Sources for the protectorate

I've just been looking at some of the oldest posts on this Forum regarding
Hastings & the Protectorate. It's amazing how much the tone of debate has
changed in the last 13 years. I'm hoping that's because scholarship has
solidified some of the points that were being debated then. (Primarily the
legitimacy of Richard's appointment as Protector). Can anyone point me to
recent credible scholarly work on the subject?

A J

You couldn't do worse than start with what Annette Carson has in
Maligned King. Very interesting, covering all known sources.
Paul

On 11/07/2013 22:59, A J Hibbard wrote:
> I've just been looking at some of the oldest posts on this Forum regarding
> Hastings & the Protectorate. It's amazing how much the tone of debate has
> changed in the last 13 years. I'm hoping that's because scholarship has
> solidified some of the points that were being debated then. (Primarily the
> legitimacy of Richard's appointment as Protector). Can anyone point me to
> recent credible scholarly work on the subject?
>
> A J
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Thanks much I will.

A J


On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:13 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> You couldn't do worse than start with what Annette Carson has in
> Maligned King. Very interesting, covering all known sources.
> Paul
>
>
> On 11/07/2013 22:59, A J Hibbard wrote:
> > I've just been looking at some of the oldest posts on this Forum
> regarding
> > Hastings & the Protectorate. It's amazing how much the tone of debate has
> > changed in the last 13 years. I'm hoping that's because scholarship has
> > solidified some of the points that were being debated then. (Primarily
> the
> > legitimacy of Richard's appointment as Protector). Can anyone point me to
> > recent credible scholarly work on the subject?
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>

Hi again Paul. I just started, for the 2nd time, Hancock's book about the
Hastings' execution, & find myself quite annoyed with it for a variety of
reasons. Especially in comparison with how Annette Carson handles the same
material. I have the paperback copy of the new edition of *Maligned*
*King*(& some of the pages are already falling out). Anyway, I now
think maybe I
should buy the special hardcover edition. Can you point me in the right
direction? I'm a member of the American Branch of the Society.

A J


On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:13 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> You couldn't do worse than start with what Annette Carson has in
> Maligned King. Very interesting, covering all known sources.
> Paul
>
>
> On 11/07/2013 22:59, A J Hibbard wrote:
> > I've just been looking at some of the oldest posts on this Forum
> regarding
> > Hastings & the Protectorate. It's amazing how much the tone of debate has
> > changed in the last 13 years. I'm hoping that's because scholarship has
> > solidified some of the points that were being debated then. (Primarily
> the
> > legitimacy of Richard's appointment as Protector). Can anyone point me to
> > recent credible scholarly work on the subject?
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>

I am quite enjoying this book which I have not yet finished...but Im puzzled about Hancock theorising that Richard ordered the execution of Hastings whilst in a rage because he had been informed (by Catesby?) on the morning of the council meeting that Hastings had known all along about the pre-contract between EB and
Edward (his bosom buddy) but had held back from informing Richard, thus preventing Richard from taking his rightful place as king. Hancock also speculates that this was the reason Elizabeth Shore was put in prison as she also was aware of the truth. My question to this is why did Stillington, a relation to EB and who witnessed EB and Edward's marriage and who had not come forward, if Hancock is correct, was also not punished severely. I think it is indeed possible that Hastings and Shore would both know the truth of the pre-contract, both being so close to Edward for many years, but I remain unconvinced it was Catesby who informed Richard.

Eileen
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Hi again Paul. I just started, for the 2nd time, Hancock's book about the
> Hastings' execution, & find myself quite annoyed with it for a variety of
> reasons. Especially in comparison with how Annette Carson handles the same
> material. I have the paperback copy of the new edition of *Maligned*
> *King*(& some of the pages are already falling out). Anyway, I now
> think maybe I
> should buy the special hardcover edition. Can you point me in the right
> direction? I'm a member of the American Branch of the Society.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:13 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > You couldn't do worse than start with what Annette Carson has in
> > Maligned King. Very interesting, covering all known sources.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 11/07/2013 22:59, A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > I've just been looking at some of the oldest posts on this Forum
> > regarding
> > > Hastings & the Protectorate. It's amazing how much the tone of debate has
> > > changed in the last 13 years. I'm hoping that's because scholarship has
> > > solidified some of the points that were being debated then. (Primarily
> > the
> > > legitimacy of Richard's appointment as Protector). Can anyone point me to
> > > recent credible scholarly work on the subject?
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

I started Hancock's book for the second time last night (read about half of
it coming home on the QM2 last December - found it slow going then). And
even though I don't usually do this, kept making pencilled notes in my
copy. In other words, even in the introductory, background sections I
wanted to argue every point with the author. Why, for instance, does
Hancock think we should pay any attention to More's account of the Council
meeting on June 13?; I'm guessing it's because it's all we have that just *
might* contain a shred of first hand information. But no serious
discussion of what might be credible & what isn't. Then I noticed that
Hancock uses an awful lot of secondary sources, at least for the
introductory sections - okay fair enough, but so far the only comment I've
seen him critically evaluating one of these sources is about Richard
switching from wearing mourning black to purple in the days after Hastings'
execution. Hancock says his source is PMK, but at least in the footnote
acknowledges that he doesn't know if this was something authentic or
whether it was PMK elaborating on what was likely to have happened. Hancock
also makes multiple references to the *Ricardian* & the *Ricardian
Register*which remain out of easy reach to those of us who like to
check how good
the reference is, and have not been members of the Society for years &
years.

So then I turned to Annette Carson's account of the same time period (*Maligned
King*) & in a few pages she sheds so much light where Hancock has so far
produced only shadow, I'm debating now whether it's worth finishing
Hancock's book.

A J


On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 10:22 AM, EILEEN BATES <
eileenbates147@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> I am quite enjoying this book which I have not yet finished...but Im
> puzzled about Hancock theorising that Richard ordered the execution of
> Hastings whilst in a rage because he had been informed (by Catesby?) on the
> morning of the council meeting that Hastings had known all along about the
> pre-contract between EB and
> Edward (his bosom buddy) but had held back from informing Richard, thus
> preventing Richard from taking his rightful place as king. Hancock also
> speculates that this was the reason Elizabeth Shore was put in prison as
> she also was aware of the truth. My question to this is why did
> Stillington, a relation to EB and who witnessed EB and Edward's marriage
> and who had not come forward, if Hancock is correct, was also not punished
> severely. I think it is indeed possible that Hastings and Shore would both
> know the truth of the pre-contract, both being so close to Edward for many
> years, but I remain unconvinced it was Catesby who informed Richard.
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi again Paul. I just started, for the 2nd time, Hancock's book about the
> > Hastings' execution, & find myself quite annoyed with it for a variety of
> > reasons. Especially in comparison with how Annette Carson handles the
> same
> > material. I have the paperback copy of the new edition of *Maligned*
> > *King*(& some of the pages are already falling out). Anyway, I now
>
> > think maybe I
> > should buy the special hardcover edition. Can you point me in the right
> > direction? I'm a member of the American Branch of the Society.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:13 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > You couldn't do worse than start with what Annette Carson has in
> > > Maligned King. Very interesting, covering all known sources.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/07/2013 22:59, A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > > I've just been looking at some of the oldest posts on this Forum
> > > regarding
> > > > Hastings & the Protectorate. It's amazing how much the tone of
> debate has
> > > > changed in the last 13 years. I'm hoping that's because scholarship
> has
> > > > solidified some of the points that were being debated then.
> (Primarily
> > > the
> > > > legitimacy of Richard's appointment as Protector). Can anyone point
> me to
> > > > recent credible scholarly work on the subject?
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Well I'd finish if I were you......you might glean something from it...and I speak as one who actually finished reading The Kingmakers Daughter which as we know was abysmal also Hick's Anne Neville book which was putrid. Having said that I shall be relieved when I reach the end of it as the notes....God...I've never read a book with so many notes...probably half the book! It is annoying to have to keep referring to notes when they are as copious as this especially when the number of the note is so minuscule you cannot read of without the aid of a magnifying glass. Eileen



--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> I started Hancock's book for the second time last night (read about half of
> it coming home on the QM2 last December - found it slow going then). And
> even though I don't usually do this, kept making pencilled notes in my
> copy. In other words, even in the introductory, background sections I
> wanted to argue every point with the author. Why, for instance, does
> Hancock think we should pay any attention to More's account of the Council
> meeting on June 13?; I'm guessing it's because it's all we have that just *
> might* contain a shred of first hand information. But no serious
> discussion of what might be credible & what isn't. Then I noticed that
> Hancock uses an awful lot of secondary sources, at least for the
> introductory sections - okay fair enough, but so far the only comment I've
> seen him critically evaluating one of these sources is about Richard
> switching from wearing mourning black to purple in the days after Hastings'
> execution. Hancock says his source is PMK, but at least in the footnote
> acknowledges that he doesn't know if this was something authentic or
> whether it was PMK elaborating on what was likely to have happened. Hancock
> also makes multiple references to the *Ricardian* & the *Ricardian
> Register*which remain out of easy reach to those of us who like to
> check how good
> the reference is, and have not been members of the Society for years &
> years.
>
> So then I turned to Annette Carson's account of the same time period (*Maligned
> King*) & in a few pages she sheds so much light where Hancock has so far
> produced only shadow, I'm debating now whether it's worth finishing
> Hancock's book.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 10:22 AM, EILEEN BATES <
> eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> > I am quite enjoying this book which I have not yet finished...but Im
> > puzzled about Hancock theorising that Richard ordered the execution of
> > Hastings whilst in a rage because he had been informed (by Catesby?) on the
> > morning of the council meeting that Hastings had known all along about the
> > pre-contract between EB and
> > Edward (his bosom buddy) but had held back from informing Richard, thus
> > preventing Richard from taking his rightful place as king. Hancock also
> > speculates that this was the reason Elizabeth Shore was put in prison as
> > she also was aware of the truth. My question to this is why did
> > Stillington, a relation to EB and who witnessed EB and Edward's marriage
> > and who had not come forward, if Hancock is correct, was also not punished
> > severely. I think it is indeed possible that Hastings and Shore would both
> > know the truth of the pre-contract, both being so close to Edward for many
> > years, but I remain unconvinced it was Catesby who informed Richard.
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi again Paul. I just started, for the 2nd time, Hancock's book about the
> > > Hastings' execution, & find myself quite annoyed with it for a variety of
> > > reasons. Especially in comparison with how Annette Carson handles the
> > same
> > > material. I have the paperback copy of the new edition of *Maligned*
> > > *King*(& some of the pages are already falling out). Anyway, I now
> >
> > > think maybe I
> > > should buy the special hardcover edition. Can you point me in the right
> > > direction? I'm a member of the American Branch of the Society.
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:13 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You couldn't do worse than start with what Annette Carson has in
> > > > Maligned King. Very interesting, covering all known sources.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 11/07/2013 22:59, A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > > > I've just been looking at some of the oldest posts on this Forum
> > > > regarding
> > > > > Hastings & the Protectorate. It's amazing how much the tone of
> > debate has
> > > > > changed in the last 13 years. I'm hoping that's because scholarship
> > has
> > > > > solidified some of the points that were being debated then.
> > (Primarily
> > > > the
> > > > > legitimacy of Richard's appointment as Protector). Can anyone point
> > me to
> > > > > recent credible scholarly work on the subject?
> > > > >
> > > > > A J
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Hi AJ

You might like to contact Annette personally about her special edition
hardback of The Maligned King.

email@...

There is a discount for Ricardians - Annette will also sign it if you so
wish.

cheers

Jac


****************



>. Anyway, I now
>think maybe I
>should buy the special hardcover edition. Can you point me in the right
>direction? I'm a member of the American Branch of the Society.
>
>A J
>
>
>On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:13 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> You couldn't do worse than start with what Annette Carson has in
>> Maligned King. Very interesting, covering all known sources.
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On 11/07/2013 22:59, A J Hibbard wrote:
>> > I've just been looking at some of the oldest posts on this Forum
>> regarding
>> > Hastings & the Protectorate. It's amazing how much the tone of debate has
>> > changed in the last 13 years. I'm hoping that's because scholarship has
>> > solidified some of the points that were being debated then. (Primarily
>> the
>> > legitimacy of Richard's appointment as Protector). Can anyone point me to
>> > recent credible scholarly work on the subject?
>> >
>> > A J
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--

Hi Eileen, Stillington wasn't a relation of EB at that point. Hancock made a boob there. He misread a Ricardian article which said that Stillington was related to EB through his aunt Joan Cheddar (don't take me there again). In fact it was Stillington's grandson Thomas Newton who was related to Joan Cheddar's nephew and that was nearly thirty years' later. Yet more proof of 'sloppy work'. I spent weeks chasing this hare only to find when I looked in the original article that he'd misread it and misled us.
 
AJ, his local knowledge is bad too. All that about churches with similar roofs etc, and the Catesbys had been eminent lawyers for nearly two centuries. Don't get me going ....   It is readable though.  


