Richard III and the execution of Lord Hastings

Hi, I hope that as a newcomer to the forum you don't mind me
plunging straight in! My friend and I are huge Richard III
supporters, and interested in all aspects of his career, but this
week I thought, specially to post here, that I would read up on the
incident of Hastings' execution. You will hardly need me to remind
you, since you are all clearly knowledgeable, that this was one of
Richard's most controversial actions, and that even determined
Ricardians find it hard to justify. This particular debate
(following) is now a little out of date, being from 1972-4, but I
have come across no more recent discussion.

In her article "Richard III, Lord Hastings and the historians"
Alison Hanham in 1972 suggested that the cunning, clever, not to say
evil, Richard executed Hastings not on the accepted date of June
13th 1483 but one week later on the 20th. She based this on a number
of issues/pieces of evidence. Simply, in the first instance, it was
illogical, Hanham suggested, to kill Hastings before getting
possession of Edward of York since it would have frightened
Elizabeth Woodville into withholding the boy. Her evidence consisted
of records of the Merchant Adventurers who, she says, recorded a
conversation of the 15th June involving Morton, Russell and
Hastings, so he must have been alive on the 15th. Records of the
London town also indicate emergency security measures on the 20th,
her suggested date, and the letter to Sir William Stonor, her key
evidence, by Simon Stallworth refers to Hastings being executed
on "Friday last". This letter is contentious evidence, since the
case rests upon the interpretation of "Friday last". It was written
on Saturday 21st June. Hanham's supposition is that it refers to the
previous day, Friday 20th. Traditionally historians have interpreted
it as referring to the Friday before on the grounds that "yesterday"
was a more likely term for the 20th. She also refers to a note in
the Cely papers to rumours of Hastings' death and other stirrings
around the 20th based on a message from Sir John Weston, which
included such tales as the deaths of Morton, Howard, and Hastings, a
Scottish invasion and the endangering of Gloucester's life.

Her second crucial point centres on the whole chronology. All
chronicles of the day except for Dominic Mancini are clear that the
chronology is Hastings killed (13 June), York extracted from
Westminster (June 16), and Richard's accession (26 June). The
coronation of Edward V had been planned for June 23 and Parliament's
meeting for the 25th. Mancini says that York was acquired before
Hastings's death, so if Hastings died on a Friday it would have to
be June 20. Hanham rejects Inquisition Post Mortem dates for
Hastings' death as June 13 and the widely agreed chronology to
accept Mancini's chronology. She then suggests that either Morton or
Richard himself deliberately falsified records to muddy the water
over the execution's real date, Morton to cover his tracks (though
she does not make it entirely clear how Morton thought this would
work), or Richard to add to the confusion that would help disguise
his plans. Even were I not a partisan Ricardian I should consider
this patent nonsense! She even suggests that the arrest of Jane
Shore was motivated by the same "deliberate manipulation of history
in his own [Richard's] interests" and the need to isolate and
silence opposition.

Hanham's case was refuted 2 years later by B.P. Wolffe who pointed
out that the Merchants records were later copies and prone to
errors, and that the reference to the conversation was in fact an
event which occurred in 1480. He insists that the Stallworth letter
refers to the previous Friday, as we would in modern language, and
that the Calais records clearly indicate that Hastings died on the
13th because his payment as Lieutenant of Calais ended on that day
on account of his no longer being able to carry out his duties!
Since he was dead I imagine it may well have proved a trifle
problematic! Wolffe also, probably correctly, scoffs at the notion
of a government cover-up and manipulation of Inquisition dates.

As I said, this argument is somewhat outdated. I wondered, however,
what people here might think of this debate, and, more importantly,
what justification fellow Ricardians might feel able to put forward
to explain this execution. If Hastings was plotting – and there is
no conclusive evidence that he was (but this doesn't of course mean
he definitely was NOT!) – then a. Richard could have afforded a
trial and b. would surely have given suitable evidence. The rapid
execution smacks of injustice that sits ill with Richard's known
behaviour elsewhere as Constable or as ruler in the north, or,
indeed, as the creator of the Council of Requests. Even Michael
Jones skirts this issue in his recent, fascinating rewrite of
Richard's reign. Any thoughts welcome!