Re: Royal Perogative ( O

For those of you willing to challenge the Queen ! The death penalty is still on the books for treason and the Tower of London is still in full working order, though I believe that we would probably have to find a working gibbet perhaps a public execution and the head of the deceased placed over one the city gates of York. J

Having served with HM Navy for several years I distinctly remember swearing an oath to defend the Queen and her subjects if you are still not sure take a look at your British or Canadian passport  On behalf of Her Britannic Majesty you are requested and required etc. etc. R3 may be long gone, however the facts still remain that if you are a member of the United Kingdom then you are still in a Kingdom not a Federation.

George



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of fayre rose
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 2:37 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York





the monarch has royal perogative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom

i am of the mind that whatever the queen really, really, really wants to happen..will happen. so while she does "rubber" stamp, she can still use her "great seal" to veto or endorse whatever she chooses.

i am a staunch monarchist. and i love that is what makes canada..canada instead of the usa. we can go to the queen's rep, and beyond to her to ask for relief from any decision our prime minister/parliament may make.

roslyn

--- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:12 AM



Totally agree....rather sad isnt it....

>

> But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just

> there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch

> say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.

>

> cheers,

> Marianne

>

>

>

A lot of rubbish is talked about the powers of the monarchy, at least by monarchists.

They are the FIRST to say that "oh, the Queen doesn't have any real power"; yet also primarily justify the existence of the monarchy by saying "The Queen could use her power to stop bad government legislation". Make up your minds.

You have to understand the place the monarchy really occupies in the power structure - at the head of a masonic cabal operating as an absolute dictatorship. The Queen is nominally head of the Craft - even though, as a woman, she isn't allowed to join! Her husband thinks its a load of old nonesense, yet he was forced to join before they would ever allow him to marry her.
Her Madge is vaguely aware of what the score really is - referring to the "Council" as "Dark forces of whom we know little", but of course as a full member and head Charles will be in on the whole thing.

Note that the British masonic cabal is not the same one that controls America - they have their own lodges and different Satanic rituals - but its just as powerful in its own sphere. 

King "David" was more likely dethroned for his Nazi sympathies than his choice of bride. 


Or, if you happily believe that real power resides with the Prime Minister, what would you prefer - a PM (not directly elected by the people but appointed by the Queen) who uses the Royal Rubber Stamp to exercise the powers of a King (for example he can dismiss the entire Parliament whenever he wants, or declare war without even consulting the elected assembly); or an elected head of state utterly powerless without the consent of a Parliament he cannot dismiss or veto?

I believe the death penalty for treason was repealed about 10 years ago.

With "home rule" for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the UK is rapidly becoming a "Federal Kingdom", though one which does not include England, a country that has no government or legal existence for any purposes, either in the UK or within the European Union.

An England independent of Europe, not saddled with a grumbling Celtic fringe, and with a nice new democratic constitution investing sovereignty in the people is something I'd vote for. But, of course, I'll never get the chance...

 


________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 12 October 2012, 21:06
Subject: RE: Royal Perogative ( O


 
For those of you willing to challenge the Queen ! The death penalty is still on the books for treason and the Tower of London is still in full working order, though I believe that we would probably have to find a working gibbet perhaps a public execution and the head of the deceased placed over one the city gates of York. J

Having served with HM Navy for several years I distinctly remember swearing an oath to defend the Queen and her subjects if you are still not sure take a look at your British or Canadian passport  On behalf of Her Britannic Majesty you are requested and required etc. etc. R3 may be long gone, however the facts still remain that if you are a member of the United Kingdom then you are still in a Kingdom not a Federation.

George

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of fayre rose
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 2:37 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York

the monarch has royal perogative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom

i am of the mind that whatever the queen really, really, really wants to happen..will happen. so while she does "rubber" stamp, she can still use her "great seal" to veto or endorse whatever she chooses.

i am a staunch monarchist. and i love that is what makes canada..canada instead of the usa. we can go to the queen's rep, and beyond to her to ask for relief from any decision our prime minister/parliament may make.

roslyn

--- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:12 AM

Totally agree....rather sad isnt it....

>

> But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just

> there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch

> say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.

>

> cheers,

> Marianne

>

>

>

George wrote:
>
> For those of you willing to challenge the Queen ! The death penalty is still on the books for treason and the Tower of London is still in full working order <snip> R3 may be long gone, however the facts still remain that if you are a member of the United Kingdom then you are still in a Kingdom not a Federation.

Carol responds:

Speaking of laws, does anyone know whether Richard's laws are still on the books? I know that Henry VII repealed Richard's law outlawing benevolences, but I'm curious about Richard's other reforms. I'd be surprised and amused if there's still a law regarding livery and maintenance. (If I recall correctly, Henry approved and strengthened that one!)

Reading this discussion of English government and the role of monarchy makes me regret that my ancestors immigrated to the colonies, some of them on the Mayflower, another destined to be hanged for witchcraft in Salem. (Her husband was purported to be the executioner of Charles I. *He*, however, lived to a ripe old age!)

Carol

not by me. the queen has all the power if she chooses to use it. we are told she is blocking the modern investigation of the princes' urn. if it isn't her, then who is it?

and david..can you say bilderberger?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

--- On Fri, 10/12/12, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:

From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
Subject: Re: RE: Royal Perogative ( O
To: "" <>
Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 4:56 PM
















 









A lot of rubbish is talked about the powers of the monarchy, at least by monarchists.



They are the FIRST to say that "oh, the Queen doesn't have any real power"; yet also primarily justify the existence of the monarchy by saying "The Queen could use her power to stop bad government legislation". Make up your minds.



You have to understand the place the monarchy really occupies in the power structure - at the head of a masonic cabal operating as an absolute dictatorship. The Queen is nominally head of the Craft - even though, as a woman, she isn't allowed to join! Her husband thinks its a load of old nonesense, yet he was forced to join before they would ever allow him to marry her.

Her Madge is vaguely aware of what the score really is - referring to the "Council" as "Dark forces of whom we know little", but of course as a full member and head Charles will be in on the whole thing.



Note that the British masonic cabal is not the same one that controls America - they have their own lodges and different Satanic rituals - but its just as powerful in its own sphere. 



King "David" was more likely dethroned for his Nazi sympathies than his choice of bride. 



Or, if you happily believe that real power resides with the Prime Minister, what would you prefer - a PM (not directly elected by the people but appointed by the Queen) who uses the Royal Rubber Stamp to exercise the powers of a King (for example he can dismiss the entire Parliament whenever he wants, or declare war without even consulting the elected assembly); or an elected head of state utterly powerless without the consent of a Parliament he cannot dismiss or veto?



I believe the death penalty for treason was repealed about 10 years ago.



With "home rule" for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the UK is rapidly becoming a "Federal Kingdom", though one which does not include England, a country that has no government or legal existence for any purposes, either in the UK or within the European Union.



An England independent of Europe, not saddled with a grumbling Celtic fringe, and with a nice new democratic constitution investing sovereignty in the people is something I'd vote for. But, of course, I'll never get the chance...



 



________________________________

From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>

To:

Sent: Friday, 12 October 2012, 21:06

Subject: RE: Royal Perogative ( O





 

For those of you willing to challenge the Queen ! The death penalty is still on the books for treason and the Tower of London is still in full working order, though I believe that we would probably have to find a working gibbet perhaps a public execution and the head of the deceased placed over one the city gates of York. J



Having served with HM Navy for several years I distinctly remember swearing an oath to defend the Queen and her subjects if you are still not sure take a look at your British or Canadian passport  On behalf of Her Britannic Majesty you are requested and required etc. etc. R3 may be long gone, however the facts still remain that if you are a member of the United Kingdom then you are still in a Kingdom not a Federation.



George



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of fayre rose

Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 2:37 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York



the monarch has royal perogative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom



i am of the mind that whatever the queen really, really, really wants to happen..will happen. so while she does "rubber" stamp, she can still use her "great seal" to veto or endorse whatever she chooses.



i am a staunch monarchist. and i love that is what makes canada..canada instead of the usa. we can go to the queen's rep, and beyond to her to ask for relief from any decision our prime minister/parliament may make.



roslyn



--- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:



From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >

Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York

To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:12 AM



Totally agree....rather sad isnt it....



>



> But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just



> there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch



> say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.



>



> cheers,



> Marianne



>



>



>

There is no death penalty legislation in UK law.

--- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> For those of you willing to challenge the Queen ! The death penalty is still on the books for treason and the Tower of London is still in full working order, though I believe that we would probably have to find a working gibbet perhaps a public execution and the head of the deceased placed over one the city gates of York. J
>
> Having served with HM Navy for several years I distinctly remember swearing an oath to defend the Queen and her subjects if you are still not sure take a look at your British or Canadian passport “ On behalf of Her Britannic Majesty you are requested and required etc. etc. R3 may be long gone, however the facts still remain that if you are a member of the United Kingdom then you are still in a Kingdom not a Federation.
>
> George
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of fayre rose
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 2:37 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
>
>
>
>
>
> the monarch has royal perogative.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom
>
> i am of the mind that whatever the queen really, really, really wants to happen..will happen. so while she does "rubber" stamp, she can still use her "great seal" to veto or endorse whatever she chooses.
>
> i am a staunch monarchist. and i love that is what makes canada..canada instead of the usa. we can go to the queen's rep, and beyond to her to ask for relief from any decision our prime minister/parliament may make.
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:12 AM
>
>
>
> Totally agree....rather sad isnt it....
>
> >
>
> > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
>
> > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
>
> > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
>
> >
>
> > cheers,
>
> > Marianne
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Not correct please look up treason!


Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 13, 2012, at 12:59 PM, "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@...> wrote:

> There is no death penalty legislation in UK law.
>
> --- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
> >
> > For those of you willing to challenge the Queen ! The death penalty is still on the books for treason and the Tower of London is still in full working order, though I believe that we would probably have to find a working gibbet perhaps a public execution and the head of the deceased placed over one the city gates of York. J
> >
> > Having served with HM Navy for several years I distinctly remember swearing an oath to defend the Queen and her subjects if you are still not sure take a look at your British or Canadian passport  On behalf of Her Britannic Majesty you are requested and required etc. etc. R3 may be long gone, however the facts still remain that if you are a member of the United Kingdom then you are still in a Kingdom not a Federation.
> >
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of fayre rose
> > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 2:37 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > the monarch has royal perogative.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom
> >
> > i am of the mind that whatever the queen really, really, really wants to happen..will happen. so while she does "rubber" stamp, she can still use her "great seal" to veto or endorse whatever she chooses.
> >
> > i am a staunch monarchist. and i love that is what makes canada..canada instead of the usa. we can go to the queen's rep, and beyond to her to ask for relief from any decision our prime minister/parliament may make.
> >
> > roslyn
> >
> > --- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> > Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:12 AM
> >
> >
> >
> > Totally agree....rather sad isnt it....
> >
> > >
> >
> > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> >
> > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> >
> > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > cheers,
> >
> > > Marianne
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

See the 1997/8 law change.

----- Original Message -----
From: George Butterfield
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Royal Perogative ( O



Not correct please look up treason!

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 13, 2012, at 12:59 PM, "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@...> wrote:

> There is no death penalty legislation in UK law.
>
> --- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
> >
> > For those of you willing to challenge the Queen ! The death penalty is still on the books for treason and the Tower of London is still in full working order, though I believe that we would probably have to find a working gibbet perhaps a public execution and the head of the deceased placed over one the city gates of York. J
> >
> > Having served with HM Navy for several years I distinctly remember swearing an oath to defend the Queen and her subjects if you are still not sure take a look at your British or Canadian passport  On behalf of Her Britannic Majesty you are requested and required etc. etc. R3 may be long gone, however the facts still remain that if you are a member of the United Kingdom then you are still in a Kingdom not a Federation.
> >
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of fayre rose
> > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 2:37 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > the monarch has royal perogative.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom
> >
> > i am of the mind that whatever the queen really, really, really wants to happen..will happen. so while she does "rubber" stamp, she can still use her "great seal" to veto or endorse whatever she chooses.
> >
> > i am a staunch monarchist. and i love that is what makes canada..canada instead of the usa. we can go to the queen's rep, and beyond to her to ask for relief from any decision our prime minister/parliament may make.
> >
> > roslyn
> >
> > --- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> > Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:12 AM
> >
> >
> >
> > Totally agree....rather sad isnt it....
> >
> > >
> >
> > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> >
> > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> >
> > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > cheers,
> >
> > > Marianne
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

In any any case we are ruled from Brussels now...and they would not let us execute anyone
treason or not...Well that is how it looks to me....




--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> See the 1997/8 law change.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: George Butterfield
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 6:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Royal Perogative ( O
>
>
>
> Not correct please look up treason!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 13, 2012, at 12:59 PM, "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@...> wrote:
>
> > There is no death penalty legislation in UK law.
> >
> > --- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > For those of you willing to challenge the Queen ! The death penalty is still on the books for treason and the Tower of London is still in full working order, though I believe that we would probably have to find a working gibbet perhaps a public execution and the head of the deceased placed over one the city gates of York. J
> > >
> > > Having served with HM Navy for several years I distinctly remember swearing an oath to defend the Queen and her subjects if you are still not sure take a look at your British or Canadian passport “ On behalf of Her Britannic Majesty you are requested and required etc. etc. R3 may be long gone, however the facts still remain that if you are a member of the United Kingdom then you are still in a Kingdom not a Federation.
> > >
> > > George
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of fayre rose
> > > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 2:37 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > the monarch has royal perogative.
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom
> > >
> > > i am of the mind that whatever the queen really, really, really wants to happen..will happen. so while she does "rubber" stamp, she can still use her "great seal" to veto or endorse whatever she chooses.
> > >
> > > i am a staunch monarchist. and i love that is what makes canada..canada instead of the usa. we can go to the queen's rep, and beyond to her to ask for relief from any decision our prime minister/parliament may make.
> > >
> > > roslyn
> > >
> > > --- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@ <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@ <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> > > Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:12 AM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Totally agree....rather sad isnt it....
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> > >
> > > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> > >
> > > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > cheers,
> > >
> > > > Marianne
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Darn it I have to put my axe away

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 13, 2012, at 2:50 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> In any any case we are ruled from Brussels now...and they would not let us execute anyone
> treason or not...Well that is how it looks to me....
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> >
> > See the 1997/8 law change.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: George Butterfield
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 6:08 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Royal Perogative ( O
> >
> >
> >
> > Not correct please look up treason!
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Oct 13, 2012, at 12:59 PM, "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@...> wrote:
> >
> > > There is no death penalty legislation in UK law.
> > >
> > > --- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > For those of you willing to challenge the Queen ! The death penalty is still on the books for treason and the Tower of London is still in full working order, though I believe that we would probably have to find a working gibbet perhaps a public execution and the head of the deceased placed over one the city gates of York. J
> > > >
> > > > Having served with HM Navy for several years I distinctly remember swearing an oath to defend the Queen and her subjects if you are still not sure take a look at your British or Canadian passport  On behalf of Her Britannic Majesty you are requested and required etc. etc. R3 may be long gone, however the facts still remain that if you are a member of the United Kingdom then you are still in a Kingdom not a Federation.
> > > >
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of fayre rose
> > > > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 2:37 PM
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > the monarch has royal perogative.
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom
> > > >
> > > > i am of the mind that whatever the queen really, really, really wants to happen..will happen. so while she does "rubber" stamp, she can still use her "great seal" to veto or endorse whatever she chooses.
> > > >
> > > > i am a staunch monarchist. and i love that is what makes canada..canada instead of the usa. we can go to the queen's rep, and beyond to her to ask for relief from any decision our prime minister/parliament may make.
> > > >
> > > > roslyn
> > > >
> > > > --- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@ <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@ <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:12 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Totally agree....rather sad isnt it....
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> > > >
> > > > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> > > >
> > > > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > cheers,
> > > >
> > > > > Marianne
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Shhhhhh! Don't you know they're listening?


Why would the Queen block the investigation into the bones of Eric and Urnie? Does she suspect they'll confirm Edward IV's illegitimacy?




________________________________



 
not by me. the queen has all the power if she chooses to use it. we are told she is blocking the modern investigation of the princes' urn. if it isn't her, then who is it?

and david..can you say bilderberger?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

Indeed you should George...if i recall the last people executed at the Tower, including Lord Haw Haw were shot....much easier to clean up after...:0/

--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> Darn it I have to put my axe away
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 13, 2012, at 2:50 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> > In any any case we are ruled from Brussels now...and they would not let us execute anyone
> > treason or not...Well that is how it looks to me....
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > See the 1997/8 law change.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: George Butterfield
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 6:08 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Royal Perogative ( O
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Not correct please look up treason!
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > On Oct 13, 2012, at 12:59 PM, "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > There is no death penalty legislation in UK law.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > For those of you willing to challenge the Queen ! The death penalty is still on the books for treason and the Tower of London is still in full working order, though I believe that we would probably have to find a working gibbet perhaps a public execution and the head of the deceased placed over one the city gates of York. J
> > > > >
> > > > > Having served with HM Navy for several years I distinctly remember swearing an oath to defend the Queen and her subjects if you are still not sure take a look at your British or Canadian passport “ On behalf of Her Britannic Majesty you are requested and required etc. etc. R3 may be long gone, however the facts still remain that if you are a member of the United Kingdom then you are still in a Kingdom not a Federation.
> > > > >
> > > > > George
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of fayre rose
> > > > > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 2:37 PM
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > the monarch has royal perogative.
> > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom
> > > > >
> > > > > i am of the mind that whatever the queen really, really, really wants to happen..will happen. so while she does "rubber" stamp, she can still use her "great seal" to veto or endorse whatever she chooses.
> > > > >
> > > > > i am a staunch monarchist. and i love that is what makes canada..canada instead of the usa. we can go to the queen's rep, and beyond to her to ask for relief from any decision our prime minister/parliament may make.
> > > > >
> > > > > roslyn
> > > > >
> > > > > --- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@ <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@ <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:12 AM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Totally agree....rather sad isnt it....
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> > > > >
> > > > > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> > > > >
> > > > > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > cheers,
> > > > >
> > > > > > Marianne
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

But less of a spectator sport

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 13, 2012, at 3:18 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> Indeed you should George...if i recall the last people executed at the Tower, including Lord Haw Haw were shot....much easier to clean up after...:0/
>
> --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
> >
> > Darn it I have to put my axe away
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Oct 13, 2012, at 2:50 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> >
> > > In any any case we are ruled from Brussels now...and they would not let us execute anyone
> > > treason or not...Well that is how it looks to me....
> > >
> > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > See the 1997/8 law change.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: George Butterfield
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 6:08 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Royal Perogative ( O
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not correct please look up treason!
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > > On Oct 13, 2012, at 12:59 PM, "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > There is no death penalty legislation in UK law.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For those of you willing to challenge the Queen ! The death penalty is still on the books for treason and the Tower of London is still in full working order, though I believe that we would probably have to find a working gibbet perhaps a public execution and the head of the deceased placed over one the city gates of York. J
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Having served with HM Navy for several years I distinctly remember swearing an oath to defend the Queen and her subjects if you are still not sure take a look at your British or Canadian passport  On behalf of Her Britannic Majesty you are requested and required etc. etc. R3 may be long gone, however the facts still remain that if you are a member of the United Kingdom then you are still in a Kingdom not a Federation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > George
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of fayre rose
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 2:37 PM
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the monarch has royal perogative.
> > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom
> > > > > >
> > > > > > i am of the mind that whatever the queen really, really, really wants to happen..will happen. so while she does "rubber" stamp, she can still use her "great seal" to veto or endorse whatever she chooses.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > i am a staunch monarchist. and i love that is what makes canada..canada instead of the usa. we can go to the queen's rep, and beyond to her to ask for relief from any decision our prime minister/parliament may make.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > roslyn
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@ <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@ <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> > > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:12 AM
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Totally agree....rather sad isnt it....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > cheers,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marianne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

True...I sometimes wonder how people could have gone to watch a beheading or burning...What must have gone through their heads..Was there no pity....did it make them feel ill or did they enjoy? Having said that nowadays you get people coming across accidents and stuff and standing there filming it on their mobile phones which is pretty deplorable Eileen

--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> But less of a spectator sport
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 13, 2012, at 3:18 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> > Indeed you should George...if i recall the last people executed at the Tower, including Lord Haw Haw were shot....much easier to clean up after...:0/
> >
> > --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Darn it I have to put my axe away
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > On Oct 13, 2012, at 2:50 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In any any case we are ruled from Brussels now...and they would not let us execute anyone
> > > > treason or not...Well that is how it looks to me....
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > See the 1997/8 law change.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: George Butterfield
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 6:08 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Royal Perogative ( O
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Not correct please look up treason!
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > >
> > > > > On Oct 13, 2012, at 12:59 PM, "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > There is no death penalty legislation in UK law.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For those of you willing to challenge the Queen ! The death penalty is still on the books for treason and the Tower of London is still in full working order, though I believe that we would probably have to find a working gibbet perhaps a public execution and the head of the deceased placed over one the city gates of York. J
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Having served with HM Navy for several years I distinctly remember swearing an oath to defend the Queen and her subjects if you are still not sure take a look at your British or Canadian passport “ On behalf of Her Britannic Majesty you are requested and required etc. etc. R3 may be long gone, however the facts still remain that if you are a member of the United Kingdom then you are still in a Kingdom not a Federation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > George
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of fayre rose
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > the monarch has royal perogative.
> > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > i am of the mind that whatever the queen really, really, really wants to happen..will happen. so while she does "rubber" stamp, she can still use her "great seal" to veto or endorse whatever she chooses.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > i am a staunch monarchist. and i love that is what makes canada..canada instead of the usa. we can go to the queen's rep, and beyond to her to ask for relief from any decision our prime minister/parliament may make.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > roslyn
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@ <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@ <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> > > > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:12 AM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Totally agree....rather sad isnt it....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > cheers,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marianne
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

You will find that Joyce and John Amery were both held and hanged in modern prisons.

----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: Royal Perogative ( O




True...I sometimes wonder how people could have gone to watch a beheading or burning...What must have gone through their heads..Was there no pity....did it make them feel ill or did they enjoy? Having said that nowadays you get people coming across accidents and stuff and standing there filming it on their mobile phones which is pretty deplorable Eileen

--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> But less of a spectator sport
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 13, 2012, at 3:18 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> > Indeed you should George...if i recall the last people executed at the Tower, including Lord Haw Haw were shot....much easier to clean up after...:0/
> >
> > --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Darn it I have to put my axe away
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > On Oct 13, 2012, at 2:50 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In any any case we are ruled from Brussels now...and they would not let us execute anyone
> > > > treason or not...Well that is how it looks to me....
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > See the 1997/8 law change.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: George Butterfield
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 6:08 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Royal Perogative ( O
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Not correct please look up treason!
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > >
> > > > > On Oct 13, 2012, at 12:59 PM, "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > There is no death penalty legislation in UK law.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For those of you willing to challenge the Queen ! The death penalty is still on the books for treason and the Tower of London is still in full working order, though I believe that we would probably have to find a working gibbet perhaps a public execution and the head of the deceased placed over one the city gates of York. J
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Having served with HM Navy for several years I distinctly remember swearing an oath to defend the Queen and her subjects if you are still not sure take a look at your British or Canadian passport â?o On behalf of Her Britannic Majesty you are requested and required etc. etc. R3 may be long gone, however the facts still remain that if you are a member of the United Kingdom then you are still in a Kingdom not a Federation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > George
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of fayre rose
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > the monarch has royal perogative.
> > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > i am of the mind that whatever the queen really, really, really wants to happen..will happen. so while she does "rubber" stamp, she can still use her "great seal" to veto or endorse whatever she chooses.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > i am a staunch monarchist. and i love that is what makes canada..canada instead of the usa. we can go to the queen's rep, and beyond to her to ask for relief from any decision our prime minister/parliament may make.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > roslyn
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@ <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@ <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> > > > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:12 AM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Totally agree....rather sad isnt it....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > cheers,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marianne
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Yes your right Stephen...my apologies.....Ive done a google search and Joyce was executed at Wandsworth...I think it was my dear old dad told me Lord Haw Law had been executed in the Tower....and Ive believed it all these years...lol.
The last execution at the Tower was that of Josef Jakobs...Ive never hear of him!...by firing squad in 1941. Well you live and learn....Eileen





--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> You will find that Joyce and John Amery were both held and hanged in modern prisons.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Royal Perogative ( O
>
>
>
>
> True...I sometimes wonder how people could have gone to watch a beheading or burning...What must have gone through their heads..Was there no pity....did it make them feel ill or did they enjoy? Having said that nowadays you get people coming across accidents and stuff and standing there filming it on their mobile phones which is pretty deplorable Eileen
>
> --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> >
> > But less of a spectator sport
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Oct 13, 2012, at 3:18 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > > Indeed you should George...if i recall the last people executed at the Tower, including Lord Haw Haw were shot....much easier to clean up after...:0/
> > >
> > > --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Darn it I have to put my axe away
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > > On Oct 13, 2012, at 2:50 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In any any case we are ruled from Brussels now...and they would not let us execute anyone
> > > > > treason or not...Well that is how it looks to me....
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See the 1997/8 law change.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: George Butterfield
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 6:08 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Royal Perogative ( O
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not correct please look up treason!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Oct 13, 2012, at 12:59 PM, "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is no death penalty legislation in UK law.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For those of you willing to challenge the Queen ! The death penalty is still on the books for treason and the Tower of London is still in full working order, though I believe that we would probably have to find a working gibbet perhaps a public execution and the head of the deceased placed over one the city gates of York. J
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Having served with HM Navy for several years I distinctly remember swearing an oath to defend the Queen and her subjects if you are still not sure take a look at your British or Canadian passport â?o On behalf of Her Britannic Majesty you are requested and required etc. etc. R3 may be long gone, however the facts still remain that if you are a member of the United Kingdom then you are still in a Kingdom not a Federation.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > George
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of fayre rose
> > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > the monarch has royal perogative.
> > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > i am of the mind that whatever the queen really, really, really wants to happen..will happen. so while she does "rubber" stamp, she can still use her "great seal" to veto or endorse whatever she chooses.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > i am a staunch monarchist. and i love that is what makes canada..canada instead of the usa. we can go to the queen's rep, and beyond to her to ask for relief from any decision our prime minister/parliament may make.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > roslyn
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@ <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@ <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> > > > > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:12 AM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Totally agree....rather sad isnt it....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > cheers,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Marianne
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

actually, my thought on the reason e2 blocks the investigation is because, in 1933, she was about the same age as the younger prince. she also had a younger sister. i think the investigation into the murder of two royal children may have damaged her emotional psyche.

additionally, the world was being turned upsidedown economically, and hitler was on the rise. i think it would have been very stressful on a child. therefore, she just does not want to relive those memories.

and yes, an investigation may prove the bones aren't relatives at all, or that e4 was illegit. plus, the princes as they sit are a big tourism drawing card.

i think if any of the royals were to grant consent to open the urn, it would be charles. he has no childhood emotional upheavals, per say that he could "relate" to with regards to the princes.

william and harry experienced personal trauma at about the same ages as the princes, when their mother died.

in spite of these people being royalty there are still human.

oh..and i've given up worrying about if they are listening. what are they going to do? "disappear me." they have julian assange to worry about.

--- On Sat, 10/13/12, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:

From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
Subject: Re: RE: Royal Perogative ( O
To: "" <>
Received: Saturday, October 13, 2012, 3:16 PM
















 









Shhhhhh! Don't you know they're listening?



Why would the Queen block the investigation into the bones of Eric and Urnie? Does she suspect they'll confirm Edward IV's illegitimacy?



________________________________







 

not by me. the queen has all the power if she chooses to use it. we are told she is blocking the modern investigation of the princes' urn. if it isn't her, then who is it?



and david..can you say bilderberger?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

humans are a vile and detestable species. we feast on gore and pain. consider the ancient romans, the aztecs, the inquistion, all the wars. our nightly..erm daily news is a gore fest. the media adage is..if it bleeds, it leads.

most hollywood movies feature death and destruction. we are fascinated by the vile acts of humanity; real and imagined. some of us turn away, most are mesmerised by violence.

consider how much hooting and gaffawing has been brought forth via television when a male gets hit in the groin. we have a long ways to go before we can even dare to consider calling ourselves civilised.