________________________________
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 14 July 2013, 16:22
Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate

 


I am quite enjoying this book which I have not yet finished...but Im puzzled about Hancock theorising that Richard ordered the execution of Hastings whilst in a rage because he had been informed (by Catesby?) on the morning of the council meeting that Hastings had known all along about the pre-contract between EB and
Edward (his bosom buddy) but had held back from informing Richard, thus preventing Richard from taking his rightful place as king. Hancock also speculates that this was the reason Elizabeth Shore was put in prison as she also was aware of the truth. My question to this is why did Stillington, a relation to EB and who witnessed EB and Edward's marriage and who had not come forward, if Hancock is correct, was also not punished severely. I think it is indeed possible that Hastings and Shore would both know the truth of the pre-contract, both being so close to Edward for many years, but I remain unconvinced it was Catesby who informed Richard.

Eileen
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Hi again Paul. I just started, for the 2nd time, Hancock's book about the
> Hastings' execution, & find myself quite annoyed with it for a variety of
> reasons. Especially in comparison with how Annette Carson handles the same
> material. I have the paperback copy of the new edition of *Maligned*
> *King*(& some of the pages are already falling out). Anyway, I now
> think maybe I
> should buy the special hardcover edition. Can you point me in the right
> direction? I'm a member of the American Branch of the Society.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:13 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > You couldn't do worse than start with what Annette Carson has in
> > Maligned King. Very interesting, covering all known sources.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 11/07/2013 22:59, A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > I've just been looking at some of the oldest posts on this Forum
> > regarding
> > > Hastings & the Protectorate. It's amazing how much the tone of debate has
> > > changed in the last 13 years. I'm hoping that's because scholarship has
> > > solidified some of the points that were being debated then. (Primarily
> > the
> > > legitimacy of Richard's appointment as Protector). Can anyone point me to
> > > recent credible scholarly work on the subject?
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Thanks Hilary...I guessed that you would be able to clarify this statement. And yes Joan Cheddar was mentioned. Honestly...all these blood lines/related by marriage etc., really confuse me although I do find it intriguing. For example Hancock also says that Catesby and The Weasle were a kind of cousins by marriage....Catesby mother-in-law, Elizabeth St John was the maternal half sister of MB....and this could have been the reason why he was hoping that he would be spared execution. I think it might be quicker to list people that had no links whatsoever...Hmmmmm I hope no one is going to tell me that this is a bloomer too.....Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Eileen, Stillington wasn't a relation of EB at that point. Hancock made a boob there. He misread a Ricardian article which said that Stillington was related to EB through his aunt Joan Cheddar (don't take me there again). In fact it was Stillington's grandson Thomas Newton who was related to Joan Cheddar's nephew and that was nearly thirty years' later. Yet more proof of 'sloppy work'. I spent weeks chasing this hare only to find when I looked in the original article that he'd misread it and misled us.
>  
> AJ, his local knowledge is bad too. All that about churches with similar roofs etc, and the Catesbys had been eminent lawyers for nearly two centuries. Don't get me going ....   It is readable though.  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 14 July 2013, 16:22
> Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate
>
>  
>
>
> I am quite enjoying this book which I have not yet finished...but Im puzzled about Hancock theorising that Richard ordered the execution of Hastings whilst in a rage because he had been informed (by Catesby?) on the morning of the council meeting that Hastings had known all along about the pre-contract between EB and
> Edward (his bosom buddy) but had held back from informing Richard, thus preventing Richard from taking his rightful place as king. Hancock also speculates that this was the reason Elizabeth Shore was put in prison as she also was aware of the truth. My question to this is why did Stillington, a relation to EB and who witnessed EB and Edward's marriage and who had not come forward, if Hancock is correct, was also not punished severely. I think it is indeed possible that Hastings and Shore would both know the truth of the pre-contract, both being so close to Edward for many years, but I remain unconvinced it was Catesby who informed Richard.
>
> Eileen
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi again Paul. I just started, for the 2nd time, Hancock's book about the
> > Hastings' execution, & find myself quite annoyed with it for a variety of
> > reasons. Especially in comparison with how Annette Carson handles the same
> > material. I have the paperback copy of the new edition of *Maligned*
> > *King*(& some of the pages are already falling out). Anyway, I now
> > think maybe I
> > should buy the special hardcover edition. Can you point me in the right
> > direction? I'm a member of the American Branch of the Society.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:13 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > You couldn't do worse than start with what Annette Carson has in
> > > Maligned King. Very interesting, covering all known sources.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/07/2013 22:59, A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > > I've just been looking at some of the oldest posts on this Forum
> > > regarding
> > > > Hastings & the Protectorate. It's amazing how much the tone of debate has
> > > > changed in the last 13 years. I'm hoping that's because scholarship has
> > > > solidified some of the points that were being debated then. (Primarily
> > > the
> > > > legitimacy of Richard's appointment as Protector). Can anyone point me to
> > > > recent credible scholarly work on the subject?
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sounds like a gene pool with no lifeguard!

On Jul 14, 2013, at 12:55 PM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:



Thanks Hilary...I guessed that you would be able to clarify this statement. And yes Joan Cheddar was mentioned. Honestly...all these blood lines/related by marriage etc., really confuse me although I do find it intriguing. For example Hancock also says that Catesby and The Weasle were a kind of cousins by marriage....Catesby mother-in-law, Elizabeth St John was the maternal half sister of MB....and this could have been the reason why he was hoping that he would be spared execution. I think it might be quicker to list people that had no links whatsoever...Hmmmmm I hope no one is going to tell me that this is a bloomer too.....Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Eileen, Stillington wasn't a relation of EB at that point. Hancock made a boob there. He misread a Ricardian article which said that Stillington was related to EB through his aunt Joan Cheddar (don't take me there again). In fact it was Stillington's grandson Thomas Newton who was related to Joan Cheddar's nephew and that was nearly thirty years' later. Yet more proof of 'sloppy work'. I spent weeks chasing this hare only to find when I looked in the original article that he'd misread it and misled us.
> ý
> AJ, his local knowledge is bad too. All that about churches with similar roofs etc, and the Catesbys had been eminent lawyers for nearly two centuries. Don't get me going ....ý ý It is readable though.ý ý
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 14 July 2013, 16:22
> Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate
>
> ý
>
>
> I am quite enjoying this book which I have not yet finished...but Im puzzled about Hancock theorising that Richard ordered the execution of Hastings whilst in a rage because he had been informed (by Catesby?) on the morning of the council meeting that Hastings had known all along about the pre-contract between EB and
> Edward (his bosom buddy) but had held back from informing Richard, thus preventing Richard from taking his rightful place as king. Hancock also speculates that this was the reason Elizabeth Shore was put in prison as she also was aware of the truth. My question to this is why did Stillington, a relation to EB and who witnessed EB and Edward's marriage and who had not come forward, if Hancock is correct, was also not punished severely. I think it is indeed possible that Hastings and Shore would both know the truth of the pre-contract, both being so close to Edward for many years, but I remain unconvinced it was Catesby who informed Richard.
>
> Eileen
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi again Paul. I just started, for the 2nd time, Hancock's book about the
> > Hastings' execution, & find myself quite annoyed with it for a variety of
> > reasons. Especially in comparison with how Annette Carson handles the same
> > material. I have the paperback copy of the new edition of *Maligned*
> > *King*(& some of the pages are already falling out). Anyway, I now
> > think maybe I
> > should buy the special hardcover edition. Can you point me in the right
> > direction? I'm a member of the American Branch of the Society.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:13 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > You couldn't do worse than start with what Annette Carson has in
> > > Maligned King. Very interesting, covering all known sources.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/07/2013 22:59, A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > > I've just been looking at some of the oldest posts on this Forum
> > > regarding
> > > > Hastings & the Protectorate. It's amazing how much the tone of debate has
> > > > changed in the last 13 years. I'm hoping that's because scholarship has
> > > > solidified some of the points that were being debated then. (Primarily
> > > the
> > > > legitimacy of Richard's appointment as Protector). Can anyone point me to
> > > > recent credible scholarly work on the subject?
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

A very small pool at times...I was surprised when I found out that Thomas Stanley's first wife was Warwick's sister Eleanor...
--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Sounds like a gene pool with no lifeguard!
>
> On Jul 14, 2013, at 12:55 PM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Thanks Hilary...I guessed that you would be able to clarify this statement. And yes Joan Cheddar was mentioned. Honestly...all these blood lines/related by marriage etc., really confuse me although I do find it intriguing. For example Hancock also says that Catesby and The Weasle were a kind of cousins by marriage....Catesby mother-in-law, Elizabeth St John was the maternal half sister of MB....and this could have been the reason why he was hoping that he would be spared execution. I think it might be quicker to list people that had no links whatsoever...Hmmmmm I hope no one is going to tell me that this is a bloomer too.....Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Eileen, Stillington wasn't a relation of EB at that point. Hancock made a boob there. He misread a Ricardian article which said that Stillington was related to EB through his aunt Joan Cheddar (don't take me there again). In fact it was Stillington's grandson Thomas Newton who was related to Joan Cheddar's nephew and that was nearly thirty years' later. Yet more proof of 'sloppy work'. I spent weeks chasing this hare only to find when I looked in the original article that he'd misread it and misled us.
> > Â
> > AJ, his local knowledge is bad too. All that about churches with similar roofs etc, and the Catesbys had been eminent lawyers for nearly two centuries. Don't get me going ....  It is readable though. Â
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, 14 July 2013, 16:22
> > Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> > I am quite enjoying this book which I have not yet finished...but Im puzzled about Hancock theorising that Richard ordered the execution of Hastings whilst in a rage because he had been informed (by Catesby?) on the morning of the council meeting that Hastings had known all along about the pre-contract between EB and
> > Edward (his bosom buddy) but had held back from informing Richard, thus preventing Richard from taking his rightful place as king. Hancock also speculates that this was the reason Elizabeth Shore was put in prison as she also was aware of the truth. My question to this is why did Stillington, a relation to EB and who witnessed EB and Edward's marriage and who had not come forward, if Hancock is correct, was also not punished severely. I think it is indeed possible that Hastings and Shore would both know the truth of the pre-contract, both being so close to Edward for many years, but I remain unconvinced it was Catesby who informed Richard.
> >
> > Eileen
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi again Paul. I just started, for the 2nd time, Hancock's book about the
> > > Hastings' execution, & find myself quite annoyed with it for a variety of
> > > reasons. Especially in comparison with how Annette Carson handles the same
> > > material. I have the paperback copy of the new edition of *Maligned*
> > > *King*(& some of the pages are already falling out). Anyway, I now
> > > think maybe I
> > > should buy the special hardcover edition. Can you point me in the right
> > > direction? I'm a member of the American Branch of the Society.
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:13 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You couldn't do worse than start with what Annette Carson has in
> > > > Maligned King. Very interesting, covering all known sources.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 11/07/2013 22:59, A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > > > I've just been looking at some of the oldest posts on this Forum
> > > > regarding
> > > > > Hastings & the Protectorate. It's amazing how much the tone of debate has
> > > > > changed in the last 13 years. I'm hoping that's because scholarship has
> > > > > solidified some of the points that were being debated then. (Primarily
> > > > the
> > > > > legitimacy of Richard's appointment as Protector). Can anyone point me to
> > > > > recent credible scholarly work on the subject?
> > > > >
> > > > > A J
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It does get very confusing, especially with so many with similar or the same name, deaths and remarriage, and all the human foibles.

