is about the way her name was used by others as a signal of the nature of Edward IV’s character and regime in events in which she was personally not present. For example, More provides detail of the oration by the duke of Buckingham at the London Guildhall after Ralph Shaa’s sermon first questioned Edward V’s legitimacy, and in doing so More suggests that when the duke called to mind the difficulties of Edward’s rule he played on the emotions and personal grievances of the men of London assembled before him: more sute was in his dayes vnto Shores wife a vile & an abhominable strumpet, then to al the lordes in England, except vnto those y made her their proctoure which simple woman was wel named & honest, tyll the kyng for his wanton lust & sinful affeccion byreft her from her husband a right honest substauncial yong man among you. And in that point which in good faith I am sorye to speke of, sauing that it is in vain to kepe in counsel that thing that al men know, y kinges gredy appetite was insaciable, and euery where ouer al the realme intollerable. This was material which could be the stuff of the collective memory of the citizenry of London. Similarly, More describes the proclamation made by Gloucester after his coup against the Lord Chamberlain, William, Lord Hastings and his associates in the Tower, and indicates that it mentioned Shore: e e much mater was ther in y proclamacion deuised, to y slaunder of e t e y lord chamberlain, as y he was an euil counseller to y kinges Perhaps the most ambitious recent attempt to suggest Shore played a direct role in the writing of the History is that of Michael Jones, Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle, new edn. (London: John Murray, [2002] 2014). Jones controversially, and without a direct exploration of his grounds in the text, goes so far as to make Shore More’s immediate source for the events of 1483, especially the role of Cecily duchess of York, mother of both Edward IV and Richard III (pp. 73–74, 109–10). CW 2:71–72; CW 15:460–63. HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 133 father … in y vicious liuing & inordinate abusion of his body, both t t w many other, & also specialli w shores wife, which was one also of his most secret counsel of this heynous treson, w whom he lay nightli, & nameli y night last passed next before his death, so that it was y less meruel, if vngracious liuyng brought him to an vnhappy ending Neither of these accounts would require the personal insight of Shore herself, although familiarity with her would have been a prompt to the shaping of the narrative in this way, and the latter picks up directly on the events in the Tower. It is here in his account of the interactions between the main actors involved that More adds significantly to the detail of previous writers. Hastings is associated directly with Shore, first in that he is again said to have spent the preceding night with her, if only in the variant in the Hardyng 1543 and Halle 1548 and 1550 English texts: ‘The same morning ere he were vp from his bed where Shores wyfe lay with him al night.’ And then in the moments when Richard makes his allegations against Hastings and his associates, Shore is linked to the queen as being responsible for the withering of Richard’s arm, and Richard takes Hastings’ equivocal response to this accusation as a prompt to condemn him: ‘Then said the protectour: ye shal al se in what wise that sorceres and that other witch of her counsel shoris wife w their affynite, haue by their sorcery & witchcraft wasted my body… .’ Observers, however, understand that Richard’s charge is groundless: For wel thei wist, that y quene was to wise to go aboute any such folye. And also if she would, yet wold she of all folke leste make Shoris wife of counsaile, whom of al women she most hated, as that concubine whom the king her husband had most loued. And also no man was there present, but wel knew that his harme was euer such since his birth. Natheles the lorde Chamberlen (which fro y death of king Edward kept Shoris wife, on whome he somwhat doted in the kinges life, sauing as it is sayd he that while forbare her of reuerence towarde hys king, or els of a certaine kinde of fidelite to hys frende) aunswered & sayd: certainly my lorde if they haue so heinously done, thei be worthy heinouse punishement. What quod the protectour thou seruest me I wene w iffes & with andes, I tel the thei haue so done, & that I will make good on thy body traitour CW 2:53. This aspect of the proclamation is not described in the Latin versions of the History; see also CW 15:422–23. CW 2:51. Shore does not appear here in the earlier texts. CW 2:48; CW 15:408–11. 134 Tim Thornton This part of the addition and variation of substantial detail on the account provided by Vergil of the Tower coup, bringing Shore into the account alongside the queen, with the allegation of an enmity between them which is obvious to the participants, is part of a strategy of More’s to undermine Richard’s allegations and heighten the terrible absurdity of the events—as also in making the king claim his arm has only recently just been deformed by witchcraft, when his audience very well knows it has been so since birth. But More has changed the personnel and other details of the events in ways which are not solely determined by this narrative strategy. The arrest and detention of Shore is something which is a further addition to the historiography, and provides context for the subsequent seizure of her goods and penance, which had appeared in Fabyan’s account in the “Great Chronicle”: Now then by & bi, as it wer for anger not for couetise, y protector sent into [amended in the Grafton editions for Hardynge and Halle, in 1543, 1548 and 1550, as “sent Sir Thomas Hawarde to”]y house of shores wife (for her husband dwelled not w her) & t e spoiled her of al y euer she had, aboue y value of .ii. or .iii. M. marks, & sent her body to prison. And when he had a while laide vnto her for the maner sake, y she went about to bewitch him, t t &y she was of counsel w the lord chamberlein to destroy him: in conclusion when y no colour could fasten vpon these matters, then e t he layd heinously to her charge, y thing y her self could not deny, that al y world wist was true, & that natheles euery man laughed at to here it then so sodainly so highly taken, y she was nought of her body. And for thys cause (as a goodly continent prince clene & fautles of himself, sent oute of heauen into this vicious world for the amendment of mens maners) he caused the bishop of London to put her to open penance, going before the crosse in procession vpon a sonday with a taper in her hand. In which she went in countenance & pace demure so womanly, & albeit she were out of al array saue her kyrtle only: yet went she so fair & Iouely, namelye while the wondering of the people caste a comly rud in her chekes (of [55] whiche she before had most misse) that her great shame wan her much praise, among those y were more amorous of her body then curious of her soule. And many good folke also y hated her liuing, & glad wer to se sin corrected: yet pitied thei more her penance, then reioyced therin, when thei considred that y protector procured it, more of a corrupt intent then ani vertuous affeccion. Hanham, Richard III and His Early Historians, 168–72. CW 2:54–55; CW 15:424–25. HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 135 And it is this passage which prompts from More his most extensive account of Shore, and one which indicates both the extent of his sympathy and the likely degree of personal interaction at points in her life: This woman was born in London, worshipfully frended, honestly brought vp, & very wel maryed, sauing somewhat to sone, her husbande an honest citezen, yonge & goodly & of good substance. But forasmuch as they were coupled ere she wer wel ripe, she not very feruently loued, for whom she neuer longed. Which was happely the thinge, that the more easily made her encline vnto y kings appetite when he required her. Howbeit y respect of his royaltie, y hope of gay apparel, ease, plesure & other wanton welth, was hable soone to perse a softe tender hearte. But when the king had abused her, anon her husband (as he was an honest man & one that could his good, not presuming to touch a kinges concubine) left her vp to him al togither… . I doubt not some shal think this woman to sleight a thing, to be written of & set amonge the remembraunces of great matters: which t t thei shal specially think, y happely shal esteme her only by y thei now see her. But me semeth the chaunce so much the more worthy to be remembred, in how much she is now in the more beggerly condicion, vnfrended & worne out of acquaintance, after good substance, after as gret fauour w the prince, [57] after as gret sute & t t seking to w al those y those days had busynes to spede, as many other men were in their times, which be now famouse, only by y infamy of their il dedes. Her doinges were not much lesse, albeit thei be muche lesse remembred, because thei were not so euil. For men vse if they haue an euil turne, to write it in marble: & whoso doth vs a good tourne, we write it in duste which is not worst proued by her: for at this daye shee beggeth of many at this daye t 75 liuing, y at this day had begged if she had not bene. This final phrase, in the English text printed in 1557, is the most prominent of two clear references to the contemporary survival of one of More’s subjects in his History. The Latin text published in 1565 expresses perhaps even more clearly Shore’s contemporary survival: But she, who was once famous herself, has now outlived her friends and all her acquaintances, and with the years, as it were, she has passed into another age. Even her own recollection of her former luxury has been almost defaced by her long-continued sufferings and today she ekes out a miserable existence by begging. At eadem adeo olim celebris, amicis nunc notisque omnibus superstes, annisque velut in alterum progressa seculum, deleta CW 2:55–57; CW 15:424–31. 136 Tim Thornton propemodum etiam sibi longis malis pristini luxus memoria, miseram hodie vitam medicando sustinet. An understanding of the immediacy of More’s knowledge of Shore, and a reading of the development of his treatment of her in the History is therefore of particular significance because, uniquely, it ties each of the texts to contemporary reference points. More’s text brings into the narrative structure a clear understanding of the significance of her relationships with the king and with Hastings, which we can now understand to be well founded in evidence but which were previously minimally present, or not present at all, in the historiography available to More. Shore was not just a theoretical prompt to contrast the qualities of Richard with those of another of the central players in the drama of 1483: her survival into the 1510s, for More and others like him, was a direct reminder of the fact that men and women who lived through the crisis of that year were still among them. As Caroline Barron has shown, at an important formative stage in More’s life after his time at Oxford and as he engaged with the London Charterhouse he was almost certainly close to some of the London neighborhoods that connected him back to the people and places of this narrative, and may even have lodged with Richard Potyer whose involvement in the anecdote of events on the night of Edward IV’s death he later wrote into the History. I have explored a similar stimulus and possible source in my consideration of the careers at Henry VIII’s court of Edward and Miles Forest, sons of the man first identified in the History as the lead murderer of the “princes in the Tower,” and their contacts with More. And this prompt was an ongoing stimulation to the development of More and others’ understanding of the recent past. The episode between