--- On Sat, 10/13/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Subject: Re: Royal Perogative ( O
To:
Received: Saturday, October 13, 2012, 4:09 PM
















 











True...I sometimes wonder how people could have gone to watch a beheading or burning...What must have gone through their heads..Was there no pity....did it make them feel ill or did they enjoy? Having said that nowadays you get people coming across accidents and stuff and standing there filming it on their mobile phones which is pretty deplorable Eileen



--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:

>

> But less of a spectator sport

>

> Sent from my iPhone

>

> On Oct 13, 2012, at 3:18 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

>

> > Indeed you should George...if i recall the last people executed at the Tower, including Lord Haw Haw were shot....much easier to clean up after...:0/

> >

> > --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Darn it I have to put my axe away

> > >

> > > Sent from my iPhone

> > >

> > > On Oct 13, 2012, at 2:50 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:

> > >

> > > > In any any case we are ruled from Brussels now...and they would not let us execute anyone

> > > > treason or not...Well that is how it looks to me....

> > > >

> > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > See the 1997/8 law change.

> > > > >

> > > > > ----- Original Message -----

> > > > > From: George Butterfield

> > > > > To:

> > > > > Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 6:08 PM

> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Royal Perogative ( O

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Not correct please look up treason!

> > > > >

> > > > > Sent from my iPhone

> > > > >

> > > > > On Oct 13, 2012, at 12:59 PM, "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > > There is no death penalty legislation in UK law.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > For those of you willing to challenge the Queen ! The death penalty is still on the books for treason and the Tower of London is still in full working order, though I believe that we would probably have to find a working gibbet perhaps a public execution and the head of the deceased placed over one the city gates of York. J

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Having served with HM Navy for several years I distinctly remember swearing an oath to defend the Queen and her subjects if you are still not sure take a look at your British or Canadian passport â¬S On behalf of Her Britannic Majesty you are requested and required etc. etc. R3 may be long gone, however the facts still remain that if you are a member of the United Kingdom then you are still in a Kingdom not a Federation.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > George

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of fayre rose

> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 2:37 PM

> > > > > > > To:

> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > the monarch has royal perogative.

> > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > i am of the mind that whatever the queen really, really, really wants to happen..will happen. so while she does "rubber" stamp, she can still use her "great seal" to veto or endorse whatever she chooses.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > i am a staunch monarchist. and i love that is what makes canada..canada instead of the usa. we can go to the queen's rep, and beyond to her to ask for relief from any decision our prime minister/parliament may make.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > roslyn

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > --- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@ <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@ <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >

> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York

> > > > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

> > > > > > > Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:12 AM

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Totally agree....rather sad isnt it....

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > cheers,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Marianne

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

fayre rose wrote:
>
> humans are a vile and detestable species. we feast on gore and pain. consider the ancient romans, the aztecs, the inquistion, all the wars. our nightly..erm daily news is a gore fest. the media adage is..if it bleeds, it leads. <snip>

Carol responds:
Humans also produced the Parthenon, the cathedral of Notre Dame, classical music, and the concepts of mercy and justice, to mention just a few accomplishments off the top of my head. Oh, and Internet discussion forums. I doubt that a lamb or a dolphin or any other animal could match that. Or a Neanderthal, for that matter. And I doubt that any of us on this forum have started a war, committed a murder, or perpetrated any other atrocity.

If we look at Richard, we see that, yes, he lived in a violent age and committed some acts that I for one wish he hadn't (Hastings's death in particular), but he tried to bring peace and justice to the common people. The nightly news is another matter best left to some other forum.

Carol, who prefers to focus on the good that human beings have accomplished without closing her eyes to the bad

Hi Carol...I very rarely disagree with you..but....I often wonder why there is so much ummmm controversy/angst regarding Hastings execution. My understanding, and I will be corrected if I am wrong on this...that Hastings was involved with an assassination attempt/plot on Richard's life. Whatever this plot was Im pretty sure the idea was that at the end of it Richard would be deceased. Regarding the matter of was Hastings topped without a fair trial..or any trial...there is some disagreement over the dates...But to my way of thinking this is hardly of much importance..Richard's life..and therefore his families lives...were in immediate danger and I for one do not blame him one iota for said execution. In fact I absolutely wish he had executed a few more people.....just a few...would have enabled him to have reigned longer and a good chance he would have been one of the best Kings we ever had. But he didnt...and he was robbed of his throne, his life, his reputation...everything.

Personally I think that the worst action taken by Richard was the execution of Sir Thomas Vaughn...who was elderly (for those days) at the time and used to carry the young Prince Edward around when he was little...Now that does seem a little harsh to me...
Eileen.... >
>
> fayre rose wrote:
> >
> > humans are a vile and detestable species. we feast on gore and pain. consider the ancient romans, the aztecs, the inquistion, all the wars. our nightly..erm daily news is a gore fest. the media adage is..if it bleeds, it leads. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
> Humans also produced the Parthenon, the cathedral of Notre Dame, classical music, and the concepts of mercy and justice, to mention just a few accomplishments off the top of my head. Oh, and Internet discussion forums. I doubt that a lamb or a dolphin or any other animal could match that. Or a Neanderthal, for that matter. And I doubt that any of us on this forum have started a war, committed a murder, or perpetrated any other atrocity.
>
> If we look at Richard, we see that, yes, he lived in a violent age and committed some acts that I for one wish he hadn't (Hastings's death in particular), but he tried to bring peace and justice to the common people. The nightly news is another matter best left to some other forum.
>
> Carol, who prefers to focus on the good that human beings have accomplished without closing her eyes to the bad
>

Hi Ros...good point....and could be right. But maybe the Queen just simply thinks it is wrong to disturb the dead...Im guessing here...maybe she is convinced that the bones in the Blasted Urn are in fact the princes and that is the end of the matter.

One thing is sure Queen Elizabeth must hold some opinion on this matter as it has been raised to her. But as in so many matter she is keeping mum. Personally I find it baffling and frustrating....I do so wish she would agree to this matter....I wonder if the recovery of Richard's remains....Im 100% this is Richard...will rekindle fresh interest in the contents of the Urn....?
Eileen

--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> actually, my thought on the reason e2 blocks the investigation is because, in 1933, she was about the same age as the younger prince. she also had a younger sister. i think the investigation into the murder of two royal children may have damaged her emotional psyche.
>
> additionally, the world was being turned upsidedown economically, and hitler was on the rise. i think it would have been very stressful on a child. therefore, she just does not want to relive those memories.
>
> and yes, an investigation may prove the bones aren't relatives at all, or that e4 was illegit. plus, the princes as they sit are a big tourism drawing card.
>
> i think if any of the royals were to grant consent to open the urn, it would be charles. he has no childhood emotional upheavals, per say that he could "relate" to with regards to the princes.
>
> william and harry experienced personal trauma at about the same ages as the princes, when their mother died.
>
> in spite of these people being royalty there are still human.
>
> oh..and i've given up worrying about if they are listening. what are they going to do? "disappear me." they have julian assange to worry about.
>
> --- On Sat, 10/13/12, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
> Subject: Re: RE: Royal Perogative ( O
> To: "" <>
> Received: Saturday, October 13, 2012, 3:16 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Shhhhhh! Don't you know they're listening?
>
>
>
> Why would the Queen block the investigation into the bones of Eric and Urnie? Does she suspect they'll confirm Edward IV's illegitimacy?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
> not by me. the queen has all the power if she chooses to use it. we are told she is blocking the modern investigation of the princes' urn. if it isn't her, then who is it?
>
>
>
> and david..can you say bilderberger?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Eileen

Hastings was very much executed without trial and without much chance of him
defending himself or even realising what was going on. It really was that
quickly done. I find the manner of it impossible to justify. If Hastings was
a danger, then certainly he should have been arrested, but dragged out of
the council chamber and beheaded without a chance to say a word in his own
defence, or even know what charge there was against him or have the chance
to refute what evidence there might have been, is difficult for me to
process. Vaughan, Rivers and Grey were also executed without trial. Had they
all been tried and found guilty of treason, then (by the light of the
times) execution would have been the right course of action. Firstly,
though, they couldn't have committed treason, especially Rivers et al, as
they were acting on behalf of the young king, Edward V, and even Hastings
couldn't have committed treason, as Richard wasn't king at that point.
Richard may have thought all these deaths were necessary, but they weren't
particularly legal. It is entirely possible (though there's no clear
evidence) that all four men were plotting against Richard, but not even a
king, not even a Lord Protector, can execute men without trial. For me,
recognising this has been hugely important. Pretending it was somehow all
right, finding some way to justify it, just wasn't working.

Karen

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:03:32 -0000
To: <>
Subject: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION






Hi Carol...I very rarely disagree with you..but....I often wonder why there
is so much ummmm controversy/angst regarding Hastings execution. My
understanding, and I will be corrected if I am wrong on this...that Hastings
was involved with an assassination attempt/plot on Richard's life. Whatever
this plot was Im pretty sure the idea was that at the end of it Richard
would be deceased. Regarding the matter of was Hastings topped without a
fair trial..or any trial...there is some disagreement over the dates...But
to my way of thinking this is hardly of much importance..Richard's life..and
therefore his families lives...were in immediate danger and I for one do not
blame him one iota for said execution. In fact I absolutely wish he had
executed a few more people.....just a few...would have enabled him to have
reigned longer and a good chance he would have been one of the best Kings we
ever had. But he didnt...and he was robbed of his throne, his life, his
reputation...everything.

Personally I think that the worst action taken by Richard was the execution
of Sir Thomas Vaughn...who was elderly (for those days) at the time and
used to carry the young Prince Edward around when he was little...Now that
does seem a little harsh to me...
Eileen.... >
>
> fayre rose wrote:
> >
> > humans are a vile and detestable species. we feast on gore and pain.
consider the ancient romans, the aztecs, the inquistion, all the wars. our
nightly..erm daily news is a gore fest. the media adage is..if it bleeds, it
leads. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
> Humans also produced the Parthenon, the cathedral of Notre Dame, classical
music, and the concepts of mercy and justice, to mention just a few
accomplishments off the top of my head. Oh, and Internet discussion forums. I
doubt that a lamb or a dolphin or any other animal could match that. Or a
Neanderthal, for that matter. And I doubt that any of us on this forum have
started a war, committed a murder, or perpetrated any other atrocity.
>
> If we look at Richard, we see that, yes, he lived in a violent age and
committed some acts that I for one wish he hadn't (Hastings's death in
particular), but he tried to bring peace and justice to the common people. The
nightly news is another matter best left to some other forum.
>
> Carol, who prefers to focus on the good that human beings have accomplished
without closing her eyes to the bad
>

I thought there was some sort of trial for Vaughan, Rivers and Grey under the Earl of Northumberland. It might not have been much a trial on present day standards but on par with the fifteenth century. 
 
Helen
 

________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 14 October 2012 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS EXECUTION


 

Eileen

Hastings was very much executed without trial and without much chance of him
defending himself or even realising what was going on. It really was that
quickly done. I find the manner of it impossible to justify. If Hastings was
a danger, then certainly he should have been arrested, but dragged out of
the council chamber and beheaded without a chance to say a word in his own
defence, or even know what charge there was against him or have the chance
to refute what evidence there might have been, is difficult for me to
process. Vaughan, Rivers and Grey were also executed without trial. Had they
all been tried and found guilty of treason, then (by the light of the
times) execution would have been the right course of action. Firstly,
though, they couldn't have committed treason, especially Rivers et al, as
they were acting on behalf of the young king, Edward V, and even Hastings
couldn't have committed treason, as Richard wasn't king at that point.
Richard may have thought all these deaths were necessary, but they weren't
particularly legal. It is entirely possible (though there's no clear
evidence) that all four men were plotting against Richard, but not even a
king, not even a Lord Protector, can execute men without trial. For me,
recognising this has been hugely important. Pretending it was somehow all
right, finding some way to justify it, just wasn't working.

Karen

From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:03:32 -0000
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION

Hi Carol...I very rarely disagree with you..but....I often wonder why there
is so much ummmm controversy/angst regarding Hastings execution. My
understanding, and I will be corrected if I am wrong on this...that Hastings
was involved with an assassination attempt/plot on Richard's life. Whatever
this plot was Im pretty sure the idea was that at the end of it Richard
would be deceased. Regarding the matter of was Hastings topped without a
fair trial..or any trial...there is some disagreement over the dates...But
to my way of thinking this is hardly of much importance..Richard's life..and
therefore his families lives...were in immediate danger and I for one do not
blame him one iota for said execution. In fact I absolutely wish he had
executed a few more people.....just a few...would have enabled him to have
reigned longer and a good chance he would have been one of the best Kings we
ever had. But he didnt...and he was robbed of his throne, his life, his
reputation...everything.

Personally I think that the worst action taken by Richard was the execution
of Sir Thomas Vaughn...who was elderly (for those days) at the time and
used to carry the young Prince Edward around when he was little...Now that
does seem a little harsh to me...
Eileen.... >
>
> fayre rose wrote:
> >
> > humans are a vile and detestable species. we feast on gore and pain.
consider the ancient romans, the aztecs, the inquistion, all the wars. our
nightly..erm daily news is a gore fest. the media adage is..if it bleeds, it
leads. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
> Humans also produced the Parthenon, the cathedral of Notre Dame, classical
music, and the concepts of mercy and justice, to mention just a few
accomplishments off the top of my head. Oh, and Internet discussion forums. I
doubt that a lamb or a dolphin or any other animal could match that. Or a
Neanderthal, for that matter. And I doubt that any of us on this forum have
started a war, committed a murder, or perpetrated any other atrocity.
>
> If we look at Richard, we see that, yes, he lived in a violent age and
committed some acts that I for one wish he hadn't (Hastings's death in
particular), but he tried to bring peace and justice to the common people. The
nightly news is another matter best left to some other forum.
>
> Carol, who prefers to focus on the good that human beings have accomplished
without closing her eyes to the bad
>

Im off to dig out an article in one of the Ricardian Bulletins on this very matter. But I can remember that it clearly states that there was a plot to assassinate Richard....and Buckingham...Obviously Hastings was in the middle of it or why else would he have been executed...What was Richard to do...wait for the dagger to be plunged into his shoulder blades....? In any case there is some dispute about the day of Hastings execution.....

As I said....I don't blame Richard for having Hastings executed. Its a great pity he was not able to have Morton topped at the same time. I can understand why he could not do this...and he must have had his reasons for thinking it was a good idea to place him in the custody of Buckingham who does not seem to have been the sharpest knife in the drawer. However he did....big mistake.....along with not taking a firmer stance with Margaret Beaufort. But then again...he was in a most difficult position...surrounded by this nest of vipers what chance did he stand.

Im afraid Karen we are just having to agree to disagree on this......Eileen

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen
>
> Hastings was very much executed without trial and without much chance of him
> defending himself or even realising what was going on. It really was that
> quickly done. I find the manner of it impossible to justify. If Hastings was
> a danger, then certainly he should have been arrested, but dragged out of
> the council chamber and beheaded without a chance to say a word in his own
> defence, or even know what charge there was against him or have the chance
> to refute what evidence there might have been, is difficult for me to
> process. Vaughan, Rivers and Grey were also executed without trial. Had they
> all been tried and found guilty of treason, then (by the light of the
> times) execution would have been the right course of action. Firstly,
> though, they couldn't have committed treason, especially Rivers et al, as
> they were acting on behalf of the young king, Edward V, and even Hastings
> couldn't have committed treason, as Richard wasn't king at that point.
> Richard may have thought all these deaths were necessary, but they weren't
> particularly legal. It is entirely possible (though there's no clear
> evidence) that all four men were plotting against Richard, but not even a
> king, not even a Lord Protector, can execute men without trial. For me,
> recognising this has been hugely important. Pretending it was somehow all
> right, finding some way to justify it, just wasn't working.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:03:32 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
> EXECUTION
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Carol...I very rarely disagree with you..but....I often wonder why there
> is so much ummmm controversy/angst regarding Hastings execution. My
> understanding, and I will be corrected if I am wrong on this...that Hastings
> was involved with an assassination attempt/plot on Richard's life. Whatever
> this plot was Im pretty sure the idea was that at the end of it Richard
> would be deceased. Regarding the matter of was Hastings topped without a
> fair trial..or any trial...there is some disagreement over the dates...But
> to my way of thinking this is hardly of much importance..Richard's life..and
> therefore his families lives...were in immediate danger and I for one do not
> blame him one iota for said execution. In fact I absolutely wish he had
> executed a few more people.....just a few...would have enabled him to have
> reigned longer and a good chance he would have been one of the best Kings we
> ever had. But he didnt...and he was robbed of his throne, his life, his
> reputation...everything.
>
> Personally I think that the worst action taken by Richard was the execution
> of Sir Thomas Vaughn...who was elderly (for those days) at the time and
> used to carry the young Prince Edward around when he was little...Now that
> does seem a little harsh to me...
> Eileen.... >
> >
> > fayre rose wrote:
> > >
> > > humans are a vile and detestable species. we feast on gore and pain.
> consider the ancient romans, the aztecs, the inquistion, all the wars. our
> nightly..erm daily news is a gore fest. the media adage is..if it bleeds, it
> leads. <snip>
> >
> > Carol responds:
> > Humans also produced the Parthenon, the cathedral of Notre Dame, classical
> music, and the concepts of mercy and justice, to mention just a few
> accomplishments off the top of my head. Oh, and Internet discussion forums. I
> doubt that a lamb or a dolphin or any other animal could match that. Or a
> Neanderthal, for that matter. And I doubt that any of us on this forum have
> started a war, committed a murder, or perpetrated any other atrocity.
> >
> > If we look at Richard, we see that, yes, he lived in a violent age and
> committed some acts that I for one wish he hadn't (Hastings's death in
> particular), but he tried to bring peace and justice to the common people. The
> nightly news is another matter best left to some other forum.
> >
> > Carol, who prefers to focus on the good that human beings have accomplished
> without closing her eyes to the bad
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

There might well have been a plot, Eileen, or Richard might have believed
there was a plot. Hastings didn't get a trial. He wasn't even arrested and
locked up prior to his execution. He was hauled out and killed. That's the
bit that bothers me. If there'd been a trial and Hastings found guilty of a
plot against Richard, that still wouldn't have been treason. It was one of
the dumbest things Richard ever did.

Karen

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 13:23:38 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION






Im off to dig out an article in one of the Ricardian Bulletins on this very
matter. But I can remember that it clearly states that there was a plot to
assassinate Richard....and Buckingham...Obviously Hastings was in the
middle of it or why else would he have been executed...What was Richard to
do...wait for the dagger to be plunged into his shoulder blades....? In any
case there is some dispute about the day of Hastings execution.....

As I said....I don't blame Richard for having Hastings executed. Its a
great pity he was not able to have Morton topped at the same time. I can
understand why he could not do this...and he must have had his reasons for
thinking it was a good idea to place him in the custody of Buckingham who
does not seem to have been the sharpest knife in the drawer. However he
did....big mistake.....along with not taking a firmer stance with Margaret
Beaufort. But then again...he was in a most difficult position...surrounded
by this nest of vipers what chance did he stand.

Im afraid Karen we are just having to agree to disagree on this......Eileen

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen
>
> Hastings was very much executed without trial and without much chance of him
> defending himself or even realising what was going on. It really was that
> quickly done. I find the manner of it impossible to justify. If Hastings was
> a danger, then certainly he should have been arrested, but dragged out of
> the council chamber and beheaded without a chance to say a word in his own
> defence, or even know what charge there was against him or have the chance
> to refute what evidence there might have been, is difficult for me to
> process. Vaughan, Rivers and Grey were also executed without trial. Had they
> all been tried and found guilty of treason, then (by the light of the
> times) execution would have been the right course of action. Firstly,
> though, they couldn't have committed treason, especially Rivers et al, as
> they were acting on behalf of the young king, Edward V, and even Hastings
> couldn't have committed treason, as Richard wasn't king at that point.
> Richard may have thought all these deaths were necessary, but they weren't
> particularly legal. It is entirely possible (though there's no clear
> evidence) that all four men were plotting against Richard, but not even a
> king, not even a Lord Protector, can execute men without trial. For me,
> recognising this has been hugely important. Pretending it was somehow all
> right, finding some way to justify it, just wasn't working.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:03:32 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
> EXECUTION
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Carol...I very rarely disagree with you..but....I often wonder why there
> is so much ummmm controversy/angst regarding Hastings execution. My
> understanding, and I will be corrected if I am wrong on this...that Hastings
> was involved with an assassination attempt/plot on Richard's life. Whatever
> this plot was Im pretty sure the idea was that at the end of it Richard
> would be deceased. Regarding the matter of was Hastings topped without a
> fair trial..or any trial...there is some disagreement over the dates...But
> to my way of thinking this is hardly of much importance..Richard's life..and
> therefore his families lives...were in immediate danger and I for one do not
> blame him one iota for said execution. In fact I absolutely wish he had
> executed a few more people.....just a few...would have enabled him to have
> reigned longer and a good chance he would have been one of the best Kings we
> ever had. But he didnt...and he was robbed of his throne, his life, his
> reputation...everything.
>
> Personally I think that the worst action taken by Richard was the execution
> of Sir Thomas Vaughn...who was elderly (for those days) at the time and
> used to carry the young Prince Edward around when he was little...Now that
> does seem a little harsh to me...
> Eileen.... >
> >
> > fayre rose wrote:
> > >
> > > humans are a vile and detestable species. we feast on gore and pain.
> consider the ancient romans, the aztecs, the inquistion, all the wars. our
> nightly..erm daily news is a gore fest. the media adage is..if it bleeds, it
> leads. <snip>
> >
> > Carol responds:
> > Humans also produced the Parthenon, the cathedral of Notre Dame, classical
> music, and the concepts of mercy and justice, to mention just a few
> accomplishments off the top of my head. Oh, and Internet discussion forums. I
> doubt that a lamb or a dolphin or any other animal could match that. Or a
> Neanderthal, for that matter. And I doubt that any of us on this forum have
> started a war, committed a murder, or perpetrated any other atrocity.
> >
> > If we look at Richard, we see that, yes, he lived in a violent age and
> committed some acts that I for one wish he hadn't (Hastings's death in
> particular), but he tried to bring peace and justice to the common people. The
> nightly news is another matter best left to some other forum.
> >
> > Carol, who prefers to focus on the good that human beings have accomplished
> without closing her eyes to the bad
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

________________________________
Karen wrote:

 
There might well have been a plot, Eileen, or Richard might have believed
there was a plot. Hastings didn't get a trial. He wasn't even arrested and
locked up prior to his execution. He was hauled out and killed. That's the
bit that bothers me. If there'd been a trial and Hastings found guilty of a
plot against Richard, that still wouldn't have been treason. It was one of
the dumbest things Richard ever did.



Me:  Richard was Lord Protector at this point, ruling for a child King.  Surely a plot against the Lord Protector was just as much treason as a plot against the king.  

Yes, precisely.

----- Original Message -----
From: Pamela Furmidge
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS EXECUTION





________________________________
Karen wrote:


There might well have been a plot, Eileen, or Richard might have believed
there was a plot. Hastings didn't get a trial. He wasn't even arrested and
locked up prior to his execution. He was hauled out and killed. That's the
bit that bothers me. If there'd been a trial and Hastings found guilty of a
plot against Richard, that still wouldn't have been treason. It was one of
the dumbest things Richard ever did.

Me: Richard was Lord Protector at this point, ruling for a child King. Surely a plot against the Lord Protector was just as much treason as a plot against the king.

I'd have to check my dates, but even if that's correct, Hastings had no
trial. Other kings, those who executed people after a trial, get more flak
for that than Richard ever gets for executing Hastings (and others) without
one.

Karen

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:43:55 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION






Yes, precisely.

----- Original Message -----
From: Pamela Furmidge
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION

________________________________
Karen wrote:

There might well have been a plot, Eileen, or Richard might have believed
there was a plot. Hastings didn't get a trial. He wasn't even arrested and
locked up prior to his execution. He was hauled out and killed. That's the
bit that bothers me. If there'd been a trial and Hastings found guilty of a
plot against Richard, that still wouldn't have been treason. It was one of
the dumbest things Richard ever did.

Me: Richard was Lord Protector at this point, ruling for a child King.
Surely a plot against the Lord Protector was just as much treason as a plot
against the king.

Also is there any evidence that there was no trial? No documentary evidence has been found of a trial but that may have been destroyed by John Morton's nephew Robert as Master of the Rolls. Something else which ocurred to me was even though Richard was Lord Protector would he still have been Constable and therefore could he have tried Hastings there and then? There is evidence of a plot in Richard's letter to York on 11 June. Probably the finer details would have been delivered verbally by the messenger, I believe it was Richard Ratcliffe. The thing about this period of history is that there is very little evidence available. Without evidence we cannot say definitely one way or the other, we can only say what we think could have happened but qualify it by saying that in reality we don't know and sadly may never know. That isn't to say that we shouldn't go on debating, investigating and suggesting other scenarios to the "traditional" view that Richard usurped the throne, executed Hastings without a trial and murdered the Princes.We are all entitled to our opinion on things that could have happened.

Annette's research in "Maligned King" suggests that Richard acted pretty much according to the law of the land at that time, but I am sure that she would agree that she couldn't say categorically that she knows that Richard didn't do all the things that the "traditionalists" accuse him of. I have not yet met a Ricardian who would say that. The usual answer is I don't know.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, precisely
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:31 PM
> Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS EXECUTION
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Karen wrote:
>
>
> There might well have been a plot, Eileen, or Richard might have believed
> there was a plot. Hastings didn't get a trial. He wasn't even arrested and
> locked up prior to his execution. He was hauled out and killed. That's the
> bit that bothers me. If there'd been a trial and Hastings found guilty of a
> plot against Richard, that still wouldn't have been treason. It was one of
> the dumbest things Richard ever did.
>
> Me: Richard was Lord Protector at this point, ruling for a child King. Surely a plot against the Lord Protector was just as much treason as a plot against the king.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 6:11 AM
Subject: Re: RE: Royal Perogative ( O


Hi Ros...good point....and could be right. But maybe the Queen just simply
thinks it is wrong to disturb the dead...Im guessing here...maybe she is
convinced that the bones in the Blasted Urn are in fact the princes and that
is the end of the matter.

One thing is sure Queen Elizabeth must hold some opinion on this matter as
it has been raised to her. But as in so many matter she is keeping mum.
Personally I find it baffling and frustrating....I do so wish she would
agree to this matter....I wonder if the recovery of Richard's remains....Im
100% this is Richard...will rekindle fresh interest in the contents of the
Urn....?
Eileen

Two thoughts Eileen:
1) Financing.
If I understand correctly, the Urn is in Westminster Abbey which is a
"Royal Peculiar" and NOT subject to public funding? If that's the case, any
tests done on the contents of the Urn would have to be met by funds taken
from the Royal Household monies. To be done properly those tests could, I
would imagine, be quite expensive; quite possibly in the 10s of thousands of
pounds. If so, that may be the major reason, expecially when coupled with
number two:
2) That proving the contents of the Urn aren't the Princes STILL doesn't
prove anything other than the contents of the Urn aren't the Princes. True,
it removes one prop from the "case" against Richard, but it's a prop that,
in my opinion anyway, that has already been shown to be the weakest, albeit
the best known. Getting rid of the best-known piece of propoganda against
Richard WOULD be nice, but getting "historians" to recognize that the case
against Richard is, at best, circumstantial or, more likely, trumped up
would be better!

OT: EileenB, I spent over two years in Cheltehham and often regret not
exploring the area more than I did. Between the people, the scenery and the
beer - oy!! Where's a lottery win when you need one?

I am taking this from David Johnson's excellent article in the Ricardian Bulletin..Winter 2007 "The Real Reason why Hastings lost his Head - Part 1.

Mr Johnson quotes from More's History...."The lord chamberlain, and others of his conspiracy, had contrived to have suddenly destroyed him (Richard) and the Duke (Buckie), there THE SAME DAY in the council"....Well, if this is the case I would imagine even Hastings himself would have put his execution down to being a fair cop under the circumstances. He threw the dice...he lost...fair and square.