On Jul 14, 2013, at 1:34 PM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:



A very small pool at times...I was surprised when I found out that Thomas Stanley's first wife was Warwick's sister Eleanor...
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Sounds like a gene pool with no lifeguard!
>
> On Jul 14, 2013, at 12:55 PM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Thanks Hilary...I guessed that you would be able to clarify this statement. And yes Joan Cheddar was mentioned. Honestly...all these blood lines/related by marriage etc., really confuse me although I do find it intriguing. For example Hancock also says that Catesby and The Weasle were a kind of cousins by marriage....Catesby mother-in-law, Elizabeth St John was the maternal half sister of MB....and this could have been the reason why he was hoping that he would be spared execution. I think it might be quicker to list people that had no links whatsoever...Hmmmmm I hope no one is going to tell me that this is a bloomer too.....Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Eileen, Stillington wasn't a relation of EB at that point. Hancock made a boob there. He misread a Ricardian article which said that Stillington was related to EB through his aunt Joan Cheddar (don't take me there again). In fact it was Stillington's grandson Thomas Newton who was related to Joan Cheddar's nephew and that was nearly thirty years' later. Yet more proof of 'sloppy work'. I spent weeks chasing this hare only to find when I looked in the original article that he'd misread it and misled us.
> > ý
> > AJ, his local knowledge is bad too. All that about churches with similar roofs etc, and the Catesbys had been eminent lawyers for nearly two centuries. Don't get me going ....ý ý It is readable though.ý ý
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Sunday, 14 July 2013, 16:22
> > Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate
> >
> > ý
> >
> >
> > I am quite enjoying this book which I have not yet finished...but Im puzzled about Hancock theorising that Richard ordered the execution of Hastings whilst in a rage because he had been informed (by Catesby?) on the morning of the council meeting that Hastings had known all along about the pre-contract between EB and
> > Edward (his bosom buddy) but had held back from informing Richard, thus preventing Richard from taking his rightful place as king. Hancock also speculates that this was the reason Elizabeth Shore was put in prison as she also was aware of the truth. My question to this is why did Stillington, a relation to EB and who witnessed EB and Edward's marriage and who had not come forward, if Hancock is correct, was also not punished severely. I think it is indeed possible that Hastings and Shore would both know the truth of the pre-contract, both being so close to Edward for many years, but I remain unconvinced it was Catesby who informed Richard.
> >
> > Eileen
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi again Paul. I just started, for the 2nd time, Hancock's book about the
> > > Hastings' execution, & find myself quite annoyed with it for a variety of
> > > reasons. Especially in comparison with how Annette Carson handles the same
> > > material. I have the paperback copy of the new edition of *Maligned*
> > > *King*(& some of the pages are already falling out). Anyway, I now
> > > think maybe I
> > > should buy the special hardcover edition. Can you point me in the right
> > > direction? I'm a member of the American Branch of the Society.
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:13 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You couldn't do worse than start with what Annette Carson has in
> > > > Maligned King. Very interesting, covering all known sources.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 11/07/2013 22:59, A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > > > I've just been looking at some of the oldest posts on this Forum
> > > > regarding
> > > > > Hastings & the Protectorate. It's amazing how much the tone of debate has
> > > > > changed in the last 13 years. I'm hoping that's because scholarship has
> > > > > solidified some of the points that were being debated then. (Primarily
> > > > the
> > > > > legitimacy of Richard's appointment as Protector). Can anyone point me to
> > > > > recent credible scholarly work on the subject?
> > > > >
> > > > > A J
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Eileen, I have always had a niggling doubt that Richard executed Hastings because he knew about Edward's marriage to Eleanor. There must have been a more serious reason. Unfortunately I don't know exactly what. It may have been that Hastings was plotting with EW to get rid of Richard so that he could come protector. I suppose he could have been conned by MB into thinking that HT would support him as Protector if he allwed him to come back to England. However, if he was plotting with MB did Richard not arrest her and Stanley instead of allowing them to take part in his Coronation? So many questions.

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
>
> I am quite enjoying this book which I have not yet finished...but Im puzzled about Hancock theorising that Richard ordered the execution of Hastings whilst in a rage because he had been informed (by Catesby?) on the morning of the council meeting that Hastings had known all along about the pre-contract between EB and
> Edward (his bosom buddy) but had held back from informing Richard, thus preventing Richard from taking his rightful place as king. Hancock also speculates that this was the reason Elizabeth Shore was put in prison as she also was aware of the truth. My question to this is why did Stillington, a relation to EB and who witnessed EB and Edward's marriage and who had not come forward, if Hancock is correct, was also not punished severely. I think it is indeed possible that Hastings and Shore would both know the truth of the pre-contract, both being so close to Edward for many years, but I remain unconvinced it was Catesby who informed Richard.
>
> Eileen
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi again Paul. I just started, for the 2nd time, Hancock's book about the
> > Hastings' execution, & find myself quite annoyed with it for a variety of
> > reasons. Especially in comparison with how Annette Carson handles the same
> > material. I have the paperback copy of the new edition of *Maligned*
> > *King*(& some of the pages are already falling out). Anyway, I now
> > think maybe I
> > should buy the special hardcover edition. Can you point me in the right
> > direction? I'm a member of the American Branch of the Society.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:13 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > You couldn't do worse than start with what Annette Carson has in
> > > Maligned King. Very interesting, covering all known sources.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/07/2013 22:59, A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > > I've just been looking at some of the oldest posts on this Forum
> > > regarding
> > > > Hastings & the Protectorate. It's amazing how much the tone of debate has
> > > > changed in the last 13 years. I'm hoping that's because scholarship has
> > > > solidified some of the points that were being debated then. (Primarily
> > > the
> > > > legitimacy of Richard's appointment as Protector). Can anyone point me to
> > > > recent credible scholarly work on the subject?
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Thanks. Have done so. So hope to hear back from her soon.

A J


On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 11:43 AM, jacqui <jacqui@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> Hi AJ
>
> You might like to contact Annette personally about her special edition
> hardback of The Maligned King.
>
> email@...
>
> There is a discount for Ricardians - Annette will also sign it if you so
> wish.
>
> cheers
>
> Jac
>
> ****************
>
> >. Anyway, I now
>
> >think maybe I
> >should buy the special hardcover edition. Can you point me in the right
> >direction? I'm a member of the American Branch of the Society.
> >
> >A J
> >
> >
> >On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:13 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >> **
>
> >>
> >>
> >> You couldn't do worse than start with what Annette Carson has in
> >> Maligned King. Very interesting, covering all known sources.
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11/07/2013 22:59, A J Hibbard wrote:
> >> > I've just been looking at some of the oldest posts on this Forum
> >> regarding
> >> > Hastings & the Protectorate. It's amazing how much the tone of debate
> has
> >> > changed in the last 13 years. I'm hoping that's because scholarship
> has
> >> > solidified some of the points that were being debated then. (Primarily
> >> the
> >> > legitimacy of Richard's appointment as Protector). Can anyone point
> me to
> >> > recent credible scholarly work on the subject?
> >> >
> >> > A J
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
>
>

Mary yes I do agree with that. Of course it was pretty serious but to have Hastings executed then and there as some say...and on a log! My feeling is that Hastings was involved in a plot to assassinate Richard...because they would have had to make sure he was dead to survive themselves. I have wondered whether Hastings was so loyal to Edward that he could not hack the idea of his son not becoming king. If this was the case and he knew about EB that would seem a rather warped way of thinking as obviously it was wrong, totally. He may have not realised this would be the result of warning Richard about the Woodvilles...but then again he was probably thinking of his own skin....as you do...Maybe...another maybe, he was just infuriated that he did not receive the rewards he was expecting and it has been said that he was at first "bursting with joy"'. .These nobles egos were very easily bruised....which made them lethal. Or as you say?..possibly MB got to him .As Hancock points out..Richard could have done with Hastings help at Bosworth so it's all tragic.
Yes...so many questions...it's quite excruciating especially if you have a small brain like I do... :0/ Eileen


--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, I have always had a niggling doubt that Richard executed Hastings because he knew about Edward's marriage to Eleanor. There must have been a more serious reason. Unfortunately I don't know exactly what. It may have been that Hastings was plotting with EW to get rid of Richard so that he could come protector. I suppose he could have been conned by MB into thinking that HT would support him as Protector if he allwed him to come back to England. However, if he was plotting with MB did Richard not arrest her and Stanley instead of allowing them to take part in his Coronation? So many questions.
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I am quite enjoying this book which I have not yet finished...but Im puzzled about Hancock theorising that Richard ordered the execution of Hastings whilst in a rage because he had been informed (by Catesby?) on the morning of the council meeting that Hastings had known all along about the pre-contract between EB and
> > Edward (his bosom buddy) but had held back from informing Richard, thus preventing Richard from taking his rightful place as king. Hancock also speculates that this was the reason Elizabeth Shore was put in prison as she also was aware of the truth. My question to this is why did Stillington, a relation to EB and who witnessed EB and Edward's marriage and who had not come forward, if Hancock is correct, was also not punished severely. I think it is indeed possible that Hastings and Shore would both know the truth of the pre-contract, both being so close to Edward for many years, but I remain unconvinced it was Catesby who informed Richard.
> >
> > Eileen
> > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi again Paul. I just started, for the 2nd time, Hancock's book about the
> > > Hastings' execution, & find myself quite annoyed with it for a variety of
> > > reasons. Especially in comparison with how Annette Carson handles the same
> > > material. I have the paperback copy of the new edition of *Maligned*
> > > *King*(& some of the pages are already falling out). Anyway, I now
> > > think maybe I
> > > should buy the special hardcover edition. Can you point me in the right
> > > direction? I'm a member of the American Branch of the Society.
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:13 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You couldn't do worse than start with what Annette Carson has in
> > > > Maligned King. Very interesting, covering all known sources.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 11/07/2013 22:59, A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > > > I've just been looking at some of the oldest posts on this Forum
> > > > regarding
> > > > > Hastings & the Protectorate. It's amazing how much the tone of debate has
> > > > > changed in the last 13 years. I'm hoping that's because scholarship has
> > > > > solidified some of the points that were being debated then. (Primarily
> > > > the
> > > > > legitimacy of Richard's appointment as Protector). Can anyone point me to
> > > > > recent credible scholarly work on the subject?
> > > > >
> > > > > A J
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Agree Eileen. Richard might have won if Hastings had been at Bosworth.

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> Mary yes I do agree with that. Of course it was pretty serious but to have Hastings executed then and there as some say...and on a log! My feeling is that Hastings was involved in a plot to assassinate Richard...because they would have had to make sure he was dead to survive themselves. I have wondered whether Hastings was so loyal to Edward that he could not hack the idea of his son not becoming king. If this was the case and he knew about EB that would seem a rather warped way of thinking as obviously it was wrong, totally. He may have not realised this would be the result of warning Richard about the Woodvilles...but then again he was probably thinking of his own skin....as you do...Maybe...another maybe, he was just infuriated that he did not receive the rewards he was expecting and it has been said that he was at first "bursting with joy"'. .These nobles egos were very easily bruised....which made them lethal. Or as you say?..possibly MB got to him .As Hancock points out..Richard could have done with Hastings help at Bosworth so it's all tragic.
> Yes...so many questions...it's quite excruciating especially if you have a small brain like I do... :0/ Eileen
>
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen, I have always had a niggling doubt that Richard executed Hastings because he knew about Edward's marriage to Eleanor. There must have been a more serious reason. Unfortunately I don't know exactly what. It may have been that Hastings was plotting with EW to get rid of Richard so that he could come protector. I suppose he could have been conned by MB into thinking that HT would support him as Protector if he allwed him to come back to England. However, if he was plotting with MB did Richard not arrest her and Stanley instead of allowing them to take part in his Coronation? So many questions.
> >
> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I am quite enjoying this book which I have not yet finished...but Im puzzled about Hancock theorising that Richard ordered the execution of Hastings whilst in a rage because he had been informed (by Catesby?) on the morning of the council meeting that Hastings had known all along about the pre-contract between EB and
> > > Edward (his bosom buddy) but had held back from informing Richard, thus preventing Richard from taking his rightful place as king. Hancock also speculates that this was the reason Elizabeth Shore was put in prison as she also was aware of the truth. My question to this is why did Stillington, a relation to EB and who witnessed EB and Edward's marriage and who had not come forward, if Hancock is correct, was also not punished severely. I think it is indeed possible that Hastings and Shore would both know the truth of the pre-contract, both being so close to Edward for many years, but I remain unconvinced it was Catesby who informed Richard.
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi again Paul. I just started, for the 2nd time, Hancock's book about the
> > > > Hastings' execution, & find myself quite annoyed with it for a variety of
> > > > reasons. Especially in comparison with how Annette Carson handles the same
> > > > material. I have the paperback copy of the new edition of *Maligned*
> > > > *King*(& some of the pages are already falling out). Anyway, I now
> > > > think maybe I
> > > > should buy the special hardcover edition. Can you point me in the right
> > > > direction? I'm a member of the American Branch of the Society.
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:13 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > **
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You couldn't do worse than start with what Annette Carson has in
> > > > > Maligned King. Very interesting, covering all known sources.
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 11/07/2013 22:59, A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > > > > I've just been looking at some of the oldest posts on this Forum
> > > > > regarding
> > > > > > Hastings & the Protectorate. It's amazing how much the tone of debate has
> > > > > > changed in the last 13 years. I'm hoping that's because scholarship has
> > > > > > solidified some of the points that were being debated then. (Primarily
> > > > > the
> > > > > > legitimacy of Richard's appointment as Protector). Can anyone point me to
> > > > > > recent credible scholarly work on the subject?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A J
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

And almost certainly would have won if Warwick had been there...But such was the utter madness of the times.....they managed to destroy themselves...like one of those dragons you see on old Chinese pottery...devouring its own tail. Until lo..we ended up with the blasted Tudors....Tragic...Eileen