Hastings and Shore is an important one in helping us to discern how Shore herself may have prompted More’s writing. In the 1565 Latin text Hastings’ relationship with Shore is only briefly stated as a reason for his reaction to Richard’s allegation of witchcraft. We are simply told that Hastings was brought up short by the CW 2:57; CW 15:430–31. Caroline M. Barron, “Thomas More, the London Charterhouse and Richard III,” in Parliament, Personalities and Power: Papers Presented to Linda S. Clark, ed. Hannes Kleineke, The Fifteenth Century, vol. 10 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2011), 203–14, esp. pp. 213–14; Caroline M. Barron, “The Making of a London Citizen,” in The Cambridge Companion to Thomas More, ed. George M. Logan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 3–21. Tim Thornton, “More on a Murder: The Deaths of the ‘Princes in the Tower’, and Historiographical Implications for the Regimes of Henry VII and Henry VIII,” History 106.1 (2021): 4–25. HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 137 mention of Shore because he was said to be desperately in love with her (“Shorae commemoratione perculsus (nam eam deamare ferebatur)”). In the English of 1557, by contrast, the reader is reminded that since Edward IV’s death Hastings had kept Shore’s wife, and had indeed doted on her even during the king’s life, but held back out of reverence or fidelity to him. As Alison Hanham noted, 1557 also adds the description of Richard putting Shore to penance “as a goodly continent prince clene & fautles of himself, sent oute of heauen into this vicious world for the amendement of mens maners”—an important addition to a briefer statement about the penance in 1565. Sylvester thought revisions were made to Arundel before 1565 was perfected—but it is hard to see a revision deliberately dropping important phrases like this. Hanham argued this was because they had not yet occurred to More. One might further suggest that it could be that More’s knowledge and understanding of his subject had not fully developed when the draft of 1565 was made, and that Shore was accessible to him and made that possible over subsequent years. The only other survivor directly referred to by More in the work is Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey and second duke of Norfolk, who died in 1524. Thomas Howard is, however, elusive in the text until it appears in the versions printed by Grafton, first in 1543 and then in 1548. CW 2:48; CW 15:410–11. A similar passage occurs later in the English and Latin versions, during the extended description of Shore: CW 2:55; CW 15:426–27. Alison Hanham, “Texts of Thomas More’s Richard III,” Renaissance Studies 21.1 (2007): 62–84, pp. 64–83. Like Arundel and Paris, 1557 expands on the description of Shore in 1565: CW 2:55–57, 132–34; CW 15:424–31. To “she was more beautiful than tall” Paris and Arundel add “which greatly appeals to almost any very tall man.” There is also specific mention, albeit in much less personal terms, of an even longer-term survivor, in Thomas’s son, also Thomas, the third duke, who had been born in 1473, and died only in 1554. In Louvain 1565 and Rastell 1557 Thomas is described as Thomas “than Lorde Hawarde, and after Earle of Surrey” (CW 2:3)—by implication locating the writing of those texts to a period in which he was earl and not yet duke of Norfolk, i.e. 1514–24, although the authorial location of the survival of Howard to his own time is not emphasized so clearly as with Thomas (d. 1524) or Shore herself. Sylvester apparently misidentifies John, Lord Howard (duke of Norfolk from June 28, 1483), who is referred to by More obliquely in the 1557 text as “another Lorde” who challenges Queen Elizabeth over the sanctuary of her sons in June, 1483. Sylvester identifies this individual as Thomas, son of John, who was created duke of Norfolk on February 1, 1514 and lived until May, 1524, when he was in his eighties, but who is not referred to as a “lord” elsewhere by More (CW 2:xxxviiin2, 36, 202–3, 274). For the Howard household records of the incident, see The Household Books of John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, 1462–1471, 1481–1483, intro. by Anne Crawford (Stroud: A. Sutton for the Richard III and Yorkist History Trust, 1992), xxi; vol. 2, 402. In the Grafton edition of 1543, the challenge to the queen comes from “the lorde Hawarde,” which is More’s manner of describing John. The correct identifications are made by Hanham, “Texts of Thomas More’s Richard III,” 80–81. 138 Tim Thornton In the words printed by Rastell in 1557, it is “a knight” who comes to Hastings on the morning of his death “as it were of curtesy to accompany hym to the counsaile, but of trouth sent by the protector to hast him thitherward, wyth whom he was of secret confederacy in that purpose, a meane man at that tyme, and now of gret auctorite”; and it is the protector himself who is described as having “sent into y house of shores wife” and spoiled her of her goods. But in the edition of 1543, the knight accompanying Hastings is “sir Thomas Haward sonne to the lorde Haward,” and the emissary who plunders Elizabeth Shore is “Sir Thomas Hawarde.” In 1548 the Grafton text went even further, in the second episode, relating to Hastings, glossing the Howard name as “whiche lord was one of the priueyest of the lord protectours counsail and doyng.” Sylvester, committed to the view that the 1543 and 1548 texts were largely revised by Grafton himself, suggested it was Grafton not More who identified the Howards as Richard’s close allies; Hanham suggests it was More himself, revising his work and freed by the death of the second duke in 1524 to link him by name to the evils of Richard’s coup. Before that point, an uneasy relationship between More and Howard made such explicit comment more than impolitic. This hostility, whether before or after the explicit identification, makes the involvement by More of Howard in the construction of his work very unlikely. Shore is therefore highly distinctive, and this distinction is reinforced by the positive tone of More’s account of her, which is unusual amongst the characters in the drama. This is echoed in the positive treatment of Hastings, with whom Shore is closely associated: this honorable man, a good knight and a gentle, of gret aucthorite w his prince, of liuing somewhat dessolate, plaine & open to his enemy, & secret to his frend : eth to begile, as he that of good hart & corage forestudied no perilles. A louing man & passing wel beloued. Very faithful, & trusty ynough, trusting to much. CW 2:51, 54; CW 15:416–17. For Hanham’s case for More’s authorship of 1543 and 1548, see Alison Hanham, “Honing a History: Thomas More’s Revisions of his Richard III,” Review of English Studies 59.239 (2008): 197–218, p. 216; Hanham, “Texts of Thomas More’s Richard III,” 78–83. Hanham is challenged by the later amendment to the 1543 text which strengthens the emphasis on Howard’s closeness to Richard—suggesting in a note that this may be due to Hall’s possession of yet a third, “slightly different” draft of the History (“Texts of Thomas More’s Richard III,” 81n93). Vergil’s MS confirms the presence of Howard at the Tower, albeit the name was omitted from the 1534 printing of his Anglica Historia, suggesting similar sensitivities: Hay, Polydore Vergil, 204–5. For More’s uneasy relationship with Thomas Howard, see Guy, Public Career of Thomas More. CW 2:52, cf. 130; CW 15:420–21. HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 139 RESPONSES TO TYRANNY AND CREATING A HISTORICAL NARRATIVE There is therefore the possibility that we are not just seeing further reflection and shaping of language and ideas as Thomas More drafted and redrafted his History, but his response to a living subject present in the city of London and known to him, as she aged and finally died. Scholars have rightly continued in recent years to refine their understanding of the extraordinary power of the study of tyranny made by More in the History. That analysis of tyranny does not depend, ultimately, on the historical accuracy of the narrative which runs through it. Yet at the same time More was constructing, in many elements for the first time, a historical narrative and analysis of a period which was still in a real sense contemporary history. It was the history of a period which was the immediate back-story for the survivors and the children of survivors who surrounded him in his everyday life, and the events he described had ongoing impacts. Recent years had seen the passing of some of those survivors, and there was perhaps a sense in the years immediately after the death of Henry VII in April, 1509 of the quickening of that process. The dozen or so years before More began to write had taken witnesses such as his own patron John Morton, in 1500, Reginald Bray in 1503, the king’s own mother Margaret Beaufort in June, 1509, soon after her son, and the long-lived Lancastrian partisan John de Vere, thirteenth earl of Oxford in March, 1513—men and women who had been at the heart of the intrigues and campaigns that brought Henry from obscurity to triumph in 1483–85. Others who would have remembered the drama of those years survived, such as George, earl of Shrewsbury, born in 1468 (and a ward of William Lord Hastings and married by him to his daughter Anne) and Thomas Fitzalan, tenth earl of Arundel (1450–1524) who as Lord Maltravers attended Richard’s coronation, or Richard Foxe and Christopher Urswick who had been with Henry of Richmond in his exile Ewe Baumann, “Thomas More and the Classical Tyrant,” Moreana 22.2 (1985): 108–27; Jeffrey S. Lehman, “Seeing Tyranny in More’s History of King Richard III,” Moreana 50.1–2 (2013): 131–57; Gabriela Schmidt, “What Use to Make of a Tyrant? Thomas More’s History of Richard III and the Limits of Early Tudor Historiography,” Moreana 50.1–2 (2013): 159–86; Dermot Fenlon, “Thomas More and Tyranny,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 32.4 (1981): 453–76. James Ross, John de Vere, Thirteenth Earl of Oxford (1442–1513): ‘The Foremost Man of the Kingdom’ (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2011); C. S. L. Davies, “Bishop John Morton, the Holy See, and the Accession of Henry VII,” English Historical Review 102.402 (1987): 2–30; Jones and Underwood, esp. 60–79; M. M. Condon, “From Caitiff and Villein to Pater Patriae: Reynold Bray and the Profits of Office,” in Profit, Piety and the Professions in Late Medieval England, ed. Michael A. Hicks (Gloucester: Sutton, 1990), 137–68. 140 Tim Thornton or close to Margaret Beaufort during the crisis. With the exception of Thomas Howard, however, Elizabeth Shore was the last central living witness to the events of 1483 in London and Westminster, and her final years were a prompt to Thomas More’s struggles to construct a meaningful narrative of the crisis which had created his world. TIM THORNTON IS PROFESSOR OF HISTORY AND DEPUTY VICE-CHANCELLOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD, HUDDERSFIELD,UK. George W. Bernard, The Power of the Early Tudor Nobility: A Study of the Fourth and Fifth Earls of Shrewsbury (Brighton: Harvester Press and Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble, 1985); Ralph A. Griffiths and Roger S. Thomas, The Making of the Tudor Dynasty, revised edn. (Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 2005), 89–131. Foxe and Urswick were very prominent in Polydore Vergil’s account of the period in his MS of 1512–13, although Urswick in particular was written out of the revised version published in 1534: Vergil, Anglica Historia, 22, 26, 30–32, 34, 52, 54, 59, 66, 94; Hay, Polydore Vergil,92–94. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Moreana Edinburgh University Press

Thomas More, the History of King Richard III, and Elizabeth Shore

Moreana , Volume 59 (1): 28 – Jun 1, 2022

Loading next page...
