Talk:Jane Shore

Start classification

This article has been classified as a start. It needs further sourcing. Capitalistroadster 01:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

More Films

There is a character called Mistress Shore in the 1962 Roger Corman film "Tower of London" played by Sandra Knight.

Basesurge (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Name

There is no contemporary evidence that Elizabeth Lambert/Shore ever chose to call herself "Jane". All early references to her (More & c) are as "Shore's wife". By the late 16C her real first name seems to have been forgotten: Jane was invented for one of her appearances in literature. I suggest this ought to be examined more thoroughly. I'm also worried by references to out-of-date works that look as if they may be highly romanticised (such as Thompson). -- Silverwhistle (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Further on this: the page should be under 'Elizabeth Shore', with a redirect to 'Jane'. Silverwhistle (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

what kind of government?

A "protectionist government" is usually one that believes in trade protection. I don't think that's what you mean. 4.249.63.80 (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Descriptions

The text says 'lighthearted Shore and stern Richard' - is there proof for the adjectives? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

What a biased description

Why is Jane described as "lighthearted", whereas Richard lll is portrayed as "stern". Is there any historical evidence they were like this or, is this just bias? Yellowgirl44x44 (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Paul Murray Kendall, who is cited with the sentence referenced, described them this way. History Lunatic (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)History Lunatic

The Hakes etc

I have omitted the long discursus on the Hake family, and the purported connection to Shore. This is because the section was unencyclopaedic:

• The inscription makes no mention of Shore.
• Although the inscription itself is apparently reliably sourced, that source makes no mention of Shore either.
• https://www.katherinethequeen.com/442570197 is cited as a source. However, not only is this not a reliable source, there is in any case no mention of Shore, Lynom/Lynham etc, or the Hakes at that link.
• Out of fairness I have made a short online search for a reliable source linking Shore to the Hakes, without success. Therefore, any attempt to link Shore to the Hakes falls into the domain of original research.
• Furthermore, the link between Shore and the Hakes is far from clear. The inscription references "Thomas Lynham Esqvier / somtyme President of Walles", but Lynom was never President of [the Council of] Wales and the Marches: that role in his lifetime was held successively by Bishop John Alcock, Bishop William Smyth, and Bishop Geoffrey Blyth. Lynom himself may have been a *member* of the council, and appears to have held various roles in association with the Tudor government of Wales, including controller of the Prince of Wales' finances, receiver of revenues in the principality of North Wales and Chester, and controller of the rolls in North Wales. But another Thomas Lynom was also active in the area, appearing on commissions of the peace for Herefordshire in 1521 and 1522, and then in 1525, and another in Worcestershire in 1524, 1526, and 1531 - both these marcher counties were covered by the Council. This second Thomas Lynom may have been a younger kinsman of Shore's husband, probably a son, possibly from an earlier marriage. Another Thomas Lynom appears to have been appointed receiver of the lordship of Middleham in 1485 and ordered to take oaths of allegiance to Henry VII in that area, and it is possible Shore's husband has been confused with yet another Thomas Lynom active in the late 1400s/early 1500s in Cheshire. In short, as there may have been as many as four men of the name involved in government service in this period, and as none of them ever held the title of "President of Wales", notwithstanding the claims made by the Hake inscription, there is every reason to think that the Lynom that inscription cites is not Shore's husband.
• Finally, even if the Lynom on the inscription were verified as Shore's husband, there is absolutely no need for speculative musings on Thomas Lynom of Whittlesea, or on elaborate musings on Hakes in the time of King Charles.