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Agree Eileen. Richard might have won if Hastings had been at Bosworth.
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> > Mary yes I do agree with that. Of course it was pretty serious but to have Hastings executed then and there as some say...and on a log! My feeling is that Hastings was involved in a plot to assassinate Richard...because they would have had to make sure he was dead to survive themselves. I have wondered whether Hastings was so loyal to Edward that he could not hack the idea of his son not becoming king. If this was the case and he knew about EB that would seem a rather warped way of thinking as obviously it was wrong, totally. He may have not realised this would be the result of warning Richard about the Woodvilles...but then again he was probably thinking of his own skin....as you do...Maybe...another maybe, he was just infuriated that he did not receive the rewards he was expecting and it has been said that he was at first "bursting with joy"'. .These nobles egos were very easily bruised....which made them lethal. Or as you say?..possibly MB got to him .As Hancock points out..Richard could have done with Hastings help at Bosworth so it's all tragic.
> > Yes...so many questions...it's quite excruciating especially if you have a small brain like I do... :0/ Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eileen, I have always had a niggling doubt that Richard executed Hastings because he knew about Edward's marriage to Eleanor. There must have been a more serious reason. Unfortunately I don't know exactly what. It may have been that Hastings was plotting with EW to get rid of Richard so that he could come protector. I suppose he could have been conned by MB into thinking that HT would support him as Protector if he allwed him to come back to England. However, if he was plotting with MB did Richard not arrest her and Stanley instead of allowing them to take part in his Coronation? So many questions.
> > >
> > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am quite enjoying this book which I have not yet finished...but Im puzzled about Hancock theorising that Richard ordered the execution of Hastings whilst in a rage because he had been informed (by Catesby?) on the morning of the council meeting that Hastings had known all along about the pre-contract between EB and
> > > > Edward (his bosom buddy) but had held back from informing Richard, thus preventing Richard from taking his rightful place as king. Hancock also speculates that this was the reason Elizabeth Shore was put in prison as she also was aware of the truth. My question to this is why did Stillington, a relation to EB and who witnessed EB and Edward's marriage and who had not come forward, if Hancock is correct, was also not punished severely. I think it is indeed possible that Hastings and Shore would both know the truth of the pre-contract, both being so close to Edward for many years, but I remain unconvinced it was Catesby who informed Richard.
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi again Paul. I just started, for the 2nd time, Hancock's book about the
> > > > > Hastings' execution, & find myself quite annoyed with it for a variety of
> > > > > reasons. Especially in comparison with how Annette Carson handles the same
> > > > > material. I have the paperback copy of the new edition of *Maligned*
> > > > > *King*(& some of the pages are already falling out). Anyway, I now
> > > > > think maybe I
> > > > > should buy the special hardcover edition. Can you point me in the right
> > > > > direction? I'm a member of the American Branch of the Society.
> > > > >
> > > > > A J
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:13 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > **
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You couldn't do worse than start with what Annette Carson has in
> > > > > > Maligned King. Very interesting, covering all known sources.
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 11/07/2013 22:59, A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > > > > > I've just been looking at some of the oldest posts on this Forum
> > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > Hastings & the Protectorate. It's amazing how much the tone of debate has
> > > > > > > changed in the last 13 years. I'm hoping that's because scholarship has
> > > > > > > solidified some of the points that were being debated then. (Primarily
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > legitimacy of Richard's appointment as Protector). Can anyone point me to
> > > > > > > recent credible scholarly work on the subject?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A J
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I've always wondered if Richard didn't execute Hastings because:

1. Come what may, Hastings was determined to support the son(s) of Edward IV, so the pre-contract didn't matter to Hastings. Edward's son was to take the throne as that's what Edward would have wanted. Full stop, forever.

2. To this end, Hastings plotted with EW to get rid of Richard so E5 could take the throne. Perhaps EW did promise Hastings could protector. Hastings may have known E5 personally and had genuine affection for him. He may have had genuine affection for the rest of Edward's children as well. He may have found it intolerable to watch everything ripped away from his best friend's children -- regardless Edward himself was responsible for the losses.

3. When Richard revealed he knew what Hastings had been doing, Hastings admitted what he'd done and tried to justify why he'd done it. He essentially admitted his treason, not only toward Richard as Protector, but Richard as Constable of England as well. The admission came in front of multiple witnesses. Hastings saw what he'd done as remaining loyal to Edward and what he wanted for his family. Richard saw what Hastings had done as treason to both himself and England.

4. Richard's response was as immediate as his brother Edward's would have been on a battlefield. Hastings had committed and admitted treason; his execution followed forthwith.

But we'll never know....

~Weds


--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, I have always had a niggling doubt that Richard executed Hastings because he knew about Edward's marriage to Eleanor. There must have been a more serious reason. Unfortunately I don't know exactly what. It may have been that Hastings was plotting with EW to get rid of Richard so that he could come protector. I suppose he could have been conned by MB into thinking that HT would support him as Protector if he allwed him to come back to England. However, if he was plotting with MB did Richard not arrest her and Stanley instead of allowing them to take part in his Coronation? So many questions.
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I am quite enjoying this book which I have not yet finished...but Im puzzled about Hancock theorising that Richard ordered the execution of Hastings whilst in a rage because he had been informed (by Catesby?) on the morning of the council meeting that Hastings had known all along about the pre-contract between EB and
> > Edward (his bosom buddy) but had held back from informing Richard, thus preventing Richard from taking his rightful place as king. Hancock also speculates that this was the reason Elizabeth Shore was put in prison as she also was aware of the truth. My question to this is why did Stillington, a relation to EB and who witnessed EB and Edward's marriage and who had not come forward, if Hancock is correct, was also not punished severely. I think it is indeed possible that Hastings and Shore would both know the truth of the pre-contract, both being so close to Edward for many years, but I remain unconvinced it was Catesby who informed Richard.
> >
> > Eileen
> > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi again Paul. I just started, for the 2nd time, Hancock's book about the
> > > Hastings' execution, & find myself quite annoyed with it for a variety of
> > > reasons. Especially in comparison with how Annette Carson handles the same
> > > material. I have the paperback copy of the new edition of *Maligned*
> > > *King*(& some of the pages are already falling out). Anyway, I now
> > > think maybe I
> > > should buy the special hardcover edition. Can you point me in the right
> > > direction? I'm a member of the American Branch of the Society.
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:13 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You couldn't do worse than start with what Annette Carson has in
> > > > Maligned King. Very interesting, covering all known sources.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 11/07/2013 22:59, A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > > > I've just been looking at some of the oldest posts on this Forum
> > > > regarding
> > > > > Hastings & the Protectorate. It's amazing how much the tone of debate has
> > > > > changed in the last 13 years. I'm hoping that's because scholarship has
> > > > > solidified some of the points that were being debated then. (Primarily
> > > > the
> > > > > legitimacy of Richard's appointment as Protector). Can anyone point me to
> > > > > recent credible scholarly work on the subject?
> > > > >
> > > > > A J

wednesday_mc wrote:

"I've always wondered if Richard didn't execute Hastings because:
1. Come what may, Hastings was determined to support the son(s) of Edward
IV, so the pre-contract didn't matter to Hastings. Edward's son was to take
the throne as that's what Edward would have wanted. Full stop, forever.
2. To this end, Hastings plotted with EW to get rid of Richard so E5 could
take the throne. Perhaps EW did promise Hastings could protector. Hastings
may have known E5 personally and had genuine affection for him. He may have
had genuine affection for the rest of Edward's children as well. He may have
found it intolerable to watch everything ripped away from his best friend's
children -- regardless Edward himself was responsible for the losses.
3. When Richard revealed he knew what Hastings had been doing, Hastings
admitted what he'd done and tried to justify why he'd done it. He
essentially admitted his treason, not only toward Richard as Protector, but
Richard as Constable of England as well. The admission came in front of
multiple witnesses. Hastings saw what he'd done as remaining loyal to Edward
and what he wanted for his family. Richard saw what Hastings had done as
treason to both himself and England.
4. Richard's response was as immediate as his brother Edward's would have
been on a battlefield. Hastings had committed and admitted treason; his
execution followed forthwith.
But we'll never know...."

Doug here:
FWIW, that's almost exactly the way it appears to me. The only thing I
wonder about is whether it was Hastings' devotion to his friend or his own
ambition that was paramount. However, as the results of any successful
action against Richard; ie, E(V) remains king and Hastings regains, or
possibly increases, the influence/power he'd held under Edward IV, it does
seem to me that, unless Hastings retired to a monastery, I'd tend to plump
for putting Hastings' ambition first, but as you say, we'll never know.
Doug

I think we are barking up the right tree here....Eileen
--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> wednesday_mc wrote:
>
> "I've always wondered if Richard didn't execute Hastings because:
> 1. Come what may, Hastings was determined to support the son(s) of Edward
> IV, so the pre-contract didn't matter to Hastings. Edward's son was to take
> the throne as that's what Edward would have wanted. Full stop, forever.
> 2. To this end, Hastings plotted with EW to get rid of Richard so E5 could
> take the throne. Perhaps EW did promise Hastings could protector. Hastings
> may have known E5 personally and had genuine affection for him. He may have
> had genuine affection for the rest of Edward's children as well. He may have
> found it intolerable to watch everything ripped away from his best friend's
> children -- regardless Edward himself was responsible for the losses.
> 3. When Richard revealed he knew what Hastings had been doing, Hastings
> admitted what he'd done and tried to justify why he'd done it. He
> essentially admitted his treason, not only toward Richard as Protector, but
> Richard as Constable of England as well. The admission came in front of
> multiple witnesses. Hastings saw what he'd done as remaining loyal to Edward
> and what he wanted for his family. Richard saw what Hastings had done as
> treason to both himself and England.
> 4. Richard's response was as immediate as his brother Edward's would have
> been on a battlefield. Hastings had committed and admitted treason; his
> execution followed forthwith.
> But we'll never know...."
>
> Doug here:
> FWIW, that's almost exactly the way it appears to me. The only thing I
> wonder about is whether it was Hastings' devotion to his friend or his own
> ambition that was paramount. However, as the results of any successful
> action against Richard; ie, E(V) remains king and Hastings regains, or
> possibly increases, the influence/power he'd held under Edward IV, it does
> seem to me that, unless Hastings retired to a monastery, I'd tend to plump
> for putting Hastings' ambition first, but as you say, we'll never know.
> Doug
>

I find it hard to get my head round the Hastings thing. I have Hastings as a loyal but not over-political friend of Edward's. I bit like Watson to Holmes. And Edward obviously thought the world of him, he is always referred to as a dear friend and Edward, despite all his faults, was a shrewd judge of character. The friendship had lasted many years without hiccup and Hastings must have lived a pleasant, rather lazy life in Edward's final years until the lightening bolt of April 1483 turned his world upside down.
 
 I don't have him approaching the Morton or MB camp, not do I have him as a subversive plotter (did he have that sort of energy) and I don't think EW was particularly fond of him either, was she? But something must have happened which made Richard think Hastings had betrayed him; I do think Hanock is right when he says that disloyalty is the thing which ignited Richard, it did with Buckingham. Was Morton, MB, or someone else astute enough to play on Hasting's natural upset and panic at the disinheritance of his friend's heirs and did they 'play' him, much as they did Buckingham a bit later? Was he fed lies about Richard which he believed? After all, he couldn't have seen that much of Richard in the last ten years and if Richard could execute Rivers, another 1471 exile colleague, could he have the same designs on Hastings? Perhaps something drove him to do what he did (whatever it was, but obviously some form of treason) out of fear rather than
ambition?
 
I would love to know what really happened but I doubt we ever will. 
PS I sometimes think Reggie Bray is in the shadows in all this. Perhaps he's been overlooked for too long. It's amazing where you bump into him. 


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 16:18
Subject: Re: Re: Sources for the protectorate

 


wednesday_mc wrote:

"I've always wondered if Richard didn't execute Hastings because:
1. Come what may, Hastings was determined to support the son(s) of Edward
IV, so the pre-contract didn't matter to Hastings. Edward's son was to take
the throne as that's what Edward would have wanted. Full stop, forever.
2. To this end, Hastings plotted with EW to get rid of Richard so E5 could
take the throne. Perhaps EW did promise Hastings could protector. Hastings
may have known E5 personally and had genuine affection for him. He may have
had genuine affection for the rest of Edward's children as well. He may have
found it intolerable to watch everything ripped away from his best friend's
children -- regardless Edward himself was responsible for the losses.
3. When Richard revealed he knew what Hastings had been doing, Hastings
admitted what he'd done and tried to justify why he'd done it. He
essentially admitted his treason, not only toward Richard as Protector, but
Richard as Constable of England as well. The admission came in front of
multiple witnesses. Hastings saw what he'd done as remaining loyal to Edward
and what he wanted for his family. Richard saw what Hastings had done as
treason to both himself and England.
4. Richard's response was as immediate as his brother Edward's would have
been on a battlefield. Hastings had committed and admitted treason; his
execution followed forthwith.
But we'll never know...."