 
/lp/edinburgh-university-press/thomas-more-the-history-of-king-richard-iii-and-elizabeth-shore-oLYcxgFkTW
Publisher
Edinburgh University Press
Copyright
Copyright © Edinburgh University Press
ISSN
0047-8105
eISSN
2398-4961
DOI
10.3366/more.2022.0118
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Moreana 59.1 (2022): 113–140 DOI: 10.3366/more.2022.0118 © Tim Thornton. The online version of this article is published as Open Access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/) which permits commercial use, distribution and reproduction provided the original work is cited. www.euppublishing.com/more Tim Thornton Thomas More, the History of King Richard III, and Elizabeth Shore Abstract: The inclusion of Elizabeth Shore in Thomas More’s History of King Richard III offers important insights into the decisions made by More in shaping his text. This article explores the evidence available to More as he wrote, emphasizing the near-complete absence of Shore from earlier narratives. Shore’s activity in the 1470s and 1480s is examined, along with evidence for her survival and that of her husband, Thomas Lynom, into the 1510s when More was writing. Lynom’s connections are considered, providing an understanding of intersections of his activities with the environment in which More was shaping the History. As a central figure in the events of 1483 who survived into the 1520s, Shore was a prompt to the creation of More’s account—she was not simply a product of More’s literary and philosophical imagination, but part of his effort to respond to the immediate legacies of conflict in politics and society. Keywords: Elizabeth Shore, History of King Richard III, historiography, Thomas Lynom, London, Thomas Howard duke of Norfolk, William Lord Hastings, Polydore Vergil. Résumé: L’inclusion d’Elizabeth Shore dans l’Histoire du Roi Richard III de Thomas More offre un éclairage important sur les décisions prises par More dans l’élaboration de son texte. Cet article explore les éléments dont disposait More au moment il écrivit son Histoire, et souligne l’absence presque complète de Shore dans les récits antérieurs. On y examine l’activité de Shore dans les années 1470 et 1480, ainsi que les preuves de sa survie et de celle de son mari Thomas Lynom, dans les années 1510, lorsque More rédigeait l’Histoire. Sont étudiées également les connexions de Lynom, ce qui fournit une compréhension du croisement de ses activités avec l’environnement dans lequel More a donné forme à son Histoire. En tant que personnage central des événements de 1486, qui survécut dans les années 1520, Shore représentait un élément de la mise en scène du récit de More—elle n’était pas seulement le produit de l’imagination littéraire et philosophique de More, mais faisait bel et bien partie de sa tentative de réponse aux séquelles immédiates du conflit politique et sociétal de l’époque. Mots-clés: Elizabeth Shore, Histoire du roi Richard III, historiographie, Thomas Lynom, Londres, Thomas Howard duc de Norfolk, William Lord Hastings, Polydore Vergil. 114 Tim Thornton One of the most prominent characters in Thomas More’s History of King Richard III is Mistress Shore, the now notorious mistress of Edward IV, who plays an important role there in the events immediately after Edward’s death. Shore is also one of the most notable additions made by More to the previously existing accounts of the period. The decision to introduce her, and to characterize her in the way that More did, offers routes into a better understanding of More’s writing of this history. An exploration of Shore’s place in the History provides important insights not just into the way More framed the intellectual project represented by the History, but also into the intersections between her world and More’s: it adds to our understanding of the work as not simply an outstanding piece of political metaphor and theoretical exploration, but also a direct response to the living survivors and legacy of civil conflict in the England which More himself inhabited. This article addresses the facts of Shore’s life—building on the efforts of Rosemary Horrox in work for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography on Elizabeth herself and a few years before that Anne Sutton with particular reference to her husband William, all of which has been supported by the expansion of interest over the last couple of decades in the history of women and gender in the late medieval period. My exploration highlights the extent to which our understanding of Shore’s role in the 1470s and 1480s, and especially in 1483, depends on More’s writing. The heavy dependency of the historiography on More, which is for example complete when it comes to something as central to her story as her association with King Edward IV, is noted by John Ashdown-Hill and allows him to express skepticism about whether that connection existed at all. In contrast, I will review what other sources may tell us about Shore in order to focus our attention on the highly distinctive way in which Shore appears in More’s history of Richard III. Shore is unique in being referred to there in an extended way as living and present in More’s London: in the texts eventually published in 1565 at Louvain and in 1557 by William Rastell with clear indications that she was still alive at the time of writing; in the Arundel and Paris MSS even more specifically that she Rosemary Horrox, “Shore [née Lambert], Elizabeth [Jane] (d. 1526/7?), Royal Mistress,” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. H. C. G. Matthew, Brian Harrison, Lawrence Goldman, and David Cannadine, online edn. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004–), accessed January 12, 2021, https://www.oxforddnb.com, hereafter abbreviated as ODNB; Anne F. Sutton, “William Shore, Merchant of London and Derby,” Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 106 (1986): 127–39. For example, Maria M. Scott, Re-presenting Jane Shore: Harlot and Heroine (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005). John Ashdown-Hill, The Private Life of Edward IV (Stroud: Amberley Publishing, 2016), ch. 22. HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 115 was then seventy years old; and in the editions by Grafton of 1543 and 1548 providing the date of her death as 1526–27. Shore was a witness of the events of 1483 living, and then dying, in More’s London, and the ways in which she appears in the texts allow us to understand more of the ways in which More developed his work, of his sources, and of his relationship to his material. While not implying a direct and prime relationship with the oral testimony of eye-witnesses, Shore’s presence reminds us of the originality of More’s insight into the narrative of events and the origins of that insight in his presence in the London of the early sixteenth century, among the survivors and inheritors of the coup of 1483. THE PROBLEM OF MORE’S SOURCES FOR ELIZABETH SHORE Elizabeth Shore plays an important role in More’s work, standing in contrast to Richard’s character and actions, and also set up alongside another Elizabeth, Elizabeth Woodville, Edward IV’s queen, treated first in the History’s structure before the account moves on to address the stories of the recently dead king’s first encounters with Woodville. But the choices More makes in selecting Shore for this purpose are not ones suggested to him by models he was following in his classical reading: for example, it is hard to see Shore as a response to a type More might have found in Tacitus’s Annals, which we know to have been otherwise powerful in shaping his thinking; nor does Sallust’s Sempronia, a charming and active but deceiving and murdering political woman, provide a model. The Yale Edition of the Complete Works of St. Thomas More, vol. 2, The History of King Richard III, ed. by Richard S. Sylvester (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1963), 55, 133/6, hereafter abbreviated as CW 2; The Yale Edition of the Complete Works of St. Thomas More, vol. 15, In Defense of Humanism: Letter to Martin Dorp, Letter to the University of Oxford, Letter to Edward Lee, Letter to a Monk, with a New Text and Translation of Historia Richardi Tertii, ed. by Daniel Kinney (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986), 426–27. Hereafter abbreviated as CW 15 and cited by page number. James Harner, “The Place of ‘Shore’s Wife’ in More’s The History of King Richard III,” Moreana 19.2 (1982): 69–76; Alan Clarke Shepard, “‘Female Perversity,’ Male Entitlement: The Agency of Gender in More’s The History of Richard III,” Sixteenth Century Journal 26.2 (1995): 311–28. The suggestion is Sylvester’s, in CW 2:lxxxvii–lxxxviii, countered by Judith H. Anderson, Biographical Truth: The Representation of Historical Persons in Tudor-Stuart Writing (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984), 98–101; Sallust, The War with Catiline; The War with Jugurtha, ed. and trans. J. C. Rolfe, revised John T. Ramsey, Loeb series, revised edn. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013), xxv; for example, “Even before the time of the conspiracy she had often broken her word, repudiated her debts, been privy to murder … Nevertheless, she was a woman of no mean endowments; she could write verses, bandy jests, and use language which was modest, or tender, or wanton; in fine, she possessed a high degree of wit and of charm” (43–45). G. M. Paul, “Sallust’s Sempronia: The Portrait of a Lady,” in Papers of the 116 Tim Thornton Similarly, More was not picking up on an existing tradition in English historical writing, however great his debt was in other respects to Polydore Vergil and some other written (and even printed) sources: before he began writing, Shore’s place in historiography was very limited. The most extensive and best-informed accounts of the seizure of the throne by Richard paid her no attention. For example, the scholar- chronicler Dominic Mancini in an eye-witness report written up before the end of 1483 and drawing on insights from men around the court including Dr John Argentine, the court physician, and a source inside government who could have been a chancery clerk like Pietro Carmeliano, and who was perhaps particularly influenced by those close to Richard as duke of Gloucester and with access to Edward IV’s inner circle, makes no mention of her. Nor does Polydore Vergil, although he was able to access a range of well-placed sources, including Reginald Bray (d. August, 1503) and Christopher Urswick (d. March, 1522), in particular, after his arrival in England in 1502 and as he accumulated materials systematically from c. 1506–7, culminating in the Anglica Historia of which he completed a first draft in 1512–13. The London mercer and chronicler Robert Fabyan in the New Chronicles Liverpool Latin Seminar, V (1985), ed. Francis Cairns, ARCA: Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs, 19 (Liverpool: Francis Cairns, 1986), 9–22. See also Esther Yael Beith-Halahmi, “Angell Fayre or Strumpet Lewd: Jane Shore as an Example of Erring Beauty in 16th Century Literature,” Salzburg Studies in English Literature. Elizabethan & Renaissance Studies 26–27 (1974): 47–48; Lee Cullen Khanna, “No Less Real than Ideal: Images of Woman in More’s Work,” Moreana 14.3 (1977): 35–51, pp. 45–51. See the excellent summary of the growing skepticism against A. F. Pollard’s view that the History was “derived almost exclusively from oral tradition,” especially from Cardinal John Morton himself, in Alison Hanham, Richard III and His Early Historians, 1483–1535 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), 161–66. The Usurpation of Richard the Third: Dominicus Mancinus ad Angelum Catonem de occupatione Regni Anglie per Riccardum Tercium libellus, ed. Charles Arthur John Armstrong, 2nd edn. (London: Oxford University Press, 1969); A. J. Pollard, “Dominic Mancini’s Account of the Events of 1483,” Nottingham Medieval Studies 38 (1994): 152–63; Michael Hicks, Richard III, ebook edn. (Stroud: The History Press, 2012), 145–59. Polydore Vergil, Three Books of Polydore Vergil’s English History: Comprising the Reigns of Henry VI., Edward IV., and Richard III., ed. Henry Ellis, Camden Society, o.s., 29 (1844); Denys Hay, “The Manuscript of Polydore Vergil’s ‘Anglica Historia,’” English Historical Review 54.214 (1939): 240–51; Polydore Vergil, The Anglica Historia of Polydore Vergil, A.D. 1485–1537, ed. Denys Hay, Camden Society, 3rd ser., lxxiv (1950); Denys Hay, Polydore Vergil: Renaissance Historian and Man of Letters (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952), 93–95. Hay lists John Morton (d. 1500), as a third key source of oral testimony for Vergil’s work, which given the date of his death cannot apply, however prominent Morton is in the account of Henry VII. Richard Fox is another likely candidate, though not mentioned by Hay, given reference to his joining Richmond in France: ibid., 198; Vergil, Three Books, 209. HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 117 finalized in 1504 and printed in 1516 did not mention Shore either. Fabyan’s other presentation of the London chronicle tradition, which we know as the “Great Chronicle,” in wording that was developed no later than 1512, does describe how shortly after Richard III’s coronation, on July 6, “a woman namyd [blank] Shoore that beffore dayes, afftyr the comon ffame, the lord Chambyrlayn [William, Lord Hastings] held” was called to a reckoning for part of his goods and other moveables by the sheriffs of London, “and she lastly as a comon harlott put to opyn penaunce, ffor the lyfe that she ledd w [th]e said lord hastyngys & othir grete astatys.” But that is all. WILL THE REAL JANE SHORE PLEASE STAND UP? The narrative accounts of the period which had been developed by c. 1513 were therefore very limited in their discussions of Shore. More could draw little, if anything, from them when he devised his account. Research on the 1470s and 1480s has