Mr Johnson writes that Richard and Buckingham hastily donned armour in case other conspirators remained undetected. He goes on to say "Clearly it was the shock of the attack, allied to the unsuspected identity of the perpetrator that prompted so furious a response. After all Richard was betrayed and almost killed by a man he had every reason to trust. And it should not be forgotten that he had only just avoided some kind of Woodville threat to his life at Northampton in April 1483. The Protector was quite literally fighting for his life"

Eileen



--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Also is there any evidence that there was no trial? No documentary evidence has been found of a trial but that may have been destroyed by John Morton's nephew Robert as Master of the Rolls. Something else which ocurred to me was even though Richard was Lord Protector would he still have been Constable and therefore could he have tried Hastings there and then? There is evidence of a plot in Richard's letter to York on 11 June. Probably the finer details would have been delivered verbally by the messenger, I believe it was Richard Ratcliffe. The thing about this period of history is that there is very little evidence available. Without evidence we cannot say definitely one way or the other, we can only say what we think could have happened but qualify it by saying that in reality we don't know and sadly may never know. That isn't to say that we shouldn't go on debating, investigating and suggesting other scenarios to the "traditional" view that Richard usurped the throne, executed Hastings without a trial and murdered the Princes.We are all entitled to our opinion on things that could have happened.
>
> Annette's research in "Maligned King" suggests that Richard acted pretty much according to the law of the land at that time, but I am sure that she would agree that she couldn't say categorically that she knows that Richard didn't do all the things that the "traditionalists" accuse him of. I have not yet met a Ricardian who would say that. The usual answer is I don't know.
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, precisely
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Pamela Furmidge
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS EXECUTION
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Karen wrote:
> >
> >
> > There might well have been a plot, Eileen, or Richard might have believed
> > there was a plot. Hastings didn't get a trial. He wasn't even arrested and
> > locked up prior to his execution. He was hauled out and killed. That's the
> > bit that bothers me. If there'd been a trial and Hastings found guilty of a
> > plot against Richard, that still wouldn't have been treason. It was one of
> > the dumbest things Richard ever did.
> >
> > Me: Richard was Lord Protector at this point, ruling for a child King. Surely a plot against the Lord Protector was just as much treason as a plot against the king.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> I cannot argue with your reasoning Douglas...makes a lot of sense. On your 2nd point though...although you are correct..absolutely...I still think that if the bones were proven not to be the two ex-princes it would pack an awful lot of wollop for those that have been defending Richard all this time. But as you say it is an awful lot of money to spend especially in these times...Duh...I do so want it to be done....:0(

Your OT comment....I certainly hope you did at least get to climb Cleeve Hill!....You would certainly have deserved a pint after that. If you are ever in the area again..do let me know...You will be more than welcome for coffee....Eileen
>
> Two thoughts Eileen:
> 1) Financing.
> If I understand correctly, the Urn is in Westminster Abbey which is a
> "Royal Peculiar" and NOT subject to public funding? If that's the case, any
> tests done on the contents of the Urn would have to be met by funds taken
> from the Royal Household monies. To be done properly those tests could, I
> would imagine, be quite expensive; quite possibly in the 10s of thousands of
> pounds. If so, that may be the major reason, expecially when coupled with
> number two:
> 2) That proving the contents of the Urn aren't the Princes STILL doesn't
> prove anything other than the contents of the Urn aren't the Princes. True,
> it removes one prop from the "case" against Richard, but it's a prop that,
> in my opinion anyway, that has already been shown to be the weakest, albeit
> the best known. Getting rid of the best-known piece of propoganda against
> Richard WOULD be nice, but getting "historians" to recognize that the case
> against Richard is, at best, circumstantial or, more likely, trumped up
> would be better!
>
> OT: EileenB, I spent over two years in Cheltehham and often regret not
> exploring the area more than I did. Between the people, the scenery and the
> beer - oy!! Where's a lottery win when you need one?
>

It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Someone can say that Richard executed
Hastings without trial and not automatically believe he murdered the
princes, poisoned his wife, was planning to marry his niece &c &c &c.

Proving a negative is usually impossible. Except in this case, Hastings was
accused of treason in a council meeting, hauled outside and executed. There
was no time for a trial. And Richard pointing at him and saying 'he
committed treason, execute him!' is no substitute.

I'm not a 'traditionalist' by any stretch of the imagination, I don't think
he's guilty of all the things he's accused of and my response to a lot of
things regarding Richard is exactly what you suggest: I don't know. In the
matter of Hastings' execution, it's pretty clear, though. There was no
trial. If Henry VII hauled someone out of a council meeting and had him
executed, without trial, there'd be almighty outrage, as there should be.
I'm sorry to bang on about this, but we can't sweep the bad stuff under the
carpet, or tie ourselves in knots justifying it, and expect anyone out there
to listen.

The 'law of the land' at the time required people accused of treason to be
judged by their peers. Hastings wasn't, there simply wasn't enough time
between the accusation and his death. We're not talking days here, or even
hours. Whether Richard acted impulsively in anger, or whether he decided
that he was going to present an object lesson in potential disloyalty, I
have no idea.

I can also state categorically that I know that Richard didn't do all the
things that the 'traditionalists' accuse him of. You can add me to the list
of Ricardians who would never say that. Some of the things he's been accused
of can't just be blinked away. Hastings' execution, without trial, is one of
them.

Just by the by, the executions of 15 men after the Battle of Hexham by John
Nevill; the executions of Richard Wydeville, earl Rivers, and his son John
by Warwick, aren't things I find particularly admirable either. Certainly
not something I could even try and justify or sweep away or excuse. These
acts alone don't make them bad men, and Hasting's execution alone doesn't
make Richard a bad man. All three were men who did bad things from time to
time, not just bad in our eyes, but in the eyes of their contemporaries.

Karen

From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:14:18 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION






Also is there any evidence that there was no trial? No documentary evidence
has been found of a trial but that may have been destroyed by John Morton's
nephew Robert as Master of the Rolls. Something else which ocurred to me was
even though Richard was Lord Protector would he still have been Constable
and therefore could he have tried Hastings there and then? There is evidence
of a plot in Richard's letter to York on 11 June. Probably the finer details
would have been delivered verbally by the messenger, I believe it was
Richard Ratcliffe. The thing about this period of history is that there is
very little evidence available. Without evidence we cannot say definitely
one way or the other, we can only say what we think could have happened but
qualify it by saying that in reality we don't know and sadly may never know.
That isn't to say that we shouldn't go on debating, investigating and
suggesting other scenarios to the "traditional" view that Richard usurped
the throne, executed Hastings without a trial and murdered the Princes.We
are all entitled to our opinion on things that could have happened.

Annette's research in "Maligned King" suggests that Richard acted pretty
much according to the law of the land at that time, but I am sure that she
would agree that she couldn't say categorically that she knows that Richard
didn't do all the things that the "traditionalists" accuse him of. I have
not yet met a Ricardian who would say that. The usual answer is I don't
know.

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, precisely
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:31 PM
> Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Karen wrote:
>
>
> There might well have been a plot, Eileen, or Richard might have believed
> there was a plot. Hastings didn't get a trial. He wasn't even arrested and
> locked up prior to his execution. He was hauled out and killed. That's the
> bit that bothers me. If there'd been a trial and Hastings found guilty of a
> plot against Richard, that still wouldn't have been treason. It was one of
> the dumbest things Richard ever did.
>
> Me: Richard was Lord Protector at this point, ruling for a child King.
Surely a plot against the Lord Protector was just as much treason as a plot
against the king.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

But surely we don't believe a word More has to say!

Karen

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:31:16 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION






I am taking this from David Johnson's excellent article in the Ricardian
Bulletin..Winter 2007 "The Real Reason why Hastings lost his Head - Part 1.

Mr Johnson quotes from More's History...."The lord chamberlain, and others
of his conspiracy, had contrived to have suddenly destroyed him (Richard)
and the Duke (Buckie), there THE SAME DAY in the council"....Well, if this
is the case I would imagine even Hastings himself would have put his
execution down to being a fair cop under the circumstances. He threw the
dice...he lost...fair and square.

Mr Johnson writes that Richard and Buckingham hastily donned armour in case
other conspirators remained undetected. He goes on to say "Clearly it was
the shock of the attack, allied to the unsuspected identity of the
perpetrator that prompted so furious a response. After all Richard was
betrayed and almost killed by a man he had every reason to trust. And it
should not be forgotten that he had only just avoided some kind of Woodville
threat to his life at Northampton in April 1483. The Protector was quite
literally fighting for his life"

Eileen

Oh Karen.........Puhleeeeze....!

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> But surely we don't believe a word More has to say!
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:31:16 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
> EXECUTION
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am taking this from David Johnson's excellent article in the Ricardian
> Bulletin..Winter 2007 "The Real Reason why Hastings lost his Head - Part 1.
>
> Mr Johnson quotes from More's History...."The lord chamberlain, and others
> of his conspiracy, had contrived to have suddenly destroyed him (Richard)
> and the Duke (Buckie), there THE SAME DAY in the council"....Well, if this
> is the case I would imagine even Hastings himself would have put his
> execution down to being a fair cop under the circumstances. He threw the
> dice...he lost...fair and square.
>
> Mr Johnson writes that Richard and Buckingham hastily donned armour in case
> other conspirators remained undetected. He goes on to say "Clearly it was
> the shock of the attack, allied to the unsuspected identity of the
> perpetrator that prompted so furious a response. After all Richard was
> betrayed and almost killed by a man he had every reason to trust. And it
> should not be forgotten that he had only just avoided some kind of Woodville
> threat to his life at Northampton in April 1483. The Protector was quite
> literally fighting for his life"
>
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'm quite serious, Ellen. More has been ripped to pieces by Ricardians
(quite rightly). Why is he to be quoted in this case?

Karen

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 16:01:03 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION






Oh Karen.........Puhleeeeze....!

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> But surely we don't believe a word More has to say!
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:31:16 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
> EXECUTION
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am taking this from David Johnson's excellent article in the Ricardian
> Bulletin..Winter 2007 "The Real Reason why Hastings lost his Head - Part 1.
>
> Mr Johnson quotes from More's History...."The lord chamberlain, and others
> of his conspiracy, had contrived to have suddenly destroyed him (Richard)
> and the Duke (Buckie), there THE SAME DAY in the council"....Well, if this
> is the case I would imagine even Hastings himself would have put his
> execution down to being a fair cop under the circumstances. He threw the
> dice...he lost...fair and square.
>
> Mr Johnson writes that Richard and Buckingham hastily donned armour in case
> other conspirators remained undetected. He goes on to say "Clearly it was
> the shock of the attack, allied to the unsuspected identity of the
> perpetrator that prompted so furious a response. After all Richard was
> betrayed and almost killed by a man he had every reason to trust. And it
> should not be forgotten that he had only just avoided some kind of Woodville
> threat to his life at Northampton in April 1483. The Protector was quite
> literally fighting for his life"
>
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

________________________________


 
But surely we don't believe a word More has to say!

Karen

Me:  
I remember reading years ago that there may be some doubt about exactly when Hastings was executed - Friday 13 or Friday 20.  I can't remember the details, but it was something to do with a chronicler and how he distinguished days and it could be read to mean a week after the Council meeting (ie the 20th).
Can anyone else remember this?

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>


I am taking this from David Johnson's excellent article in the Ricardian
Bulletin..Winter 2007 "The Real Reason why Hastings lost his Head - Part 1.

Mr Johnson quotes from More's History...."The lord chamberlain, and others
of his conspiracy, had contrived to have suddenly destroyed him (Richard)
and the Duke (Buckie), there THE SAME DAY in the council"....Well, if this
is the case I would imagine even Hastings himself would have put his
execution down to being a fair cop under the circumstances. He threw the
dice...he lost...fair and square.

Mr Johnson writes that Richard and Buckingham hastily donned armour in case
other conspirators remained undetected. He goes on to say "Clearly it was
the shock of the attack, allied to the unsuspected identity of the
perpetrator that prompted so furious a response. After all Richard was
betrayed and almost killed by a man he had every reason to trust. And it
should not be forgotten that he had only just avoided some kind of Woodville
threat to his life at Northampton in April 1483. The Protector was quite
literally fighting for his life"

Eileen

It's all tied up with Morton's strawberries, I believe. Wasn't he executed
over a tree stump or a log? If there was a week, there was time to build a
scaffold.

Karen

From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 17:15:48 +0100 (BST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION








________________________________



But surely we don't believe a word More has to say!

Karen

Me:
I remember reading years ago that there may be some doubt about exactly when
Hastings was executed - Friday 13 or Friday 20. I can't remember the
details, but it was something to do with a chronicler and how he
distinguished days and it could be read to mean a week after the Council
meeting (ie the 20th).
Can anyone else remember this?

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...
<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >

I am taking this from David Johnson's excellent article in the Ricardian
Bulletin..Winter 2007 "The Real Reason why Hastings lost his Head - Part 1.

Mr Johnson quotes from More's History...."The lord chamberlain, and others
of his conspiracy, had contrived to have suddenly destroyed him (Richard)
and the Duke (Buckie), there THE SAME DAY in the council"....Well, if this
is the case I would imagine even Hastings himself would have put his
execution down to being a fair cop under the circumstances. He threw the
dice...he lost...fair and square.

Mr Johnson writes that Richard and Buckingham hastily donned armour in case
other conspirators remained undetected. He goes on to say "Clearly it was
the shock of the attack, allied to the unsuspected identity of the
perpetrator that prompted so furious a response. After all Richard was
betrayed and almost killed by a man he had every reason to trust. And it
should not be forgotten that he had only just avoided some kind of Woodville
threat to his life at Northampton in April 1483. The Protector was quite
literally fighting for his life"

Eileen

Because I felt like it ..Is that OK with you.....? ?

Morton was at the council meeting...and Morton had a hand in some way with More's History...And that is why I am quoting it.... I believe there is a kernel of truth in this part of More's essay.

And could you please get my name right....I am EILEEN...thank you.
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> I'm quite serious, Ellen. More has been ripped to pieces by Ricardians
> (quite rightly). Why is he to be quoted in this case?
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 16:01:03 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
> EXECUTION
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh Karen.........Puhleeeeze....!
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > But surely we don't believe a word More has to say!
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:31:16 -0000
> > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
> > EXECUTION
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I am taking this from David Johnson's excellent article in the Ricardian
> > Bulletin..Winter 2007 "The Real Reason why Hastings lost his Head - Part 1.
> >
> > Mr Johnson quotes from More's History...."The lord chamberlain, and others
> > of his conspiracy, had contrived to have suddenly destroyed him (Richard)
> > and the Duke (Buckie), there THE SAME DAY in the council"....Well, if this
> > is the case I would imagine even Hastings himself would have put his
> > execution down to being a fair cop under the circumstances. He threw the
> > dice...he lost...fair and square.
> >
> > Mr Johnson writes that Richard and Buckingham hastily donned armour in case
> > other conspirators remained undetected. He goes on to say "Clearly it was
> > the shock of the attack, allied to the unsuspected identity of the
> > perpetrator that prompted so furious a response. After all Richard was
> > betrayed and almost killed by a man he had every reason to trust. And it
> > should not be forgotten that he had only just avoided some kind of Woodville
> > threat to his life at Northampton in April 1483. The Protector was quite
> > literally fighting for his life"
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well, I guess it depends on whether you believe he was beheaded on a log or not.


________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 14 October 2012, 17:25
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS EXECUTION


 
It's all tied up with Morton's strawberries, I believe. Wasn't he executed
over a tree stump or a log? If there was a week, there was time to build a
scaffold.

Karen

From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 17:15:48 +0100 (BST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION

________________________________


But surely we don't believe a word More has to say!

Karen

Me:
I remember reading years ago that there may be some doubt about exactly when
Hastings was executed - Friday 13 or Friday 20. I can't remember the
details, but it was something to do with a chronicler and how he
distinguished days and it could be read to mean a week after the Council
meeting (ie the 20th).
Can anyone else remember this?

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...
<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >

I am taking this from David Johnson's excellent article in the Ricardian
Bulletin..Winter 2007 "The Real Reason why Hastings lost his Head - Part 1.

Mr Johnson quotes from More's History...."The lord chamberlain, and others
of his conspiracy, had contrived to have suddenly destroyed him (Richard)
and the Duke (Buckie), there THE SAME DAY in the council"....Well, if this
is the case I would imagine even Hastings himself would have put his
execution down to being a fair cop under the circumstances. He threw the
dice...he lost...fair and square.

Mr Johnson writes that Richard and Buckingham hastily donned armour in case
other conspirators remained undetected. He goes on to say "Clearly it was
the shock of the attack, allied to the unsuspected identity of the
perpetrator that prompted so furious a response. After all Richard was
betrayed and almost killed by a man he had every reason to trust. And it
should not be forgotten that he had only just avoided some kind of Woodville
threat to his life at Northampton in April 1483. The Protector was quite
literally fighting for his life"

Eileen

What I want to know is what evidence do we have for Hastings not having had a trial. Is More the only source for what happened that day in the Tower? If there was a police investigation today they would want to know what time did Richard arrive at the meeting, how long did it take to find the strawberries,if indeed that happened, how long after that did Richard accuse Hastings, Stanley, Morton,and all of plotting against him and how long after that was Hastings taken out and executed. Do we have evidence of these timings?

I would also want to know why was Stanley exonerated and given authority over his wife's estates? Why were Stanley and Margaret Beaufort given prominent parts in Richard's Coronation? It is possible that Stanley discovered his wife's involvement in a plot that Gairdner states his firm belief that Hastings was conspiring with others to secure the person of Edward V.( GEOFFREY RICHARDSON THE DECEIVERS). If Margaret was plotting ever since Tewkesbury to put her son on the throne there were a lot of people standing in her way. Hastings would have been one of them. He was known to be annoyed with Richard because of the way Richard favoured Buckingham. They could have convinced him that Richard was intending to usurp the throne, so what better way for him to get back into power than to secure Edward. I would think that Hastings would have been genuine in wanting to put Edward on the throne and don't forget arrangements were still going on for Edward's Coronation on 13 June. What he wouldn't have wanted to do was to secure Edward to remove him in order for Tudor to take the throne. Stanley could have had evidence that Hastings was plotting, even documentary evidence, faced with that evidence given to Richard and members of the Council a "trial " would have been over in very little time.

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Someone can say that Richard executed
> Hastings without trial and not automatically believe he murdered the
> princes, poisoned his wife, was planning to marry his niece &c &c &c.
>
> Proving a negative is usually impossible. Except in this case, Hastings was
> accused of treason in a council meeting, hauled outside and executed. There
> was no time for a trial. And Richard pointing at him and saying 'he
> committed treason, execute him!' is no substitute.
>
> I'm not a 'traditionalist' by any stretch of the imagination, I don't think
> he's guilty of all the things he's accused of and my response to a lot of
> things regarding Richard is exactly what you suggest: I don't know. In the
> matter of Hastings' execution, it's pretty clear, though. There was no
> trial. If Henry VII hauled someone out of a council meeting and had him
> executed, without trial, there'd be almighty outrage, as there should be.
> I'm sorry to bang on about this, but we can't sweep the bad stuff under the
> carpet, or tie ourselves in knots justifying it, and expect anyone out there
> to listen.
>
> The 'law of the land' at the time required people accused of treason to be
> judged by their peers. Hastings wasn't, there simply wasn't enough time
> between the accusation and his death. We're not talking days here, or even
> hours. Whether Richard acted impulsively in anger, or whether he decided
> that he was going to present an object lesson in potential disloyalty, I
> have no idea.
>
> I can also state categorically that I know that Richard didn't do all the
> things that the 'traditionalists' accuse him of. You can add me to the list
> of Ricardians who would never say that. Some of the things he's been accused
> of can't just be blinked away. Hastings' execution, without trial, is one of
> them.
>
> Just by the by, the executions of 15 men after the Battle of Hexham by John
> Nevill; the executions of Richard Wydeville, earl Rivers, and his son John
> by Warwick, aren't things I find particularly admirable either. Certainly
> not something I could even try and justify or sweep away or excuse. These
> acts alone don't make them bad men, and Hasting's execution alone doesn't
> make Richard a bad man. All three were men who did bad things from time to
> time, not just bad in our eyes, but in the eyes of their contemporaries.
>
> Karen
>
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:14:18 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
> EXECUTION
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Also is there any evidence that there was no trial? No documentary evidence
> has been found of a trial but that may have been destroyed by John Morton's
> nephew Robert as Master of the Rolls. Something else which ocurred to me was
> even though Richard was Lord Protector would he still have been Constable
> and therefore could he have tried Hastings there and then? There is evidence
> of a plot in Richard's letter to York on 11 June. Probably the finer details
> would have been delivered verbally by the messenger, I believe it was
> Richard Ratcliffe. The thing about this period of history is that there is
> very little evidence available. Without evidence we cannot say definitely
> one way or the other, we can only say what we think could have happened but
> qualify it by saying that in reality we don't know and sadly may never know.
> That isn't to say that we shouldn't go on debating, investigating and
> suggesting other scenarios to the "traditional" view that Richard usurped
> the throne, executed Hastings without a trial and murdered the Princes.We
> are all entitled to our opinion on things that could have happened.
>
> Annette's research in "Maligned King" suggests that Richard acted pretty
> much according to the law of the land at that time, but I am sure that she
> would agree that she couldn't say categorically that she knows that Richard
> didn't do all the things that the "traditionalists" accuse him of. I have
> not yet met a Ricardian who would say that. The usual answer is I don't
> know.
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, precisely
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Pamela Furmidge
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
> EXECUTION
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Karen wrote:
> >
> >
> > There might well have been a plot, Eileen, or Richard might have believed
> > there was a plot. Hastings didn't get a trial. He wasn't even arrested and
> > locked up prior to his execution. He was hauled out and killed. That's the
> > bit that bothers me. If there'd been a trial and Hastings found guilty of a
> > plot against Richard, that still wouldn't have been treason. It was one of
> > the dumbest things Richard ever did.
> >
> > Me: Richard was Lord Protector at this point, ruling for a child King.
> Surely a plot against the Lord Protector was just as much treason as a plot
> against the king.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think it's probably the Dean & Chapter of Westminster. They don't like disturbing the dead on a whim

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Shhhhhh! Don't you know they're listening?
>
>
> Why would the Queen block the investigation into the bones of Eric and Urnie? Does she suspect they'll confirm Edward IV's illegitimacy?
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>  
> not by me. the queen has all the power if she chooses to use it. we are told she is blocking the modern investigation of the princes' urn. if it isn't her, then who is it?
>
> and david..can you say bilderberger?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group
>
>
>

"EileenB" wrote:
>
> Hi Carol...I very rarely disagree with you..but....I often wonder why there is so much ummmm controversy/angst regarding Hastings execution. My understanding, and I will be corrected if I am wrong on this...that Hastings was involved with an assassination attempt/plot on Richard's life. Whatever this plot was Im pretty sure the idea was that at the end of it Richard would be deceased. Regarding the matter of was Hastings topped without a fair trial..or any trial...there is some disagreement over the dates...But to my way of thinking this is hardly of much importance..Richard's life..and therefore his families lives...were in immediate danger and I for one do not blame him one iota for said execution. In fact I absolutely wish he had executed a few more people.....just a few...would have enabled him to have reigned longer and a good chance he would have been one of the best Kings we ever had. But he didnt...and he was robbed of his throne, his life, his reputation...everything.
>
> Personally I think that the worst action taken by Richard was the execution of Sir Thomas Vaughn...who was elderly (for those days) at the time and used to carry the young Prince Edward around when he was little...Now that does seem a little harsh to me...
> Eileen.... >

Carol responds:

Actually, I agree with you regarding Hastings (plot, danger to Richard, and all). My regret is that by suddenly, executing Hastings without trial, Richard the way for charges of "ruthlessness" against him by Tudor propagandists already active at the time. (I also agree that Richard could and perhaps should have been much more ruthless than he was. Henry Tudor in the same position might have chopped off a few more heads.) But, yes, I've never quite understood why Richard arrested Thomas Vaughn along with Earl Rivers and Richard Grey--or why Northumberland, or whoever tried Vaughn and the others, didn't find him innocent along with Haute, who lived well into the next reign if I recall correctly.

Carol

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> I'd have to check my dates, but even if that's correct, Hastings had no trial. Other kings, those who executed people after a trial, get more flak for that than Richard ever gets for executing Hastings (and others) without one.
>
> Karen

Carol responds:

As someone else mentioned, Rivers, Grey, and Vaughn did get a trial (though perhaps the verdict was predetermined) under the Earl of Northumberland. Admittedly, the source for this information was Rous, never reliable when he's writing after Richard's death, but he was in the North at the time and also reported on Richard's progress and the investiture of his son as Prince of Wales. He's certainly more trustworthy here than when he's informing us that Richard was two years in his mother's womb.

It's worth noting, too, that besides being Lord Protector, Richard was still Constable of England when he arrested Rivers, Grey, et al. Someone else can inform me when he turned that position over to Buckingham. Was that before or after Hastings's execution?

By the way, Karen, I disagree that other kings get more flak than Richard does for executing people without trial. Somehow, Henry VIII is somehow still bluff King Hal despite many such executions and most people care little and know less about Henry VII's judicial murder of Edward Earl of Warwick and similar executions. But Hastings is often used as "proof" that Richard was "murdering his way to the throne" during a three-month-long "reign of terror" as Protector. As Kendall memorably stated (I'm quoting from memory), "If so, it was the least bloody reign of terror in history."

Carol

Carol

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> But surely we don't believe a word More has to say!
>
> Karen

Carol responds:

As far as I know, More's colorful story (withered arm, strawberries, Stanley's dream, and all) is the only account we have of the council meeting in which Hastings was arrested and sent out for immediate execution. Mancini, an outsider, who could know nothing of events except through hearsay, mentions no council meeting (he simply has Richard's soldiers ambush Hastings, Morton, and Rotherham [Stanley isn't mentioned] when they make a morning call on Richard), and the Croyland Chronicler, who may or may not have been present but is certainly more reliable than Mancini here, says only, "On 13 June, the sixth day of the week, when he came to the Council in the Tower, on the authority of the Protector, Lord Hastings was beheaded." Consequently, historians, even those who normally discount More, have resorted to using his version of events with the obvious errors eliminated or corrected. But even Catesby's revealing the plot and Buckingham's testing of Hastings come from More and More only (or Morton with embellishments from More).

Carol

Pamela
This may be the reference you were thinking of.
See the article "When and Where did Hastings Lose His Head?" by B.P. Wolfe in The English historical Review Vol 89, no 353, (Oct 1974) pp 835 -844 at http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-8266%28197410%2989%3A353%3C835%3AWAWDHL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2
You should be able to access it and download a copy but if not I let me know.

Alison Hanham argues for a different date citing as evidence an entry in the joint acts of court of the London Mercers' Company and Merchant Adventurers which were compiled as now extant about 1525. The entry records a conversation overheard between Morton as Bishop of Ely and Lord Chamberlain, Hastings as Chancellor on 15 June, two days after Hastings was supposed to have been dragged out of the chamber at the Tower and executed without trial and was Morton detained in the Tower.

Geoffrey Richardson in The Deceivers argues for a conspiracy between Margaret Beaufort, Lord Stanley and Morton, the evil triumvirate, who wove a complex web around Richard wheeling in all the major players one by one by playing off one against the other i.e Hastings against Buckingham and Richard; Buckingham wheeled in by the wily Morton when placed under his protection. In this way, the obstacles in the path of Tudor are eliminated. It is certainly an interesting hypothesis. And the charge of plotting against the Protector would be treasonable and therefore punishable by death. Also I have mentioned this before, Grey, Rivers and Vaughan were not executed at the same time as Hastings.

The strawberries story mentioned in More is considered apocryphal, probably came from Morton.
Elaine


--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>  
> But surely we don't believe a word More has to say!
>
> Karen
>
> Me:  
> I remember reading years ago that there may be some doubt about exactly when Hastings was executed - Friday 13 or Friday 20.  I can't remember the details, but it was something to do with a chronicler and how he distinguished days and it could be read to mean a week after the Council meeting (ie the 20th).
> Can anyone else remember this?
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>
>
> I am taking this from David Johnson's excellent article in the Ricardian
> Bulletin..Winter 2007 "The Real Reason why Hastings lost his Head - Part 1.
>
> Mr Johnson quotes from More's History...."The lord chamberlain, and others
> of his conspiracy, had contrived to have suddenly destroyed him (Richard)
> and the Duke (Buckie), there THE SAME DAY in the council"....Well, if this
> is the case I would imagine even Hastings himself would have put his
> execution down to being a fair cop under the circumstances. He threw the
> dice...he lost...fair and square.
>
> Mr Johnson writes that Richard and Buckingham hastily donned armour in case
> other conspirators remained undetected. He goes on to say "Clearly it was
> the shock of the attack, allied to the unsuspected identity of the
> perpetrator that prompted so furious a response. After all Richard was
> betrayed and almost killed by a man he had every reason to trust. And it
> should not be forgotten that he had only just avoided some kind of Woodville
> threat to his life at Northampton in April 1483. The Protector was quite
> literally fighting for his life"
>
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ah I see where you are coming from now on this Carol....Tis true many have used the Hastings execution as a fine piece of mud to throw at Richard. Let them...We know Richard must have had good reason...You have to remember the human factor in all this. Who knows what actually went on that day in that Council chamber...but it must have been desperate. And it is all very well for people to condemn him from the safety of their armchairs more than five centuries down the line.
I think that Richard really abhorred disloyalty...remember his handwritten postscript in that famous letter where it sounds as if he had grabbed the pen out of someone's hand and written of his shock and disbelief of the betrayal of that "most untrue creature living...he who had best reason to be true" Buckingham...He probably just saw red that day...if Hastings was indeed executed on that day...Good on him I say...Eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>

>
> Carol responds:
>
> Actually, I agree with you regarding Hastings (plot, danger to Richard, and all). My regret is that by suddenly, executing Hastings without trial, Richard the way for charges of "ruthlessness" against him by Tudor propagandists already active at the time. (I also agree that Richard could and perhaps should have been much more ruthless than he was. Henry Tudor in the same position might have chopped off a few more heads.) But, yes, I've never quite understood why Richard arrested Thomas Vaughn along with Earl Rivers and Richard Grey--or why Northumberland, or whoever tried Vaughn and the others, didn't find him innocent along with Haute, who lived well into the next reign if I recall correctly.
>
> Carol
>

Eileen,

Did I call you Ellen? If so, I apologise. Someone getting your name wrong
can be very frustrating, I know. All I can say is my eyesight isn't always
as good as it could be, and little i lets me down sometimes. (I had to type
'I' twice then, just to be sure it wasn't an 'l'.)