Doug here:
FWIW, that's almost exactly the way it appears to me. The only thing I
wonder about is whether it was Hastings' devotion to his friend or his own
ambition that was paramount. However, as the results of any successful
action against Richard; ie, E(V) remains king and Hastings regains, or
possibly increases, the influence/power he'd held under Edward IV, it does
seem to me that, unless Hastings retired to a monastery, I'd tend to plump
for putting Hastings' ambition first, but as you say, we'll never know.
Doug

I agree with that....the disloyalty thing. I have always thought that Hastings knowing and holding back the truth about EB would not have been sufficient reason in itself for Richard to execute him..but now Im having second thoughts....surely what Hastings was doing by aiding and abetting an illigitimate child to take the throne was treason....As Hancock says...bloodlines were so important and everything in a royal family. Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I do think Hanock is right when he says that disloyalty is the thing which ignited Richard, it did with Buckingham. Was Morton, MB, or someone else astute enough to play on Hasting's natural upset and panic at the disinheritance of his friend's heirs and did they 'play' him, much as they did Buckingham a bit later? Was he fed lies about Richard which he believed? After all, he couldn't have seen that much of Richard in the last ten years and if Richard could execute Rivers, another 1471 exile colleague, could he have the same designs on Hastings? Perhaps something drove him to do what he did (whatever it was, but obviously some form of treason) out of fear rather than
> ambition?
>  
> I would love to know what really happened but I doubt we ever will. 
> PS I sometimes think Reggie Bray is in the shadows in all this. Perhaps he's been overlooked for too long. It's amazing where you bump into him. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 16:18
> Subject: Re: Re: Sources for the protectorate
>
>  
>
>
> wednesday_mc wrote:
>
> "I've always wondered if Richard didn't execute Hastings because:
> 1. Come what may, Hastings was determined to support the son(s) of Edward
> IV, so the pre-contract didn't matter to Hastings. Edward's son was to take
> the throne as that's what Edward would have wanted. Full stop, forever.
> 2. To this end, Hastings plotted with EW to get rid of Richard so E5 could
> take the throne. Perhaps EW did promise Hastings could protector. Hastings
> may have known E5 personally and had genuine affection for him. He may have
> had genuine affection for the rest of Edward's children as well. He may have
> found it intolerable to watch everything ripped away from his best friend's
> children -- regardless Edward himself was responsible for the losses.
> 3. When Richard revealed he knew what Hastings had been doing, Hastings
> admitted what he'd done and tried to justify why he'd done it. He
> essentially admitted his treason, not only toward Richard as Protector, but
> Richard as Constable of England as well. The admission came in front of
> multiple witnesses. Hastings saw what he'd done as remaining loyal to Edward
> and what he wanted for his family. Richard saw what Hastings had done as
> treason to both himself and England.
> 4. Richard's response was as immediate as his brother Edward's would have
> been on a battlefield. Hastings had committed and admitted treason; his
> execution followed forthwith.
> But we'll never know...."
>
> Doug here:
> FWIW, that's almost exactly the way it appears to me. The only thing I
> wonder about is whether it was Hastings' devotion to his friend or his own
> ambition that was paramount. However, as the results of any successful
> action against Richard; ie, E(V) remains king and Hastings regains, or
> possibly increases, the influence/power he'd held under Edward IV, it does
> seem to me that, unless Hastings retired to a monastery, I'd tend to plump
> for putting Hastings' ambition first, but as you say, we'll never know.
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>

It's a huge mess, isn't it? Would Edward have told Hastings (in PG it would be during a night of drunken wenching or on a tossing ship)? So Hasting would know and EW wouldn't? But little Edward would doubtless grow into a Woodville king and everyone tells us Hastings and EW didn't get on. So would Hastings really care that much? You can love the father, but it's not a gone conclusion that you'll love the son or more importantly he'll love you.
 
Did someone tell Hastings that Richard was out to sweep all the old order away and supplant them with Buckingham and Northerners? If so who? I just can't see Hastings trotting round to visit EW in Sanctuary. So was it MB, Morton or the totally uncontrollable Buckingham who could quite easily have made some remark to Hastings which led him to believe he wouldn't be around much longer. Did the ever-jealous Buckingham want to get rid of Hastings and whisper in Richard's ear that he must have know about EB? And our friend Morton on the Council would have nodded sagely - another one down.
 
And if Richard thought Hasting's act of treachery was that he would have supported a known illegitimate king, why didn't he come down on Stillington like a ton of bricks for keeping it a secret for so long? Richard would have had great respect for bishops; he must have thought this one had gone too far for so long to save his skin?
 
I don't know, I don't know.


________________________________
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 21:28
Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate

 

I agree with that....the disloyalty thing. I have always thought that Hastings knowing and holding back the truth about EB would not have been sufficient reason in itself for Richard to execute him..but now Im having second thoughts....surely what Hastings was doing by aiding and abetting an illigitimate child to take the throne was treason....As Hancock says...bloodlines were so important and everything in a royal family. Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I do think Hanock is right when he says that disloyalty is the thing which ignited Richard, it did with Buckingham. Was Morton, MB, or someone else astute enough to play on Hasting's natural upset and panic at the disinheritance of his friend's heirs and did they 'play' him, much as they did Buckingham a bit later? Was he fed lies about Richard which he believed? After all, he couldn't have seen that much of Richard in the last ten years and if Richard could execute Rivers, another 1471 exile colleague, could he have the same designs on Hastings? Perhaps something drove him to do what he did (whatever it was, but obviously some form of treason) out of fear rather than
> ambition?
>  
> I would love to know what really happened but I doubt we ever will. 
> PS I sometimes think Reggie Bray is in the shadows in all this. Perhaps he's been overlooked for too long. It's amazing where you bump into him. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 16:18
> Subject: Re: Re: Sources for the protectorate
>
>  
>
>
> wednesday_mc wrote:
>
> "I've always wondered if Richard didn't execute Hastings because:
> 1. Come what may, Hastings was determined to support the son(s) of Edward
> IV, so the pre-contract didn't matter to Hastings. Edward's son was to take
> the throne as that's what Edward would have wanted. Full stop, forever.
> 2. To this end, Hastings plotted with EW to get rid of Richard so E5 could
> take the throne. Perhaps EW did promise Hastings could protector. Hastings
> may have known E5 personally and had genuine affection for him. He may have
> had genuine affection for the rest of Edward's children as well. He may have
> found it intolerable to watch everything ripped away from his best friend's
> children -- regardless Edward himself was responsible for the losses.
> 3. When Richard revealed he knew what Hastings had been doing, Hastings
> admitted what he'd done and tried to justify why he'd done it. He
> essentially admitted his treason, not only toward Richard as Protector, but
> Richard as Constable of England as well. The admission came in front of
> multiple witnesses. Hastings saw what he'd done as remaining loyal to Edward
> and what he wanted for his family. Richard saw what Hastings had done as
> treason to both himself and England.
> 4. Richard's response was as immediate as his brother Edward's would have
> been on a battlefield. Hastings had committed and admitted treason; his
> execution followed forthwith.
> But we'll never know...."
>
> Doug here:
> FWIW, that's almost exactly the way it appears to me. The only thing I
> wonder about is whether it was Hastings' devotion to his friend or his own
> ambition that was paramount. However, as the results of any successful
> action against Richard; ie, E(V) remains king and Hastings regains, or
> possibly increases, the influence/power he'd held under Edward IV, it does
> seem to me that, unless Hastings retired to a monastery, I'd tend to plump
> for putting Hastings' ambition first, but as you say, we'll never know.
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>

You must know....you must...I cannot go on living like this not knowing...I need to know and I wants to know...preferably before I die...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>

>
> I don't know, I don't know.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 21:28
> Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate
>
>  
>
> I agree with that....the disloyalty thing. I have always thought that Hastings knowing and holding back the truth about EB would not have been sufficient reason in itself for Richard to execute him..but now Im having second thoughts....surely what Hastings was doing by aiding and abetting an illigitimate child to take the throne was treason....As Hancock says...bloodlines were so important and everything in a royal family. Eileen
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I do think Hanock is right when he says that disloyalty is the thing which ignited Richard, it did with Buckingham. Was Morton, MB, or someone else astute enough to play on Hasting's natural upset and panic at the disinheritance of his friend's heirs and did they 'play' him, much as they did Buckingham a bit later? Was he fed lies about Richard which he believed? After all, he couldn't have seen that much of Richard in the last ten years and if Richard could execute Rivers, another 1471 exile colleague, could he have the same designs on Hastings? Perhaps something drove him to do what he did (whatever it was, but obviously some form of treason) out of fear rather than
> > ambition?
> >  
> > I would love to know what really happened but I doubt we ever will. 
> > PS I sometimes think Reggie Bray is in the shadows in all this. Perhaps he's been overlooked for too long. It's amazing where you bump into him. 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 16:18
> > Subject: Re: Re: Sources for the protectorate
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> > wednesday_mc wrote:
> >
> > "I've always wondered if Richard didn't execute Hastings because:
> > 1. Come what may, Hastings was determined to support the son(s) of Edward
> > IV, so the pre-contract didn't matter to Hastings. Edward's son was to take
> > the throne as that's what Edward would have wanted. Full stop, forever.
> > 2. To this end, Hastings plotted with EW to get rid of Richard so E5 could
> > take the throne. Perhaps EW did promise Hastings could protector. Hastings
> > may have known E5 personally and had genuine affection for him. He may have
> > had genuine affection for the rest of Edward's children as well. He may have
> > found it intolerable to watch everything ripped away from his best friend's
> > children -- regardless Edward himself was responsible for the losses.
> > 3. When Richard revealed he knew what Hastings had been doing, Hastings
> > admitted what he'd done and tried to justify why he'd done it. He
> > essentially admitted his treason, not only toward Richard as Protector, but
> > Richard as Constable of England as well. The admission came in front of
> > multiple witnesses. Hastings saw what he'd done as remaining loyal to Edward
> > and what he wanted for his family. Richard saw what Hastings had done as
> > treason to both himself and England.
> > 4. Richard's response was as immediate as his brother Edward's would have
> > been on a battlefield. Hastings had committed and admitted treason; his
> > execution followed forthwith.
> > But we'll never know...."
> >
> > Doug here:
> > FWIW, that's almost exactly the way it appears to me. The only thing I
> > wonder about is whether it was Hastings' devotion to his friend or his own
> > ambition that was paramount. However, as the results of any successful
> > action against Richard; ie, E(V) remains king and Hastings regains, or
> > possibly increases, the influence/power he'd held under Edward IV, it does
> > seem to me that, unless Hastings retired to a monastery, I'd tend to plump
> > for putting Hastings' ambition first, but as you say, we'll never know.
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:

"I find it hard to get my head round the Hastings thing. I have Hastings as
a loyal but not over-political friend of Edward's. I bit like Watson to
Holmes. And Edward obviously thought the world of him, he is always referred
to as a dear friend and Edward, despite all his faults, was a shrewd judge
of character. The friendship had lasted many years without hiccup and
Hastings must have lived a pleasant, rather lazy life in Edward's final
years until the lightening bolt of April 1483 turned his world upside down.

I don't have him approaching the Morton or MB camp, not do I have him as a
subversive plotter (did he have that sort of energy) and I don't think EW
was particularly fond of him either, was she? But something must have
happened which made Richard think Hastings had betrayed him; I do think
Hanock is right when he says that disloyalty is the thing which ignited
Richard, it did with Buckingham. Was Morton, MB, or someone else astute
enough to play on Hasting's natural upset and panic at the disinheritance of
his friend's heirs and did they 'play' him, much as they did Buckingham a
bit later? Was he fed lies about Richard which he believed? After all, he
couldn't have seen that much of Richard in the last ten years and if Richard
could execute Rivers, another 1471 exile colleague, could he have the same
designs on Hastings? Perhaps something drove him to do what he did (whatever
it was, but obviously some form of treason) out of fear rather than
ambition?

I would love to know what really happened but I doubt we ever will.
PS I sometimes think Reggie Bray is in the shadows in all this. Perhaps he's
been overlooked for too long. It's amazing where you bump into him."

Doug here:
I don't know about the "Watson" idea. Wasn't Hastings Edward's Chamberlain
or some similar position? If what I'm currently reading about H7 (The Winter
King), the Chamberlain was a position of authority and power, closely
involved in just about everything the king did, always presuming the king
wanted the Chamberlain to know. Perhaps the best analogy would be to look at
the king/chamberlain relationship as not unlike that of an owner of a
private company and the general manager appointed by him to generally
oversee things.
So, if Edward was, as you say, a shrewd judge of character, why would he
place someone who, if he *was* a Watson-type, in such a position? The only
advantage I can see would be that he (Edward) then wouldn't have to worry
about that person taking advantage of the position but, at the same time,
all the work the Chamberlain actually had to do would then be placed back on
the king - or someone else appointed by the king.
Was there such a person? I can't think of anyone, but that doesn't mean
anything. Bishop Morton's public persona has been described as a sort of
"Hail fellow, well met" type and we know what was behind *that*, is it
possible Hastings was not dis-similar?
And, if Hastings *did* know about Edward and Eleanor, didn't tell Richard
and, on top of all that, got involved in some form with an attempt to keep
E(V) on the throne, would *that* be enough of a betrayal to Richard to
explain what happened?
Personally, I still think there was *some* sort of plot against Richard's
life, but wonder if the question is more one of *how much* about that plot
Hastings actually knew? As you said, was someone else "playing" Hastings,
and if so, who?
Doug