established, nonetheless, that Shore emerged from a prosperous city mercantile background and married William Shore before encountering distinctive problems with her marriage and embark- ing on a relationship with King Edward IV. At Edward’s death, she was soon arrested, and was the subject of efforts by Richard of Gloucester both to seize her wealth and to characterize her as the center of a culture of sexual immorality at court. Possibly after a release from jail, she was re-imprisoned in the autumn of 1483 on the basis of an association with Thomas, Marquess Dorset. But in the following year she emerged from Ludgate Gaol and married Thomas Lynom, the new King Richard’s solicitor, and her association with him seems to have reinforced the fortunes of her father’s family. It is this evidence, and that for her subsequent experience, which needs to be re-examined if we are to understand the significance of More’s account of Elizabeth Shore. Robert Fabyan, Prima pars cronecarum: For That in the Accomptynge of the Yeres of the Worlde (RSTC 10659; [London], 1516/17) (usually known as the New Chronicles), fols. [227]–228v. (Robert Fabyan, The New Chronicles of England and France, ed. Henry Ellis (London: printed for F. C. and J. Rivington, 1811), 667–70.) The Great Chronicle of London, ed. A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley (London: printed by George W. Jones at the Sign of the Dolphin, 1938), 233; J. Boffey, “Robert Fabyan’s Two Hats: Compiling The Great Chronicle of London and The New Chronicles of England and France,” in Editing and Interpretation of Middle English Texts: Essays in Honour of William Marx, ed. Margaret Connolly and Raluca Radulescu (Turnhout: Brepols, 2018), 173–88, esp. pp. 182–85; M. T. W. Payne, “Robert Fabyan and The Nuremberg Chronicle,” The Library 7th ser. 12.2 (2011): 164–69 (countering doubts as to his authorship in Charles Lethbridge Kingsford, English Historical Literature in the Fifteenth Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 104); and Mary-Rose McLaren, The London Chronicles of the Fifteenth Century: A Revolution in English Writing (Woodbridge: D. S. Brewer, 2002), 26–28; Mary-Rose McLaren, “Robert Fabyan (d. 1513), chronicler,” in ODNB. 118 Tim Thornton Elizabeth’s father was John Lambert, a Londoner who was one of the most prominent members of the mercer’s company. He was also an alderman of the city, until he lost the office in 1470, probably because of a politically motivated attack during the readeption of Henry VI, given his support for Edward IV. The man chosen as Elizabeth’s husband was William Shore, another mercer, who had been taking apprentices since 1463. William was a man with a background in Derby substantial enough to mean his sister could marry, possibly as her second husband, John Agard of Foston, a “ubiquitous” member of a well-connected gentry family which served the Honour of Tutbury and at that time the interest of William, Lord Hastings. By November, 1474, William Shore may have been looking to travel abroad, or facing major legal expenses: he granted his goods and chattels to a group of associates. He did the same thing again in March, 1475. The previous month he was almost certainly still in London, for the Mercers gave him the responsibility of checking the finances of company members in relation to a benevolence requested by the king. In March, 1476, however, a papal mandate ordered the bishops of Hereford, Sidon, and Ross to hear his wife Elizabeth’s petition to annul their marriage on the grounds of impotence. It was a rare plea, in a still rarer context. Bronach Kane, in her study of impotence and virginity, found just two such cases in the church courts of York in the fourteenth century and four in the fifteenth century. Given this, Elizabeth’s case might well have depended on the support of the king, although as Nicolas Barker, “The Real Jane Shore,” Etoniana 125 (June 4, 1972): 383–91, pp. 385–86. On his background, see Sutton, 127–31; “ubiquitous”: Ian Douglas Rowney, “The Staffordshire Political Community 1440–1500” (PhD thesis, Keele University, 1981), 207. On November 30, 1474, William Shore made a gift of his goods and chattels to a group of men (two mercers, two lawyers, and a tailor; Calendar of Close Rolls, 1468–76 (London: HMSO, 1953), no. 1372; Calendar of Plea and Memoranda Rolls, 1453–82, ed. Philip E. Jones (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961), 171)—usually a sign of an intention either to leave the country or to raise a significant loan, perhaps for legal costs: see the comments by Sutton, 131. Calendar of Plea and Memoranda Rolls, 1453–82, 172. Acts of Court of the Mercers Company, 1453–1527, ed. Lætitia Lyell and Frank D. Watney (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936), 79–80. Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland: Papal Letters, vol. 13, A.D. 1471–1484, ed. J. A. Twemlow (London: HMSO, 1955), 487–88. Bronach Kane, Impotence and Virginity in the Late Medieval Ecclesiastical Court of York, Borthwick Paper 114 (York: Borthwick Publications, 2008), 8; R. H. Helmholz, Marriage Litigation in Medieval England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 87–90; James A. Brundage, “The Problem of Impotence,” in Sexual Practices and the Medieval Church, ed. Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1982), 135–40; Jacqueline Murray, “On the Origins and Role of ‘Wise Women’ in Causes of Annulment on the Grounds of Male Impotence,” Journal of Medieval History 16.3 (1990): 235–49. HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 119 Anne Sutton suggested, it might have been her father’s wealth and standing that gave her the confidence to take this action. Given that the mandate stated, as the court procedure required, that the couple had cohabited for the lawful time, which was three years, but that Elizabeth had found William to be frigid and impotent, we can take it that their marriage might have been celebrated c. 1471, a crisis point reached and proceedings attempted in the London church courts in 1474, and hence after delays there the resort made to the pope resulting in the mandate in the spring of 1476. In December, 1476 William obtained letters of protection for his lands and goods in England and elsewhere under the great seal and he is then apparently absent from London for eight years, trading in East Anglia and elsewhere. A not unreasonable conclusion is that, until the end of Edward IV’s reign, London had become an uncomfortable place for him. KING EDWARD IV’S RELATIONSHIP WITH SHORE Although the resources at Elizabeth’s disposal were doubtless substantial, royal intervention seems all the more likely when other aspects of the episode are more closely examined. The timing of the events is significant in the history of Edward’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. There is no question that the king might have conducted relationships while at the same time maintaining a strong partnership with his queen, including one which resulted in regular pregnancies. Throughout the reign, there was on average only a nine-month interval between the birth of one of their children and Elizabeth conceiving their next child, accounting for Edward’s periods of absence and Elizabeth’s periods of recuperation before churching. The longest gap without the conception of a child (until the late 1470s) came after the birth of Richard of Shrewsbury in August, 1473, until February, 1475: a period of eighteen months, nearly twice as long as any of the preceding periods between pregnancies. There is therefore something distinctive about the autumn and winter of 1473 and the calendar year 1474. It was during 1474, the evidence would suggest, that the crisis in William Shore and Elizabeth’s marriage was reached and events occurred which led William to place his property in the hands of others, possibly to travel abroad and probably to absent himself from As Sutton suggests, 138n31. Calendar of Patent Rolls 1476–85 (London: HMSO, 1901), 9. Hereafter abbreviated as CPR 1476–85. Sutton, 131–32. Hannes Kleineke, Edward IV (London and New York: Routledge, 2009), 78–80. Amy Licence, Edward IVand Elizabeth Woodville: A True Romance (Stroud: Amberley, 2015), 217–18. Anne was born in November, 1475, conceived as a result of intercourse almost certainly in the period February 1–16, 1475. 120 Tim Thornton London. And when action was taken to resolve the issues in his marriage with Elizabeth, the bishops of Hereford, Sidon, and Ross were a significant choice for her. There has been comment on the bishop of Hereford, Thomas Mylling, until recently the abbot of Westminster and a close ally of the Crown: he was the man who had protected the queen and her children during the readeption in 1470–71 while Edward IV was in exile in the Low Countries. Edward promoted him in the service of the prince of Wales, born in the abbey during that time, and it was that service which took Mylling from Westminster into the Marches of Wales as bishop of Hereford. Little if anything has been written of the other men involved, however, the bishops of Sidon and Ross. Both were suffragan bishops, living in England away from their nominal dioceses, the former in Asia Minor, the latter in Ireland, and in practice fulfilling other roles in the church. In the former case, the bishop of Sidon was William Westkarre, a monastic superior of some distinction, the first to fulfill the role of suffragan bishop, having earlier served as head of the recently founded Augustinian college, St Mary’s, in Oxford, and at times acting Chancellor of the University. Westkarre had been abbot of Mottisfont since the late 1450s, and among many activities he was primarily associated with the service of William of Waynflete and acted as his suffragan in the diocese of Winchester. During the 1470s he was resident in London and was well accustomed to handling marital issues under papal jurisdiction. The bishop of Ross was John Hornse alias Skipton or Shipton, a Cistercian from Roche Abbey near Rotherham who had been promoted to the bishopric in 1464. He took his first degree, in theology, before the end of the 1450s, and survived to resign the benefice of Leeds in the West Riding of Yorkshire in 1499, in the meanwhile acting as suffragan from 1466 to 1469 in Norwich (during which time he was vicar of Caister), and then Bath and Wells from 1479 to 1481. In the earlier 1470s he was probably assisting in the diocese of London, and as well as being rector of St Andrew Undershaft in the City at the end of the decade he had been in 1474–75 vicar of Broxbourne in Hertfordshire. These were very substantial and well-connected figures to handle Elizabeth’s case. Douglas Seward, A Brief History of the Wars of the Roses (London: Robinson, 2007), 303. Martin Heale, The Abbots and Priors of Late Medieval and Reformation England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 198; Michael Riordan, “William Westkarre (d. 1486), Augustinian Canon and Suffragan Bishop,” in ODNB; A. B. Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford to A.D. 1500, 3 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957–59), vol. 3, 2021. In London, he was rector of St Martin’s Ludgate from 1465 to his death. Emden, vol. 2, 966–67. HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 121 If we can see the resort to the pope as more likely than not a royally supported initiative, then it is also entirely consistent with other evidence that it was in the latter part of 1473 and in 1474 that the relationship with Elizabeth is likely to have begun. There is little exceptional in Edward’s movements to undermine the possibility, for example. Edward’s time in and around the capital in the autumn of 1473, the following winter, and perhaps especially in the summer of 1474 offered plentiful opportunity for the relationship to start. After the birth of his son Richard on August 17, 1473 in Shrewsbury, Edward arrived back in Westminster in time for the opening of Parliament on October 6. Then during the following year, he was in and around London, and so one might assume close to Elizabeth Shore, for all but about three months. Early in 1474, there is a trip into the Thames Valley with Windsor reached at least by February 18, and then further, to Nottingham on March 23, and Derby, Burton, and Coventry were also visited, before the king returned to the capital for Parliament’s opening on May 9. He then spent the rest of the spring and summer in and around London and Westminster, only leaving in August for a week in Windsor, and at the end of the month a short trip to Guildford and Farnham. In September, he headed for Woodstock and Kenilworth, and then on to Worcester, Gloucester, Bristol, and Cirencester, during October, returning via Kenilworth and Bedford in the early part of November, to be back in London in the middle of the month. There is nothing in this pattern of movement which would in itself seem to explain the failure of the queen to conceive her next child; and much to provide opportunities for the relationship with Shore to develop. William Westkarre may provide a link to another previously elusive element of the story of the connection between Elizabeth and Edward. Westkarre’s strong association with William of Waynflete throughout his career leads us to the episodes of crisis in the history of Eton College experienced in the 1460s and 1470s. After the ambitious foundation of the college by Henry VI, in 1463 Edward IV transferred its properties and endowments to St George’s Windsor, and progress on building the chapel at Eton ceased. Edward changed his mind in 1467, but delays hindered the process of restoration, only for him to reverse his decision again in May, 1474. Edward then gave the order for some of the restored properties, and others which he had himself in the meanwhile added, to be given to St George’s. But these orders were not fulfilled. It was in this period that The itinerary is based on Cora L. Scofield, The Life and Reign of Edward the Fourth, King of England and France and Lord of Ireland, 2 vols., new impression (London: Cass, 1967), vol. 1, 60, 85, 104–6, itself based on Privy Seal writs in TNA, C 81/845–50. Robert Birley, “Jane Shore and Eton,” Etoniana 126 (December 2, 1972): 408–10; R. A. Brown, H. M. Colvin, and A. J. Taylor, The History of the King’s Works, vol. 1, The Middle Ages (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1963), 279, 283–84, 288, 291. 