"I believe there is a kernel of truth is this part of More's essay"

There might be kernels of truth all over More, it's difficult to say what
they are with any certainty. The 'traditionalists' might use what they
believe are kernels of truth to make their point, as well. It can get a
little messy!

Karen

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 16:35:29 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION






Because I felt like it ..Is that OK with you.....? ?

Morton was at the council meeting...and Morton had a hand in some way with
More's History...And that is why I am quoting it.... I believe there is a
kernel of truth in this part of More's essay.

And could you please get my name right....I am EILEEN...thank you.
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> I'm quite serious, Ellen. More has been ripped to pieces by Ricardians
> (quite rightly). Why is he to be quoted in this case?
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 16:01:03 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
> EXECUTION
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh Karen.........Puhleeeeze....!
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > But surely we don't believe a word More has to say!
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:31:16 -0000
> > To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
> > EXECUTION
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I am taking this from David Johnson's excellent article in the Ricardian
> > Bulletin..Winter 2007 "The Real Reason why Hastings lost his Head - Part 1.
> >
> > Mr Johnson quotes from More's History...."The lord chamberlain, and others
> > of his conspiracy, had contrived to have suddenly destroyed him (Richard)
> > and the Duke (Buckie), there THE SAME DAY in the council"....Well, if this
> > is the case I would imagine even Hastings himself would have put his
> > execution down to being a fair cop under the circumstances. He threw the
> > dice...he lost...fair and square.
> >
> > Mr Johnson writes that Richard and Buckingham hastily donned armour in case
> > other conspirators remained undetected. He goes on to say "Clearly it was
> > the shock of the attack, allied to the unsuspected identity of the
> > perpetrator that prompted so furious a response. After all Richard was
> > betrayed and almost killed by a man he had every reason to trust. And it
> > should not be forgotten that he had only just avoided some kind of Woodville
> > threat to his life at Northampton in April 1483. The Protector was quite
> > literally fighting for his life"
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Eileen

If Richard executed Hastings without trial, then he executed Hastings
without trial. If it's fact, then it isn't any kind of piece of mud to throw
at him. Richard probably did feel he had good reason. He probably was
desperate. I'm not sure why it's ok to condemn Hastings 500 years after the
event ("good on him, I say"), but not Richard. Why would anyone wish he had
more blood on his hands? The argument seems to read something like this:
"Richard was a good man who didn't do any of the things people accuse him
of! I wish he'd killed more people!" Which really doesn't make a lot of
sense.

Karen

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 21:23:57 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION






Ah I see where you are coming from now on this Carol....Tis true many have
used the Hastings execution as a fine piece of mud to throw at Richard. Let
them...We know Richard must have had good reason...You have to remember the
human factor in all this. Who knows what actually went on that day in that
Council chamber...but it must have been desperate. And it is all very well
for people to condemn him from the safety of their armchairs more than five
centuries down the line.
I think that Richard really abhorred disloyalty...remember his handwritten
postscript in that famous letter where it sounds as if he had grabbed the
pen out of someone's hand and written of his shock and disbelief of the
betrayal of that "most untrue creature living...he who had best reason to be
true" Buckingham...He probably just saw red that day...if Hastings was
indeed executed on that day...Good on him I say...Eileen

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67"
<justcarol67@...> wrote:
>

>
> Carol responds:
>
> Actually, I agree with you regarding Hastings (plot, danger to Richard, and
all). My regret is that by suddenly, executing Hastings without trial, Richard
the way for charges of "ruthlessness" against him by Tudor propagandists already
active at the time. (I also agree that Richard could and perhaps should have
been much more ruthless than he was. Henry Tudor in the same position might have
chopped off a few more heads.) But, yes, I've never quite understood why Richard
arrested Thomas Vaughn along with Earl Rivers and Richard Grey--or why
Northumberland, or whoever tried Vaughn and the others, didn't find him innocent
along with Haute, who lived well into the next reign if I recall correctly.
>
> Carol
>

Thank you, Elaine.  It was the discussion in Markham I half-remembered.  The other mention of 15 June is interesting too.  


________________________________



 
Pamela
This may be the reference you were thinking of.
See the article "When and Where did Hastings Lose His Head?" by B.P. Wolfe in The English historical Review Vol 89, no 353, (Oct 1974) pp 835 -844 at http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-8266%28197410%2989%3A353%3C835%3AWAWDHL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2
You should be able to access it and download a copy but if not I let me know.

Alison Hanham argues for a different date citing as evidence an entry in the joint acts of court of the London Mercers' Company and Merchant Adventurers which were compiled as now extant about 1525. The entry records a conversation overheard between Morton as Bishop of Ely and Lord Chamberlain, Hastings as Chancellor on 15 June, two days after Hastings was supposed to have been dragged out of the chamber at the Tower and executed without trial and was Morton detained in the Tower.

Geoffrey Richardson in The Deceivers argues for a conspiracy between Margaret Beaufort, Lord Stanley and Morton, the evil triumvirate, who wove a complex web around Richard wheeling in all the major players one by one by playing off one against the other i.e Hastings against Buckingham and Richard; Buckingham wheeled in by the wily Morton when placed under his protection. In this way, the obstacles in the path of Tudor are eliminated. It is certainly an interesting hypothesis. And the charge of plotting against the Protector would be treasonable and therefore punishable by death. Also I have mentioned this before, Grey, Rivers and Vaughan were not executed at the same time as Hastings.

The strawberries story mentioned in More is considered apocryphal, probably came from Morton.
Elaine


>
>

Assemble the Xvth daye of June thee yere abouewritten [1483]

Where amonge other thinges Richard Swan shewed the report & saying of the
lordes, that were herde by a seruant of my lorde Chamberlayn, that is to
witt my lorde Chanceller, my lorde of Ely & my lorde Chaumberlayn, in their
communicacion together Remembred the grete labour to them made by Straungers
for suche thyng as the said Straungers desire to haue. And that non
Englisshe Merchauntes, for theire eas & profitt neither speketh nor by any
other mean causith to be done for subsidie nor for any other thyng, to the
whiche the said lordes full gladly wolde helpe & do to the comford of the
Kynges Marchauntes if they were therto requyred, & gretely doth marvell that
no Company or a iiij or vj parsones for the same be made oute like as the
straungers of diuers nacions eueryeche of them haue ordeyed & dayly do
labour their maters &c
Wherfore for a more certen knowledge of this mater, it is agrede to send
forth ij parsones this afternone to my lorde of Ely, and amonge other maters
to breke with hym & to fele his disposicion in the forsaid mater, And in cas
that my said lorde shew any thyng lyke unto the forsaid reporte, so to bryng
unto us relacion & knowledge uppon the whiche we shall appoynt oute men
accordyng therfore &c.

Is the issue with the mention of Hastings as not (for example) 'the late
lord Chamberlain'? The date of the conversation isn't given, it may have
been several days earlier, especially as there's mention of a 'report' which
would have to have been written. News of the execution might not have
filtered out. This is an interesting passage, but on its own doesn't
establish a date (one way or the other) for Hastings' death.

Karen

From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 06:26:25 +0100 (BST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION






Thank you, Elaine. It was the discussion in Markham I half-remembered. The
other mention of 15 June is interesting too.

________________________________




Pamela
This may be the reference you were thinking of.
See the article "When and Where did Hastings Lose His Head?" by B.P. Wolfe
in The English historical Review Vol 89, no 353, (Oct 1974) pp 835 -844 at
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-8266%28197410%2989%3A353%3C835%3AWAWDH
L%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2
You should be able to access it and download a copy but if not I let me
know.

Alison Hanham argues for a different date citing as evidence an entry in the
joint acts of court of the London Mercers' Company and Merchant Adventurers
which were compiled as now extant about 1525. The entry records a
conversation overheard between Morton as Bishop of Ely and Lord
Chamberlain, Hastings as Chancellor on 15 June, two days after Hastings was
supposed to have been dragged out of the chamber at the Tower and executed
without trial and was Morton detained in the Tower.

Geoffrey Richardson in The Deceivers argues for a conspiracy between
Margaret Beaufort, Lord Stanley and Morton, the evil triumvirate, who wove a
complex web around Richard wheeling in all the major players one by one by
playing off one against the other i.e Hastings against Buckingham and
Richard; Buckingham wheeled in by the wily Morton when placed under his
protection. In this way, the obstacles in the path of Tudor are eliminated.
It is certainly an interesting hypothesis. And the charge of plotting
against the Protector would be treasonable and therefore punishable by
death. Also I have mentioned this before, Grey, Rivers and Vaughan were not
executed at the same time as Hastings.

The strawberries story mentioned in More is considered apocryphal, probably
came from Morton.
Elaine

>
>

top box office then was a hanging drawing and quartering, the bloodiest and most awful of all executions. But families would take a picnic and make a day out of it! Many would do the same today if public executions came back. In Saudi Arabia the crowds are enormous for public beheadings!
Go figure.
Paul


On 13 Oct 2012, at 21:09, EileenB wrote:

>
> True...I sometimes wonder how people could have gone to watch a beheading or burning...What must have gone through their heads..Was there no pity....did it make them feel ill or did they enjoy? Having said that nowadays you get people coming across accidents and stuff and standing there filming it on their mobile phones which is pretty deplorable Eileen
>
> --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>>
>> But less of a spectator sport
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2012, at 3:18 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed you should George...if i recall the last people executed at the Tower, including Lord Haw Haw were shot....much easier to clean up after...:0/
>>>
>>> --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Darn it I have to put my axe away
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 13, 2012, at 2:50 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In any any case we are ruled from Brussels now...and they would not let us execute anyone
>>>>> treason or not...Well that is how it looks to me....
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See the 1997/8 law change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: George Butterfield
>>>>>> To:
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 6:08 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Re: Royal Perogative ( O
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not correct please look up treason!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 13, 2012, at 12:59 PM, "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no death penalty legislation in UK law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For those of you willing to challenge the Queen ! The death penalty is still on the books for treason and the Tower of London is still in full working order, though I believe that we would probably have to find a working gibbet perhaps a public execution and the head of the deceased placed over one the city gates of York. J
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Having served with HM Navy for several years I distinctly remember swearing an oath to defend the Queen and her subjects if you are still not sure take a look at your British or Canadian passport â¬S On behalf of Her Britannic Majesty you are requested and required etc. etc. R3 may be long gone, however the facts still remain that if you are a member of the United Kingdom then you are still in a Kingdom not a Federation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> George
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of fayre rose
>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 2:37 PM
>>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the monarch has royal perogative.
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i am of the mind that whatever the queen really, really, really wants to happen..will happen. so while she does "rubber" stamp, she can still use her "great seal" to veto or endorse whatever she chooses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i am a staunch monarchist. and i love that is what makes canada..canada instead of the usa. we can go to the queen's rep, and beyond to her to ask for relief from any decision our prime minister/parliament may make.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> roslyn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@ <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@ <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
>>>>>>>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>>>>>> Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:12 AM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Totally agree....rather sad isnt it....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> cheers,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Marianne
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Don't forget that until the next king was crowned Richard as Constable of England WAS the law, so plotting against him was treason with a capital T, as if he were the King.
Paul

On 14 Oct 2012, at 12:03, EileenB wrote:

> Hi Carol...I very rarely disagree with you..but....I often wonder why there is so much ummmm controversy/angst regarding Hastings execution. My understanding, and I will be corrected if I am wrong on this...that Hastings was involved with an assassination attempt/plot on Richard's life. Whatever this plot was Im pretty sure the idea was that at the end of it Richard would be deceased. Regarding the matter of was Hastings topped without a fair trial..or any trial...there is some disagreement over the dates...But to my way of thinking this is hardly of much importance..Richard's life..and therefore his families lives...were in immediate danger and I for one do not blame him one iota for said execution. In fact I absolutely wish he had executed a few more people.....just a few...would have enabled him to have reigned longer and a good chance he would have been one of the best Kings we ever had. But he didnt...and he was robbed of his throne, his life, his reputation...everything.
>
> Personally I think that the worst action taken by Richard was the execution of Sir Thomas Vaughn...who was elderly (for those days) at the time and used to carry the young Prince Edward around when he was little...Now that does seem a little harsh to me...
> Eileen.... >
>>
>> fayre rose wrote:
>>>
>>> humans are a vile and detestable species. we feast on gore and pain. consider the ancient romans, the aztecs, the inquistion, all the wars. our nightly..erm daily news is a gore fest. the media adage is..if it bleeds, it leads. <snip>
>>
>> Carol responds:
>> Humans also produced the Parthenon, the cathedral of Notre Dame, classical music, and the concepts of mercy and justice, to mention just a few accomplishments off the top of my head. Oh, and Internet discussion forums. I doubt that a lamb or a dolphin or any other animal could match that. Or a Neanderthal, for that matter. And I doubt that any of us on this forum have started a war, committed a murder, or perpetrated any other atrocity.
>>
>> If we look at Richard, we see that, yes, he lived in a violent age and committed some acts that I for one wish he hadn't (Hastings's death in particular), but he tried to bring peace and justice to the common people. The nightly news is another matter best left to some other forum.
>>
>> Carol, who prefers to focus on the good that human beings have accomplished without closing her eyes to the bad
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Where does your information that Hastings, Rivers, Vaughan and Grey were executed without trial come from? Sounds like someone has been at the More again! :-)
And until Edward was crowned Richard had the rights of the king in his capacity as Constable of England. Plotting against the Constable was high treason. No question.
Paul


On 14 Oct 2012, at 12:27, Karen Clark wrote:

> Eileen
>
> Hastings was very much executed without trial and without much chance of him
> defending himself or even realising what was going on. It really was that
> quickly done. I find the manner of it impossible to justify. If Hastings was
> a danger, then certainly he should have been arrested, but dragged out of
> the council chamber and beheaded without a chance to say a word in his own
> defence, or even know what charge there was against him or have the chance
> to refute what evidence there might have been, is difficult for me to
> process. Vaughan, Rivers and Grey were also executed without trial. Had they
> all been tried and found guilty of treason, then (by the light of the
> times) execution would have been the right course of action. Firstly,
> though, they couldn't have committed treason, especially Rivers et al, as
> they were acting on behalf of the young king, Edward V, and even Hastings
> couldn't have committed treason, as Richard wasn't king at that point.
> Richard may have thought all these deaths were necessary, but they weren't
> particularly legal. It is entirely possible (though there's no clear
> evidence) that all four men were plotting against Richard, but not even a
> king, not even a Lord Protector, can execute men without trial. For me,
> recognising this has been hugely important. Pretending it was somehow all
> right, finding some way to justify it, just wasn't working.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:03:32 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
> EXECUTION
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Carol...I very rarely disagree with you..but....I often wonder why there
> is so much ummmm controversy/angst regarding Hastings execution. My
> understanding, and I will be corrected if I am wrong on this...that Hastings
> was involved with an assassination attempt/plot on Richard's life. Whatever
> this plot was Im pretty sure the idea was that at the end of it Richard
> would be deceased. Regarding the matter of was Hastings topped without a
> fair trial..or any trial...there is some disagreement over the dates...But
> to my way of thinking this is hardly of much importance..Richard's life..and
> therefore his families lives...were in immediate danger and I for one do not
> blame him one iota for said execution. In fact I absolutely wish he had
> executed a few more people.....just a few...would have enabled him to have
> reigned longer and a good chance he would have been one of the best Kings we
> ever had. But he didnt...and he was robbed of his throne, his life, his
> reputation...everything.
>
> Personally I think that the worst action taken by Richard was the execution
> of Sir Thomas Vaughn...who was elderly (for those days) at the time and
> used to carry the young Prince Edward around when he was little...Now that
> does seem a little harsh to me...
> Eileen.... >
>>
>> fayre rose wrote:
>>>
>>> humans are a vile and detestable species. we feast on gore and pain.
> consider the ancient romans, the aztecs, the inquistion, all the wars. our
> nightly..erm daily news is a gore fest. the media adage is..if it bleeds, it
> leads. <snip>
>>
>> Carol responds:
>> Humans also produced the Parthenon, the cathedral of Notre Dame, classical
> music, and the concepts of mercy and justice, to mention just a few
> accomplishments off the top of my head. Oh, and Internet discussion forums. I
> doubt that a lamb or a dolphin or any other animal could match that. Or a
> Neanderthal, for that matter. And I doubt that any of us on this forum have
> started a war, committed a murder, or perpetrated any other atrocity.
>>
>> If we look at Richard, we see that, yes, he lived in a violent age and
> committed some acts that I for one wish he hadn't (Hastings's death in
> particular), but he tried to bring peace and justice to the common people. The
> nightly news is another matter best left to some other forum.
>>
>> Carol, who prefers to focus on the good that human beings have accomplished
> without closing her eyes to the bad
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Quite right Helen
Paul

On 14 Oct 2012, at 12:54, Helen Rowe wrote:

> I thought there was some sort of trial for Vaughan, Rivers and Grey under the Earl of Northumberland. It might not have been much a trial on present day standards but on par with the fifteenth century.
>
> Helen
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 14 October 2012 10:27 PM
> Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS EXECUTION
>
>
>
>
> Eileen
>
> Hastings was very much executed without trial and without much chance of him
> defending himself or even realising what was going on. It really was that
> quickly done. I find the manner of it impossible to justify. If Hastings was
> a danger, then certainly he should have been arrested, but dragged out of
> the council chamber and beheaded without a chance to say a word in his own
> defence, or even know what charge there was against him or have the chance
> to refute what evidence there might have been, is difficult for me to
> process. Vaughan, Rivers and Grey were also executed without trial. Had they
> all been tried and found guilty of treason, then (by the light of the
> times) execution would have been the right course of action. Firstly,
> though, they couldn't have committed treason, especially Rivers et al, as
> they were acting on behalf of the young king, Edward V, and even Hastings
> couldn't have committed treason, as Richard wasn't king at that point.
> Richard may have thought all these deaths were necessary, but they weren't
> particularly legal. It is entirely possible (though there's no clear
> evidence) that all four men were plotting against Richard, but not even a
> king, not even a Lord Protector, can execute men without trial. For me,
> recognising this has been hugely important. Pretending it was somehow all
> right, finding some way to justify it, just wasn't working.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:03:32 -0000
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
> EXECUTION
>
> Hi Carol...I very rarely disagree with you..but....I often wonder why there
> is so much ummmm controversy/angst regarding Hastings execution. My
> understanding, and I will be corrected if I am wrong on this...that Hastings
> was involved with an assassination attempt/plot on Richard's life. Whatever
> this plot was Im pretty sure the idea was that at the end of it Richard
> would be deceased. Regarding the matter of was Hastings topped without a
> fair trial..or any trial...there is some disagreement over the dates...But
> to my way of thinking this is hardly of much importance..Richard's life..and
> therefore his families lives...were in immediate danger and I for one do not
> blame him one iota for said execution. In fact I absolutely wish he had
> executed a few more people.....just a few...would have enabled him to have
> reigned longer and a good chance he would have been one of the best Kings we
> ever had. But he didnt...and he was robbed of his throne, his life, his
> reputation...everything.
>
> Personally I think that the worst action taken by Richard was the execution
> of Sir Thomas Vaughn...who was elderly (for those days) at the time and
> used to carry the young Prince Edward around when he was little...Now that
> does seem a little harsh to me...
> Eileen.... >
>>
>> fayre rose wrote:
>>>
>>> humans are a vile and detestable species. we feast on gore and pain.
> consider the ancient romans, the aztecs, the inquistion, all the wars. our
> nightly..erm daily news is a gore fest. the media adage is..if it bleeds, it
> leads. <snip>
>>
>> Carol responds:
>> Humans also produced the Parthenon, the cathedral of Notre Dame, classical
> music, and the concepts of mercy and justice, to mention just a few
> accomplishments off the top of my head. Oh, and Internet discussion forums. I
> doubt that a lamb or a dolphin or any other animal could match that. Or a
> Neanderthal, for that matter. And I doubt that any of us on this forum have
> started a war, committed a murder, or perpetrated any other atrocity.
>>
>> If we look at Richard, we see that, yes, he lived in a violent age and
> committed some acts that I for one wish he hadn't (Hastings's death in
> particular), but he tried to bring peace and justice to the common people. The
> nightly news is another matter best left to some other forum.
>>
>> Carol, who prefers to focus on the good that human beings have accomplished
> without closing her eyes to the bad
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

I'll say it again, Richard was Constable of England as well as Protector. Plotting against the Constable, who held the powers of the monarch between reigns, and before a coronation, was tantamount to plotting against the monarch himself. It was high treason.
Paul

On 14 Oct 2012, at 15:31, Pamela Furmidge wrote:

>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Karen wrote:
>
>
> There might well have been a plot, Eileen, or Richard might have believed
> there was a plot. Hastings didn't get a trial. He wasn't even arrested and
> locked up prior to his execution. He was hauled out and killed. That's the
> bit that bothers me. If there'd been a trial and Hastings found guilty of a
> plot against Richard, that still wouldn't have been treason. It was one of
> the dumbest things Richard ever did.
>
>
>
> Me: Richard was Lord Protector at this point, ruling for a child King. Surely a plot against the Lord Protector was just as much treason as a plot against the king.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

And I'll say it again. However you slice it, there's no mention of a trial
for any of these men. I don't know why it's so hard to accept that,
occasionally, Richard did things (like other kings and nobles did) that
weren't entirely in keeping with the law. Saying that doesn't mean I think
he was a monster, or that I believe every charge ever laid against him was
justified.

Karen

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:04:46 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION






I'll say it again, Richard was Constable of England as well as Protector.
Plotting against the Constable, who held the powers of the monarch between
reigns, and before a coronation, was tantamount to plotting against the
monarch himself. It was high treason.
Paul

On 14 Oct 2012, at 15:31, Pamela Furmidge wrote:

>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Karen wrote:
>
>
> There might well have been a plot, Eileen, or Richard might have believed
> there was a plot. Hastings didn't get a trial. He wasn't even arrested and
> locked up prior to his execution. He was hauled out and killed. That's the
> bit that bothers me. If there'd been a trial and Hastings found guilty of a
> plot against Richard, that still wouldn't have been treason. It was one of
> the dumbest things Richard ever did.
>
>
>
> Me: Richard was Lord Protector at this point, ruling for a child King.
Surely a plot against the Lord Protector was just as much treason as a plot
against the king.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Not correct please look up the Human Rights Act 1998!

LOL

--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> Not correct please look up treason!
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 13, 2012, at 12:59 PM, "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@...> wrote:
>
> > There is no death penalty legislation in UK law.
> >
> > --- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > For those of you willing to challenge the Queen ! The death penalty is still on the books for treason and the Tower of London is still in full working order, though I believe that we would probably have to find a working gibbet perhaps a public execution and the head of the deceased placed over one the city gates of York. J
> > >
> > > Having served with HM Navy for several years I distinctly remember swearing an oath to defend the Queen and her subjects if you are still not sure take a look at your British or Canadian passport “ On behalf of Her Britannic Majesty you are requested and required etc. etc. R3 may be long gone, however the facts still remain that if you are a member of the United Kingdom then you are still in a Kingdom not a Federation.
> > >
> > > George
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of fayre rose
> > > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 2:37 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > the monarch has royal perogative.
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom
> > >
> > > i am of the mind that whatever the queen really, really, really wants to happen..will happen. so while she does "rubber" stamp, she can still use her "great seal" to veto or endorse whatever she chooses.
> > >
> > > i am a staunch monarchist. and i love that is what makes canada..canada instead of the usa. we can go to the queen's rep, and beyond to her to ask for relief from any decision our prime minister/parliament may make.
> > >
> > > roslyn
> > >
> > > --- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@ <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@ <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> > > Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:12 AM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Totally agree....rather sad isnt it....
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> > >
> > > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> > >
> > > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > cheers,
> > >
> > > > Marianne
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Paul,
 
You are right.  Richard was Lord Protector, a brother to the King, Constable, and found evidence of a plot against his life, if  that isn't high treason, then what is?


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS EXECUTION


 

I'll say it again, Richard was Constable of England as well as Protector. Plotting against the Constable, who held the powers of the monarch between reigns, and before a coronation, was tantamount to plotting against the monarch himself. It was high treason.
Paul

On 14 Oct 2012, at 15:31, Pamela Furmidge wrote:

>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Karen wrote:
>
>
> There might well have been a plot, Eileen, or Richard might have believed
> there was a plot. Hastings didn't get a trial. He wasn't even arrested and
> locked up prior to his execution. He was hauled out and killed. That's the
> bit that bothers me. If there'd been a trial and Hastings found guilty of a
> plot against Richard, that still wouldn't have been treason. It was one of
> the dumbest things Richard ever did.
>
>
>
> Me: Richard was Lord Protector at this point, ruling for a child King. Surely a plot against the Lord Protector was just as much treason as a plot against the king.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Karen...can I politely request that you do not twist my words ..seriously. I cannot tell you how angry I am that you say that my 'argument seems' that " I had wished Richard had killed more people"..And you ask 'how could anyone wish he had more blood on his hands"... You make me sound as If I am in favour of bloodbaths and slaughtering people en masse. .What do you take me for? .Its a complete nonsense and I won't have it..Dont do it again ...OK. In fact just leave me out of your messages altogether...thank you.
Eileen

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen
>
> If Richard executed Hastings without trial, then he executed Hastings
> without trial. If it's fact, then it isn't any kind of piece of mud to throw
> at him. Richard probably did feel he had good reason. He probably was
> desperate. I'm not sure why it's ok to condemn Hastings 500 years after the
> event ("good on him, I say"), but not Richard. Why would anyone wish he had
> more blood on his hands? The argument seems to read something like this:
> "Richard was a good man who didn't do any of the things people accuse him
> of! I wish he'd killed more people!" Which really doesn't make a lot of
> sense.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 21:23:57 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
> EXECUTION
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ah I see where you are coming from now on this Carol....Tis true many have
> used the Hastings execution as a fine piece of mud to throw at Richard. Let
> them...We know Richard must have had good reason...You have to remember the
> human factor in all this. Who knows what actually went on that day in that
> Council chamber...but it must have been desperate. And it is all very well
> for people to condemn him from the safety of their armchairs more than five
> centuries down the line.
> I think that Richard really abhorred disloyalty...remember his handwritten
> postscript in that famous letter where it sounds as if he had grabbed the
> pen out of someone's hand and written of his shock and disbelief of the
> betrayal of that "most untrue creature living...he who had best reason to be
> true" Buckingham...He probably just saw red that day...if Hastings was
> indeed executed on that day...Good on him I say...Eileen
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67"
> <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Actually, I agree with you regarding Hastings (plot, danger to Richard, and
> all). My regret is that by suddenly, executing Hastings without trial, Richard
> the way for charges of "ruthlessness" against him by Tudor propagandists already
> active at the time. (I also agree that Richard could and perhaps should have
> been much more ruthless than he was. Henry Tudor in the same position might have
> chopped off a few more heads.) But, yes, I've never quite understood why Richard
> arrested Thomas Vaughn along with Earl Rivers and Richard Grey--or why
> Northumberland, or whoever tried Vaughn and the others, didn't find him innocent
> along with Haute, who lived well into the next reign if I recall correctly.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> And I'll say it again. However you slice it, there's no mention of a trial for any of these men. I don't know why it's so hard to accept that, occasionally, Richard did things (like other kings and nobles did) that weren't entirely in keeping with the law. <snip>
Carol responds:

As I said earlier in a post that you may have overlooked, there *was* a trial in which Northumberland presided as principal judge (principalis judex). The source is Rous, no friend of Richard's, who was evidently a witness, just as he later witnessed Richard's progress to the North. See The English Historical Review, volume 6, available on Google Books. I read elsewhere that Northumberland's presence at Pontefract is confirmed by York Records.