The execution makes sense if Hastings was planning to kill Richard and he somehow had proof. I have this theory that MB needed to get rid of everybody before she could try to seize the throne for her beloved Henry. I am not sure that Hastings would have killed Richard for MB, however, I wouldn't mind betting that she was involved somewhere along the line.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It's a huge mess, isn't it? Would Edward have told Hastings (in PG it would be during a night of drunken wenching or on a tossing ship)? So Hasting would know and EW wouldn't? But little Edward would doubtless grow into a Woodville king and everyone tells us Hastings and EW didn't get on. So would Hastings really care that much? You can love the father, but it's not a gone conclusion that you'll love the son or more importantly he'll love you.
>  
> Did someone tell Hastings that Richard was out to sweep all the old order away and supplant them with Buckingham and Northerners? If so who? I just can't see Hastings trotting round to visit EW in Sanctuary. So was it MB, Morton or the totally uncontrollable Buckingham who could quite easily have made some remark to Hastings which led him to believe he wouldn't be around much longer. Did the ever-jealous Buckingham want to get rid of Hastings and whisper in Richard's ear that he must have know about EB? And our friend Morton on the Council would have nodded sagely - another one down.
>  
> And if Richard thought Hasting's act of treachery was that he would have supported a known illegitimate king, why didn't he come down on Stillington like a ton of bricks for keeping it a secret for so long? Richard would have had great respect for bishops; he must have thought this one had gone too far for so long to save his skin?
>  
> I don't know, I don't know.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 21:28
> Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate
>
>  
>
> I agree with that....the disloyalty thing. I have always thought that Hastings knowing and holding back the truth about EB would not have been sufficient reason in itself for Richard to execute him..but now Im having second thoughts....surely what Hastings was doing by aiding and abetting an illigitimate child to take the throne was treason....As Hancock says...bloodlines were so important and everything in a royal family. Eileen
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I do think Hanock is right when he says that disloyalty is the thing which ignited Richard, it did with Buckingham. Was Morton, MB, or someone else astute enough to play on Hasting's natural upset and panic at the disinheritance of his friend's heirs and did they 'play' him, much as they did Buckingham a bit later? Was he fed lies about Richard which he believed? After all, he couldn't have seen that much of Richard in the last ten years and if Richard could execute Rivers, another 1471 exile colleague, could he have the same designs on Hastings? Perhaps something drove him to do what he did (whatever it was, but obviously some form of treason) out of fear rather than
> > ambition?
> >  
> > I would love to know what really happened but I doubt we ever will. 
> > PS I sometimes think Reggie Bray is in the shadows in all this. Perhaps he's been overlooked for too long. It's amazing where you bump into him. 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 16:18
> > Subject: Re: Re: Sources for the protectorate
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> > wednesday_mc wrote:
> >
> > "I've always wondered if Richard didn't execute Hastings because:
> > 1. Come what may, Hastings was determined to support the son(s) of Edward
> > IV, so the pre-contract didn't matter to Hastings. Edward's son was to take
> > the throne as that's what Edward would have wanted. Full stop, forever.
> > 2. To this end, Hastings plotted with EW to get rid of Richard so E5 could
> > take the throne. Perhaps EW did promise Hastings could protector. Hastings
> > may have known E5 personally and had genuine affection for him. He may have
> > had genuine affection for the rest of Edward's children as well. He may have
> > found it intolerable to watch everything ripped away from his best friend's
> > children -- regardless Edward himself was responsible for the losses.
> > 3. When Richard revealed he knew what Hastings had been doing, Hastings
> > admitted what he'd done and tried to justify why he'd done it. He
> > essentially admitted his treason, not only toward Richard as Protector, but
> > Richard as Constable of England as well. The admission came in front of
> > multiple witnesses. Hastings saw what he'd done as remaining loyal to Edward
> > and what he wanted for his family. Richard saw what Hastings had done as
> > treason to both himself and England.
> > 4. Richard's response was as immediate as his brother Edward's would have
> > been on a battlefield. Hastings had committed and admitted treason; his
> > execution followed forthwith.
> > But we'll never know...."
> >
> > Doug here:
> > FWIW, that's almost exactly the way it appears to me. The only thing I
> > wonder about is whether it was Hastings' devotion to his friend or his own
> > ambition that was paramount. However, as the results of any successful
> > action against Richard; ie, E(V) remains king and Hastings regains, or
> > possibly increases, the influence/power he'd held under Edward IV, it does
> > seem to me that, unless Hastings retired to a monastery, I'd tend to plump
> > for putting Hastings' ambition first, but as you say, we'll never know.
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

It's the more difficult because with our Ph.Ds in hindsight we know what happened next.
 
It would be good to do one of those fun sociological exercises where people are asked to role play the key folk in April 1483. They are given a summary of their individual's background and loyalites and then Edward's death is announced. What does each of them, including Richard, chose to do? I did it once 'to prevent the outbreak of World War I' and it was amazing how quickly people took on the identity and beliefs of the roles they were playing. It could yield some interesting results we've not thought of. 


________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2013, 21:33
Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate

 

The execution makes sense if Hastings was planning to kill Richard and he somehow had proof. I have this theory that MB needed to get rid of everybody before she could try to seize the throne for her beloved Henry. I am not sure that Hastings would have killed Richard for MB, however, I wouldn't mind betting that she was involved somewhere along the line.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It's a huge mess, isn't it? Would Edward have told Hastings (in PG it would be during a night of drunken wenching or on a tossing ship)? So Hasting would know and EW wouldn't? But little Edward would doubtless grow into a Woodville king and everyone tells us Hastings and EW didn't get on. So would Hastings really care that much? You can love the father, but it's not a gone conclusion that you'll love the son or more importantly he'll love you.
>  
> Did someone tell Hastings that Richard was out to sweep all the old order away and supplant them with Buckingham and Northerners? If so who? I just can't see Hastings trotting round to visit EW in Sanctuary. So was it MB, Morton or the totally uncontrollable Buckingham who could quite easily have made some remark to Hastings which led him to believe he wouldn't be around much longer. Did the ever-jealous Buckingham want to get rid of Hastings and whisper in Richard's ear that he must have know about EB? And our friend Morton on the Council would have nodded sagely - another one down.
>  
> And if Richard thought Hasting's act of treachery was that he would have supported a known illegitimate king, why didn't he come down on Stillington like a ton of bricks for keeping it a secret for so long? Richard would have had great respect for bishops; he must have thought this one had gone too far for so long to save his skin?
>  
> I don't know, I don't know.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 21:28
> Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate
>
>  
>
> I agree with that....the disloyalty thing. I have always thought that Hastings knowing and holding back the truth about EB would not have been sufficient reason in itself for Richard to execute him..but now Im having second thoughts....surely what Hastings was doing by aiding and abetting an illigitimate child to take the throne was treason....As Hancock says...bloodlines were so important and everything in a royal family. Eileen
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I do think Hanock is right when he says that disloyalty is the thing which ignited Richard, it did with Buckingham.àWas Morton, MB, or someone else astute enough to play on Hasting's natural upset and panic at the disinheritance of his friend's heirs and did they 'play' him, much as they did Buckingham a bit later? Was he fed lies about Richard which he believed? After all, he couldn't have seen that much of Richard in the last ten years and if Richard could execute Rivers, another 1471 exile colleague,àcould he have the same designs on Hastings? Perhaps something drove him to do what he did (whatever it was, but obviously some form of treason) out of fear rather than
> > ambition?
> > à
> > I would love to know what really happened but I doubt we ever will.à
> > PS I sometimes think Reggie Bray is in the shadows in all this. Perhaps he's been overlooked for too long. It's amazing where you bump into him.à
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 16:18
> > Subject: Re: Re: Sources for the protectorate
> >
> > à
> >
> >
> > wednesday_mc wrote:
> >
> > "I've always wondered if Richard didn't execute Hastings because:
> > 1. Come what may, Hastings was determined to support the son(s) of Edward
> > IV, so the pre-contract didn't matter to Hastings. Edward's son was to take
> > the throne as that's what Edward would have wanted. Full stop, forever.
> > 2. To this end, Hastings plotted with EW to get rid of Richard so E5 could
> > take the throne. Perhaps EW did promise Hastings could protector. Hastings
> > may have known E5 personally and had genuine affection for him. He may have
> > had genuine affection for the rest of Edward's children as well. He may have
> > found it intolerable to watch everything ripped away from his best friend's
> > children -- regardless Edward himself was responsible for the losses.
> > 3. When Richard revealed he knew what Hastings had been doing, Hastings
> > admitted what he'd done and tried to justify why he'd done it. He
> > essentially admitted his treason, not only toward Richard as Protector, but
> > Richard as Constable of England as well. The admission came in front of
> > multiple witnesses. Hastings saw what he'd done as remaining loyal to Edward
> > and what he wanted for his family. Richard saw what Hastings had done as
> > treason to both himself and England.
> > 4. Richard's response was as immediate as his brother Edward's would have
> > been on a battlefield. Hastings had committed and admitted treason; his
> > execution followed forthwith.
> > But we'll never know...."
> >
> > Doug here:
> > FWIW, that's almost exactly the way it appears to me. The only thing I
> > wonder about is whether it was Hastings' devotion to his friend or his own
> > ambition that was paramount. However, as the results of any successful
> > action against Richard; ie, E(V) remains king and Hastings regains, or
> > possibly increases, the influence/power he'd held under Edward IV, it does
> > seem to me that, unless Hastings retired to a monastery, I'd tend to plump
> > for putting Hastings' ambition first, but as you say, we'll never know.
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
>
> I am quite enjoying this book which I have not yet finished...but Im puzzled about Hancock theorising that Richard ordered the execution of Hastings whilst in a rage because he had been informed (by Catesby?) on the morning of the council meeting that Hastings had known all along about the pre-contract between EB and
> Edward (his bosom buddy) but had held back from informing Richard, thus preventing Richard from taking his rightful place as king. Hancock also speculates that this was the reason Elizabeth Shore was put in prison as she also was aware of the truth. My question to this is why did Stillington, a relation to EB and who witnessed EB and Edward's marriage and who had not come forward, if Hancock is correct, was also not punished severely. I think it is indeed possible that Hastings and Shore would both know the truth of the pre-contract, both being so close to Edward for many years, but I remain unconvinced it was Catesby who informed Richard.

Carol responds:

The whole rage bit is Hancock taking Sir Thomas More at (near) face value--one of several reasons why I'm not impressed with Hancock. Another is the inconsistency you point out, and there's also his turgid style. Altogether unconvincing, I think, but at least it does provide useful information on the Catesby-Stanley connection and a few other matters.

Carol

Sorry to be late with this, just going through some emails.
I have also read the book and find it fascinating regarding the regional associations between the families, Catesby, Hastings, Stillington and all, plus the timelines. That is the buttress for PH's speculation. Stillington may have provided the confirmation as witness and perhaps some documentation (lost?) which would have been valuable to Richard - so why would R go hard after him, a churchman no less? Also, don't forget, Stillington had been imprisoned and probably properly warned by EIV to hush up. He would be reluctant to come forward. Catesby could have been the go between. Hastings, a supposed supporter of the Yorkists, opposed to the Queen's party and in close contact with Richard during the interregnum, should have, in Richard's mind, been right there to provide him with this information - my take on Dr. Hancock's theories
Catesby was apparently well rewarded during RIII's reign and was among those immediately executed by HVII.
And if you don't want to accept More's account of the council meeting, the almost immediate beheading of Hastings should indicate some level of rage.
Not turgid, PH provides a logical road map to his theories. Not everyone can write like Kendall. :>)
But,I find the book intriguing and it provides new information.
Virginia



-----Original Message-----
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thu, Jul 18, 2013 8:18 pm
Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate








--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
>
> I am quite enjoying this book which I have not yet finished...but Im puzzled about Hancock theorising that Richard ordered the execution of Hastings whilst in a rage because he had been informed (by Catesby?) on the morning of the council meeting that Hastings had known all along about the pre-contract between EB and
> Edward (his bosom buddy) but had held back from informing Richard, thus preventing Richard from taking his rightful place as king. Hancock also speculates that this was the reason Elizabeth Shore was put in prison as she also was aware of the truth. My question to this is why did Stillington, a relation to EB and who witnessed EB and Edward's marriage and who had not come forward, if Hancock is correct, was also not punished severely. I think it is indeed possible that Hastings and Shore would both know the truth of the pre-contract, both being so close to Edward for many years, but I remain unconvinced it was Catesby who informed Richard.

Carol responds:

The whole rage bit is Hancock taking Sir Thomas More at (near) face value--one of several reasons why I'm not impressed with Hancock. Another is the inconsistency you point out, and there's also his turgid style. Altogether unconvincing, I think, but at least it does provide useful information on the Catesby-Stanley connection and a few other matters.

Carol

Rage - maybe. Maybe decisive action. Perhaps I'm wrong, but weren't those
declared traitors on the battlefield executed promptly? And Richard, I
believe was still constable of England, & had essentially the King's
council already available on the spot.