122 Tim Thornton Edward’s relationship with Shore may have been at an important initial stage—perhaps when she was especially well placed to exercise influence in this matter. Waynflete was heavily involved in the effort to reinvigorate the development program at Eton in the 1470s. The subsequent association of Eton with Shore, which makes her the College’s protectress and led to the preservation of portraits of her there, is hard to evince in specific terms earlier than the early eighteenth century, but the existence of this story is difficult to account for otherwise, and a connection to Shore and influence exerted through Waynflete’s clerical connections may provide an explanation for the changes in the king’s attitude to the college in the 1470s. ELIZABETH SHORE AND THE CRISIS OF 1483 There was therefore more than likely royal influence involved in the annulment of Shore’s marriage during 1476, and although the historio- graphy before 1513 is almost silent on the subject, other sources testify to the repercussions of her influence in the immediate aftermath of Edward IV’s death on April 9, 1483. Sometime between June 13 and 21, Simon Stallworth, writing to Sir William Stonor, described Shore’s arrest, saying, “Mastres Chore is in prisone: what schall happyne hyr I knowe nott.” As mentioned above, the “Great Chronicle” indicated that “shortly afftyr” the July coronation of Richard III: was a woman namyd [blank] Shoore that beffore dayes, afftyr the comon ffame, the lord Chambyrlayn held, contrary his honour, callid to a Reconnyng ffor part of his goodys & othyr thyngys, In soo much that alle hyr movablys were attachid by [th]e Shyrevys of london, and she lastly as a common harlot put to opyn penaunce, ffor the lyfe that she led w [th]e said lord hastyngys & other grete astatys. Richard’s proclamation of October 23, 1483 referred to Thomas late Marquess Dorset “holding the unshampfull and myschevous Woman called Shores Wife in Adultry.” And in an undated letter, Richard wrote to his chancellor, the bishop of Lincoln, in response to news that Thomas Lynom his solicitor—“merveillously blynded and abused” with Elizabeth, described as the late wife of William Shore, and as now in Kingsford’s Stonor Letters and Papers, 1290–1483, ed. Christine Carpenter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 417. The report is in the later part of the letter, in Stallworth’s own hand, and close to the dating clause of June 21, so most probably from that date. Great Chronicle, 233. Thomas Rymer, Foedera, 10 vols., 3rd edn. (The Hague: apud Joannem Neaulm, 1739–45), vol. 5, pt. 3, 138 (CPR 1476–85, 371). HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 123 Ludgate—had contracted marriage with her. The king expressed his desire that Lynom be dissuaded from that course of action by the chancellor. If, however, he could not be persuaded, the chancellor was to delay the wedding until Richard’s arrival in London, and until surety was given for her good behavior. ELIZABETH SHORE AS A SOURCE FOR MORE’S HISTORY, AND THE CAREER OF THOMAS LYNOM But the above is the sum of the contemporary and near-contemporary evidence for Shore. The treatment of this period in Polydore Vergil’s writing highlights the challenge to interpreting the much more prominent role given to her by More. Vergil does not mention Shore at all, even for example in his treatment of William, Lord Hastings and the council chamber coup against him on June 13, 1483, in spite of there being many commonalities to the account of those events with More’s narrative. Those commonalities are due in part to More’s probable dependence on Vergil, and the two writers potentially sharing an ultimate source in John Morton, archbishop of Canterbury (d. 1500), who had been one of those arrested and whom More respected greatly. Given this, it seems unlikely that Morton included Shore in his reminiscences of the reign, however they were provided to Vergil or to More. The implication of this omission by Vergil is therefore that More’s access to information about Shore is independent of Vergil’s sources, including those best placed to speak or write about her such as Morton. It is a logical next step to consider which sources for Shore were available to More and not to Vergil—and the most obvious possibility is Shore herself. Thomas Lynom and his wife Elizabeth were certainly alive when More began writing his History of King Richard III. When Richard died at Bosworth, their future was perhaps uncertain for a while. Lynom was after all very much Richard’s servant, having been his receiver and probably solicitor before his accession, and after it becoming solicitor general and, for example, being intruded into East Anglian politics and society in the aftermath of the 1483 rebellions. But Lynom was able to secure a pardon British Library Harleian Manuscript 433, ed. Rosemary Horrox and P. W. Hammond, 4 vols. (Gloucester: Alan Sutton for the Richard III Society, 1979), vol. 3, 259. See the discussion in Charles Ross, Richard III, 2nd edn. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999), 81–82. Lynom entered the law via the Inner Temple, practicing from 1467; John H. Baker, The Men of Law 1440 to 1550: A Prosopography of the Inns of Court and Chancery and the Courts of Law, 2 vols., Selden Society Supplementary Series Volume 18 (London: Selden Society, 2012), vol. 2, 1045; Anne F. Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs with Hannes Kleineke, “The Children in the Care of Richard III: New References. A Lawsuit between Peter Courteys, Keeper of Richard III’s Great Wardrobe, and Thomas Lynom, Solicitor of Richard III, 1495–1501,” The Ricardian 24 (2014): 31–62, pp. 51–58; Rosemary Horrox, 124 Tim Thornton from the new king Henry VII as early as September 18, 1485. In July, 1486 he became surveyor and receiver of the lordship of Middleham, and August of the same year saw him granted a role giving out pardons and receiving former rebels into the king’s allegiance in Yorkshire. Elizabeth lost her father and mother in these years. John Lambert had been deprived of a valuable group of West Country manors, part of the inheritance of the Courtenay earls of Devon and given to him in 1470, when these were restored to Edward Courtenay with the earldom in 1485. He continued to have property in Hertfordshire, in the form of Hinxworth, which he had bought in 1484. It was there that John was buried on his death in 1487, his grave marked with a monumental brass which depicted his family, including a distinctive individual figure of each of his children including larger ones of his son William, who was parson of St Leonard, Foster Lane, in London and of his eldest daughter— Elizabeth. His status as citizen, mercer, and alderman of London was proudly described on the monument, despite the fact that he had lost the rank of alderman in 1470. In his will, John remembered Elizabeth with the bequest of a bed of arras with “the vilour tester and cortaynes,” and a stained cloth of Mary Magdalene and Martha, prompting some recently to wonder if his tongue was at that point in his cheek. Lynom was one of the “ouersears” of John’s will, as well as witnessing it, and received 20 shillings; and John and Elizabeth’s daughter Julyan received 40 shillings. John also remembered one of Thomas Lynom’s servants, Richard III: A Study in Service, paperback edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 219; British Library (hereafter abbreviated as BL), Cotton Julius B XII, fol. 224; Kew, The National Archives of the United Kingdom (hereafter abbreviated as TNA), C 81/1640/39–42; Calendar of Fine Rolls, 1471–85 (London: HMSO, 1961), no. 801; CPR 1476–85, 166, 460, 523–24, 559–60. Materials for a History of the Reign of Henry VII, ed. William Campbell, 2 vols. (London: Longman, 1873–77), vol. 1, 65, 527, 535; Calendar of Patent Rolls 1485–94 (London: HMSO, 1914), 12, 112, 126, hereafter abbreviated as CPR 1485–94. That these appointments in Yorkshire were Lynom the solicitor’s was discounted by Barker (p. 390) and Sutton and Visser-Fuchs with Kleineke (p. 55), in the latter case not just on the basis that loyalty to Richard would have precluded it, but because they preceded his pardon—but the pardon was in September, 1485, the first appointment in July, 1486. As a result, there is no need to posit the existence of multiple Thomas Lynoms, as suggested by these authors. CPR 1485–94,28–29. Henry Chauncy, The Historical Antiquities of Hertfordshire, 2 vols., 2nd edn. (Bishops Stortford: J. M. Mullinger and B. J. Holdsworth, 1826), vol. 1, 64–65, buying it on the death of John Ward, lord mayor of London; The Victoria History of the County of Hertford, ed. William Page et al., 4 vols. (London: Constable; St Catherine Press, 1902–23), vol. 3, Will dated September 24, proved October 20, 1487: TNA, PROB 11/8/82; Barker, 389–90. The brass is illustrated in “The Story of Jane Shore,” Etoniana 126 (December 2, 1972): 410–14, pp. 411–12; Monumental Brass Society, Portfolio, vol. 1, pt. 3, plate 5. HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 125 Isabell Thomson, with a “vilett gown.” The Hertford property was left to John’s wife for her life, and then to their sons, in turn should each have no issue, John, Robert, the priest William, and then Elizabeth. Elizabeth’s mother Amy made her will at the very end of the following year, and she divided her property equally between her children, including Elizabeth. Thomas Lynom was one of those appointed executors. Lynom’s position is relatively difficult to track for the next few years at the end of the 1480s and the turn of the decade. The Thomas Lynom gentleman whose plea for trespass Edward Danyell failed to answer in May, 1488 was described as “late of London,” but this gives us relatively little guide as to his location and activity. What is more significant is that he was at Lichfield in May, 1492, and this is a first sign that he was associated with the service of Arthur, prince of Wales, and of the Council in the Marches of Wales, which had been operating at least since March, 1490, soon after Arthur’s creation as prince. In January, 1495, in that connection, with four others—Sir Richard Pole, Sir Richard Croft, Roger Bodenham, and James Inglefield—Lynom was commissioned to inquire what lands John Grey lord of Powis held on his death. Lynom can be seen handling considerable sums of money on behalf of the prince’s administration by 1502, as his controller. This prominence led to his playing a central role after Arthur’s death on April 2 that year. The prince’s lands were retained by the king, but the council petitioned for a continuation of its role, with Lynom featuring in the request that revenues from North Wales, Cheshire, and the earldom of March be dedicated for its use. The council did continue its judicial and administrative activity, and Lynom, as receiver in the principality of North Wales and Chester, received the balance of the revenues from the TNA, PROB 11/8/191. CPR 1485–94, 186. Nor is there relevance to the reference to his escheatorship of Essex (and Hertfordshire) in October, 1498, which is to him as removed from office and relates back to his time there in 1483–84: Calendar of Fine Rolls, 1485–1509 (London: HMSO, 1962), no. 629; TNA, E 153/829; Barker, 390; Seward, 452; A. C. Wood, List of Escheators for England and Wales, List and Index Society, vol. 72 (London: Swift, 1971), 44. Canterbury Cathedral Archives, CCA-DCc-ChAnt/L/236. S. B. Chrimes, Henry VII, paperback edn. (London: Eyre Methuen, 1977), 250; Penry Williams, The Council in the Marches of Wales under Elizabeth I (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1958), 9–10; J. Beverley Smith, “Crown and Community in the Principality of North Wales in the Reign of Henry Tudor,” Welsh History Review 3.2 (1966–67): 145–71, pp. 160–61. CPR 1494–1509, 27. Douglas Seward (p. 378) suggests that when he first appears it seems to pick up on one of the actions of Lynom in 1484. His absence in the Marches may account for his failure to appear in a case in Common Pleas from January, 1495 until late in 1498: Sutton and Visser-Fuchs with Kleineke, 31–32, 42–50. 