It's true that Croyland and Mancini don't mention a trial, but neither, unlike Rous, was in the North. It helps that Richard was still alive when these words were written. Rous had not yet made the extraordinary discovery that he was two years in his mother's womb!

Carol (typing her name correctly this time!)

Eileen

I didn't twist your words. You stated this in an earlier post "Its a great
pity he was not able to have Morton topped at the same time." I certainly
don't think you're in favour of bloodbaths and slaughtering people en masse,
but that does say you believe he should have executed at least one more
person. It's not just you who says things like this. Margaret Beaufort,
Thomas Stanley and others are often mentioned in this regard.

I think I can't make sense of some of the things I read on this forum. I get
rather baffled with some of the things people say. I don't get angry, even
in the face of what has been downright rudeness at times. There's really no
point. I didn't take offence at your earlier 'puhleeeze!' for instance,
though it was quite confrontational. I just restated my question in the hope
that I could make it better understood.

Karen

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:24:58 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION






Karen...can I politely request that you do not twist my words ..seriously.
I cannot tell you how angry I am that you say that my 'argument seems' that
" I had wished Richard had killed more people"..And you ask 'how could
anyone wish he had more blood on his hands"... You make me sound as If I am
in favour of bloodbaths and slaughtering people en masse. .What do you take
me for? .Its a complete nonsense and I won't have it..Dont do it again
...OK. In fact just leave me out of your messages altogether...thank you.
Eileen

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen
>
> If Richard executed Hastings without trial, then he executed Hastings
> without trial. If it's fact, then it isn't any kind of piece of mud to throw
> at him. Richard probably did feel he had good reason. He probably was
> desperate. I'm not sure why it's ok to condemn Hastings 500 years after the
> event ("good on him, I say"), but not Richard. Why would anyone wish he had
> more blood on his hands? The argument seems to read something like this:
> "Richard was a good man who didn't do any of the things people accuse him
> of! I wish he'd killed more people!" Which really doesn't make a lot of
> sense.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 21:23:57 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
> EXECUTION
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ah I see where you are coming from now on this Carol....Tis true many have
> used the Hastings execution as a fine piece of mud to throw at Richard. Let
> them...We know Richard must have had good reason...You have to remember the
> human factor in all this. Who knows what actually went on that day in that
> Council chamber...but it must have been desperate. And it is all very well
> for people to condemn him from the safety of their armchairs more than five
> centuries down the line.
> I think that Richard really abhorred disloyalty...remember his handwritten
> postscript in that famous letter where it sounds as if he had grabbed the
> pen out of someone's hand and written of his shock and disbelief of the
> betrayal of that "most untrue creature living...he who had best reason to be
> true" Buckingham...He probably just saw red that day...if Hastings was
> indeed executed on that day...Good on him I say...Eileen
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67"
> <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Actually, I agree with you regarding Hastings (plot, danger to Richard, and
> all). My regret is that by suddenly, executing Hastings without trial, Richard
> the way for charges of "ruthlessness" against him by Tudor propagandists
already
> active at the time. (I also agree that Richard could and perhaps should have
> been much more ruthless than he was. Henry Tudor in the same position might
have
> chopped off a few more heads.) But, yes, I've never quite understood why
Richard
> arrested Thomas Vaughn along with Earl Rivers and Richard Grey--or why
> Northumberland, or whoever tried Vaughn and the others, didn't find him
innocent
> along with Haute, who lived well into the next reign if I recall correctly.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks, Carol. I'll check this out.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:46:23 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION








Karen Clark wrote:
>
> And I'll say it again. However you slice it, there's no mention of a trial for
any of these men. I don't know why it's so hard to accept that, occasionally,
Richard did things (like other kings and nobles did) that weren't entirely in
keeping with the law. <snip>
Carol responds:

As I said earlier in a post that you may have overlooked, there *was* a
trial in which Northumberland presided as principal judge (principalis
judex). The source is Rous, no friend of Richard's, who was evidently a
witness, just as he later witnessed Richard's progress to the North. See The
English Historical Review, volume 6, available on Google Books. I read
elsewhere that Northumberland's presence at Pontefract is confirmed by York
Records.

It's true that Croyland and Mancini don't mention a trial, but neither,
unlike Rous, was in the North. It helps that Richard was still alive when
these words were written. Rous had not yet made the extraordinary discovery
that he was two years in his mother's womb!

Carol (typing her name correctly this time!)

Karen Clark wrote:

<snip>
> I didn't twist your words. You stated this in an earlier post "Its a great pity he was not able to have Morton topped at the same time." I certainly don't think you're in favour of bloodbaths and slaughtering people en masse, but that does say you believe he should have executed at least one more person. It's not just you who says things like this. Margaret Beaufort, Thomas Stanley and others are often mentioned in this regard.

Carol responds:

Forgive me for stepping in here. If the plot against the Lord Protector and Constable was real (as Richard's letters and actions indicate that it was), the treason was real, and the penalty for treason was death. It's unfortunate from the standpoint of Richard's reputation that the (alleged) conspirators were executed since Croyland and others used the executions against Richard to make it look as if he intended to seize the throne from the moment he heard of his brother's death, but Richard's actions show that he did not shed blood unnecessarily (note that he spared Morton and the others, including Margaret Beaufort). The irony for many Ricardians is that if he had been more ruthless, not scrupling to kill priests and women (contrast the Tudors), he would have lived and there might have been no Battle of Bosworth or even Buckingham's Rebellion. He would have been remembered not for the people he executed (successful kings are generally forgiven such things) but for the laws he passed during his reign and, perhaps, for continuing the Yorkist dynasty. It's not only ironic but sad: We wouldn't care about him or have a Society to discover the truth about him if he had executed his enemies and preempted their conspiracies and invasions. We only care because he lost his life and reputation through what can only be considered, from the standpoint of survival, insufficient ruthlessness, a trait from which Henry Tudor never suffered.

The problem, in my view, is that the primary sources for the period, both Mancini and Croyland, assume the innocence of Hastings, Rivers, et al. We ignore the contrary evidence (Richard's letters to York, his known character before and after the Protectorate, Rous's statement that Rivers et al. received a trial) at our peril. Well, at the peril of our objectivity, at any rate. If we assume that there was no conspiracy, we will, of course, arrive at a different conclusion than if we assume that the conspiracy was real.

We don't know what happened. We can only speculate based on conflicting evidence and, yes, our own preferences and preconceptions, which inevitably come into play despite all our attempts to be objective. At least, that's my view of the matter.

Carol

From: "Karen Clark" <Ragged_staff@...>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 6:39 AM

And I'll say it again. However you slice it, there's no mention of a trial
for any of these men. I don't know why it's so hard to accept that,
occasionally, Richard did things (like other kings and nobles did) that
weren't entirely in keeping with the law. Saying that doesn't mean I think
he was a monster, or that I believe every charge ever laid against him was
justified.

Karen

How do we know that Hastings' execution WASN'T legal, with or without a
trial? It seems to me there are three points that have to be looked at.
First, just what acts were considered to be treasonous? Second, what proofs
were needed to show that someone HAD committed treason? Finally, what powers
were given to the Constable of England, OR the Council, in regards with
dealing with treasonous acts?
If I understand how the law operated in those times, between the death of
one king and the coronation of the next, the Constable of England acted as
de-facto monarch. It would have been his responsibility to maintain order in
the kingdom until the newly-crowned king was officially placed at the head
of the government.In Richard's case, not only was he Constable, he was also
Protector and, going by either date for the Council meeting, quite possibly
viewed by many members of that Council as the as-yet-uncrowned King. After
all, Stillington had presented his evidence about Edward IV's pre-contract
with Dame Eleanor Butler to the Council in late May. My knowledge of what
constituted a "treasonous act" in 1483 is limited, but a threat against the
life of the Constable/Protector would certainly seem to meet the criteria.
Even more so if Richard were already viewed by the Council as the lawful
King.
Trying to answer my second question of "proving" Hastings HAD committed
treason requires a knowledge of just what happened at that Council meeting
and we don't know what happened. We do know that Hastings was taken out and
executed, but was that after an actual physical attempt on Richard's life?
Or was Hastings executed after evidence, now missing, had been presented to
the Council and the Council had agreed to his execution? Or, finally, was
Hastings just dragged out on Richard's orders and beheaded while the rest of
the Council played mum?
Thirdly, the lack of a trial with a judge and jury doesn't, by and of
itself, mean that Hastings' execution was "illegal"; ie, murder, if his
execution could be accounted for by other means that WERE available and
considered legal. I would think physically threatening the life of the
Constable/Protector; ie, an assault or even a threatened assault, in front
of witnesses (the Council) could qualify one for immediate execution, but I
don't know for certain.
Which brings me back to the first question: What were the powers of the
Constable? Did those powers include the right of summary execution and, if
so, under what circumstances? The same applies to any powers the Council,
qua the King's Council, may have had concerning the proof required to
condemn someone for treason.
Without a record of what happened at that Council, it would appear to me
that the most one can say about Hastings' execution is that - he was
executed.
It's a rather flat statement but, really, anything else is conjecture.

Doug: //snip// What were the powers of the Constable? //snip//

Sorry I don't have time to provide a full answer as I'm very involved in other stuff. The Constable of England presided over his own martial court, delivered summary judgements (verdicts and sentences) without appeal, and authorised summary executions. There are some written analyses of the Constable's role but I don't have time to find the references. It was also a role that was continually evolving: Ross asserts that Edward IV expanded Richard's powers as Constable. Some of this is in "Maligned King"
In haste, Annette

I'll add my comment up here, this time:

Drawing steel -- a sword -- in the presence of the king was a capital crime at one point. Was it still at this time? Would Richard, as Protector, have the same status as a king? Swords were being waved around when the fracas broke out in the council chamber. I don't have at hand More's account, which surely came from Morton, who was there -- does it say who drew first? If it was Hastings, that in itself might be grounds for immediate execution.

Katy



--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>

[Karen Clark]

And I'll say it again. However you slice it, there's no mention of a trial
> for any of these men. I don't know why it's so hard to accept that,
> occasionally, Richard did things (like other kings and nobles did) that
> weren't entirely in keeping with the law. Saying that doesn't mean I think
> he was a monster, or that I believe every charge ever laid against him was
> justified.
>
> Karen
>
[Doug}

> How do we know that Hastings' execution WASN'T legal, with or without a
> trial? It seems to me there are three points that have to be looked at.
> First, just what acts were considered to be treasonous? Second, what proofs
> were needed to show that someone HAD committed treason? Finally, what powers
> were given to the Constable of England, OR the Council, in regards with
> dealing with treasonous acts?
> If I understand how the law operated in those times, between the death of
> one king and the coronation of the next, the Constable of England acted as
> de-facto monarch. It would have been his responsibility to maintain order in
> the kingdom until the newly-crowned king was officially placed at the head
> of the government.In Richard's case, not only was he Constable, he was also
> Protector and, going by either date for the Council meeting, quite possibly
> viewed by many members of that Council as the as-yet-uncrowned King.

Carol

I don't assume Hastings was innocent of anything, nor do I assume him
guilty. The haste of his execution does bother me. It leaves open to
question what might have come out (or possibly not come out) at a trial.
There is another possible reason for the speed with which it was done, and
that was to get rid of Hastings because he wouldn't support Richard in his
bid for the crown. I'm not saying that's the case. I can't possibly, no-one
can, but it leaves open a little door of doubt in my mind for the motive
behind Hastings hurried execution and the lack of a trial. My objectivity
here, and the simple fact that we don't know much of what actually happened
or why, prevents me from coming to a conclusion one way or another regarding
Hastings' involvement in a plot. I can't think of a direct parallel during
Edward IV's reign. Even the swift, drumhead trials after battles, not 'fair'
by our standards, were recognised legal proceedings. Warwick's gratuitous
executions of Rivers, John Wydeville and the Herberts certainly weren't
legal, but nor were they carried out under the auspices of a reigning king
(or protector). It's these that feel, to me, to be the closest parallel to
Hastings' execution. Swift, without due process and designed to get rid of
someone as quickly as possible for rather dubious reasons. As I said, the
whole thing bothers me greatly and I can't find an easy justification for
it. That Morton and Stanley weren't also executed makes it more likely that
Hastings was the target from the start.

Richard might well have been wise to find some reason to get rid of a whole
lot more people than he did, but as you point out, that would make him far
less admirable. It's difficult to process the idea that there are some who
wish he had executed these, in hindsight, dangerous people. I've thought
that as well. That if Richard did do the things some Ricardians wish he did,
there wouldn't be any Ricardians, which is why it baffles me.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 16:31:16 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION






Karen Clark wrote:

<snip>
> I didn't twist your words. You stated this in an earlier post "Its a great
pity he was not able to have Morton topped at the same time." I certainly don't
think you're in favour of bloodbaths and slaughtering people en masse, but that
does say you believe he should have executed at least one more person. It's not
just you who says things like this. Margaret Beaufort, Thomas Stanley and others
are often mentioned in this regard.

Carol responds:

Forgive me for stepping in here. If the plot against the Lord Protector and
Constable was real (as Richard's letters and actions indicate that it was),
the treason was real, and the penalty for treason was death. It's
unfortunate from the standpoint of Richard's reputation that the (alleged)
conspirators were executed since Croyland and others used the executions
against Richard to make it look as if he intended to seize the throne from
the moment he heard of his brother's death, but Richard's actions show that
he did not shed blood unnecessarily (note that he spared Morton and the
others, including Margaret Beaufort). The irony for many Ricardians is that
if he had been more ruthless, not scrupling to kill priests and women
(contrast the Tudors), he would have lived and there might have been no
Battle of Bosworth or even Buckingham's Rebellion. He would have been
remembered not for the people he executed (successful kings are generally
forgiven such things) but for the laws he passed during his reign and,
perhaps, for continuing the Yorkist dynasty. It's not only ironic but sad:
We wouldn't care about him or have a Society to discover the truth about him
if he had executed his enemies and preempted their conspiracies and
invasions. We only care because he lost his life and reputation through what
can only be considered, from the standpoint of survival, insufficient
ruthlessness, a trait from which Henry Tudor never suffered.

The problem, in my view, is that the primary sources for the period, both
Mancini and Croyland, assume the innocence of Hastings, Rivers, et al. We
ignore the contrary evidence (Richard's letters to York, his known character
before and after the Protectorate, Rous's statement that Rivers et al.
received a trial) at our peril. Well, at the peril of our objectivity, at
any rate. If we assume that there was no conspiracy, we will, of course,
arrive at a different conclusion than if we assume that the conspiracy was
real.

We don't know what happened. We can only speculate based on conflicting
evidence and, yes, our own preferences and preconceptions, which inevitably
come into play despite all our attempts to be objective. At least, that's my
view of the matter.

Carol

Doug, another interesting aspect of the Constable's Court (or Court of Chivalry) was that sentences passed were not by common law but by the law of arms, so they did not include the options of attainder, forfeiture of lands, etc. As you probably know, Hastings was never attainted. Ross mentions Richard's generosity to his widow, while using the fact that he was not attainted to denigrate the extent of that generosity. However, Ross is so busy decrying Richard that he fails to note that this very lack of attainder tends to support the view that Hastings was arrested in an act of armed treason by Richard using his powers as Constable of England, i.e. precisely what Mancini quotes in Richard's own words: "an ambush had been prepared for him, and they had come in with hidden arms, that they might be the first to open the attack". Hastings was arrested for treason, says Mancini (only he calls it "the false pretext of treason"). He goes on to say a herald later proclaimed that "a plot had been detected in the citadel, and Hastings, the originator of the plot, had paid the penalty". Another reference to the same plot occurs in the 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen', the College of Arms MS discovered by Richard Firth Green, whose author records in the 1480s "there was divers imagined the death of he Duke of Gloucester, and it was discovered, and the Lord Hastings was taken in the Tower and beheaded forthwith" - this without Mancini's editorialising about "pretexts". So the event is quite satisfactorily recorded contemporaneously with no assistance needed from More or Vergil.
Regards, Annette
P.S. It is also worth noting that there appear to have been seven arrests associated with this plot if you include Thomas Stanley.


----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To:
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS EXECUTION



Doug: //snip// What were the powers of the Constable? //snip//

Sorry I don't have time to provide a full answer as I'm very involved in other stuff. The Constable of England presided over his own martial court, delivered summary judgements (verdicts and sentences) without appeal, and authorised summary executions. There are some written analyses of the Constable's role but I don't have time to find the references. It was also a role that was continually evolving: Ross asserts that Edward IV expanded Richard's powers as Constable. Some of this is in "Maligned King"
In haste, Annette

Karen Clark wrote:
<snip>
> I don't assume Hastings was innocent of anything, nor do I assume him guilty. The haste of his execution does bother me. <snip>

Carol responds:

Right. It bothers me, too, assuming that it's accurately reported, but that's part of the problem. We don't have an accurate or complete account. I *am* concerned with whether Hastings was innocent or guilty because it makes a great difference in how I, personally, feel about Hastings's execution whether or not there was a trial. If Richard killed him to get him out of the way because he (Hastings) opposed Richard's desire to become king, that's a whole different matter than killing him because he was a key member of a treasonous plot to kill Richard (and Buckingham). I think it's essential for anyone discussing the execution to keep open the possibility that the plot was real and to balance Richard's letters (which explain his actions to some degree) against Mancini/Croyland (who assume motives that they could not possibly know). I wasn't talking about you specifically but about all of us and about the need to consider what evidence is available without jumping to conclusions (as Mancini and the Croyland chronicler did). It's unfortunate that the Croyland chronicler (despite his obvious bias) gives no details, which leads to reliance on More (Morton?)'s detailed but highly unreliable account. (Even Kendall, if I recall correctly, resorts to More for some elements of the Hastings incident.)

But my purpose in posting was actually to point out the irony of our position as Ricardians. I think Buck was the first to state that Richard "should" have been more ruthless with his enemies, especially if he were primarily concerned with gaining and keeping the throne, but as I said (and you seem to agree), we wouldn't be Ricardians had he done so. How very sad.

Carol

Hi Karen,

Forgive me if this has already been covered by somebody else, but

1) Regarding Hastings' execution, it is surely worth remembering that Richard was Lord Constable. This is from my copy of Ross's Edward IV (pp. 396-7)
"The constable's court, whose savage penalties won for John Tiptoft, earl of Worcester, his unenviable reputation for ruthlessness, was roundly condemned by an earlier generation of scholars. It was a summary court, acting without indictment and without benefit of trial by jury, and it employed a law other than the common law of England. Its activities, in the words of Bishop Stubbs, `condemned its agents to perpetual infamy'. He further regarded its summary jurisdiction over treason as a novel usurpation at the expense of the common law courts. However, recent research has suggested that there was ample precedent under the law of arms for its use in treason trials. As a branch of civil law, the law of arms required neither indictments nor juries. Often Tiptoft as constale was merely pronouncing a sentence which had already been `ordained' by the king in advance. The king could still `record' a verdict based upon his / knowledge of notorious treason without further justification. Most of the court's victims were men taken in battle, in open rebellion against the Crown, clearly guilty of the high-treason offence, under the great statute of 1352, of levying war against the king. . . .
There is, however, some evidence that the jurisdiction of the constable's court was widened to include treasonable offences which had formerly been dealt with by the common law and whih came under the other major category of treason, compassing and imagining the death of the king."
Also, to plot against the Protector was not clearly untreasonable. Would it not be treason to attack the man who was was the official protector of the King, his proxy so to speak? Would it not be treason to attempt to snatch the King from that protection? Statute law did not formally confirm this until Cromwell's time, but the scope of the 1352 Treason Act shows just how extensive the scope of was:-
"... in the event that any man plots or plans the death of our lord the king, my lady his consort or their first son and heir; if any man rapes the king's spouse, the king's eldest daughter when unmarried or the spouse of the king's eldest son and heir; if any man wages war against our lord the king in his realm, or shall be a supporter of the enemies of our lord the king in the realm, giving them aid and comfort in his realm or anywhere else, and shall be attainted of this by proof publicly made by people of their own condition; if any man counterfeits the king's great seal or his money; and if any man brings false money into this realm which is counterfeit to the money of England, such as the money called Lushbournes or other money similar to the said money of England, knowing the money to be false, for trading or making payment, in deceit of our lord the king and of his people; if any man kills the chancellor, treasurer or justices of our lord the king of either bench, the justices in eyre, of assizes and all other justices assigned to hear and determine when they are in their places performing their offices.... "
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=116457&strquery=treason
But it is unarguable that the immediate execution - if that is what it was rather than being killed resisting arrest as Mancini suggests - was irregular.

2) Regarding the executions of Rivers, Vaughan and Gey, Rows tells us that they were tried by the Earl of Northumberland. Certainly the executions took place when Northumberland was stopping at Pontefract.

Marie

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen
>
> Hastings was very much executed without trial and without much chance of him
> defending himself or even realising what was going on. It really was that
> quickly done. I find the manner of it impossible to justify. If Hastings was
> a danger, then certainly he should have been arrested, but dragged out of
> the council chamber and beheaded without a chance to say a word in his own
> defence, or even know what charge there was against him or have the chance
> to refute what evidence there might have been, is difficult for me to
> process. Vaughan, Rivers and Grey were also executed without trial. Had they
> all been tried and found guilty of treason, then (by the light of the
> times) execution would have been the right course of action. Firstly,
> though, they couldn't have committed treason, especially Rivers et al, as
> they were acting on behalf of the young king, Edward V, and even Hastings
> couldn't have committed treason, as Richard wasn't king at that point.
> Richard may have thought all these deaths were necessary, but they weren't
> particularly legal. It is entirely possible (though there's no clear
> evidence) that all four men were plotting against Richard, but not even a
> king, not even a Lord Protector, can execute men without trial. For me,
> recognising this has been hugely important. Pretending it was somehow all
> right, finding some way to justify it, just wasn't working.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:03:32 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
> EXECUTION
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Carol...I very rarely disagree with you..but....I often wonder why there
> is so much ummmm controversy/angst regarding Hastings execution. My
> understanding, and I will be corrected if I am wrong on this...that Hastings
> was involved with an assassination attempt/plot on Richard's life. Whatever
> this plot was Im pretty sure the idea was that at the end of it Richard
> would be deceased. Regarding the matter of was Hastings topped without a
> fair trial..or any trial...there is some disagreement over the dates...But
> to my way of thinking this is hardly of much importance..Richard's life..and
> therefore his families lives...were in immediate danger and I for one do not
> blame him one iota for said execution. In fact I absolutely wish he had
> executed a few more people.....just a few...would have enabled him to have
> reigned longer and a good chance he would have been one of the best Kings we
> ever had. But he didnt...and he was robbed of his throne, his life, his
> reputation...everything.
>
> Personally I think that the worst action taken by Richard was the execution
> of Sir Thomas Vaughn...who was elderly (for those days) at the time and
> used to carry the young Prince Edward around when he was little...Now that
> does seem a little harsh to me...
> Eileen.... >
> >
> > fayre rose wrote:
> > >
> > > humans are a vile and detestable species. we feast on gore and pain.
> consider the ancient romans, the aztecs, the inquistion, all the wars. our
> nightly..erm daily news is a gore fest. the media adage is..if it bleeds, it
> leads. <snip>
> >
> > Carol responds:
> > Humans also produced the Parthenon, the cathedral of Notre Dame, classical
> music, and the concepts of mercy and justice, to mention just a few
> accomplishments off the top of my head. Oh, and Internet discussion forums. I
> doubt that a lamb or a dolphin or any other animal could match that. Or a
> Neanderthal, for that matter. And I doubt that any of us on this forum have
> started a war, committed a murder, or perpetrated any other atrocity.
> >
> > If we look at Richard, we see that, yes, he lived in a violent age and
> committed some acts that I for one wish he hadn't (Hastings's death in
> particular), but he tried to bring peace and justice to the common people. The
> nightly news is another matter best left to some other forum.
> >
> > Carol, who prefers to focus on the good that human beings have accomplished
> without closing her eyes to the bad
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks, Marie. Some of this has been covered earlier by others, but I
appreciate the summary.

"But it is unarguable that the immediate execution - if that is what it was
rather than being killed resisting arrest as Mancini suggests - was
irregular."

I'm not sure the Constable's powers extended to (essentially) pointing to a
man and saying 'off with his head!", which might sound a rather facile
rendering of what seems to have happened, but is nonetheless all that we
have to go on. As I said in an earlier post, this haste bothers me a lot. If
Hastings could be hustled outside and beheaded, he could have been hustled
into a cell, then a trial, even a brief trial before the Constable, could
have been held. That even this wasn't done makes me wonder why. I'm not of
the 'if Richard did it, it must have been ok' school of thought. This is
something I'm going to be wrestling with for some time.

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:40:27 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION






Hi Karen,

Forgive me if this has already been covered by somebody else, but

1) Regarding Hastings' execution, it is surely worth remembering that
Richard was Lord Constable. This is from my copy of Ross's Edward IV (pp.
396-7)
"The constable's court, whose savage penalties won for John Tiptoft, earl of
Worcester, his unenviable reputation for ruthlessness, was roundly condemned
by an earlier generation of scholars. It was a summary court, acting without
indictment and without benefit of trial by jury, and it employed a law other
than the common law of England. Its activities, in the words of Bishop
Stubbs, `condemned its agents to perpetual infamy'. He further regarded its
summary jurisdiction over treason as a novel usurpation at the expense of
the common law courts. However, recent research has suggested that there was
ample precedent under the law of arms for its use in treason trials. As a
branch of civil law, the law of arms required neither indictments nor
juries. Often Tiptoft as constale was merely pronouncing a sentence which
had already been `ordained' by the king in advance. The king could still
`record' a verdict based upon his / knowledge of notorious treason without
further justification. Most of the court's victims were men taken in battle,
in open rebellion against the Crown, clearly guilty of the high-treason
offence, under the great statute of 1352, of levying war against the king. .
. .
There is, however, some evidence that the jurisdiction of the constable's
court was widened to include treasonable offences which had formerly been
dealt with by the common law and whih came under the other major category of
treason, compassing and imagining the death of the king."
Also, to plot against the Protector was not clearly untreasonable. Would it
not be treason to attack the man who was was the official protector of the
King, his proxy so to speak? Would it not be treason to attempt to snatch
the King from that protection? Statute law did not formally confirm this
until Cromwell's time, but the scope of the 1352 Treason Act shows just how
extensive the scope of was:-
"... in the event that any man plots or plans the death of our lord the
king, my lady his consort or their first son and heir; if any man rapes the
king's spouse, the king's eldest daughter when unmarried or the spouse of
the king's eldest son and heir; if any man wages war against our lord the
king in his realm, or shall be a supporter of the enemies of our lord the
king in the realm, giving them aid and comfort in his realm or anywhere
else, and shall be attainted of this by proof publicly made by people of
their own condition; if any man counterfeits the king's great seal or his
money; and if any man brings false money into this realm which is
counterfeit to the money of England, such as the money called Lushbournes or
other money similar to the said money of England, knowing the money to be
false, for trading or making payment, in deceit of our lord the king and of
his people; if any man kills the chancellor, treasurer or justices of our
lord the king of either bench, the justices in eyre, of assizes and all
other justices assigned to hear and determine when they are in their places
performing their offices.... "
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=116457&strquery=treason
But it is unarguable that the immediate execution - if that is what it was
rather than being killed resisting arrest as Mancini suggests - was
irregular.

2) Regarding the executions of Rivers, Vaughan and Gey, Rows tells us that
they were tried by the Earl of Northumberland. Certainly the executions took
place when Northumberland was stopping at Pontefract.