A J


On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:24 AM, <fairerichard3@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> Sorry to be late with this, just going through some emails.
> I have also read the book and find it fascinating regarding the regional
> associations between the families, Catesby, Hastings, Stillington and all,
> plus the timelines. That is the buttress for PH's speculation. Stillington
> may have provided the confirmation as witness and perhaps some
> documentation (lost?) which would have been valuable to Richard - so why
> would R go hard after him, a churchman no less? Also, don't forget,
> Stillington had been imprisoned and probably properly warned by EIV to hush
> up. He would be reluctant to come forward. Catesby could have been the go
> between. Hastings, a supposed supporter of the Yorkists, opposed to the
> Queen's party and in close contact with Richard during the interregnum,
> should have, in Richard's mind, been right there to provide him with this
> information - my take on Dr. Hancock's theories
> Catesby was apparently well rewarded during RIII's reign and was among
> those immediately executed by HVII.
> And if you don't want to accept More's account of the council meeting, the
> almost immediate beheading of Hastings should indicate some level of rage.
> Not turgid, PH provides a logical road map to his theories. Not everyone
> can write like Kendall. :>)
> But,I find the book intriguing and it provides new information.
> Virginia
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Thu, Jul 18, 2013 8:18 pm
> Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES"
> <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I am quite enjoying this book which I have not yet finished...but Im
> puzzled about Hancock theorising that Richard ordered the execution of
> Hastings whilst in a rage because he had been informed (by Catesby?) on the
> morning of the council meeting that Hastings had known all along about the
> pre-contract between EB and
> > Edward (his bosom buddy) but had held back from informing Richard, thus
> preventing Richard from taking his rightful place as king. Hancock also
> speculates that this was the reason Elizabeth Shore was put in prison as
> she also was aware of the truth. My question to this is why did
> Stillington, a relation to EB and who witnessed EB and Edward's marriage
> and who had not come forward, if Hancock is correct, was also not punished
> severely. I think it is indeed possible that Hastings and Shore would both
> know the truth of the pre-contract, both being so close to Edward for many
> years, but I remain unconvinced it was Catesby who informed Richard.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The whole rage bit is Hancock taking Sir Thomas More at (near) face
> value--one of several reasons why I'm not impressed with Hancock. Another
> is the inconsistency you point out, and there's also his turgid style.
> Altogether unconvincing, I think, but at least it does provide useful
> information on the Catesby-Stanley connection and a few other matters.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>

Decisive action, possibly. Did the Constable have the right to summary action? Debatable. This was not a battle and
an immediate execution would be considered unusual. It appears to have caused consternation in the streets as the letters PH quotes indicate.
That it took place that way indicates something explosive likely took place in that meeting.
Wasn't the king's council, according to PH, split in two, meeting in separate locations? Would the remaining members have been able to provide a sort of 'trial"? There is no record of a trial for Hastings of any kind. Without records, much is left to conjecture.
V.


-----Original Message-----
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sun, Jul 21, 2013 12:33 pm
Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate


Rage - maybe. Maybe decisive action. Perhaps I'm wrong, but weren't those
declared traitors on the battlefield executed promptly? And Richard, I
believe was still constable of England, & had essentially the King's
council already available on the spot.

A J


On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:24 AM, <fairerichard3@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> Sorry to be late with this, just going through some emails.
> I have also read the book and find it fascinating regarding the regional
> associations between the families, Catesby, Hastings, Stillington and all,
> plus the timelines. That is the buttress for PH's speculation. Stillington
> may have provided the confirmation as witness and perhaps some
> documentation (lost?) which would have been valuable to Richard - so why
> would R go hard after him, a churchman no less? Also, don't forget,
> Stillington had been imprisoned and probably properly warned by EIV to hush
> up. He would be reluctant to come forward. Catesby could have been the go
> between. Hastings, a supposed supporter of the Yorkists, opposed to the
> Queen's party and in close contact with Richard during the interregnum,
> should have, in Richard's mind, been right there to provide him with this
> information - my take on Dr. Hancock's theories
> Catesby was apparently well rewarded during RIII's reign and was among
> those immediately executed by HVII.
> And if you don't want to accept More's account of the council meeting, the
> almost immediate beheading of Hastings should indicate some level of rage.
> Not turgid, PH provides a logical road map to his theories. Not everyone
> can write like Kendall. :>)
> But,I find the book intriguing and it provides new information.
> Virginia
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Thu, Jul 18, 2013 8:18 pm
> Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES"
> <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I am quite enjoying this book which I have not yet finished...but Im
> puzzled about Hancock theorising that Richard ordered the execution of
> Hastings whilst in a rage because he had been informed (by Catesby?) on the
> morning of the council meeting that Hastings had known all along about the
> pre-contract between EB and
> > Edward (his bosom buddy) but had held back from informing Richard, thus
> preventing Richard from taking his rightful place as king. Hancock also
> speculates that this was the reason Elizabeth Shore was put in prison as
> she also was aware of the truth. My question to this is why did
> Stillington, a relation to EB and who witnessed EB and Edward's marriage
> and who had not come forward, if Hancock is correct, was also not punished
> severely. I think it is indeed possible that Hastings and Shore would both
> know the truth of the pre-contract, both being so close to Edward for many
> years, but I remain unconvinced it was Catesby who informed Richard.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The whole rage bit is Hancock taking Sir Thomas More at (near) face
> value--one of several reasons why I'm not impressed with Hancock. Another
> is the inconsistency you point out, and there's also his turgid style.
> Altogether unconvincing, I think, but at least it does provide useful
> information on the Catesby-Stanley connection and a few other matters.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

He had those powers in emergency situations such as a plot or an immediate physical threat, unquestionably. The circumstances do not preclude a trial from having happened either, except for the reader who takes More as the verbatim truth: strawberries, witchcraft, withered arm and all.
Of course, even if there had been a withered arm, it seems to have disappeared post mortem.
----- Original Message -----
From: fairerichard3@...
To:
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate




Decisive action, possibly. Did the Constable have the right to summary action? Debatable. This was not a battle and
an immediate execution would be considered unusual. It appears to have caused consternation in the streets as the letters PH quotes indicate.
That it took place that way indicates something explosive likely took place in that meeting.
Wasn't the king's council, according to PH, split in two, meeting in separate locations? Would the remaining members have been able to provide a sort of 'trial"? There is no record of a trial for Hastings of any kind. Without records, much is left to conjecture.
V.

-----Original Message-----
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sun, Jul 21, 2013 12:33 pm
Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate

Rage - maybe. Maybe decisive action. Perhaps I'm wrong, but weren't those
declared traitors on the battlefield executed promptly? And Richard, I
believe was still constable of England, & had essentially the King's
council already available on the spot.

A J

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:24 AM, <fairerichard3@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> Sorry to be late with this, just going through some emails.
> I have also read the book and find it fascinating regarding the regional
> associations between the families, Catesby, Hastings, Stillington and all,
> plus the timelines. That is the buttress for PH's speculation. Stillington
> may have provided the confirmation as witness and perhaps some
> documentation (lost?) which would have been valuable to Richard - so why
> would R go hard after him, a churchman no less? Also, don't forget,
> Stillington had been imprisoned and probably properly warned by EIV to hush
> up. He would be reluctant to come forward. Catesby could have been the go
> between. Hastings, a supposed supporter of the Yorkists, opposed to the
> Queen's party and in close contact with Richard during the interregnum,
> should have, in Richard's mind, been right there to provide him with this
> information - my take on Dr. Hancock's theories
> Catesby was apparently well rewarded during RIII's reign and was among
> those immediately executed by HVII.
> And if you don't want to accept More's account of the council meeting, the
> almost immediate beheading of Hastings should indicate some level of rage.
> Not turgid, PH provides a logical road map to his theories. Not everyone
> can write like Kendall. :>)
> But,I find the book intriguing and it provides new information.
> Virginia
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Thu, Jul 18, 2013 8:18 pm
> Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES"
> <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I am quite enjoying this book which I have not yet finished...but Im
> puzzled about Hancock theorising that Richard ordered the execution of
> Hastings whilst in a rage because he had been informed (by Catesby?) on the
> morning of the council meeting that Hastings had known all along about the
> pre-contract between EB and
> > Edward (his bosom buddy) but had held back from informing Richard, thus
> preventing Richard from taking his rightful place as king. Hancock also
> speculates that this was the reason Elizabeth Shore was put in prison as
> she also was aware of the truth. My question to this is why did
> Stillington, a relation to EB and who witnessed EB and Edward's marriage
> and who had not come forward, if Hancock is correct, was also not punished
> severely. I think it is indeed possible that Hastings and Shore would both
> know the truth of the pre-contract, both being so close to Edward for many
> years, but I remain unconvinced it was Catesby who informed Richard.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The whole rage bit is Hancock taking Sir Thomas More at (near) face
> value--one of several reasons why I'm not impressed with Hancock. Another
> is the inconsistency you point out, and there's also his turgid style.
> Altogether unconvincing, I think, but at least it does provide useful
> information on the Catesby-Stanley connection and a few other matters.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

The Constable did indeed have the right to summary action, and action
against him was high treason, punishable by death. This was even more
applicable between the death of a monarch and the coronation of the
next, as the Constable was THE power. On top of which Richard was also
Lord Protector.
The private meetings of councillors were we are told at separate places,
but the actual business meetings were together.
Hastings brought weapons to the council meeting with the intention of
killing Richard and taking over the power. That is the story. If true,
and I believe it is what Richard believed, then he had the right to
summary execution as Constable, and Protector.
Paul


On 21/07/2013 18:53, fairerichard3@... wrote:
> Decisive action, possibly. Did the Constable have the right to summary action? Debatable. This was not a battle and
> an immediate execution would be considered unusual. It appears to have caused consternation in the streets as the letters PH quotes indicate.
> That it took place that way indicates something explosive likely took place in that meeting.
> Wasn't the king's council, according to PH, split in two, meeting in separate locations? Would the remaining members have been able to provide a sort of 'trial"? There is no record of a trial for Hastings of any kind. Without records, much is left to conjecture.
> V.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sun, Jul 21, 2013 12:33 pm
> Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate
>
>
> Rage - maybe. Maybe decisive action. Perhaps I'm wrong, but weren't those
> declared traitors on the battlefield executed promptly? And Richard, I
> believe was still constable of England, & had essentially the King's
> council already available on the spot.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:24 AM, <fairerichard3@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry to be late with this, just going through some emails.
>> I have also read the book and find it fascinating regarding the regional
>> associations between the families, Catesby, Hastings, Stillington and all,
>> plus the timelines. That is the buttress for PH's speculation. Stillington
>> may have provided the confirmation as witness and perhaps some
>> documentation (lost?) which would have been valuable to Richard - so why
>> would R go hard after him, a churchman no less? Also, don't forget,
>> Stillington had been imprisoned and probably properly warned by EIV to hush
>> up. He would be reluctant to come forward. Catesby could have been the go
>> between. Hastings, a supposed supporter of the Yorkists, opposed to the
>> Queen's party and in close contact with Richard during the interregnum,
>> should have, in Richard's mind, been right there to provide him with this
>> information - my take on Dr. Hancock's theories
>> Catesby was apparently well rewarded during RIII's reign and was among
>> those immediately executed by HVII.
>> And if you don't want to accept More's account of the council meeting, the
>> almost immediate beheading of Hastings should indicate some level of rage.
>> Not turgid, PH provides a logical road map to his theories. Not everyone
>> can write like Kendall. :>)
>> But,I find the book intriguing and it provides new information.
>> Virginia
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>> To: <>
>> Sent: Thu, Jul 18, 2013 8:18 pm
>> Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate
>>
>> --- In , "EILEEN BATES"
>> <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am quite enjoying this book which I have not yet finished...but Im
>> puzzled about Hancock theorising that Richard ordered the execution of
>> Hastings whilst in a rage because he had been informed (by Catesby?) on the
>> morning of the council meeting that Hastings had known all along about the
>> pre-contract between EB and
>>> Edward (his bosom buddy) but had held back from informing Richard, thus
>> preventing Richard from taking his rightful place as king. Hancock also
>> speculates that this was the reason Elizabeth Shore was put in prison as
>> she also was aware of the truth. My question to this is why did
>> Stillington, a relation to EB and who witnessed EB and Edward's marriage
>> and who had not come forward, if Hancock is correct, was also not punished
>> severely. I think it is indeed possible that Hastings and Shore would both
>> know the truth of the pre-contract, both being so close to Edward for many
>> years, but I remain unconvinced it was Catesby who informed Richard.
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> The whole rage bit is Hancock taking Sir Thomas More at (near) face
>> value--one of several reasons why I'm not impressed with Hancock. Another
>> is the inconsistency you point out, and there's also his turgid style.
>> Altogether unconvincing, I think, but at least it does provide useful
>> information on the Catesby-Stanley connection and a few other matters.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

--- In , fairerichard3@... wrote:
>
>
> Decisive action, possibly. Did the Constable have the right to summary action? Debatable. This was not a battle and
> an immediate execution would be considered unusual.

It was unusual, but yes the Constable did have summary powers, and Henry IV (whom I'm reading about at present) certainly had people who had been taken during attempted coups executed without trial and sometimes immediately. His record of doing nasty things to opponents is completely hair-raising compared to Richard's, incidentally. A trial was needed where there could be some doubt about guilt; it doesn't seem to have felt it that necessary where people were caught red-handed.
Marie


It appears to have caused consternation in the streets as the letters PH quotes indicate.

There are two letters, both of which may have some connection with any plot there may have been (one was seemingly bound for Calais, and the other for Dorset's friend Sir William Stonor). It may be therefore misleading to see these as evidence that ordinary, uninvolved Londoners were so alarmed they started firing off letters to warn distant friends of trouble afoot.
Marie



> That it took place that way indicates something explosive likely took place in that meeting.