2A01:4B00:AD1F:7200:AE03:8292:188C:8893 (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• The inscription makes mention of Thomas Lynom, President of Wales, who was Jane Shore's husband. She survived him. if he had children they were most likely hers, too. This epitaph is in a published book.
• The link is more accurately https://www.katherinethequeen.com/442570197_moreContent_3.html. You have to press the "Read more"-button at the bottom of the first page. Wikipedia is notorious for cutting off the last of links. I had to search a bit to find it myself. I have now manually inserted the correct link.
• I think the Thomas Lynom link is interesting enough that it should be continued to be included in the article. The Thomas Lynoms in the area were probably related, and may be Thomas Lynom himself or a son of him and Jane Shore. "Another Thomas Lynom appears to have been appointed receiver of the lordship of Middleham in 1485 and ordered to take oaths of allegiance to Henry VII in that area, and it is possible Shore's husband has been confused with yet another Thomas Lynom active in the late 1400s/early 1500s in Cheshire." – Much suggests that these three are one and the same, though you could be right. More research is always needed. It would be interesting if you made a separate page for Thomas Lynom (I do not think he has one today) and showed the different sources and what they say.
• I agree that the bit about the Hakes might be a bit excessive. What if we removed: William Hake (d.1625) of Peterborough married Lucy, daughter of Henry Gates of Gosberton, Lincolnshire, on 14 June 1596 at Gosberton, Lincoln, England and they had the children Henry, Fane, Thomas, Anthony, Symon, William (b.1601), Elizabeth, Anne, Lucy, Frances, Grace and Mary. Yorkshire House, 28 and 30, Peterborough. The Priestgate property seems to have been purchased by Alice Lyneham's husband Simon Hake Their eldest daughter was called Elizabeth. Both William Hake and his father Thomas were members of Parliament. The Hake family were Royalists during the Civil War, a sundial on a south-facing wall-end overlooking the garden then running down to the river's flood plain, but not now publicly accessible triumphantly declares VIVAL CAROLUS SECUNDUS 1663. Of the same place, Whittlesea, Cambridge, in 1544–1551, we find Thomas Lynon or Lynom, executor of Richard, son of Thomas Lynon. In 1538 Thomas Lyname, yeoman, is granted a demise, indented, for 80 years, of the manor-place or lordship of Whittlesea, Cambridgeshire by Thorney Abbey. Simon Hake, Alice Lyneham's husband, had been a tenant of Thorney Abbey. Replacing it with simply: William Hake (d.1625) of Peterborough married Lucy, daughter of Henry Gates of Gosberton, Lincolnshire, on 14 June 1596 at Gosberton, Lincoln. Their eldest daughter was called Elizabeth.

ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. However, you misunderstand. It is not a question of whether either of us "could be right". A cornerstone of wikipedia policy is WP:NOR:

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented."

You have now refined the link to www.katherinethequeen.com . However, this is not a reliable source, as defined by WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It is a self-published website, with no disclosed author(s), editorial process, fact checking, or reviews that might speak to its accuracy. As explained by WP:RS, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable." As www.katherinethequeen.com remains the only 'source', in the broadest possible sense, making any link between Jane Shore and the Hake family, it follows that the claim cannot be reliably substantiated to wikipedia standards, and cannot justifiably be included.

Furthermore, although www.katherinethequeen.com website links Shore to the Hakes, it doesn't produce any evidence to support a positive identification of the Lynom named on the inscription with Shore's husband. Let me once again stress that Jane Shore's husband was *not* President of the Council of Wales and the Marches: nobody by the name of Thomas Lynom (or variants thereupon) ever held that office. The inscription is therefore inaccurate (perhaps down to good faith error or exaggerating the family reputation), and as such is not solid evidence of itself that it refers to Shore's husband.

As I noted, there are records of between two and four men by the name of Thomas Lynom active in Tudor government circles in the relevant period, any of whom could have been inaccurately described as "President of Wales". Without a reliable source, though, it's not appropriate for wikipedia to suggest one or the other. www.katherinethequeen.com 's anonymous author produces no evidence or analysis to explain why they think the Lynom on the inscription is Shore's husband, rather than another man (either one of the others cited or a fifth Thomas Lynom). This in itself limits the reliability of www.katherinethequeen.com as a source.

In short, while the inscription may well be 'interesting', and while the subject of Thomas Lynom (or multiples thereof) and the Hakes etc would likely be of interest to a researcher, without a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia there is nothing to support inclusion of the inscription and the Hakes in this article. 2A01:4B00:AD1F:7200:AE03:8292:188C:8893 (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that this Thomas Lynom was probably not "President of Wales" (nor President of the Council of Wales and the Marches). For the muddling of the title, William Hake, who probably erected the epitaph, is most likely to blame. Several sources write, however, of Thomas Lynom, Jane Shore's husband's, involvement in the Council of Wales and the Marches, see for instance Moreana here: https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/full/10.3366/more.2022.0118. What is more significant is that he [Lynom] 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 1510, 1512, and 1513 Thomas Lynom was a justice of oyer and terminer in the Marches of Wales. [...] 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.58 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.” It is very likely therefore that Elizabeth Shore’s husband died early in 1518. Thomas Lynom was a justice of oyer and terminer in the Marches of Wales, and does not appear to have been the President of the Council of Wales and the Marches. There does, however, appear to be little doubt that it is this Thomas Lynom which is meant in the inscription. Which references do you have to a Thomas Lynom connected to the Council of Wales and the Marches after 1518, which as you say, could be a son? ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)