Marie

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen
>
> Hastings was very much executed without trial and without much chance of him
> defending himself or even realising what was going on. It really was that
> quickly done. I find the manner of it impossible to justify. If Hastings was
> a danger, then certainly he should have been arrested, but dragged out of
> the council chamber and beheaded without a chance to say a word in his own
> defence, or even know what charge there was against him or have the chance
> to refute what evidence there might have been, is difficult for me to
> process. Vaughan, Rivers and Grey were also executed without trial. Had they
> all been tried and found guilty of treason, then (by the light of the
> times) execution would have been the right course of action. Firstly,
> though, they couldn't have committed treason, especially Rivers et al, as
> they were acting on behalf of the young king, Edward V, and even Hastings
> couldn't have committed treason, as Richard wasn't king at that point.
> Richard may have thought all these deaths were necessary, but they weren't
> particularly legal. It is entirely possible (though there's no clear
> evidence) that all four men were plotting against Richard, but not even a
> king, not even a Lord Protector, can execute men without trial. For me,
> recognising this has been hugely important. Pretending it was somehow all
> right, finding some way to justify it, just wasn't working.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:03:32 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
> EXECUTION
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Carol...I very rarely disagree with you..but....I often wonder why there
> is so much ummmm controversy/angst regarding Hastings execution. My
> understanding, and I will be corrected if I am wrong on this...that Hastings
> was involved with an assassination attempt/plot on Richard's life. Whatever
> this plot was Im pretty sure the idea was that at the end of it Richard
> would be deceased. Regarding the matter of was Hastings topped without a
> fair trial..or any trial...there is some disagreement over the dates...But
> to my way of thinking this is hardly of much importance..Richard's life..and
> therefore his families lives...were in immediate danger and I for one do not
> blame him one iota for said execution. In fact I absolutely wish he had
> executed a few more people.....just a few...would have enabled him to have
> reigned longer and a good chance he would have been one of the best Kings we
> ever had. But he didnt...and he was robbed of his throne, his life, his
> reputation...everything.
>
> Personally I think that the worst action taken by Richard was the execution
> of Sir Thomas Vaughn...who was elderly (for those days) at the time and
> used to carry the young Prince Edward around when he was little...Now that
> does seem a little harsh to me...
> Eileen.... >
> >
> > fayre rose wrote:
> > >
> > > humans are a vile and detestable species. we feast on gore and pain.
> consider the ancient romans, the aztecs, the inquistion, all the wars. our
> nightly..erm daily news is a gore fest. the media adage is..if it bleeds, it
> leads. <snip>
> >
> > Carol responds:
> > Humans also produced the Parthenon, the cathedral of Notre Dame, classical
> music, and the concepts of mercy and justice, to mention just a few
> accomplishments off the top of my head. Oh, and Internet discussion forums. I
> doubt that a lamb or a dolphin or any other animal could match that. Or a
> Neanderthal, for that matter. And I doubt that any of us on this forum have
> started a war, committed a murder, or perpetrated any other atrocity.
> >
> > If we look at Richard, we see that, yes, he lived in a violent age and
> committed some acts that I for one wish he hadn't (Hastings's death in
> particular), but he tried to bring peace and justice to the common people. The
> nightly news is another matter best left to some other forum.
> >
> > Carol, who prefers to focus on the good that human beings have accomplished
> without closing her eyes to the bad
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You are right Carol evidence is the key. Unfortunately there is very little evidence for this period. The reports that we have may or may not be malicous propaganda from Morton via More. As a Society we can discuss the bits of evidence that there are and put forward our opinions as to what it means. I am sure that the "traditionalist" take on Richard is not a cast iron case and never has been. Most of them only give some of the facts or supposed facts. Some of them never mention Bishop Stillington and the precontract for instance. If you are assessing Richard and what happened in 1483 to 1485 you have to look at all known evidence and compare it to the law of the time. I have learned quite a bit over the last few days regarding Richard's authority as Protector and as Lord Constable by following the debate on this forum, so who knows if we keep piecing together bits of evidence we might be able to come to a reasonable opinion about what really did happen. That's not to say that we definitely will. It is hard being a Ricardian! Small steps at a time that is what Philippa, John and Annette have been doing for years.

Mary

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> <snip>
> > I don't assume Hastings was innocent of anything, nor do I assume him guilty. The haste of his execution does bother me. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Right. It bothers me, too, assuming that it's accurately reported, but that's part of the problem. We don't have an accurate or complete account. I *am* concerned with whether Hastings was innocent or guilty because it makes a great difference in how I, personally, feel about Hastings's execution whether or not there was a trial. If Richard killed him to get him out of the way because he (Hastings) opposed Richard's desire to become king, that's a whole different matter than killing him because he was a key member of a treasonous plot to kill Richard (and Buckingham). I think it's essential for anyone discussing the execution to keep open the possibility that the plot was real and to balance Richard's letters (which explain his actions to some degree) against Mancini/Croyland (who assume motives that they could not possibly know). I wasn't talking about you specifically but about all of us and about the need to consider what evidence is available without jumping to conclusions (as Mancini and the Croyland chronicler did). It's unfortunate that the Croyland chronicler (despite his obvious bias) gives no details, which leads to reliance on More (Morton?)'s detailed but highly unreliable account. (Even Kendall, if I recall correctly, resorts to More for some elements of the Hastings incident.)
>
> But my purpose in posting was actually to point out the irony of our position as Ricardians. I think Buck was the first to state that Richard "should" have been more ruthless with his enemies, especially if he were primarily concerned with gaining and keeping the throne, but as I said (and you seem to agree), we wouldn't be Ricardians had he done so. How very sad.
>
> Carol
>

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: "Karen Clark" <Ragged_staff@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 6:39 AM
>
> And I'll say it again. However you slice it, there's no mention of a trial
> for any of these men.


Karen,

My almost top fasvourite adage in relation to studying 15th century history is the old saw: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Mostly all that survives of any trials for this period are the indictments, and for the Constable's court no indictment was required. There is also the question of rules applying to being caught red-handed, or to open conflict, in which I think summary justice could be quite normal but I would like to know more about this. But think about Edward IV's execution of Lor Welles' son in 1470 for instance. I have also noticed that the oyer and terminer reocords for the first half of Richard's reign, which I have photographed, contain so dfar as I can yet see the records of no indictments relating to Buckingham's Rebellion. One I know survived locally, in the Cornish archives. But what happened to the central government copies?
I have also recently searched in the National Archives in vain for the records of a treason trial from Henry VII's reign that is mentioned in the York House Books.
Marie




I don't know why it's so hard to accept that,
> occasionally, Richard did things (like other kings and nobles did) that
> weren't entirely in keeping with the law. Saying that doesn't mean I think
> he was a monster, or that I believe every charge ever laid against him was
> justified.
>
> Karen
>
> How do we know that Hastings' execution WASN'T legal, with or without a
> trial? It seems to me there are three points that have to be looked at.
> First, just what acts were considered to be treasonous? Second, what proofs
> were needed to show that someone HAD committed treason? Finally, what powers
> were given to the Constable of England, OR the Council, in regards with
> dealing with treasonous acts?
> If I understand how the law operated in those times, between the death of
> one king and the coronation of the next, the Constable of England acted as
> de-facto monarch. It would have been his responsibility to maintain order in
> the kingdom until the newly-crowned king was officially placed at the head
> of the government.In Richard's case, not only was he Constable, he was also
> Protector and, going by either date for the Council meeting, quite possibly
> viewed by many members of that Council as the as-yet-uncrowned King. After
> all, Stillington had presented his evidence about Edward IV's pre-contract
> with Dame Eleanor Butler to the Council in late May. My knowledge of what
> constituted a "treasonous act" in 1483 is limited, but a threat against the
> life of the Constable/Protector would certainly seem to meet the criteria.
> Even more so if Richard were already viewed by the Council as the lawful
> King.
> Trying to answer my second question of "proving" Hastings HAD committed
> treason requires a knowledge of just what happened at that Council meeting
> and we don't know what happened. We do know that Hastings was taken out and
> executed, but was that after an actual physical attempt on Richard's life?
> Or was Hastings executed after evidence, now missing, had been presented to
> the Council and the Council had agreed to his execution? Or, finally, was
> Hastings just dragged out on Richard's orders and beheaded while the rest of
> the Council played mum?
> Thirdly, the lack of a trial with a judge and jury doesn't, by and of
> itself, mean that Hastings' execution was "illegal"; ie, murder, if his
> execution could be accounted for by other means that WERE available and
> considered legal. I would think physically threatening the life of the
> Constable/Protector; ie, an assault or even a threatened assault, in front
> of witnesses (the Council) could qualify one for immediate execution, but I
> don't know for certain.
> Which brings me back to the first question: What were the powers of the
> Constable? Did those powers include the right of summary execution and, if
> so, under what circumstances? The same applies to any powers the Council,
> qua the King's Council, may have had concerning the proof required to
> condemn someone for treason.
> Without a record of what happened at that Council, it would appear to me
> that the most one can say about Hastings' execution is that - he was
> executed.
> It's a rather flat statement but, really, anything else is conjecture.
>

Hi Katy,

Funnily enough I was thinking about that last night. I know people had their hands cut off at this period even for brawling in Westminster palace. Does anyone know offhand whether people were allowed to take their swords with them into the royal palace? If not, then something fishy was ceertainly going on if there was an armed fracas.
Maire

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> I'll add my comment up here, this time:
>
> Drawing steel -- a sword -- in the presence of the king was a capital crime at one point. Was it still at this time? Would Richard, as Protector, have the same status as a king? Swords were being waved around when the fracas broke out in the council chamber. I don't have at hand More's account, which surely came from Morton, who was there -- does it say who drew first? If it was Hastings, that in itself might be grounds for immediate execution.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> >
>
> [Karen Clark]
>
> And I'll say it again. However you slice it, there's no mention of a trial
> > for any of these men. I don't know why it's so hard to accept that,
> > occasionally, Richard did things (like other kings and nobles did) that
> > weren't entirely in keeping with the law. Saying that doesn't mean I think
> > he was a monster, or that I believe every charge ever laid against him was
> > justified.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> [Doug}
>
> > How do we know that Hastings' execution WASN'T legal, with or without a
> > trial? It seems to me there are three points that have to be looked at.
> > First, just what acts were considered to be treasonous? Second, what proofs
> > were needed to show that someone HAD committed treason? Finally, what powers
> > were given to the Constable of England, OR the Council, in regards with
> > dealing with treasonous acts?
> > If I understand how the law operated in those times, between the death of
> > one king and the coronation of the next, the Constable of England acted as
> > de-facto monarch. It would have been his responsibility to maintain order in
> > the kingdom until the newly-crowned king was officially placed at the head
> > of the government.In Richard's case, not only was he Constable, he was also
> > Protector and, going by either date for the Council meeting, quite possibly
> > viewed by many members of that Council as the as-yet-uncrowned King.
>

Hi Marie - I am almost certainly able to confirm that gents in the 15th century NEVER walked around armed with swords: this was something that arrived in the Tudor era. But if anyone knows differently please let me know. My understanding is partly from reading (but I can't remember what!) and partly from my re-enactor/living history friends, who would love to be able to ponce around wearing fancy swords and scabbards and all the accoutrements that go with them, but don't because it isn't authentic.
Cheers, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS EXECUTION



Hi Katy,

Funnily enough I was thinking about that last night. I know people had their hands cut off at this period even for brawling in Westminster palace. Does anyone know offhand whether people were allowed to take their swords with them into the royal palace? If not, then something fishy was ceertainly going on if there was an armed fracas.
Maire

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> I'll add my comment up here, this time:
>
> Drawing steel -- a sword -- in the presence of the king was a capital crime at one point. Was it still at this time? Would Richard, as Protector, have the same status as a king? Swords were being waved around when the fracas broke out in the council chamber. I don't have at hand More's account, which surely came from Morton, who was there -- does it say who drew first? If it was Hastings, that in itself might be grounds for immediate execution.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> >
>
> [Karen Clark]
>
> And I'll say it again. However you slice it, there's no mention of a trial
> > for any of these men. I don't know why it's so hard to accept that,
> > occasionally, Richard did things (like other kings and nobles did) that
> > weren't entirely in keeping with the law. Saying that doesn't mean I think
> > he was a monster, or that I believe every charge ever laid against him was
> > justified.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> [Doug}
>
> > How do we know that Hastings' execution WASN'T legal, with or without a
> > trial? It seems to me there are three points that have to be looked at.
> > First, just what acts were considered to be treasonous? Second, what proofs
> > were needed to show that someone HAD committed treason? Finally, what powers
> > were given to the Constable of England, OR the Council, in regards with
> > dealing with treasonous acts?
> > If I understand how the law operated in those times, between the death of
> > one king and the coronation of the next, the Constable of England acted as
> > de-facto monarch. It would have been his responsibility to maintain order in
> > the kingdom until the newly-crowned king was officially placed at the head
> > of the government.In Richard's case, not only was he Constable, he was also
> > Protector and, going by either date for the Council meeting, quite possibly
> > viewed by many members of that Council as the as-yet-uncrowned King.
>

I agree Mary. Some excellent posts on this Topic in the last few days....very informative Eileen

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
I have learned quite a bit over the last few days regarding Richard's authority as Protector and as Lord Constable by following the debate on this forum, so who knows if we keep piecing together bits of evidence we might be able to come to a reasonable opinion about what really did happen. That's not to say that we definitely will. It is hard being a Ricardian! Small steps at a time that is what Philippa, John and Annette have been doing for years.
>
> Mary
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Karen Clark wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > I don't assume Hastings was innocent of anything, nor do I assume him guilty. The haste of his execution does bother me. <snip>
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Right. It bothers me, too, assuming that it's accurately reported, but that's part of the problem. We don't have an accurate or complete account. I *am* concerned with whether Hastings was innocent or guilty because it makes a great difference in how I, personally, feel about Hastings's execution whether or not there was a trial. If Richard killed him to get him out of the way because he (Hastings) opposed Richard's desire to become king, that's a whole different matter than killing him because he was a key member of a treasonous plot to kill Richard (and Buckingham). I think it's essential for anyone discussing the execution to keep open the possibility that the plot was real and to balance Richard's letters (which explain his actions to some degree) against Mancini/Croyland (who assume motives that they could not possibly know). I wasn't talking about you specifically but about all of us and about the need to consider what evidence is available without jumping to conclusions (as Mancini and the Croyland chronicler did). It's unfortunate that the Croyland chronicler (despite his obvious bias) gives no details, which leads to reliance on More (Morton?)'s detailed but highly unreliable account. (Even Kendall, if I recall correctly, resorts to More for some elements of the Hastings incident.)
> >
> > But my purpose in posting was actually to point out the irony of our position as Ricardians. I think Buck was the first to state that Richard "should" have been more ruthless with his enemies, especially if he were primarily concerned with gaining and keeping the throne, but as I said (and you seem to agree), we wouldn't be Ricardians had he done so. How very sad.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Hmm,

Thank for that Annette. The murder indictments I have read, though, have left me with quite the opposite impression. And didn't Richard have to issue a proclamation before the coronation banning swords from the streets on that day?
Marie



--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Marie - I am almost certainly able to confirm that gents in the 15th century NEVER walked around armed with swords: this was something that arrived in the Tudor era. But if anyone knows differently please let me know. My understanding is partly from reading (but I can't remember what!) and partly from my re-enactor/living history friends, who would love to be able to ponce around wearing fancy swords and scabbards and all the accoutrements that go with them, but don't because it isn't authentic.
> Cheers, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:23 PM
> Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS EXECUTION
>
>
>
> Hi Katy,
>
> Funnily enough I was thinking about that last night. I know people had their hands cut off at this period even for brawling in Westminster palace. Does anyone know offhand whether people were allowed to take their swords with them into the royal palace? If not, then something fishy was ceertainly going on if there was an armed fracas.
> Maire
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> > I'll add my comment up here, this time:
> >
> > Drawing steel -- a sword -- in the presence of the king was a capital crime at one point. Was it still at this time? Would Richard, as Protector, have the same status as a king? Swords were being waved around when the fracas broke out in the council chamber. I don't have at hand More's account, which surely came from Morton, who was there -- does it say who drew first? If it was Hastings, that in itself might be grounds for immediate execution.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > [Karen Clark]
> >
> > And I'll say it again. However you slice it, there's no mention of a trial
> > > for any of these men. I don't know why it's so hard to accept that,
> > > occasionally, Richard did things (like other kings and nobles did) that
> > > weren't entirely in keeping with the law. Saying that doesn't mean I think
> > > he was a monster, or that I believe every charge ever laid against him was
> > > justified.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > [Doug}
> >
> > > How do we know that Hastings' execution WASN'T legal, with or without a
> > > trial? It seems to me there are three points that have to be looked at.
> > > First, just what acts were considered to be treasonous? Second, what proofs
> > > were needed to show that someone HAD committed treason? Finally, what powers
> > > were given to the Constable of England, OR the Council, in regards with
> > > dealing with treasonous acts?
> > > If I understand how the law operated in those times, between the death of
> > > one king and the coronation of the next, the Constable of England acted as
> > > de-facto monarch. It would have been his responsibility to maintain order in
> > > the kingdom until the newly-crowned king was officially placed at the head
> > > of the government.In Richard's case, not only was he Constable, he was also
> > > Protector and, going by either date for the Council meeting, quite possibly
> > > viewed by many members of that Council as the as-yet-uncrowned King.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well, not England, but around the year 1450 or shortly after, don Alvaro de
Luna, Constable of Castile, complained about it not being popular to carry
swords and daggers out and about. At the time, he was under the extreme
pressure of enmity from the queen, Isabel of Portugal. In 1453 (June 2),
he would be beheaded. He was, at the time, feeling, understandably,
feeling the need for protection.

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:50 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> Hmm,
>
> Thank for that Annette. The murder indictments I have read, though, have
> left me with quite the opposite impression. And didn't Richard have to
> issue a proclamation before the coronation banning swords from the streets
> on that day?
> Marie
>
>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marie - I am almost certainly able to confirm that gents in the 15th
> century NEVER walked around armed with swords: this was something that
> arrived in the Tudor era. But if anyone knows differently please let me
> know. My understanding is partly from reading (but I can't remember what!)
> and partly from my re-enactor/living history friends, who would love to be
> able to ponce around wearing fancy swords and scabbards and all the
> accoutrements that go with them, but don't because it isn't authentic.
> > Cheers, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:23 PM
> > Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now
> HASTINGS EXECUTION
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Katy,
> >
> > Funnily enough I was thinking about that last night. I know people had
> their hands cut off at this period even for brawling in Westminster palace.
> Does anyone know offhand whether people were allowed to take their swords
> with them into the royal palace? If not, then something fishy was
> ceertainly going on if there was an armed fracas.
> > Maire
> >
> > --- In , "oregon_katy"
> <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'll add my comment up here, this time:
> > >
> > > Drawing steel -- a sword -- in the presence of the king was a capital
> crime at one point. Was it still at this time? Would Richard, as Protector,
> have the same status as a king? Swords were being waved around when the
> fracas broke out in the council chamber. I don't have at hand More's
> account, which surely came from Morton, who was there -- does it say who
> drew first? If it was Hastings, that in itself might be grounds for
> immediate execution.
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Douglas Eugene
> Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Karen Clark]
> > >
> > > And I'll say it again. However you slice it, there's no mention of a
> trial
> > > > for any of these men. I don't know why it's so hard to accept that,
> > > > occasionally, Richard did things (like other kings and nobles did)
> that
> > > > weren't entirely in keeping with the law. Saying that doesn't mean I
> think
> > > > he was a monster, or that I believe every charge ever laid against
> him was
> > > > justified.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > [Doug}
> > >
> > > > How do we know that Hastings' execution WASN'T legal, with or
> without a
> > > > trial? It seems to me there are three points that have to be looked
> at.
> > > > First, just what acts were considered to be treasonous? Second, what
> proofs
> > > > were needed to show that someone HAD committed treason? Finally,
> what powers
> > > > were given to the Constable of England, OR the Council, in regards
> with
> > > > dealing with treasonous acts?
> > > > If I understand how the law operated in those times, between the
> death of
> > > > one king and the coronation of the next, the Constable of England
> acted as
> > > > de-facto monarch. It would have been his responsibility to maintain
> order in
> > > > the kingdom until the newly-crowned king was officially placed at
> the head
> > > > of the government.In Richard's case, not only was he Constable, he
> was also
> > > > Protector and, going by either date for the Council meeting, quite
> possibly
> > > > viewed by many members of that Council as the as-yet-uncrowned King.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Marie, the plot thickens! I know of the following as reported by Mancini: "In the meantime the duke summoned to London all the peers of the realm ... Each came with the retinue that his title and station demanded; but the duke advised them to retain a few attendants who were indispensable for their personal service and to send back the others ... he alleged the fear of the London citizens, lest so great a concourse of men in a wealthy city might turn to plundering, against the will of their masters ..." Are you thinking of this?

By the way, a propos of nothing, I have found an overwhelming propensity among re-enactors to support the cause of Richard III. It's understandable among retinues like the Duke of Norfolk's, of which I am a sort of honorary member, but it's also widely evident among groups like the Beaufort Companye, who sport the murrey and blue whenever they don't have to don the blue and white. When I get a moment I'll ask one of the chaps who teaches swordsmanship.
Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS EXECUTION




Hmm,

Thank for that Annette. The murder indictments I have read, though, have left me with quite the opposite impression. And didn't Richard have to issue a proclamation before the coronation banning swords from the streets on that day?
Marie


--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Marie - I am almost certainly able to confirm that gents in the 15th century NEVER walked around armed with swords: this was something that arrived in the Tudor era. But if anyone knows differently please let me know. My understanding is partly from reading (but I can't remember what!) and partly from my re-enactor/living history friends, who would love to be able to ponce around wearing fancy swords and scabbards and all the accoutrements that go with them, but don't because it isn't authentic.
> Cheers, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:23 PM
> Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS EXECUTION
>
>
>
> Hi Katy,
>
> Funnily enough I was thinking about that last night. I know people had their hands cut off at this period even for brawling in Westminster palace. Does anyone know offhand whether people were allowed to take their swords with them into the royal palace? If not, then something fishy was ceertainly going on if there was an armed fracas.
> Maire
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> > I'll add my comment up here, this time:
> >
> > Drawing steel -- a sword -- in the presence of the king was a capital crime at one point. Was it still at this time? Would Richard, as Protector, have the same status as a king? Swords were being waved around when the fracas broke out in the council chamber. I don't have at hand More's account, which surely came from Morton, who was there -- does it say who drew first? If it was Hastings, that in itself might be grounds for immediate execution.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > [Karen Clark]
> >
> > And I'll say it again. However you slice it, there's no mention of a trial
> > > for any of these men. I don't know why it's so hard to accept that,
> > > occasionally, Richard did things (like other kings and nobles did) that
> > > weren't entirely in keeping with the law. Saying that doesn't mean I think
> > > he was a monster, or that I believe every charge ever laid against him was
> > > justified.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > [Doug}
> >
> > > How do we know that Hastings' execution WASN'T legal, with or without a
> > > trial? It seems to me there are three points that have to be looked at.
> > > First, just what acts were considered to be treasonous? Second, what proofs
> > > were needed to show that someone HAD committed treason? Finally, what powers
> > > were given to the Constable of England, OR the Council, in regards with
> > > dealing with treasonous acts?
> > > If I understand how the law operated in those times, between the death of
> > > one king and the coronation of the next, the Constable of England acted as
> > > de-facto monarch. It would have been his responsibility to maintain order in
> > > the kingdom until the newly-crowned king was officially placed at the head
> > > of the government.In Richard's case, not only was he Constable, he was also
> > > Protector and, going by either date for the Council meeting, quite possibly
> > > viewed by many members of that Council as the as-yet-uncrowned King.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Mary and Eileen, thank you for that. For my part, I am always learning stuff on this forum too, so kudos from me to amazing researchers like Marie, Brian, Stephen, Paul, Roslyn and Katy, and many others to whom I apologise if I've overlooked you - many of these people were already posting fascinating information even before I joined, which must be five or more years ago. I like to feel we can be generous in sharing what our research has taught us, and I certainly feel I know a lot of you as friends.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS EXECUTION



I agree Mary. Some excellent posts on this Topic in the last few days....very informative Eileen

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
I have learned quite a bit over the last few days regarding Richard's authority as Protector and as Lord Constable by following the debate on this forum, so who knows if we keep piecing together bits of evidence we might be able to come to a reasonable opinion about what really did happen. That's not to say that we definitely will. It is hard being a Ricardian! Small steps at a time that is what Philippa, John and Annette have been doing for years.
>
> Mary
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Karen Clark wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > I don't assume Hastings was innocent of anything, nor do I assume him guilty. The haste of his execution does bother me. <snip>
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Right. It bothers me, too, assuming that it's accurately reported, but that's part of the problem. We don't have an accurate or complete account. I *am* concerned with whether Hastings was innocent or guilty because it makes a great difference in how I, personally, feel about Hastings's execution whether or not there was a trial. If Richard killed him to get him out of the way because he (Hastings) opposed Richard's desire to become king, that's a whole different matter than killing him because he was a key member of a treasonous plot to kill Richard (and Buckingham). I think it's essential for anyone discussing the execution to keep open the possibility that the plot was real and to balance Richard's letters (which explain his actions to some degree) against Mancini/Croyland (who assume motives that they could not possibly know). I wasn't talking about you specifically but about all of us and about the need to consider what evidence is available without jumping to conclusions (as Mancini and the Croyland chronicler did). It's unfortunate that the Croyland chronicler (despite his obvious bias) gives no details, which leads to reliance on More (Morton?)'s detailed but highly unreliable account. (Even Kendall, if I recall correctly, resorts to More for some elements of the Hastings incident.)
> >
> > But my purpose in posting was actually to point out the irony of our position as Ricardians. I think Buck was the first to state that Richard "should" have been more ruthless with his enemies, especially if he were primarily concerned with gaining and keeping the throne, but as I said (and you seem to agree), we wouldn't be Ricardians had he done so. How very sad.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

If you were going to assassinate someone probably a dagger would be the better option than a sword....Scary...Eileen

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, the plot thickens! I know of the following as reported by Mancini: "In the meantime the duke summoned to London all the peers of the realm ... Each came with the retinue that his title and station demanded; but the duke advised them to retain a few attendants who were indispensable for their personal service and to send back the others ... he alleged the fear of the London citizens, lest so great a concourse of men in a wealthy city might turn to plundering, against the will of their masters ..." Are you thinking of this?
>
> By the way, a propos of nothing, I have found an overwhelming propensity among re-enactors to support the cause of Richard III. It's understandable among retinues like the Duke of Norfolk's, of which I am a sort of honorary member, but it's also widely evident among groups like the Beaufort Companye, who sport the murrey and blue whenever they don't have to don the blue and white. When I get a moment I'll ask one of the chaps who teaches swordsmanship.
> Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:50 PM
> Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS EXECUTION
>
>
>
>
> Hmm,
>
> Thank for that Annette. The murder indictments I have read, though, have left me with quite the opposite impression. And didn't Richard have to issue a proclamation before the coronation banning swords from the streets on that day?
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marie - I am almost certainly able to confirm that gents in the 15th century NEVER walked around armed with swords: this was something that arrived in the Tudor era. But if anyone knows differently please let me know. My understanding is partly from reading (but I can't remember what!) and partly from my re-enactor/living history friends, who would love to be able to ponce around wearing fancy swords and scabbards and all the accoutrements that go with them, but don't because it isn't authentic.
> > Cheers, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:23 PM
> > Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS EXECUTION
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Katy,
> >
> > Funnily enough I was thinking about that last night. I know people had their hands cut off at this period even for brawling in Westminster palace. Does anyone know offhand whether people were allowed to take their swords with them into the royal palace? If not, then something fishy was ceertainly going on if there was an armed fracas.
> > Maire
> >
> > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'll add my comment up here, this time:
> > >
> > > Drawing steel -- a sword -- in the presence of the king was a capital crime at one point. Was it still at this time? Would Richard, as Protector, have the same status as a king? Swords were being waved around when the fracas broke out in the council chamber. I don't have at hand More's account, which surely came from Morton, who was there -- does it say who drew first? If it was Hastings, that in itself might be grounds for immediate execution.
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Karen Clark]
> > >
> > > And I'll say it again. However you slice it, there's no mention of a trial
> > > > for any of these men. I don't know why it's so hard to accept that,
> > > > occasionally, Richard did things (like other kings and nobles did) that
> > > > weren't entirely in keeping with the law. Saying that doesn't mean I think
> > > > he was a monster, or that I believe every charge ever laid against him was
> > > > justified.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > [Doug}
> > >
> > > > How do we know that Hastings' execution WASN'T legal, with or without a
> > > > trial? It seems to me there are three points that have to be looked at.
> > > > First, just what acts were considered to be treasonous? Second, what proofs
> > > > were needed to show that someone HAD committed treason? Finally, what powers
> > > > were given to the Constable of England, OR the Council, in regards with
> > > > dealing with treasonous acts?
> > > > If I understand how the law operated in those times, between the death of
> > > > one king and the coronation of the next, the Constable of England acted as
> > > > de-facto monarch. It would have been his responsibility to maintain order in
> > > > the kingdom until the newly-crowned king was officially placed at the head
> > > > of the government.In Richard's case, not only was he Constable, he was also
> > > > Protector and, going by either date for the Council meeting, quite possibly
> > > > viewed by many members of that Council as the as-yet-uncrowned King.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes...we're good...I think Richard would be very proud of his little band of diehard followers...as we are of him. Call me daft if you like but its my belief he knows what is going on and follows everything......Eileen
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Mary and Eileen, thank you for that. For my part, I am always learning stuff on this forum too, so kudos from me to amazing researchers like Marie, Brian, Stephen, Paul, Roslyn and Katy, and many others to whom I apologise if I've overlooked you - many of these people were already posting fascinating information even before I joined, which must be five or more years ago. I like to feel we can be generous in sharing what our research has taught us, and I certainly feel I know a lot of you as friends.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:15 PM
> Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS EXECUTION
>
>
>
> I agree Mary. Some excellent posts on this Topic in the last few days....very informative Eileen
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> I have learned quite a bit over the last few days regarding Richard's authority as Protector and as Lord Constable by following the debate on this forum, so who knows if we keep piecing together bits of evidence we might be able to come to a reasonable opinion about what really did happen. That's not to say that we definitely will. It is hard being a Ricardian! Small steps at a time that is what Philippa, John and Annette have been doing for years.
> >
> > Mary
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Karen Clark wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > I don't assume Hastings was innocent of anything, nor do I assume him guilty. The haste of his execution does bother me. <snip>
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Right. It bothers me, too, assuming that it's accurately reported, but that's part of the problem. We don't have an accurate or complete account. I *am* concerned with whether Hastings was innocent or guilty because it makes a great difference in how I, personally, feel about Hastings's execution whether or not there was a trial. If Richard killed him to get him out of the way because he (Hastings) opposed Richard's desire to become king, that's a whole different matter than killing him because he was a key member of a treasonous plot to kill Richard (and Buckingham). I think it's essential for anyone discussing the execution to keep open the possibility that the plot was real and to balance Richard's letters (which explain his actions to some degree) against Mancini/Croyland (who assume motives that they could not possibly know). I wasn't talking about you specifically but about all of us and about the need to consider what evidence is available without jumping to conclusions (as Mancini and the Croyland chronicler did). It's unfortunate that the Croyland chronicler (despite his obvious bias) gives no details, which leads to reliance on More (Morton?)'s detailed but highly unreliable account. (Even Kendall, if I recall correctly, resorts to More for some elements of the Hastings incident.)
> > >
> > > But my purpose in posting was actually to point out the irony of our position as Ricardians. I think Buck was the first to state that Richard "should" have been more ruthless with his enemies, especially if he were primarily concerned with gaining and keeping the throne, but as I said (and you seem to agree), we wouldn't be Ricardians had he done so. How very sad.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Katy,
>
> Funnily enough I was thinking about that last night. I know people had their hands cut off at this period even for brawling in Westminster palace. Does anyone know offhand whether people were allowed to take their swords with them into the royal palace? If not, then something fishy was ceertainly going on if there was an armed fracas.
> Maire
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> > I'll add my comment up here, this time:
> >
> > Drawing steel -- a sword -- in the presence of the king was a capital crime at one point.