126 Tim Thornton principality to support the continuing activities of the commissioners. While Lynom had not been on the commission of the peace in Shropshire issued in 1497, from 1502 he was appointed a justice of the peace (JP) there, through to the end of Henry VII’s reign, and in 1506 he was on two further commissions, to enquire into goods of wards and outlaws, in Herefordshire, Shropshire, and the Marches of Wales, the second of which added Merioneth and Caernarvon to its sphere of action. He became an official of the Chester Exchequer in 1505, retaining that post until he agreed to relinquish it in 1509–10. Lynom was also involved in the government of the principality of North Wales, as controller of the rolls. Lynom’s significance more generally as a result of this activity is evident, for example, from his appearance in the records of a conciliar court of audit in the last months of Henry VII’s reign. In these years, a bequest from Thomas Barowe, archdeacon of Colchester, highlights Lynom’s continuing connections with a group that spanned his former Ricardian network (such as the son of John Kendall, Richard’s secretary), through others who had very successfully made the transition from Richard’s service to Henry VII’s such as Sir James Tyrell, and yet others, such as Reginald Bray, who were at the heart of the group who had brought Henry to the throne. Some sense of the implications of all this for where Thomas Lynom and Elizabeth might have been residing is given when Thomas took advantage of the pardon issued at the accession of Henry VIII. He appears as late clerk controller of Prince Arthur, of London and Hertford, indicating that they retained connections in the localities where the Lambert inheritance lay, but also of “Bewdesert” (Beaudesert, a hunting lodge of the bishops of Lichfield on the southern edge of Cannock Chase in Staffordshire) and Ludlow in Shropshire, where they would have lived TNA, E 101/415/3, fol. 92v: April 10, 1502 payment of £200 to “lynam my lorde prince seruant.” Further in following years: BL, Add. MS 59899, fol. 210v; BL, Add. MS 21480, fol. 188; TNA, E 101/413/2/3, fols. 30, 68, 98v. There were two payments in 1511: TNA, E 36/215, fols. 104, 108; BL, MS Cotton Vitellius C. 1, fols. 3–5; Beverley Smith, 167–68; Paul Worthington, “Royal Government in the Counties Palatine of Lancashire and Cheshire, 1460–1509” (PhD thesis, University of Swansea, 1990), 293–301; Chrimes, 250–51; Tim Thornton, Cheshire and the Tudor State, 1480–1560 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2000), 83, 152. CPR 1494–1509, 488, 489, 655–56. Beverley Smith, 162. It may be that he appeared not as a member of the court on this occasion but before it, successfully representing the abbot of Bardsey. J. A. Guy, “A Conciliar Court of Audit at Work in the Last Months of the Reign of Henry VII,” Historical Research 49.120 (1976): 289–95, pp. 290, 293; Sutton and Visser-Fuchs with Kleineke, 56. TNA, PROB 11/11/672; Sutton and Visser-Fuchs with Kleineke, 55–56. HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 127 while he discharged his duties in the Marches and Wales. There is no doubt in the ensuing period that Thomas was still heavily committed in the administration of the Marches. In 1510 he was a commissioner in Denbigh and other nearby lordships, with responsibilities with his fellows including to take fealties, conclude for recognizances, mises, tallages, and other dues, and to be surveyors and appruators, with power to examine letters patent of all officers and ministers there, and cancel such as were insufficient, and also to determine accounts, levy fines, and let farms. Lynom’s activity in the Marches of Wales is not entirely unexpected given the connection he formed with Elizabeth. Her first husband, William Shore, was from a Derby family, and the Derbyshire connection continued despite William’s great success in trade in London. William’s sister married John Agard of Foston in Derbyshire in the early 1470s. Agard had been born in 1427 and this was his second marriage: he was already a considerable figure in the region. Agard’s first wife was Jane, daughter of Thomas Wolseley (d. 1478), and sister of Ralph Wolseley, of Wolseley Hall, Colwich (Staffordshire), another lawyer and a baron of the Exchequer from 1478 to 1484, who survived until 1504. John and Jane had four children, Ralph, Nicholas, Clement, and Margery. A close relationship grew up between William Shore and both John and Ralph Agard. Shore’s sister died sometime in the period 1490–95, at which point John Agard married again, this time to Maud, the daughter of Sir John Stanley and widow of Sir John Ferrers (d. 1490). The Agard family was Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, ed. J. S. Brewer, James Gairdner, and R. H. Brodie, 21 vols. in 37 (London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans and Roberts; HMSO, 1864–1932), hereafter abbreviated as LP, vol. 1, item 438 (3 m. 16); The Itinerary of John Leland in or about the Years 1535–1543, ed. Lucy Toulmin Smith, 5 vols. (London: Bell, 1906–10), vol. 5, 22; The Victoria History of the County of Stafford, ed. William Page et al., 14 vols., continuing (London: Archibald Constable, and others, 1908–), vol. 3, 22–23; Anthony Emery, Greater Medieval Houses of England and Wales, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996–2006), vol. 2: East Anglia, Central England and Wales, 363, 409–11. There has been some confusion over the identification of Beaudesert, as the place-name is not uncommon; the Pardon Roll makes clear the identification with the Staffordshire location and not that in Warwickshire, as suggested in Sutton and Visser-Fuchs with Kleineke, 57. The apparent continuing connection with Hertfordshire is otherwise unevidenced: there is no sign of either Elizabeth or Thomas in, for example, the will of John Lambert, probably Elizabeth’s eldest brother, proved in February, 1510/11: TNA, PROB 11/16/970. John was a Hospitaller; he mentions nephews William and Robert. The Hinxworth property passed to a Thomas Lambert: Chauncy, vol. 1, 65. LP vol. 1, item 414(48). For the Derbyshire connection outlined in this paragraph, see Sutton, 127–39, and on its wider context, Susan M. Wright, The Derbyshire Gentry in the Fifteenth Century, Derbyshire Record Society, VIII (1983), esp. 83–92; Rowney, 39, 104–5, 133–34, 145–50, 207, 252, 344, 387–91, 420, 430–31, 448, 467, 476. 128 Tim Thornton associated with royal service in the Honour of Tutbury: Foston lies only a very short distance from Tutbury itself, to the northwest across the River Dove. Through this they were connected with prominent national figures and regionally significant families such as the Blounts (lords Mountjoy), Gresleys, Wolseleys, Babingtons, Fitzherberts, and Powtrells. Involvement in George, duke of Clarence’s administration, and that of William, Lord Hastings, in Tutbury resulted in John and Nicholas his brother being retained by Hastings in 1474, and Ralph being retained in 1480. John Agard founded a chantry at Scropton, the parish church adjacent to Foston, in his will of 1516, remembering his patrons Clarence, Hastings, and Lord Mountjoy among those who benefited from the prayers said there. When William Shore died in 1495, estranged from his wife and many of his other connections, it seems that it was his Agard relations who were some of the few upon whom he still relied—and he was buried among them at Scropton. It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that sometime in the period 1486–1515 Thomas Lynom was litigating in Chancery with John Agard over land in Elmhurst (Staffordshire), just over a mile north of Lichfield. If Elizabeth and Thomas Lynom’s residence in the Marches was at Beaudesert, then this was only about five miles across country from Elmhurst, and twenty miles from Scropton and Foston. It is also unsurprising that when Thomas Lynom found sureties in a case in Common Pleas in 1498, they were led by John Snede, who was most likely a connection of the family of that name that was increasingly influential in South Cheshire and North Staffordshire. In 1510, 1512, and 1513 Thomas Lynom was a justice of oyer and terminer in the Marches of Wales. In 1510–14, he was a JP in Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, and Shropshire. During 1515, he was appointed to commissions of the peace covering not just Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Shropshire, and Gloucestershire, but also Cheshire and Flintshire, and South Wales and the Marches. In all this work, Lynom’s closest association would have been with the assiduous and influential President of the Council in the Marches, William Smith. Smith had become a member of the Council of the Prince in 1493, following his advancement to the diocese of Lichfield in the final months TNA, C 1/114/19. Sutton and Visser-Fuchs with Kleineke, 31, 42. LP vol. 1, items 414(52), 1123(20), 1316(9), 2055(42). Ibid., vol. 1, items 1537–38, 1543, 1546. The first commission in the sequence in Worcestershire is that dated November 13, 1511, i.e. he was not on the February 16, 1510 commission in that county, and his first introduction came in Shropshire on February 26, 1510, then on the 2nd commission of the reign in Gloucestershire in May, 1510, then the 3rd in Herefordshire in December, 1510, and finally Worcestershire in 1511. LP vol. 2, items 207, 709, 719, 726, 1192, 1247 (Worcestershire, December 4). HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 129 of the previous year. This role continued in spite of his elevation to the diocese of Lincoln just a few months later, in 1495: all this reflected the closeness of Smith’s relationship with the king and especially with his mother, Margaret Beaufort. Smith was from Widnes, in Prescot parish, Lancashire, which was the heartland of the Stanley earls of Derby, and from 1472 Margaret was the wife of Thomas, Lord Stanley, and after Henry’s accession earl of Derby. In some of the first grants of Henry VII’s reign Smith had become dean of Wimborne, where Margaret’s parents lay buried, and keeper of the hanaper of the Chancery. The recognition that Smith received, such as his chancellorship of Oxford University in 1500, Margaret’s celebration of his promotion to Lincoln, and his prominent role in critical moments in the life of the dynasty, such as the betrothal of Arthur to Katherine of Aragon in 1501, and then the prince’s funeral rites in April of the following year, indicated his position of unusual intimacy with those at the heart of the regime. Thomas Lynom was a commissioner of the peace again in May, 1518 in North and South Wales, and in the Marches, Cheshire and Flintshire, and Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, and Shropshire, alongside the other members of the Marcher Council. But this was his last appearance in that role, and probably sometime between the May 1 date of that commission and early July he died. On July 6, 1518 a grant was made to Richard Pole, yeoman usher of the chamber, of land in Sutton upon Derwent in Yorkshire, which had been granted previously to Thomas Lynom, now deceased. This property was described as “formerly belonging to one Cathwaite,” and this identifies it with the land in Sutton which had been granted to Thomas Lynom, commissioner in the Marches, in August, 1516 as a “messuage called Cathwayte.” Michael K. Jones and Malcolm G. Underwood, The King’s Mother: Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 189–90, 194; R. M. Warnicke, “The Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond (d.1509), as seen by John Fisher and Lord Morley,” Moreana 19 (1982): 47–55; Margaret Bowker, “William Smith [Smyth] (d. 1514), bishop of Lincoln and founder of Brasenose College Oxford,” in ODNB. LP vol. 2, item 4141. Strangely, the commission of October 24, 1518 for the same areas simply added Sir Richard Thomas, and did not remove Lynom’s name: LP vol. 2, item 4528. The Gloucestershire commission which followed, on November 16, 1520, did not include Lynom or any kinsman of that name: LP vol. 3, item 1081(16). There is no subsequent Herefordshire Commission of the Peace before that of February 2, 1521, on which a Thomas “Lynon” again appears, so it is impossible to establish the extent of any interruption in the same way: LP vol. 3, item 1186(2). In Worcestershire, the first subsequent commission of the peace was that of July 26, 1522, and that included a Thomas Lynon: LP vol. 3, item 2415. The oyer and terminer commission for the principality and marcher counties of March 7, 1522 does not include him: LP vol. 3, item 2145. LP vol. 2, items 2267, 4349. Lynom’s death is referred to again in an undated grant of 18 Henry VIII: LP vol. 4, item 3087, and see also that in vol. 4, item 2132. 130 Tim Thornton It is very likely therefore that Elizabeth Shore’s husband died early in 1518. A Thomas Lynom appears on the subsequent commissions of the peace for Herefordshire in 1521 and 1522, and then in 1525 and another in Worcestershire in 1524, 1526, and 1531. This would appear to be a younger kinsman of Thomas, probably a son and possibly from an earlier marriage. The hiatus in service, between 1518 and 1521, is suggestive of this transition. Lynom’s activity and increasing prominence from the turn of the century, which would have brought him periodically to the capital, and in particular his apparent death in 1518, coincide with the period of More’s own increasing prominence and growing interest in the history of the reigns of Edward IVand Richard III. Soon after his father John was called, in 1503, to be a serjeant-at-law, Thomas served in the House of Commons in 1504; in 1509 Thomas became a member of the influential Mercers’ guild, joined the commission of the peace for Middlesex, and sat again, for Westminster, in Parliament. More’s legal career led to his becoming one of two under-sheriffs for the city of London in 1510. In May, 1515 he was commissioned, with others including Cuthbert Tunstall, to undertake an embassy to Bruges, the first of a series of government roles drawing on his expertise and contacts. On his return from Bruges, as Andrea Ammonio observed in February, 1516, More continued to engage with the court, haunting “those smoky palace fires,” and attending early on Cardinal Wolsey. The professional and probably social world shared by Thomas Lynom and More’s family is hinted at by the well-known anecdote in the History of King Richard III in which More tells of the moment at which the death of Edward IV was reported: [O]ne Mystelbrooke longe ere mornynge, came in greate haste to the house of one Pottyer dwellyng in reddecrosse strete without crepulgate : and when he was with hastye rappyng quickly letten in, LP vol. 3, items 1186(2), 2415(6); August 11, 1525 (?“Lymon”): LP vol. 4, item 1610(11). LP vol. 4, items 137(12), 2002(6); vol. 5, item 166(46). Barker, 391, says that Lynom was a JP in Worcestershire in 1527, and appears to give as a reference for this LP vol. 4, item 3087; but this is in practice the grant to William Lelegrawe of possessions in Sutton-on-Derwent, on surrender by Richard Pole, who held the same from the decease of Lynom, and there does not appear to be a commission of that date. TNA, SP 1/11, fol. 126 (LP vol. 2, item 977); The Correspondence of Erasmus: Letters 298 to 445, 1514 to 1516, trans. R. A. B. Mynors and D. F. S. Thomson, annotated J. K. McConica, Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 3 (Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1976), 239; and more generally, J. A. Guy, The Public Career of Thomas More (Brighton: Harvester Press, 1980). HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 131 hee shewed vnto Pottyer that kynge Edwarde was departed. By my trouthe manne quod Pottier then wyll my mayster the Duke of Gloucester bee kynge. In an important addition (which appears only in the Latin versions of the History), More indicates “quem ego sermonem ab eo memini, qui colloquentes audiuerat, iam tum patri meo renuntiatum” [I remember hearing these words reported to my father at that time by a man who had heard Mistlebrook and Potyer speak them]—this is based on a personal recollection from the time. Mistlebrook was William Mistelbrook, auditor, who was successively a servant of Edward IV, of Richard III, and then of Henry VII. After 1485 he worked in the group of professional royal servants that also included Lynom, for example in their activity in Wales and the Marches, and it was in Denbigh that Mistelbrook died in 1492. Lynom and Thomas Potyer were long-standing associates, because in 1482 they had taken charge of the goods and chattels of Sir Thomas Greenfield when this servant of Richard of Gloucester became an alms knight at Windsor. More calls Potyer a servant of Gloucester’s, and he became attorney in Chancery of the Duchy of Lancaster on September 20, 1483. It was in Potyer’s house in which this incident occurred, close to the More household in Milk St., but both Mistelbrook and More’s father’s informant were evidently trusted visitors there. These were men whose professional and personal lives intersected over the years, in London and in some cases beyond. CW 2:9. CW 2:lxvii–lxviii, 9, 101; CW 15:326–29. CPR 1485–94, 219 (Campbell, vol. 2, 341–42); Beverley Smith, 162. For Mistelbrook’s activities more generally, see B. P. Wolffe, The Royal Demesne in English History: The Crown Estate in the Governance of the Realm from the Conquest to 1509 (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1971), 183, 201, 205, 300, 304; Horrox, Richard III,211–12; CW 2:170; Robert Somerville, History of the Duchy of Lancaster (London: Duchy of Lancaster, 1953), 441; W. C. Richardson, Tudor Chamber Administration (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1972), 60–61; Harleian Manuscript 433, vol. 1, 184, 190, 221, 250; vol. 2, 11, 31; vol. 3, 145, 214; John Weever, Ancient Funerall Monuments (London: printed by Thomas Harper, and are to be sold by Laurence Sadler at the signe of the Golden Lion in little Britaine, 1631), 538–39; Campbell, vol. 1, 54–55; vol. 2, 91; LP vol. 1, item 1804(6); A. F. Pollard, “The Making of Sir Thomas More’s Richard III,” in Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait, ed. J. G. Edwards, V. H. Galbraith, and E. F. Jacob (Manchester: printed for the subscribers, 1933), 223–38, p. 235. Calendar of Close Rolls 1476–85 (London: HMSO, 1954), no. 941; CPR 1476–85, 306; noticed by Seward, 378. For the alms knights, and the sudden increase in their number at this point, see Hannes Kleineke, “Lobbying and Access: The Canons of Windsor and the Matter of the Poor Knights in the Parliament of 1485,” Parliamentary History 25.2 (2006): 145–59, pp. 150–53. CW 2:9 (qui Richardo familiaris erat), 170; CW 15:326–27; Somerville, 457; Harleian Manuscript 433, vol. 1, 5, 92. 132 Tim Thornton ELIZABETH SHORE AND THOMAS MORE We have already established that there was no specific classical inspiration for Shore’s role in the History, and minimal prompt in the existing English historiography for More’s decisions to represent her as he did. It may be that some of what he wrote was simply the conjuring of a fertile imagination to serve an overall narrative and, more importantly, philosophical purpose. But, on the basis of our understanding of the intersections between More’s world and Shore’s world as a survivor of 1483, it is worth considering how knowledge of her personally might have prompted More’s writing. Some of what More adds to the historiography about Elizabeth Shore is about the way her name was used by others as a signal of the nature of Edward IV’s character and regime in events in which she was personally not present. For example, More provides detail of the oration by the duke of Buckingham at the London Guildhall after Ralph Shaa’s sermon first questioned Edward V’s legitimacy, and in doing so More suggests that when the duke called to mind the difficulties of Edward’s rule he played on the emotions and personal grievances of the men of London assembled before him: more sute was in his dayes vnto Shores wife a vile & an abhominable strumpet, then to al the lordes in England, except vnto those y made her their proctoure which simple woman was wel named & honest, tyll the kyng for his wanton lust & sinful affeccion byreft her from her husband a right honest substauncial yong man among you. And in that point which in good faith I am sorye to speke of, sauing that it is in vain to kepe in counsel that thing that al men know, y kinges gredy appetite was insaciable, and euery where ouer al the realme intollerable. This was material which could be the stuff of the collective memory of the citizenry of London. Similarly, More describes the proclamation made by Gloucester after his coup against the Lord Chamberlain, William, Lord Hastings and his associates in the Tower, and indicates that it mentioned Shore: e e much mater was ther in y proclamacion deuised, to y slaunder of e t e y lord chamberlain, as y he was an euil counseller to y kinges Perhaps the most ambitious recent attempt to suggest Shore played a direct role in the writing of the History is that of Michael Jones, Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle, new edn. (London: John Murray, [2002] 2014). Jones controversially, and without a direct exploration of his grounds in the text, goes so far as to make Shore More’s immediate source for the events of 1483, especially the role of Cecily duchess of York, mother of both Edward IV and Richard III (pp. 73–74, 109–10). CW 2:71–72; CW 15:460–63. HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 133 father … in y vicious liuing & inordinate abusion of his body, both t t w many other, & also specialli w shores wife, which was one also of his most secret counsel of this heynous treson, w whom he lay nightli, & nameli y night last passed next before his death, so that it was y less meruel, if vngracious liuyng brought him to an vnhappy ending Neither of these accounts would require the personal insight of Shore herself, although familiarity with her would have been a prompt to the shaping of the narrative in this way, and the latter picks up directly on the events in the Tower. It is here in his account of the interactions between the main actors involved that More adds significantly to the detail of previous writers. Hastings is associated directly with Shore, first in that he is again said to have spent the preceding night with her, if only in the variant in the Hardyng 1543 and Halle 1548 and 1550 English texts: ‘The same morning ere he were vp from his bed where Shores wyfe lay with him al night.’ And then in the moments when Richard makes his allegations against Hastings and his associates, Shore is linked to the queen as being responsible for the withering of Richard’s arm, and Richard takes Hastings’ equivocal response to this accusation as a prompt to condemn him: ‘Then said the protectour: ye shal al se in what wise that sorceres and that other witch of her counsel shoris wife w their affynite, haue by their sorcery & witchcraft wasted my body… .’ Observers, however, understand that Richard’s charge is groundless: For wel thei wist, that y quene was to wise to go aboute any such folye. And also if she would, yet wold she of all folke leste make Shoris wife of counsaile, whom of al women she most hated, as that concubine whom the king her husband had most loued. And also no man was there present, but wel knew that his harme was euer such since his birth. Natheles the lorde Chamberlen (which fro y death of king Edward kept Shoris wife, on whome he somwhat doted in the kinges life, sauing as it is sayd he that while forbare her of reuerence towarde hys king, or els of a certaine kinde of fidelite to hys frende) aunswered & sayd: certainly my lorde if they haue so heinously done, thei be worthy heinouse punishement. What quod the protectour thou seruest me I wene w iffes & with andes, I tel the thei haue so done, & that I will make good on thy body traitour CW 2:53. This aspect of the proclamation is not described in the Latin versions of the History; see also CW 15:422–23. CW 2:51. Shore does not appear here in the earlier texts. CW 2:48; CW 15:408–11. 134 Tim Thornton This part of the addition and variation of substantial detail on the account provided by Vergil of the Tower coup, bringing Shore into the account alongside the queen, with the allegation of an enmity between them which is obvious to the participants, is part of a strategy of More’s to undermine Richard’s allegations and heighten the terrible absurdity of the events—as also in making the king claim his arm has only recently just been deformed by witchcraft, when his audience very well knows it has been so since birth. But More has changed the personnel and other details of the events in ways which are not solely determined by this narrative strategy. The arrest and detention of Shore is something which is a further addition to the historiography, and provides context for the subsequent seizure of her goods and penance, which had appeared in Fabyan’s account in the “Great Chronicle”: Now then by & bi, as it wer for anger not for couetise, y protector sent into [amended in the Grafton editions for Hardynge and Halle, in 1543, 1548 and 1550, as “sent Sir Thomas Hawarde to”]y house of shores wife (for her husband dwelled not w her) & t e spoiled her of al y euer she had, aboue y value of .ii. or .iii. M. marks, & sent her body to prison. And when he had a while laide vnto her for the maner sake, y she went about to bewitch him, t t &y she was of counsel w the lord chamberlein to destroy him: in conclusion when y no colour could fasten vpon these matters, then e t he layd heinously to her charge, y thing y her self could not deny, that al y world wist was true, & that natheles euery man laughed at to here it then so sodainly so highly taken, y she was nought of her body. And for thys cause (as a goodly continent prince clene & fautles of himself, sent oute of heauen into this vicious world for the amendment of mens maners) he caused the bishop of London to put her to open penance, going before the crosse in procession vpon a sonday with a taper in her hand. In which she went in countenance & pace demure so womanly, & albeit she were out of al array saue her kyrtle only: yet went she so fair & Iouely, namelye while the wondering of the people caste a comly rud in her chekes (of [55] whiche she before had most misse) that her great shame wan her much praise, among those y were more amorous of her body then curious of her soule. And many good folke also y hated her liuing, & glad wer to se sin corrected: yet pitied thei more her penance, then reioyced therin, when thei considred that y protector procured it, more of a corrupt intent then ani vertuous affeccion. Hanham, Richard III and His Early Historians, 168–72. CW 2:54–55; CW 15:424–25. HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 135 And it is this passage which prompts from More his most extensive account of Shore, and one which indicates both the extent of his sympathy and the likely degree of personal interaction at points in her life: This woman was born in London, worshipfully frended, honestly brought vp, & very wel maryed, sauing somewhat to sone, her husbande an honest citezen, yonge & goodly & of good substance. But forasmuch as they were coupled ere she wer wel ripe, she not very feruently loued, for whom she neuer longed. Which was happely the thinge, that the more easily made her encline vnto y kings appetite when he required her. Howbeit y respect of his royaltie, y hope of gay apparel, ease, plesure & other wanton welth, was hable soone to perse a softe tender hearte. But when the king had abused her, anon her husband (as he was an honest man & one that could his good, not presuming to touch a kinges concubine) left her vp to him al togither… . I doubt not some shal think this woman to sleight a thing, to be written of & set amonge the remembraunces of great matters: which t t thei shal specially think, y happely shal esteme her only by y thei now see her. But me semeth the chaunce so much the more worthy to be remembred, in how much she is now in the more beggerly condicion, vnfrended & worne out of acquaintance, after good substance, after as gret fauour w the prince, [57] after as gret sute & t t seking to w al those y those days had busynes to spede, as many other men were in their times, which be now famouse, only by y infamy of their il dedes. Her doinges were not much lesse, albeit thei be muche lesse remembred, because thei were not so euil. For men vse if they haue an euil turne, to write it in marble: & whoso doth vs a good tourne, we write it in duste which is not worst proued by her: for at this daye shee beggeth of many at this daye t 75 liuing, y at this day had begged if she had not bene. This final phrase, in the English text printed in 1557, is the most prominent of two clear references to the contemporary survival of one of More’s subjects in his History. The Latin text published in 1565 expresses perhaps even more clearly Shore’s contemporary survival: But she, who was once famous herself, has now outlived her friends and all her acquaintances, and with the years, as it were, she has passed into another age. Even her own recollection of her former luxury has been almost defaced by her long-continued sufferings and today she ekes out a miserable existence by begging. At eadem adeo olim celebris, amicis nunc notisque omnibus superstes, annisque velut in alterum progressa seculum, deleta CW 2:55–57; CW 15:424–31. 