This would probably be a good time for someone to check and see what that account of the uproar in the council chamber (from More's History of King Richard III) actually says. Since I don't have it at hand, I was relying on my memory and we all know what that means. But I'm fairly certain that it says that swords were drawn. Could someone please quote us the relevant bits?

Katy

From: "Annette Carson" <email@...>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION


Doug, another interesting aspect of the Constable's Court (or Court of
Chivalry) was that sentences passed were not by common law but by the law of
arms, so they did not include the options of attainder, forfeiture of lands,
etc. As you probably know, Hastings was never attainted. Ross mentions
Richard's generosity to his widow, while using the fact that he was not
attainted to denigrate the extent of that generosity. However, Ross is so
busy decrying Richard that he fails to note that this very lack of attainder
tends to support the view that Hastings was arrested in an act of armed
treason by Richard using his powers as Constable of England, i.e. precisely
what Mancini quotes in Richard's own words: "an ambush had been prepared for
him, and they had come in with hidden arms, that they might be the first to
open the attack". Hastings was arrested for treason, says Mancini (only he
calls it "the false pretext of treason"). He goes on to say a herald later
proclaimed that "a plot had been detected in the citadel, and Hastings, the
originator of the plot, had paid the penalty". Another reference to the same
plot occurs in the 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen', the College of
Arms MS discovered by Richard Firth Green, whose author records in the 1480s
"there was divers imagined the death of he Duke of Gloucester, and it was
discovered, and the Lord Hastings was taken in the Tower and beheaded
forthwith" - this without Mancini's editorialising about "pretexts". So the
event is quite satisfactorily recorded contemporaneously with no assistance
needed from More or Vergil.
Regards, Annette

Thank you for the information. Looks as if I'm going to have to start
digging around for books on legal practices in the 15th century. Hope
they're in English!
> P.S. It is also worth noting that there appear to have been seven arrests
> associated with this plot if you include Thomas Stanley.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Annette Carson
> To:
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 5:51 PM
> Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now
> HASTINGS EXECUTION
>
>
>
> Doug: //snip// What were the powers of the Constable? //snip//
>
> Sorry I don't have time to provide a full answer as I'm very involved in
> other stuff. The Constable of England presided over his own martial court,
> delivered summary judgements (verdicts and sentences) without appeal, and
> authorised summary executions. There are some written analyses of the
> Constable's role but I don't have time to find the references. It was also
> a role that was continually evolving: Ross asserts that Edward IV expanded
> Richard's powers as Constable. Some of this is in "Maligned King"
> In haste, Annette
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

This link to More's History (I use the term loosely) was posted on here recently.

http://thomasmorestudies.org/r3concordance/framconc.htm

Basically after Richard has requested some strawberries from Morton's garden, to which Morton replies "Gladly my Lord. Would God I had some better thing as ready to your pleasure as that"...of course he did...we all know Morton was a lovely guy....

Richard goes off for appprox one hour and on his return, whilst knawing on his lip and frowning, asks those assembled in the Council Chamber "What were they worthy to have, that compass and imagine the destruction of me being so near of the blood unto the King and Protector of his royal personage and realm"...Absolutely astonished Hastings, bravely replies "They were worthy to be punished as heinous TRAITORS whatsoever they were and all others affirmed the same.....

After some more waffling...Richard "plucks up his doublet sleeve to his elbow upon his left arm, where he showed a wearish withered arm and small as it was never other"

He then bangs the table, and in rush armed men who grab hold of Hastings, giving Stanley a bloodied head, whereupon, more or less, Richard insists Hastings is taken out then and there and headed. There is no mention of any assassination attempt nor anyone carrying weapons....Well....there wouldnt be would there?

Eileen
--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Katy,
> >
> > Funnily enough I was thinking about that last night. I know people had their hands cut off at this period even for brawling in Westminster palace. Does anyone know offhand whether people were allowed to take their swords with them into the royal palace? If not, then something fishy was ceertainly going on if there was an armed fracas.
> > Maire
> >
> > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'll add my comment up here, this time:
> > >
> > > Drawing steel -- a sword -- in the presence of the king was a capital crime at one point.
>
>
>
> This would probably be a good time for someone to check and see what that account of the uproar in the council chamber (from More's History of King Richard III) actually says. Since I don't have it at hand, I was relying on my memory and we all know what that means. But I'm fairly certain that it says that swords were drawn. Could someone please quote us the relevant bits?
>
> Katy
>

Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 9:34 PM


Karen wrote:
I'm not sure the Constable's powers extended to (essentially) pointing to a
man and saying 'off with his head!", which might sound a rather facile
rendering of what seems to have happened, but is nonetheless all that we
have to go on. As I said in an earlier post, this haste bothers me a lot.
If
Hastings could be hustled outside and beheaded, he could have been hustled
into a cell, then a trial, even a brief trial before the Constable, could
have been held. That even this wasn't done makes me wonder why. I'm not of
the 'if Richard did it, it must have been ok' school of thought. This is
something I'm going to be wrestling with for some time.


Karen, from what I've gathered from other posts concerning the powers of the
Constable (and what little I THOUGHT I knew), it rather looks as if the
Constable could legally be the prosecutor, the jury AND the judge in those
cases which came under his authority. If true, that might very well explain
the seeming "haste" with which Hastings' execution took place. It rather
looks to me as if that very "haste", the ability to quickly try and execute
persons accused of treason, was why the Constable had been given such
authority in the first place. Whether that authority was originally intended
to extend beyond the battlefield I don't know.
I would also think there's the very real probability that those recording
the events, Rous, Mancini, were as confused about the legal status of such
acts by a Constable of England as we are and, in their ignorance, reported a
legal, if unusual, act (Hastings' legal execution for an act of treason on
the sole authority of the Constable) as something it wasn't - Richard's
elimination of someone who refused to support him (for whatever reason).
I've got the Pelican History of England with a fairly comprehensive book
list in the back - looks like I'll have to start digging!
Doug

Doug, when I was researching the Constable I recall I looked at Shakespeare's scene of the Southampton Plot arrests in Henry V. Unfortunately Shakespeare doesn't make use of the Constable in their condemnation, but it's an interesting illustration of what Shakespeare imagined took place in such circumstances (which were, of course, not in a battlefield context).
Cheers, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS EXECUTION
//snip// ... it rather looks as if the Constable could legally be the prosecutor, the jury AND the judge in those cases which came under his authority. If true, that might very well explain
the seeming "haste" with which Hastings' execution took place. It rather
looks to me as if that very "haste", the ability to quickly try and execute
persons accused of treason, was why the Constable had been given such
authority in the first place. Whether that authority was originally intended
to extend beyond the battlefield I don't know.
Doug //snip//

I remember reading in one of Carl Sagan's books about how they once
thought that Geoffrey of Monmouth's "Historia Regum Britanniae" was an
actual historical account of King Arthur's life until it was
discovered that Tintagel Castle, the place he names as Arthur's
birthplace, wasn't built until the 13th century, with no evidence of a
prior castle to be found there. That one item was enough to turn the
work from fact to fiction. We know that the withered arm story about
Richard is false (unless, of course, you believe in sorcery,) so why
do we continue to believe any of the rest? More says there was no
trial. Is that supposed to mean something?

Gilda



On Oct 16, 2012, at 12:58 PM, EileenB wrote:

>
> This link to More's History (I use the term loosely) was posted on
> here recently.
>
> http://thomasmorestudies.org/r3concordance/framconc.htm
>
> Basically after Richard has requested some strawberries from
> Morton's garden, to which Morton replies "Gladly my Lord. Would God
> I had some better thing as ready to your pleasure as that"...of
> course he did...we all know Morton was a lovely guy....
>
> Richard goes off for appprox one hour and on his return, whilst
> knawing on his lip and frowning, asks those assembled in the Council
> Chamber "What were they worthy to have, that compass and imagine
> the destruction of me being so near of the blood unto the King and
> Protector of his royal personage and realm"...Absolutely astonished
> Hastings, bravely replies "They were worthy to be punished as
> heinous TRAITORS whatsoever they were and all others affirmed the
> same.....
>
> After some more waffling...Richard "plucks up his doublet sleeve to
> his elbow upon his left arm, where he showed a wearish withered arm
> and small as it was never other"
>
> He then bangs the table, and in rush armed men who grab hold of
> Hastings, giving Stanley a bloodied head, whereupon, more or less,
> Richard insists Hastings is taken out then and there and headed.
> There is no mention of any assassination attempt nor anyone carrying
> weapons....Well....there wouldnt be would there?
>
> Eileen

Hallo Gilda..The problem is....as Sir Winston Churchill said..."The Victor writes the History"...Eileen

--- In , Gilda Felt <gildaevf@...> wrote:
>
> I remember reading in one of Carl Sagan's books about how they once
> thought that Geoffrey of Monmouth's "Historia Regum Britanniae" was an
> actual historical account of King Arthur's life until it was
> discovered that Tintagel Castle, the place he names as Arthur's
> birthplace, wasn't built until the 13th century, with no evidence of a
> prior castle to be found there. That one item was enough to turn the
> work from fact to fiction. We know that the withered arm story about
> Richard is false (unless, of course, you believe in sorcery,) so why
> do we continue to believe any of the rest? More says there was no
> trial. Is that supposed to mean something?
>
> Gilda
>
>
>
> On Oct 16, 2012, at 12:58 PM, EileenB wrote:
>
> >
> > This link to More's History (I use the term loosely) was posted on
> > here recently.
> >
> > http://thomasmorestudies.org/r3concordance/framconc.htm
> >
> > Basically after Richard has requested some strawberries from
> > Morton's garden, to which Morton replies "Gladly my Lord. Would God
> > I had some better thing as ready to your pleasure as that"...of
> > course he did...we all know Morton was a lovely guy....
> >
> > Richard goes off for appprox one hour and on his return, whilst
> > knawing on his lip and frowning, asks those assembled in the Council
> > Chamber "What were they worthy to have, that compass and imagine
> > the destruction of me being so near of the blood unto the King and
> > Protector of his royal personage and realm"...Absolutely astonished
> > Hastings, bravely replies "They were worthy to be punished as
> > heinous TRAITORS whatsoever they were and all others affirmed the
> > same.....
> >
> > After some more waffling...Richard "plucks up his doublet sleeve to
> > his elbow upon his left arm, where he showed a wearish withered arm
> > and small as it was never other"
> >
> > He then bangs the table, and in rush armed men who grab hold of
> > Hastings, giving Stanley a bloodied head, whereupon, more or less,
> > Richard insists Hastings is taken out then and there and headed.
> > There is no mention of any assassination attempt nor anyone carrying
> > weapons....Well....there wouldnt be would there?
> >
> > Eileen
>

From The Real Reason Hastings Lost his Head (Part 1) by David Johnson...Ricardian Bulletin Winter 2007.....

"Crowland revealed how on 10th May Richard 'received the solemn office which had fallen to Duke Humphrey of Gloucester who during the minority of King Henry, was called protector of the kingdom. He (Richard) exercised this authority with the consent and the good-will of all the lords, commanding and forbidding in EVERYTHING LIKE ANOTHER KING"...
I think this pretty well covers the question of how much power Richard in his position of Lord Protector held......Eileen

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Hallo Gilda..The problem is....as Sir Winston Churchill said..."The Victor writes the History"...Eileen
>
> --- In , Gilda Felt <gildaevf@> wrote:
> >
> > I remember reading in one of Carl Sagan's books about how they once
> > thought that Geoffrey of Monmouth's "Historia Regum Britanniae" was an
> > actual historical account of King Arthur's life until it was
> > discovered that Tintagel Castle, the place he names as Arthur's
> > birthplace, wasn't built until the 13th century, with no evidence of a
> > prior castle to be found there. That one item was enough to turn the
> > work from fact to fiction. We know that the withered arm story about
> > Richard is false (unless, of course, you believe in sorcery,) so why
> > do we continue to believe any of the rest? More says there was no
> > trial. Is that supposed to mean something?
> >
> > Gilda
> >
> >
> >
> > On Oct 16, 2012, at 12:58 PM, EileenB wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > This link to More's History (I use the term loosely) was posted on
> > > here recently.
> > >
> > > http://thomasmorestudies.org/r3concordance/framconc.htm
> > >
> > > Basically after Richard has requested some strawberries from
> > > Morton's garden, to which Morton replies "Gladly my Lord. Would God
> > > I had some better thing as ready to your pleasure as that"...of
> > > course he did...we all know Morton was a lovely guy....
> > >
> > > Richard goes off for appprox one hour and on his return, whilst
> > > knawing on his lip and frowning, asks those assembled in the Council
> > > Chamber "What were they worthy to have, that compass and imagine
> > > the destruction of me being so near of the blood unto the King and
> > > Protector of his royal personage and realm"...Absolutely astonished
> > > Hastings, bravely replies "They were worthy to be punished as
> > > heinous TRAITORS whatsoever they were and all others affirmed the
> > > same.....
> > >
> > > After some more waffling...Richard "plucks up his doublet sleeve to
> > > his elbow upon his left arm, where he showed a wearish withered arm
> > > and small as it was never other"
> > >
> > > He then bangs the table, and in rush armed men who grab hold of
> > > Hastings, giving Stanley a bloodied head, whereupon, more or less,
> > > Richard insists Hastings is taken out then and there and headed.
> > > There is no mention of any assassination attempt nor anyone carrying
> > > weapons....Well....there wouldnt be would there?
> > >
> > > Eileen
> >
>

Hi Karen,

I'm not sure why you're so certain there was no time for a trial. The sort of trial that Hastings would have received if he were caught in the act would not need to have taken more than 5 minutes. Was Hastings not beheaded just before dinner time? If the council had gathered for a two or three hour morning session there could have been plenty of time for a trial by the Constable. Even normal common law trials in those days were over shockingly quickly by our standards - rarely more than one sitting.
The thing that seems to have disturbed contemporaries was not the lack of judicial proceedings - or that it wasn't a treasonable charge - but that the execution was so hasty. I don't know what was normal under the law of arms, but in common law cases convicted felons were usually given till the next day to prepare their souls. I understand Richard is supposed to have been afraid that if he waited he could not go through with it. But a bad move from a PR point of view, that is for sure.
Marie
By the way, thanks to everybody, especially Annette, for the information in this discussion.
Marie



--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 9:34 PM
>
>
> Karen wrote:
> I'm not sure the Constable's powers extended to (essentially) pointing to a
> man and saying 'off with his head!", which might sound a rather facile
> rendering of what seems to have happened, but is nonetheless all that we
> have to go on. As I said in an earlier post, this haste bothers me a lot.
> If
> Hastings could be hustled outside and beheaded, he could have been hustled
> into a cell, then a trial, even a brief trial before the Constable, could
> have been held. That even this wasn't done makes me wonder why. I'm not of
> the 'if Richard did it, it must have been ok' school of thought. This is
> something I'm going to be wrestling with for some time.
>
>
> Karen, from what I've gathered from other posts concerning the powers of the
> Constable (and what little I THOUGHT I knew), it rather looks as if the
> Constable could legally be the prosecutor, the jury AND the judge in those
> cases which came under his authority. If true, that might very well explain
> the seeming "haste" with which Hastings' execution took place. It rather
> looks to me as if that very "haste", the ability to quickly try and execute
> persons accused of treason, was why the Constable had been given such
> authority in the first place. Whether that authority was originally intended
> to extend beyond the battlefield I don't know.
> I would also think there's the very real probability that those recording
> the events, Rous, Mancini, were as confused about the legal status of such
> acts by a Constable of England as we are and, in their ignorance, reported a
> legal, if unusual, act (Hastings' legal execution for an act of treason on
> the sole authority of the Constable) as something it wasn't - Richard's
> elimination of someone who refused to support him (for whatever reason).
> I've got the Pelican History of England with a fairly comprehensive book
> list in the back - looks like I'll have to start digging!
> Doug
>

Just to butt in with a return to the original topic, more evidence of the future King George VII's political neutrality:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19959233


Don't worry, though, he won't have any real power...




________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 16 October 2012, 21:51
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS EXECUTION


 


Hi Karen,

I'm not sure why you're so certain there was no time for a trial. The sort of trial that Hastings would have received if he were caught in the act would not need to have taken more than 5 minutes. Was Hastings not beheaded just before dinner time? If the council had gathered for a two or three hour morning session there could have been plenty of time for a trial by the Constable. Even normal common law trials in those days were over shockingly quickly by our standards - rarely more than one sitting.
The thing that seems to have disturbed contemporaries was not the lack of judicial proceedings - or that it wasn't a treasonable charge - but that the execution was so hasty. I don't know what was normal under the law of arms, but in common law cases convicted felons were usually given till the next day to prepare their souls. I understand Richard is supposed to have been afraid that if he waited he could not go through with it. But a bad move from a PR point of view, that is for sure.
Marie
By the way, thanks to everybody, especially Annette, for the information in this discussion.
Marie

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 9:34 PM
>
>
> Karen wrote:
> I'm not sure the Constable's powers extended to (essentially) pointing to a
> man and saying 'off with his head!", which might sound a rather facile
> rendering of what seems to have happened, but is nonetheless all that we
> have to go on. As I said in an earlier post, this haste bothers me a lot.
> If
> Hastings could be hustled outside and beheaded, he could have been hustled
> into a cell, then a trial, even a brief trial before the Constable, could
> have been held. That even this wasn't done makes me wonder why. I'm not of
> the 'if Richard did it, it must have been ok' school of thought. This is
> something I'm going to be wrestling with for some time.
>
>
> Karen, from what I've gathered from other posts concerning the powers of the
> Constable (and what little I THOUGHT I knew), it rather looks as if the
> Constable could legally be the prosecutor, the jury AND the judge in those
> cases which came under his authority. If true, that might very well explain
> the seeming "haste" with which Hastings' execution took place. It rather
> looks to me as if that very "haste", the ability to quickly try and execute
> persons accused of treason, was why the Constable had been given such
> authority in the first place. Whether that authority was originally intended
> to extend beyond the battlefield I don't know.
> I would also think there's the very real probability that those recording
> the events, Rous, Mancini, were as confused about the legal status of such
> acts by a Constable of England as we are and, in their ignorance, reported a
> legal, if unusual, act (Hastings' legal execution for an act of treason on
> the sole authority of the Constable) as something it wasn't - Richard's
> elimination of someone who refused to support him (for whatever reason).
> I've got the Pelican History of England with a fairly comprehensive book
> list in the back - looks like I'll have to start digging!
> Doug
>

Doug

My gut feeling is that it's a bit of a stretch to call what happened (or
what the only sources we have tell us happened) that day as a trial before
the Constable. I'm going to be digging as well, but I think you'll get there
before me!

Karen

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:59:51 -0500
To: <>
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION







Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 9:34 PM

Karen wrote:
I'm not sure the Constable's powers extended to (essentially) pointing to a
man and saying 'off with his head!", which might sound a rather facile
rendering of what seems to have happened, but is nonetheless all that we
have to go on. As I said in an earlier post, this haste bothers me a lot.
If
Hastings could be hustled outside and beheaded, he could have been hustled
into a cell, then a trial, even a brief trial before the Constable, could
have been held. That even this wasn't done makes me wonder why. I'm not of
the 'if Richard did it, it must have been ok' school of thought. This is
something I'm going to be wrestling with for some time.

Karen, from what I've gathered from other posts concerning the powers of the
Constable (and what little I THOUGHT I knew), it rather looks as if the
Constable could legally be the prosecutor, the jury AND the judge in those
cases which came under his authority. If true, that might very well explain
the seeming "haste" with which Hastings' execution took place. It rather
looks to me as if that very "haste", the ability to quickly try and execute
persons accused of treason, was why the Constable had been given such
authority in the first place. Whether that authority was originally intended
to extend beyond the battlefield I don't know.
I would also think there's the very real probability that those recording
the events, Rous, Mancini, were as confused about the legal status of such
acts by a Constable of England as we are and, in their ignorance, reported a
legal, if unusual, act (Hastings' legal execution for an act of treason on
the sole authority of the Constable) as something it wasn't - Richard's
elimination of someone who refused to support him (for whatever reason).
I've got the Pelican History of England with a fairly comprehensive book
list in the back - looks like I'll have to start digging!
Doug

Interestingly, his father when Protector back in the 1450s, didn't use his
office to execute Somerset, though I think he would have dearly liked to.
Somerset was kept in the Tower for about a year, York stating that as it was
a large Council that charged him, it could only be a large Council that
oversaw his trial. York never enjoyed the full support of council, a great
many members came up with reasons why they couldn't attend. Just like a
king, the Protector couldn't just order executions as he felt like it.
York's appointment (both times) came after lengthy debate in parliament and
with some strict parameters. Richard's protectorate wasn't ratified by
parliament, so we don't know what conditions there might have been had
Edward V's reign continued. Though there have been some detailed arguments,
I'm unconvinced that Richard's actions re Hastings were entirely legal. A
Protector still had to work with council and parliament, just as a king did.

Karen

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 19:39:15 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION






From The Real Reason Hastings Lost his Head (Part 1) by David
Johnson...Ricardian Bulletin Winter 2007.....

"Crowland revealed how on 10th May Richard 'received the solemn office which
had fallen to Duke Humphrey of Gloucester who during the minority of King
Henry, was called protector of the kingdom. He (Richard) exercised this
authority with the consent and the good-will of all the lords, commanding
and forbidding in EVERYTHING LIKE ANOTHER KING"...
I think this pretty well covers the question of how much power Richard in
his position of Lord Protector held......Eileen

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Interestingly, his father when Protector back in the 1450s, didn't use his office to execute Somerset, though I think he would have dearly liked to. <snip>

Carol responds:

True, but the circumstances weren't exactly parallel. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm unaware of any plot by Somerset on the Duke of York's life resembling the one that appears to have brought about Hastings' execution (assuming a real plot and ignoring Hastings' motivation for joining it).

But, coincidentally, I was about to mention that the act of Parliament that named Richard, Duke of York, as Protector, also made it a treasonable offense to kill him. Richard of Gloucester was undoubtedly aware of that provision and would, I'm sure, have applied it to his own situation. I suspect that Parliament would have held the same view, too late though it would have been had the plot (if real) succeeded. (Rot. Par. p. 379 and discussed in Halsted, p. 52--no doubt in more recent texts as well!).

Carol

Carol

Despite the (unintended) upset to one forum member, this discussion has been
extremely interesting. Where others can, I can't find any justification for
Hastings' execution, or more particularly the manner of it, especially as
none of the other supposed plotters lost their heads. Looking at it as
dispassionately as I can, it seems that Hastings was the specific target.
While I believe Richard acted outside the law in this, it doesn't tempt me
to chuck in my Ricardian credentials and join the Dark Side.

Assuming there was a plot involving HastingsŠ You're right, there was no
plot on York's life by Somerset but there was a (reported) assassination
attempt near York in 1454, orchestrated by Exeter and Egremont rather than
Somerset. Both were arrested and imprisoned, Exeter in Pontefract (and later
Wallingford) and Egremont in Newgate (from where he and his brother
escaped). They were leading a half baked rebellion in Lancashire and
Yorkshire at the time and the Percies (Egremont and his brothers) were
rounded up by the Nevills in November that year. Exeter took sanctuary at
Westminster, from where he was forceably removed. The charges against
Egremont weren't treason, and Exeter never came to trial because Henry VI
recovered, York resigned the protectorate and Exeter was freed. If there was
treason there, it would have been against the king, not York. As certainly
Egremont was behind the reported assassination attempt outside York, there
is a direct parallel here. York was very cautious during his protectorates,
apart from the deaths of Somerset and Northumberland at first St Albans, no
noblemen lost their lives. His brief was clear: defence of the realm against
internal and external enemies. As there was no Act ratifying Richard's
protectorate, it's impossible to say what his brief might have been, but it
was likely to have been similar. Caution is wise for a Protector, as revenge
can be very sweet. The fallout for York after both his terms as Protector
demonstrate just how quickly the tide can turn.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 00:50:58 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION






Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Interestingly, his father when Protector back in the 1450s, didn't use his
office to execute Somerset, though I think he would have dearly liked to. <snip>

Carol responds:

True, but the circumstances weren't exactly parallel. Correct me if I'm
wrong, but I'm unaware of any plot by Somerset on the Duke of York's life
resembling the one that appears to have brought about Hastings' execution
(assuming a real plot and ignoring Hastings' motivation for joining it).

But, coincidentally, I was about to mention that the act of Parliament that
named Richard, Duke of York, as Protector, also made it a treasonable
offense to kill him. Richard of Gloucester was undoubtedly aware of that
provision and would, I'm sure, have applied it to his own situation. I
suspect that Parliament would have held the same view, too late though it
would have been had the plot (if real) succeeded. (Rot. Par. p. 379 and
discussed in Halsted, p. 52--no doubt in more recent texts as well!).

Carol

Hi, All -



Josephine Tey's book is, of course, not a scholarly work. It doesn't have
footnotes, and the information in it may have been superseded to a certain
extent by discoveries in the last half century or so, but I think her
conclusions are of interest and may also provoke some further discussion.