136 Tim Thornton propemodum etiam sibi longis malis pristini luxus memoria, miseram hodie vitam medicando sustinet. An understanding of the immediacy of More’s knowledge of Shore, and a reading of the development of his treatment of her in the History is therefore of particular significance because, uniquely, it ties each of the texts to contemporary reference points. More’s text brings into the narrative structure a clear understanding of the significance of her relationships with the king and with Hastings, which we can now understand to be well founded in evidence but which were previously minimally present, or not present at all, in the historiography available to More. Shore was not just a theoretical prompt to contrast the qualities of Richard with those of another of the central players in the drama of 1483: her survival into the 1510s, for More and others like him, was a direct reminder of the fact that men and women who lived through the crisis of that year were still among them. As Caroline Barron has shown, at an important formative stage in More’s life after his time at Oxford and as he engaged with the London Charterhouse he was almost certainly close to some of the London neighborhoods that connected him back to the people and places of this narrative, and may even have lodged with Richard Potyer whose involvement in the anecdote of events on the night of Edward IV’s death he later wrote into the History. I have explored a similar stimulus and possible source in my consideration of the careers at Henry VIII’s court of Edward and Miles Forest, sons of the man first identified in the History as the lead murderer of the “princes in the Tower,” and their contacts with More. And this prompt was an ongoing stimulation to the development of More and others’ understanding of the recent past. The episode between Hastings and Shore is an important one in helping us to discern how Shore herself may have prompted More’s writing. In the 1565 Latin text Hastings’ relationship with Shore is only briefly stated as a reason for his reaction to Richard’s allegation of witchcraft. We are simply told that Hastings was brought up short by the CW 2:57; CW 15:430–31. Caroline M. Barron, “Thomas More, the London Charterhouse and Richard III,” in Parliament, Personalities and Power: Papers Presented to Linda S. Clark, ed. Hannes Kleineke, The Fifteenth Century, vol. 10 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2011), 203–14, esp. pp. 213–14; Caroline M. Barron, “The Making of a London Citizen,” in The Cambridge Companion to Thomas More, ed. George M. Logan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 3–21. Tim Thornton, “More on a Murder: The Deaths of the ‘Princes in the Tower’, and Historiographical Implications for the Regimes of Henry VII and Henry VIII,” History 106.1 (2021): 4–25. HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 137 mention of Shore because he was said to be desperately in love with her (“Shorae commemoratione perculsus (nam eam deamare ferebatur)”). In the English of 1557, by contrast, the reader is reminded that since Edward IV’s death Hastings had kept Shore’s wife, and had indeed doted on her even during the king’s life, but held back out of reverence or fidelity to him. As Alison Hanham noted, 1557 also adds the description of Richard putting Shore to penance “as a goodly continent prince clene & fautles of himself, sent oute of heauen into this vicious world for the amendement of mens maners”—an important addition to a briefer statement about the penance in 1565. Sylvester thought revisions were made to Arundel before 1565 was perfected—but it is hard to see a revision deliberately dropping important phrases like this. Hanham argued this was because they had not yet occurred to More. One might further suggest that it could be that More’s knowledge and understanding of his subject had not fully developed when the draft of 1565 was made, and that Shore was accessible to him and made that possible over subsequent years. The only other survivor directly referred to by More in the work is Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey and second duke of Norfolk, who died in 1524. Thomas Howard is, however, elusive in the text until it appears in the versions printed by Grafton, first in 1543 and then in 1548. CW 2:48; CW 15:410–11. A similar passage occurs later in the English and Latin versions, during the extended description of Shore: CW 2:55; CW 15:426–27. Alison Hanham, “Texts of Thomas More’s Richard III,” Renaissance Studies 21.1 (2007): 62–84, pp. 64–83. Like Arundel and Paris, 1557 expands on the description of Shore in 1565: CW 2:55–57, 132–34; CW 15:424–31. To “she was more beautiful than tall” Paris and Arundel add “which greatly appeals to almost any very tall man.” There is also specific mention, albeit in much less personal terms, of an even longer-term survivor, in Thomas’s son, also Thomas, the third duke, who had been born in 1473, and died only in 1554. In Louvain 1565 and Rastell 1557 Thomas is described as Thomas “than Lorde Hawarde, and after Earle of Surrey” (CW 2:3)—by implication locating the writing of those texts to a period in which he was earl and not yet duke of Norfolk, i.e. 1514–24, although the authorial location of the survival of Howard to his own time is not emphasized so clearly as with Thomas (d. 1524) or Shore herself. Sylvester apparently misidentifies John, Lord Howard (duke of Norfolk from June 28, 1483), who is referred to by More obliquely in the 1557 text as “another Lorde” who challenges Queen Elizabeth over the sanctuary of her sons in June, 1483. Sylvester identifies this individual as Thomas, son of John, who was created duke of Norfolk on February 1, 1514 and lived until May, 1524, when he was in his eighties, but who is not referred to as a “lord” elsewhere by More (CW 2:xxxviiin2, 36, 202–3, 274). For the Howard household records of the incident, see The Household Books of John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, 1462–1471, 1481–1483, intro. by Anne Crawford (Stroud: A. Sutton for the Richard III and Yorkist History Trust, 1992), xxi; vol. 2, 402. In the Grafton edition of 1543, the challenge to the queen comes from “the lorde Hawarde,” which is More’s manner of describing John. The correct identifications are made by Hanham, “Texts of Thomas More’s Richard III,” 80–81. 138 Tim Thornton In the words printed by Rastell in 1557, it is “a knight” who comes to Hastings on the morning of his death “as it were of curtesy to accompany hym to the counsaile, but of trouth sent by the protector to hast him thitherward, wyth whom he was of secret confederacy in that purpose, a meane man at that tyme, and now of gret auctorite”; and it is the protector himself who is described as having “sent into y house of shores wife” and spoiled her of her goods. But in the edition of 1543, the knight accompanying Hastings is “sir Thomas Haward sonne to the lorde Haward,” and the emissary who plunders Elizabeth Shore is “Sir Thomas Hawarde.” In 1548 the Grafton text went even further, in the second episode, relating to Hastings, glossing the Howard name as “whiche lord was one of the priueyest of the lord protectours counsail and doyng.” Sylvester, committed to the view that the 1543 and 1548 texts were largely revised by Grafton himself, suggested it was Grafton not More who identified the Howards as Richard’s close allies; Hanham suggests it was More himself, revising his work and freed by the death of the second duke in 1524 to link him by name to the evils of Richard’s coup. Before that point, an uneasy relationship between More and Howard made such explicit comment more than impolitic. This hostility, whether before or after the explicit identification, makes the involvement by More of Howard in the construction of his work very unlikely. Shore is therefore highly distinctive, and this distinction is reinforced by the positive tone of More’s account of her, which is unusual amongst the characters in the drama. This is echoed in the positive treatment of Hastings, with whom Shore is closely associated: this honorable man, a good knight and a gentle, of gret aucthorite w his prince, of liuing somewhat dessolate, plaine & open to his enemy, & secret to his frend : eth to begile, as he that of good hart & corage forestudied no perilles. A louing man & passing wel beloued. Very faithful, & trusty ynough, trusting to much. CW 2:51, 54; CW 15:416–17. For Hanham’s case for More’s authorship of 1543 and 1548, see Alison Hanham, “Honing a History: Thomas More’s Revisions of his Richard III,” Review of English Studies 59.239 (2008): 197–218, p. 216; Hanham, “Texts of Thomas More’s Richard III,” 78–83. Hanham is challenged by the later amendment to the 1543 text which strengthens the emphasis on Howard’s closeness to Richard—suggesting in a note that this may be due to Hall’s possession of yet a third, “slightly different” draft of the History (“Texts of Thomas More’s Richard III,” 81n93). Vergil’s MS confirms the presence of Howard at the Tower, albeit the name was omitted from the 1534 printing of his Anglica Historia, suggesting similar sensitivities: Hay, Polydore Vergil, 204–5. For More’s uneasy relationship with Thomas Howard, see Guy, Public Career of Thomas More. CW 2:52, cf. 130; CW 15:420–21. HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III AND ELIZABETH SHORE 139 RESPONSES TO TYRANNY AND CREATING A HISTORICAL NARRATIVE There is therefore the possibility that we are not just seeing further reflection and shaping of language and ideas as Thomas More drafted and redrafted his History, but his response to a living subject present in the city of London and known to him, as she aged and finally died. Scholars have rightly continued in recent years to refine their understanding of the extraordinary power of the study of tyranny made by More in the History. That analysis of tyranny does not depend, ultimately, on the historical accuracy of the narrative which runs through it. Yet at the same time More was constructing, in many elements for the first time, a historical narrative and analysis of a period which was still in a real sense contemporary history. It was the history of a period which was the immediate back-story for the survivors and the children of survivors who surrounded him in his everyday life, and the events he described had ongoing impacts. Recent years had seen the passing of some of those survivors, and there was perhaps a sense in the years immediately after the death of Henry VII in April, 1509 of the quickening of that process. The dozen or so years before More began to write had taken witnesses such as his own patron John Morton, in 1500, Reginald Bray in 1503, the king’s own mother Margaret Beaufort in June, 1509, soon after her son, and the long-lived Lancastrian partisan John de Vere, thirteenth earl of Oxford in March, 1513—men and women who had been at the heart of the intrigues and campaigns that brought Henry from obscurity to triumph in 1483–85. Others who would have remembered the drama of those years survived, such as George, earl of Shrewsbury, born in 1468 (and a ward of William Lord Hastings and married by him to his daughter Anne) and Thomas Fitzalan, tenth earl of Arundel (1450–1524) who as Lord Maltravers attended Richard’s coronation, or Richard Foxe and Christopher Urswick who had been with Henry of Richmond in his exile Ewe Baumann, “Thomas More and the Classical Tyrant,” Moreana 22.2 (1985): 108–27; Jeffrey S. Lehman, “Seeing Tyranny in More’s History of King Richard III,” Moreana 50.1–2 (2013): 131–57; Gabriela Schmidt, “What Use to Make of a Tyrant? Thomas More’s History of Richard III and the Limits of Early Tudor Historiography,” Moreana 50.1–2 (2013): 159–86; Dermot Fenlon, “Thomas More and Tyranny,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 32.4 (1981): 453–76. James Ross, John de Vere, Thirteenth Earl of Oxford (1442–1513): ‘The Foremost Man of the Kingdom’ (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2011); C. S. L. Davies, “Bishop John Morton, the Holy See, and the Accession of Henry VII,” English Historical Review 102.402 (1987): 2–30; Jones and Underwood, esp. 60–79; M. M. Condon, “From Caitiff and Villein to Pater Patriae: Reynold Bray and the Profits of Office,” in Profit, Piety and the Professions in Late Medieval England, ed. Michael A. Hicks (Gloucester: Sutton, 1990), 137–68. 140 Tim Thornton or close to Margaret Beaufort during the crisis. With the exception of Thomas Howard, however, Elizabeth Shore was the last central living witness to the events of 1483 in London and Westminster, and her final years were a prompt to Thomas More’s struggles to construct a meaningful narrative of the crisis which had created his world. TIM THORNTON IS PROFESSOR OF HISTORY AND DEPUTY VICE-CHANCELLOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD, HUDDERSFIELD,UK. George W. Bernard, The Power of the Early Tudor Nobility: A Study of the Fourth and Fifth Earls of Shrewsbury (Brighton: Harvester Press and Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble, 1985); Ralph A. Griffiths and Roger S. Thomas, The Making of the Tudor Dynasty, revised edn. (Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 2005), 89–131. Foxe and Urswick were very prominent in Polydore Vergil’s account of the period in his MS of 1512–13, although Urswick in particular was written out of the revised version published in 1534: Vergil, Anglica Historia, 22, 26, 30–32, 34, 52, 54, 59, 66, 94; Hay, Polydore Vergil,92–94.

Journal

MoreanaEdinburgh University Press

Published: Jun 1, 2022

There are no references for this article.