Tey writes that all the preparations for the coronation of the young Prince
were going ahead as one would expect, when Bishop Stillington enters the
picture with his information about King Edward's previous nuptials with
Eleanor Butler. Tey makes the point that Stillington had been the Privy Seal
and Lord Chancellor and then ambassador to Brittany, "so Edward either owed
him something or liked him. And he, on his part, had no reason to cook up
anything against Edward. Supposing he was the cooking sort." Tey also writes
that there was a long meeting of the Lords on the 9th., after which
Stillington's report was prepared to be put before Parliament on the 25th.
On the 10th. Richard sent a letter to the city of York asking for troops to
protect and support him. On the 11th. he sent a similar letter to his cousin
Lord Nevill, "so the danger was real." On the 20th. he went "with a small
body of retainers" to the Tower "to interrupt a meeting of the conspirators"
and arrested Lord Hastings, Lord Stanley, and Bishop Morton. Tey writes that
there was a proclamation issued giving details of the plot, "but apparently
no copy now exists." She continues through the researcher, Carradine:

"Only one of the conspirators was beheaded, and that one,
oddly enough, seems to have been an old friend of both Edward and Richard.
Lord Hastings."

[Grant comments:] "Yes, according to the sainted More he was
rushe down to the courtyard and beheaded on the nearest log."

"Rushed nothing," said Carradine disgustedly. "He was
beheaded a week later. There's a contemporary letter about it that gives the
date. Moreover, Richard couldn't have done it out of sheer vindictiveness,
because he granted Hastings's forfeited estates to his widow, and restored
the children's right of succession to them - which they had automatically
lost."

"No, the death of Hastings must have been inevitable," said
Grant, who was thumbing through More's Richard III. "Even the sainted More
says: 'Undoubtedly the Protector loved him well, and was loth to have lost
him.' What happened to Stanley and to John Morton?"

"Stanley ws pardoned - What are you groaning about?"

"Poor Richard. That was his death warrant."

"Death warrant? How could pardoning Stanley be his death
warrant?"

"Because it was Stanley's sudden decision to go over to the
other side that lost Richard the battle of Bosworth."

"You don't say."

"Odd to think that if Richard had seen to it that Stanley had
gone to the block like his much-loved Hastings, he would have won the battle
of Bosworth, there would never have been any Tudors, and the hunchbacked
monster that appears in the Tudor tradition would never have been invented.
On his previous showing he would probably have had the best and most
enlightened reign in history."

At pg. 131 of my book, through Carradine, Tey concludes that
Richard was aiming to bring an end to the York-Lancaster fight once and for
all. Carradine notes that everybody attended Richard's coronation: "You
can't help being struck by the fact that practically nobody stayed away.
Lancaster or York."



So, that is the summary of the couple of pages that deal with the events
surrounding Hastings execution. I am particularly interested, of course, in
what the evidence is for the date of Hastings execution actually being a
week after his arrest. In addition, if I followed the previous discussion
about a conviction in the court of the

Constable (if that's the right term) being different from the usual finding
of treason, if there was no attainder, there was no forfeiture of a
traitor's estates. Did Richard write or cause to write a letter to Hastings'
widow confirming the estates in her and the right of succession to their
children? Or was Tey just inferring that somehow? And, if Richard did write
such a letter, it is possible that, even tho there was no attainder and thus
no forfeiture, he wanted to assure "Mrs. Hastings" of that fact. In which
case, if that is true, it is still a thoughtful gesture and might even
partially explain why Richard would have proceeded by that route: i.e. to
ensure that Hastings' widow and children would inherit his property. If
Richard had been friends with Hastings, he may have been fondly disposed
toward Hastings' wife as well.



Just a few thoughts,



Johanne



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 10:27 PM
To:
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION





Carol

Despite the (unintended) upset to one forum member, this discussion has been
extremely interesting. Where others can, I can't find any justification for
Hastings' execution, or more particularly the manner of it, especially as
none of the other supposed plotters lost their heads. Looking at it as
dispassionately as I can, it seems that Hastings was the specific target.
While I believe Richard acted outside the law in this, it doesn't tempt me
to chuck in my Ricardian credentials and join the Dark Side.

Assuming there was a plot involving Hastingsý You're right, there was no
plot on York's life by Somerset but there was a (reported) assassination
attempt near York in 1454, orchestrated by Exeter and Egremont rather than
Somerset. Both were arrested and imprisoned, Exeter in Pontefract (and later
Wallingford) and Egremont in Newgate (from where he and his brother
escaped). They were leading a half baked rebellion in Lancashire and
Yorkshire at the time and the Percies (Egremont and his brothers) were
rounded up by the Nevills in November that year. Exeter took sanctuary at
Westminster, from where he was forceably removed. The charges against
Egremont weren't treason, and Exeter never came to trial because Henry VI
recovered, York resigned the protectorate and Exeter was freed. If there was
treason there, it would have been against the king, not York. As certainly
Egremont was behind the reported assassination attempt outside York, there
is a direct parallel here. York was very cautious during his protectorates,
apart from the deaths of Somerset and Northumberland at first St Albans, no
noblemen lost their lives. His brief was clear: defence of the realm against
internal and external enemies. As there was no Act ratifying Richard's
protectorate, it's impossible to say what his brief might have been, but it
was likely to have been similar. Caution is wise for a Protector, as revenge
can be very sweet. The fallout for York after both his terms as Protector
demonstrate just how quickly the tide can turn.

Karen

Although the medieval castle at Tintagel dates from well after Arthur's time, the site was in use in the 5th century, possibly as a monastery. There could still be a grain of truth in its identification as Arthur's birthplace.

Richard G

--- In , Gilda Felt <gildaevf@...> wrote:
>
> I remember reading in one of Carl Sagan's books about how they once
> thought that Geoffrey of Monmouth's "Historia Regum Britanniae" was an
> actual historical account of King Arthur's life until it was
> discovered that Tintagel Castle, the place he names as Arthur's
> birthplace, wasn't built until the 13th century, with no evidence of a
> prior castle to be found there. That one item was enough to turn the
> work from fact to fiction. We know that the withered arm story about
> Richard is false (unless, of course, you believe in sorcery,) so why
> do we continue to believe any of the rest? More says there was no
> trial. Is that supposed to mean something?
>
> Gilda
>
>
>
> On Oct 16, 2012, at 12:58 PM, EileenB wrote:
>
> >
> > This link to More's History (I use the term loosely) was posted on
> > here recently.
> >
> > http://thomasmorestudies.org/r3concordance/framconc.htm
> >
> > Basically after Richard has requested some strawberries from
> > Morton's garden, to which Morton replies "Gladly my Lord. Would God
> > I had some better thing as ready to your pleasure as that"...of
> > course he did...we all know Morton was a lovely guy....
> >
> > Richard goes off for appprox one hour and on his return, whilst
> > knawing on his lip and frowning, asks those assembled in the Council
> > Chamber "What were they worthy to have, that compass and imagine
> > the destruction of me being so near of the blood unto the King and
> > Protector of his royal personage and realm"...Absolutely astonished
> > Hastings, bravely replies "They were worthy to be punished as
> > heinous TRAITORS whatsoever they were and all others affirmed the
> > same.....
> >
> > After some more waffling...Richard "plucks up his doublet sleeve to
> > his elbow upon his left arm, where he showed a wearish withered arm
> > and small as it was never other"
> >
> > He then bangs the table, and in rush armed men who grab hold of
> > Hastings, giving Stanley a bloodied head, whereupon, more or less,
> > Richard insists Hastings is taken out then and there and headed.
> > There is no mention of any assassination attempt nor anyone carrying
> > weapons....Well....there wouldnt be would there?
> >
> > Eileen
>

Johane: //snip// I am particularly interested, of course, in what the
evidence is for the date of Hastings execution actually being a week after
his arrest. //snip//

Annette responds: This was a lengthy discussion started by Dr Alison Hanham
and continued over some months with other historians in certain academic
journals back in the 1970s. If I recall correctly, Dr Hanham thought she had
discovered evidence in the minutes of one of the London companies indicating
that Hastings was still living on or about 20 June. The problem was (is)
that sometimes such entries are not assigned dates, or entries are out of
sequence, so this item needed verification. Other parties to the debate
(Wolfe was one, I believe) dredged up other items for comparison, including
Hastings's IPM, and the end result was that everyone accepted the original
date of 13 June. Nevertheless it's worth reading Hanham's theories about
this in her "Richard III and his Early Historians" because there are
interesting discrepancies in the narrative chronicles. But I must leave her
to make her own case - unless someone is brave enough to take it on???
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier60@...>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:56 AM
Subject: Hastings execution in *Daughter of
Time* (was RE: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS EXECUTION)


Hi, All -

Josephine Tey's book is, of course, not a scholarly work. It doesn't have
footnotes, and the information in it may have been superseded to a certain
extent by discoveries in the last half century or so, but I think her
conclusions are of interest and may also provoke some further discussion.



Tey writes that all the preparations for the coronation of the young Prince
were going ahead as one would expect, when Bishop Stillington enters the
picture with his information about King Edward's previous nuptials with
Eleanor Butler. Tey makes the point that Stillington had been the Privy Seal
and Lord Chancellor and then ambassador to Brittany, "so Edward either owed
him something or liked him. And he, on his part, had no reason to cook up
anything against Edward. Supposing he was the cooking sort." Tey also writes
that there was a long meeting of the Lords on the 9th., after which
Stillington's report was prepared to be put before Parliament on the 25th.
On the 10th. Richard sent a letter to the city of York asking for troops to
protect and support him. On the 11th. he sent a similar letter to his cousin
Lord Nevill, "so the danger was real." On the 20th. he went "with a small
body of retainers" to the Tower "to interrupt a meeting of the conspirators"
and arrested Lord Hastings, Lord Stanley, and Bishop Morton. Tey writes that
there was a proclamation issued giving details of the plot, "but apparently
no copy now exists." She continues through the researcher, Carradine:

"Only one of the conspirators was beheaded, and that one,
oddly enough, seems to have been an old friend of both Edward and Richard.
Lord Hastings."

[Grant comments:] "Yes, according to the sainted More he was
rushe down to the courtyard and beheaded on the nearest log."

"Rushed nothing," said Carradine disgustedly. "He was
beheaded a week later. There's a contemporary letter about it that gives the
date. Moreover, Richard couldn't have done it out of sheer vindictiveness,
because he granted Hastings's forfeited estates to his widow, and restored
the children's right of succession to them - which they had automatically
lost."

"No, the death of Hastings must have been inevitable," said
Grant, who was thumbing through More's Richard III. "Even the sainted More
says: 'Undoubtedly the Protector loved him well, and was loth to have lost
him.' What happened to Stanley and to John Morton?"

"Stanley ws pardoned - What are you groaning about?"

"Poor Richard. That was his death warrant."

"Death warrant? How could pardoning Stanley be his death
warrant?"

"Because it was Stanley's sudden decision to go over to the
other side that lost Richard the battle of Bosworth."

"You don't say."

"Odd to think that if Richard had seen to it that Stanley had
gone to the block like his much-loved Hastings, he would have won the battle
of Bosworth, there would never have been any Tudors, and the hunchbacked
monster that appears in the Tudor tradition would never have been invented.
On his previous showing he would probably have had the best and most
enlightened reign in history."

At pg. 131 of my book, through Carradine, Tey concludes that
Richard was aiming to bring an end to the York-Lancaster fight once and for
all. Carradine notes that everybody attended Richard's coronation: "You
can't help being struck by the fact that practically nobody stayed away.
Lancaster or York."



So, that is the summary of the couple of pages that deal with the events
surrounding Hastings execution. I am particularly interested, of course, in
what the evidence is for the date of Hastings execution actually being a
week after his arrest. In addition, if I followed the previous discussion
about a conviction in the court of the

Constable (if that's the right term) being different from the usual finding
of treason, if there was no attainder, there was no forfeiture of a
traitor's estates. Did Richard write or cause to write a letter to Hastings'
widow confirming the estates in her and the right of succession to their
children? Or was Tey just inferring that somehow? And, if Richard did write
such a letter, it is possible that, even tho there was no attainder and thus
no forfeiture, he wanted to assure "Mrs. Hastings" of that fact. In which
case, if that is true, it is still a thoughtful gesture and might even
partially explain why Richard would have proceeded by that route: i.e. to
ensure that Hastings' widow and children would inherit his property. If
Richard had been friends with Hastings, he may have been fondly disposed
toward Hastings' wife as well.



Just a few thoughts,



Johanne



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 10:27 PM
To:
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION





Carol

Despite the (unintended) upset to one forum member, this discussion has been
extremely interesting. Where others can, I can't find any justification for
Hastings' execution, or more particularly the manner of it, especially as
none of the other supposed plotters lost their heads. Looking at it as
dispassionately as I can, it seems that Hastings was the specific target.
While I believe Richard acted outside the law in this, it doesn't tempt me
to chuck in my Ricardian credentials and join the Dark Side.

Assuming there was a plot involving Hastings© You're right, there was no
plot on York's life by Somerset but there was a (reported) assassination
attempt near York in 1454, orchestrated by Exeter and Egremont rather than
Somerset. Both were arrested and imprisoned, Exeter in Pontefract (and later
Wallingford) and Egremont in Newgate (from where he and his brother
escaped). They were leading a half baked rebellion in Lancashire and
Yorkshire at the time and the Percies (Egremont and his brothers) were
rounded up by the Nevills in November that year. Exeter took sanctuary at
Westminster, from where he was forceably removed. The charges against
Egremont weren't treason, and Exeter never came to trial because Henry VI
recovered, York resigned the protectorate and Exeter was freed. If there was
treason there, it would have been against the king, not York. As certainly
Egremont was behind the reported assassination attempt outside York, there
is a direct parallel here. York was very cautious during his protectorates,
apart from the deaths of Somerset and Northumberland at first St Albans, no
noblemen lost their lives. His brief was clear: defence of the realm against
internal and external enemies. As there was no Act ratifying Richard's
protectorate, it's impossible to say what his brief might have been, but it
was likely to have been similar. Caution is wise for a Protector, as revenge
can be very sweet. The fallout for York after both his terms as Protector
demonstrate just how quickly the tide can turn.

Karen











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

Yahoo! Groups Links

If this refers to the entry in the Mercer's Company records, the date of the
record is 15 June, but the date of the conversation isn't given. Hastings is
mentioned, there is no reference to his death, but as it was only 2 days
after 13 June, the man who wrote the report of the conversation (which was
tabled at that meeting) either might not have heard of his execution or not
had time to amend his report. I did bash out part of the relevant entry here
in the last day or so, it might have been missed. While it doesn't refer to
Hastings as 'the late lord Chamberlain' it's not exactly clear evidence he
was still alive on 15 June.

Karen

From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:02:27 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Hastings execution in *Daughter of
Time* (was RE: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS EXECUTION)






Johane: //snip// I am particularly interested, of course, in what the
evidence is for the date of Hastings execution actually being a week after
his arrest. //snip//

Annette responds: This was a lengthy discussion started by Dr Alison Hanham
and continued over some months with other historians in certain academic
journals back in the 1970s. If I recall correctly, Dr Hanham thought she had
discovered evidence in the minutes of one of the London companies indicating
that Hastings was still living on or about 20 June. The problem was (is)
that sometimes such entries are not assigned dates, or entries are out of
sequence, so this item needed verification. Other parties to the debate
(Wolfe was one, I believe) dredged up other items for comparison, including
Hastings's IPM, and the end result was that everyone accepted the original
date of 13 June. Nevertheless it's worth reading Hanham's theories about
this in her "Richard III and his Early Historians" because there are
interesting discrepancies in the narrative chronicles. But I must leave her
to make her own case - unless someone is brave enough to take it on???
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:56 AM
Subject: Hastings execution in *Daughter of
Time* (was RE: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS EXECUTION)

Hi, All -

Josephine Tey's book is, of course, not a scholarly work. It doesn't have
footnotes, and the information in it may have been superseded to a certain
extent by discoveries in the last half century or so, but I think her
conclusions are of interest and may also provoke some further discussion.

Tey writes that all the preparations for the coronation of the young Prince
were going ahead as one would expect, when Bishop Stillington enters the
picture with his information about King Edward's previous nuptials with
Eleanor Butler. Tey makes the point that Stillington had been the Privy Seal
and Lord Chancellor and then ambassador to Brittany, "so Edward either owed
him something or liked him. And he, on his part, had no reason to cook up
anything against Edward. Supposing he was the cooking sort." Tey also writes
that there was a long meeting of the Lords on the 9th., after which
Stillington's report was prepared to be put before Parliament on the 25th.
On the 10th. Richard sent a letter to the city of York asking for troops to
protect and support him. On the 11th. he sent a similar letter to his cousin
Lord Nevill, "so the danger was real." On the 20th. he went "with a small
body of retainers" to the Tower "to interrupt a meeting of the conspirators"
and arrested Lord Hastings, Lord Stanley, and Bishop Morton. Tey writes that
there was a proclamation issued giving details of the plot, "but apparently
no copy now exists." She continues through the researcher, Carradine:

"Only one of the conspirators was beheaded, and that one,
oddly enough, seems to have been an old friend of both Edward and Richard.
Lord Hastings."

[Grant comments:] "Yes, according to the sainted More he was
rushe down to the courtyard and beheaded on the nearest log."

"Rushed nothing," said Carradine disgustedly. "He was
beheaded a week later. There's a contemporary letter about it that gives the
date. Moreover, Richard couldn't have done it out of sheer vindictiveness,
because he granted Hastings's forfeited estates to his widow, and restored
the children's right of succession to them - which they had automatically
lost."

"No, the death of Hastings must have been inevitable," said
Grant, who was thumbing through More's Richard III. "Even the sainted More
says: 'Undoubtedly the Protector loved him well, and was loth to have lost
him.' What happened to Stanley and to John Morton?"

"Stanley ws pardoned - What are you groaning about?"

"Poor Richard. That was his death warrant."

"Death warrant? How could pardoning Stanley be his death
warrant?"

"Because it was Stanley's sudden decision to go over to the
other side that lost Richard the battle of Bosworth."

"You don't say."

"Odd to think that if Richard had seen to it that Stanley had
gone to the block like his much-loved Hastings, he would have won the battle
of Bosworth, there would never have been any Tudors, and the hunchbacked
monster that appears in the Tudor tradition would never have been invented.
On his previous showing he would probably have had the best and most
enlightened reign in history."

At pg. 131 of my book, through Carradine, Tey concludes that
Richard was aiming to bring an end to the York-Lancaster fight once and for
all. Carradine notes that everybody attended Richard's coronation: "You
can't help being struck by the fact that practically nobody stayed away.
Lancaster or York."

So, that is the summary of the couple of pages that deal with the events
surrounding Hastings execution. I am particularly interested, of course, in
what the evidence is for the date of Hastings execution actually being a
week after his arrest. In addition, if I followed the previous discussion
about a conviction in the court of the

Constable (if that's the right term) being different from the usual finding
of treason, if there was no attainder, there was no forfeiture of a
traitor's estates. Did Richard write or cause to write a letter to Hastings'
widow confirming the estates in her and the right of succession to their
children? Or was Tey just inferring that somehow? And, if Richard did write
such a letter, it is possible that, even tho there was no attainder and thus
no forfeiture, he wanted to assure "Mrs. Hastings" of that fact. In which
case, if that is true, it is still a thoughtful gesture and might even
partially explain why Richard would have proceeded by that route: i.e. to
ensure that Hastings' widow and children would inherit his property. If
Richard had been friends with Hastings, he may have been fondly disposed
toward Hastings' wife as well.

Just a few thoughts,

Johanne

From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 10:27 PM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION

Carol

Despite the (unintended) upset to one forum member, this discussion has been
extremely interesting. Where others can, I can't find any justification for
Hastings' execution, or more particularly the manner of it, especially as
none of the other supposed plotters lost their heads. Looking at it as
dispassionately as I can, it seems that Hastings was the specific target.
While I believe Richard acted outside the law in this, it doesn't tempt me
to chuck in my Ricardian credentials and join the Dark Side.

Assuming there was a plot involving Hastings© You're right, there was no
plot on York's life by Somerset but there was a (reported) assassination
attempt near York in 1454, orchestrated by Exeter and Egremont rather than
Somerset. Both were arrested and imprisoned, Exeter in Pontefract (and later
Wallingford) and Egremont in Newgate (from where he and his brother
escaped). They were leading a half baked rebellion in Lancashire and
Yorkshire at the time and the Percies (Egremont and his brothers) were
rounded up by the Nevills in November that year. Exeter took sanctuary at
Westminster, from where he was forceably removed. The charges against
Egremont weren't treason, and Exeter never came to trial because Henry VI
recovered, York resigned the protectorate and Exeter was freed. If there was
treason there, it would have been against the king, not York. As certainly
Egremont was behind the reported assassination attempt outside York, there
is a direct parallel here. York was very cautious during his protectorates,
apart from the deaths of Somerset and Northumberland at first St Albans, no
noblemen lost their lives. His brief was clear: defence of the realm against
internal and external enemies. As there was no Act ratifying Richard's
protectorate, it's impossible to say what his brief might have been, but it
was likely to have been similar. Caution is wise for a Protector, as revenge
can be very sweet. The fallout for York after both his terms as Protector
demonstrate just how quickly the tide can turn.

Karen



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

That may well be the Mercers' book entry. Hanham's case ran to five or six pages in her book and several written exchanges in academic journals. As I said, she makes some interesting points, but the bottom line is that Hastings's death took place on 13 June.


----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: Hastings execution in *Daughter of Time* (was RE: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS EXECUTION)



If this refers to the entry in the Mercer's Company records, the date of the
record is 15 June, but the date of the conversation isn't given. Hastings is
mentioned, there is no reference to his death, but as it was only 2 days
after 13 June, the man who wrote the report of the conversation (which was
tabled at that meeting) either might not have heard of his execution or not
had time to amend his report. I did bash out part of the relevant entry here
in the last day or so, it might have been missed. While it doesn't refer to
Hastings as 'the late lord Chamberlain' it's not exactly clear evidence he
was still alive on 15 June.

Karen

From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:02:27 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Hastings execution in *Daughter of
Time* (was RE: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS EXECUTION)

Johane: //snip// I am particularly interested, of course, in what the
evidence is for the date of Hastings execution actually being a week after
his arrest. //snip//

Annette responds: This was a lengthy discussion started by Dr Alison Hanham
and continued over some months with other historians in certain academic
journals back in the 1970s. If I recall correctly, Dr Hanham thought she had
discovered evidence in the minutes of one of the London companies indicating
that Hastings was still living on or about 20 June. The problem was (is)
that sometimes such entries are not assigned dates, or entries are out of
sequence, so this item needed verification. Other parties to the debate
(Wolfe was one, I believe) dredged up other items for comparison, including
Hastings's IPM, and the end result was that everyone accepted the original
date of 13 June. Nevertheless it's worth reading Hanham's theories about
this in her "Richard III and his Early Historians" because there are
interesting discrepancies in the narrative chronicles. But I must leave her
to make her own case - unless someone is brave enough to take it on???
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:56 AM
Subject: Hastings execution in *Daughter of
Time* (was RE: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS EXECUTION)

Hi, All -

Josephine Tey's book is, of course, not a scholarly work. It doesn't have
footnotes, and the information in it may have been superseded to a certain
extent by discoveries in the last half century or so, but I think her
conclusions are of interest and may also provoke some further discussion.

Tey writes that all the preparations for the coronation of the young Prince
were going ahead as one would expect, when Bishop Stillington enters the
picture with his information about King Edward's previous nuptials with
Eleanor Butler. Tey makes the point that Stillington had been the Privy Seal
and Lord Chancellor and then ambassador to Brittany, "so Edward either owed
him something or liked him. And he, on his part, had no reason to cook up
anything against Edward. Supposing he was the cooking sort." Tey also writes
that there was a long meeting of the Lords on the 9th., after which
Stillington's report was prepared to be put before Parliament on the 25th.
On the 10th. Richard sent a letter to the city of York asking for troops to
protect and support him. On the 11th. he sent a similar letter to his cousin
Lord Nevill, "so the danger was real." On the 20th. he went "with a small
body of retainers" to the Tower "to interrupt a meeting of the conspirators"
and arrested Lord Hastings, Lord Stanley, and Bishop Morton. Tey writes that
there was a proclamation issued giving details of the plot, "but apparently
no copy now exists." She continues through the researcher, Carradine:

"Only one of the conspirators was beheaded, and that one,
oddly enough, seems to have been an old friend of both Edward and Richard.
Lord Hastings."

[Grant comments:] "Yes, according to the sainted More he was
rushe down to the courtyard and beheaded on the nearest log."

"Rushed nothing," said Carradine disgustedly. "He was
beheaded a week later. There's a contemporary letter about it that gives the
date. Moreover, Richard couldn't have done it out of sheer vindictiveness,
because he granted Hastings's forfeited estates to his widow, and restored
the children's right of succession to them - which they had automatically
lost."

"No, the death of Hastings must have been inevitable," said
Grant, who was thumbing through More's Richard III. "Even the sainted More
says: 'Undoubtedly the Protector loved him well, and was loth to have lost
him.' What happened to Stanley and to John Morton?"

"Stanley ws pardoned - What are you groaning about?"

"Poor Richard. That was his death warrant."

"Death warrant? How could pardoning Stanley be his death
warrant?"

"Because it was Stanley's sudden decision to go over to the
other side that lost Richard the battle of Bosworth."

"You don't say."

"Odd to think that if Richard had seen to it that Stanley had
gone to the block like his much-loved Hastings, he would have won the battle
of Bosworth, there would never have been any Tudors, and the hunchbacked
monster that appears in the Tudor tradition would never have been invented.
On his previous showing he would probably have had the best and most
enlightened reign in history."

At pg. 131 of my book, through Carradine, Tey concludes that
Richard was aiming to bring an end to the York-Lancaster fight once and for
all. Carradine notes that everybody attended Richard's coronation: "You
can't help being struck by the fact that practically nobody stayed away.
Lancaster or York."

So, that is the summary of the couple of pages that deal with the events
surrounding Hastings execution. I am particularly interested, of course, in
what the evidence is for the date of Hastings execution actually being a
week after his arrest. In addition, if I followed the previous discussion
about a conviction in the court of the

Constable (if that's the right term) being different from the usual finding
of treason, if there was no attainder, there was no forfeiture of a
traitor's estates. Did Richard write or cause to write a letter to Hastings'
widow confirming the estates in her and the right of succession to their
children? Or was Tey just inferring that somehow? And, if Richard did write
such a letter, it is possible that, even tho there was no attainder and thus
no forfeiture, he wanted to assure "Mrs. Hastings" of that fact. In which
case, if that is true, it is still a thoughtful gesture and might even
partially explain why Richard would have proceeded by that route: i.e. to
ensure that Hastings' widow and children would inherit his property. If
Richard had been friends with Hastings, he may have been fondly disposed
toward Hastings' wife as well.

Just a few thoughts,

Johanne

From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 10:27 PM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: was Royal Prerogative now HASTINGS
EXECUTION

Carol

Despite the (unintended) upset to one forum member, this discussion has been
extremely interesting. Where others can, I can't find any justification for
Hastings' execution, or more particularly the manner of it, especially as
none of the other supposed plotters lost their heads. Looking at it as
dispassionately as I can, it seems that Hastings was the specific target.
While I believe Richard acted outside the law in this, it doesn't tempt me
to chuck in my Ricardian credentials and join the Dark Side.

Assuming there was a plot involving Hastings© You're right, there was no
plot on York's life by Somerset but there was a (reported) assassination
attempt near York in 1454, orchestrated by Exeter and Egremont rather than
Somerset. Both were arrested and imprisoned, Exeter in Pontefract (and later
Wallingford) and Egremont in Newgate (from where he and his brother
escaped). They were leading a half baked rebellion in Lancashire and
Yorkshire at the time and the Percies (Egremont and his brothers) were
rounded up by the Nevills in November that year. Exeter took sanctuary at
Westminster, from where he was forceably removed. The charges against
Egremont weren't treason, and Exeter never came to trial because Henry VI
recovered, York resigned the protectorate and Exeter was freed. If there was
treason there, it would have been against the king, not York. As certainly
Egremont was behind the reported assassination attempt outside York, there
is a direct parallel here. York was very cautious during his protectorates,
apart from the deaths of Somerset and Northumberland at first St Albans, no
noblemen lost their lives. His brief was clear: defence of the realm against
internal and external enemies. As there was no Act ratifying Richard's
protectorate, it's impossible to say what his brief might have been, but it
was likely to have been similar. Caution is wise for a Protector, as revenge
can be very sweet. The fallout for York after both his terms as Protector
demonstrate just how quickly the tide can turn.

Karen



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

Yahoo! Groups Links