Agreed.
Marie


> Wasn't the king's council, according to PH, split in two, meeting in separate locations? Would the remaining members have been able to provide a sort of 'trial"? There is no record of a trial for Hastings of any kind. Without records, much is left to conjecture.

Indeed, we just don't have records for so much. IF (conjecture) Hastings got a summary trial by Richard as Constable, or was tried by the King's council, or a combination of the two, then we wouldn't have the records - not for that period. But maybe something will turn up one day.
Marie



> V.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sun, Jul 21, 2013 12:33 pm
> Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate
>
>
> Rage - maybe. Maybe decisive action. Perhaps I'm wrong, but weren't those
> declared traitors on the battlefield executed promptly? And Richard, I
> believe was still constable of England, & had essentially the King's
> council already available on the spot.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:24 AM, <fairerichard3@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry to be late with this, just going through some emails.
> > I have also read the book and find it fascinating regarding the regional
> > associations between the families, Catesby, Hastings, Stillington and all,
> > plus the timelines. That is the buttress for PH's speculation. Stillington
> > may have provided the confirmation as witness and perhaps some
> > documentation (lost?) which would have been valuable to Richard - so why
> > would R go hard after him, a churchman no less? Also, don't forget,
> > Stillington had been imprisoned and probably properly warned by EIV to hush
> > up. He would be reluctant to come forward. Catesby could have been the go
> > between. Hastings, a supposed supporter of the Yorkists, opposed to the
> > Queen's party and in close contact with Richard during the interregnum,
> > should have, in Richard's mind, been right there to provide him with this
> > information - my take on Dr. Hancock's theories
> > Catesby was apparently well rewarded during RIII's reign and was among
> > those immediately executed by HVII.
> > And if you don't want to accept More's account of the council meeting, the
> > almost immediate beheading of Hastings should indicate some level of rage.
> > Not turgid, PH provides a logical road map to his theories. Not everyone
> > can write like Kendall. :>)
> > But,I find the book intriguing and it provides new information.
> > Virginia
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Thu, Jul 18, 2013 8:18 pm
> > Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate
> >
> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES"
> > <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I am quite enjoying this book which I have not yet finished...but Im
> > puzzled about Hancock theorising that Richard ordered the execution of
> > Hastings whilst in a rage because he had been informed (by Catesby?) on the
> > morning of the council meeting that Hastings had known all along about the
> > pre-contract between EB and
> > > Edward (his bosom buddy) but had held back from informing Richard, thus
> > preventing Richard from taking his rightful place as king. Hancock also
> > speculates that this was the reason Elizabeth Shore was put in prison as
> > she also was aware of the truth. My question to this is why did
> > Stillington, a relation to EB and who witnessed EB and Edward's marriage
> > and who had not come forward, if Hancock is correct, was also not punished
> > severely. I think it is indeed possible that Hastings and Shore would both
> > know the truth of the pre-contract, both being so close to Edward for many
> > years, but I remain unconvinced it was Catesby who informed Richard.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > The whole rage bit is Hancock taking Sir Thomas More at (near) face
> > value--one of several reasons why I'm not impressed with Hancock. Another
> > is the inconsistency you point out, and there's also his turgid style.
> > Altogether unconvincing, I think, but at least it does provide useful
> > information on the Catesby-Stanley connection and a few other matters.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I wonder how open the records are at the Tower of London...it would be
fascinating to find a document around that period...


On 21 July 2013 14:53, <fairerichard3@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> Decisive action, possibly. Did the Constable have the right to summary
> action? Debatable. This was not a battle and
> an immediate execution would be considered unusual. It appears to have
> caused consternation in the streets as the letters PH quotes indicate.
> That it took place that way indicates something explosive likely took
> place in that meeting.
> Wasn't the king's council, according to PH, split in two, meeting in
> separate locations? Would the remaining members have been able to provide a
> sort of 'trial"? There is no record of a trial for Hastings of any kind.
> Without records, much is left to conjecture.
> V.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sun, Jul 21, 2013 12:33 pm
> Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate
>
> Rage - maybe. Maybe decisive action. Perhaps I'm wrong, but weren't those
> declared traitors on the battlefield executed promptly? And Richard, I
> believe was still constable of England, & had essentially the King's
> council already available on the spot.
>
> A J
>
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:24 AM, <fairerichard3@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry to be late with this, just going through some emails.
> > I have also read the book and find it fascinating regarding the regional
> > associations between the families, Catesby, Hastings, Stillington and
> all,
> > plus the timelines. That is the buttress for PH's speculation.
> Stillington
> > may have provided the confirmation as witness and perhaps some
> > documentation (lost?) which would have been valuable to Richard - so why
> > would R go hard after him, a churchman no less? Also, don't forget,
> > Stillington had been imprisoned and probably properly warned by EIV to
> hush
> > up. He would be reluctant to come forward. Catesby could have been the go
> > between. Hastings, a supposed supporter of the Yorkists, opposed to the
> > Queen's party and in close contact with Richard during the interregnum,
> > should have, in Richard's mind, been right there to provide him with this
> > information - my take on Dr. Hancock's theories
> > Catesby was apparently well rewarded during RIII's reign and was among
> > those immediately executed by HVII.
> > And if you don't want to accept More's account of the council meeting,
> the
> > almost immediate beheading of Hastings should indicate some level of
> rage.
> > Not turgid, PH provides a logical road map to his theories. Not everyone
> > can write like Kendall. :>)
> > But,I find the book intriguing and it provides new information.
> > Virginia
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Thu, Jul 18, 2013 8:18 pm
> > Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate
> >
> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES"
> > <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I am quite enjoying this book which I have not yet finished...but Im
> > puzzled about Hancock theorising that Richard ordered the execution of
> > Hastings whilst in a rage because he had been informed (by Catesby?) on
> the
> > morning of the council meeting that Hastings had known all along about
> the
> > pre-contract between EB and
> > > Edward (his bosom buddy) but had held back from informing Richard, thus
> > preventing Richard from taking his rightful place as king. Hancock also
> > speculates that this was the reason Elizabeth Shore was put in prison as
> > she also was aware of the truth. My question to this is why did
> > Stillington, a relation to EB and who witnessed EB and Edward's marriage
> > and who had not come forward, if Hancock is correct, was also not
> punished
> > severely. I think it is indeed possible that Hastings and Shore would
> both
> > know the truth of the pre-contract, both being so close to Edward for
> many
> > years, but I remain unconvinced it was Catesby who informed Richard.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > The whole rage bit is Hancock taking Sir Thomas More at (near) face
> > value--one of several reasons why I'm not impressed with Hancock. Another
> > is the inconsistency you point out, and there's also his turgid style.
> > Altogether unconvincing, I think, but at least it does provide useful
> > information on the Catesby-Stanley connection and a few other matters.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>



--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329

www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Constable of England wasn't required to bring someone to trial before executing them?

In any case, regardless the paperwork is missing, we know the council subsequently supported Richard's action of executing Hastings -- which means he must have had solid evidence of treason?

I know some anti-Richard writers have claimed that the council must have "obeyed" or went along with Richard after Hastings' death because they feared for themselves (as if Richard threatened their security somehow?) but I really can't see a council full of Southerners and professional ecclesiastics doing that.

They refused to allow Richard to order the execution of the men arrested during the Stony Stratford debacle quickly enough when Richard arrived in London. Would Hastings' death have made them shiver in their fine slippers and subsequently bow down to whatever the Protector/Constable wanted from that point on? I don't think so, but....meh...what do I know?

~Weds

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Rage - maybe. Maybe decisive action. Perhaps I'm wrong, but weren't those
> declared traitors on the battlefield executed promptly? And Richard, I
> believe was still constable of England, & had essentially the King's
> council already available on the spot.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:24 AM, <fairerichard3@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry to be late with this, just going through some emails.
> > I have also read the book and find it fascinating regarding the regional
> > associations between the families, Catesby, Hastings, Stillington and all,
> > plus the timelines. That is the buttress for PH's speculation. Stillington
> > may have provided the confirmation as witness and perhaps some
> > documentation (lost?) which would have been valuable to Richard - so why
> > would R go hard after him, a churchman no less? Also, don't forget,
> > Stillington had been imprisoned and probably properly warned by EIV to hush
> > up. He would be reluctant to come forward. Catesby could have been the go
> > between. Hastings, a supposed supporter of the Yorkists, opposed to the
> > Queen's party and in close contact with Richard during the interregnum,
> > should have, in Richard's mind, been right there to provide him with this
> > information - my take on Dr. Hancock's theories
> > Catesby was apparently well rewarded during RIII's reign and was among
> > those immediately executed by HVII.
> > And if you don't want to accept More's account of the council meeting, the
> > almost immediate beheading of Hastings should indicate some level of rage.
> > Not turgid, PH provides a logical road map to his theories. Not everyone
> > can write like Kendall. :>)
> > But,I find the book intriguing and it provides new information.
> > Virginia
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Thu, Jul 18, 2013 8:18 pm
> > Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate
> >
> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES"
> > <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I am quite enjoying this book which I have not yet finished...but Im
> > puzzled about Hancock theorising that Richard ordered the execution of
> > Hastings whilst in a rage because he had been informed (by Catesby?) on the
> > morning of the council meeting that Hastings had known all along about the
> > pre-contract between EB and
> > > Edward (his bosom buddy) but had held back from informing Richard, thus
> > preventing Richard from taking his rightful place as king. Hancock also
> > speculates that this was the reason Elizabeth Shore was put in prison as
> > she also was aware of the truth. My question to this is why did
> > Stillington, a relation to EB and who witnessed EB and Edward's marriage
> > and who had not come forward, if Hancock is correct, was also not punished
> > severely. I think it is indeed possible that Hastings and Shore would both
> > know the truth of the pre-contract, both being so close to Edward for many
> > years, but I remain unconvinced it was Catesby who informed Richard.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > The whole rage bit is Hancock taking Sir Thomas More at (near) face
> > value--one of several reasons why I'm not impressed with Hancock. Another
> > is the inconsistency you point out, and there's also his turgid style.
> > Altogether unconvincing, I think, but at least it does provide useful
> > information on the Catesby-Stanley connection and a few other matters.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

How, exactly, was the council constituted by the way?



--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Constable of England wasn't required to bring someone to trial before executing them?
>
> In any case, regardless the paperwork is missing, we know the council subsequently supported Richard's action of executing Hastings -- which means he must have had solid evidence of treason?
>
> I know some anti-Richard writers have claimed that the council must have "obeyed" or went along with Richard after Hastings' death because they feared for themselves (as if Richard threatened their security somehow?) but I really can't see a council full of Southerners and professional ecclesiastics doing that.
>
> They refused to allow Richard to order the execution of the men arrested during the Stony Stratford debacle quickly enough when Richard arrived in London. Would Hastings' death have made them shiver in their fine slippers and subsequently bow down to whatever the Protector/Constable wanted from that point on? I don't think so, but....meh...what do I know?
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > Rage - maybe. Maybe decisive action. Perhaps I'm wrong, but weren't those
> > declared traitors on the battlefield executed promptly? And Richard, I
> > believe was still constable of England, & had essentially the King's
> > council already available on the spot.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:24 AM, <fairerichard3@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry to be late with this, just going through some emails.
> > > I have also read the book and find it fascinating regarding the regional
> > > associations between the families, Catesby, Hastings, Stillington and all,
> > > plus the timelines. That is the buttress for PH's speculation. Stillington
> > > may have provided the confirmation as witness and perhaps some
> > > documentation (lost?) which would have been valuable to Richard - so why
> > > would R go hard after him, a churchman no less? Also, don't forget,
> > > Stillington had been imprisoned and probably properly warned by EIV to hush
> > > up. He would be reluctant to come forward. Catesby could have been the go
> > > between. Hastings, a supposed supporter of the Yorkists, opposed to the
> > > Queen's party and in close contact with Richard during the interregnum,
> > > should have, in Richard's mind, been right there to provide him with this
> > > information - my take on Dr. Hancock's theories
> > > Catesby was apparently well rewarded during RIII's reign and was among
> > > those immediately executed by HVII.
> > > And if you don't want to accept More's account of the council meeting, the
> > > almost immediate beheading of Hastings should indicate some level of rage.
> > > Not turgid, PH provides a logical road map to his theories. Not everyone
> > > can write like Kendall. :>)
> > > But,I find the book intriguing and it provides new information.
> > > Virginia
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: <>
> > > Sent: Thu, Jul 18, 2013 8:18 pm
> > > Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate
> > >
> > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES"
> > > <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am quite enjoying this book which I have not yet finished...but Im
> > > puzzled about Hancock theorising that Richard ordered the execution of
> > > Hastings whilst in a rage because he had been informed (by Catesby?) on the
> > > morning of the council meeting that Hastings had known all along about the
> > > pre-contract between EB and
> > > > Edward (his bosom buddy) but had held back from informing Richard, thus
> > > preventing Richard from taking his rightful place as king. Hancock also
> > > speculates that this was the reason Elizabeth Shore was put in prison as
> > > she also was aware of the truth. My question to this is why did
> > > Stillington, a relation to EB and who witnessed EB and Edward's marriage
> > > and who had not come forward, if Hancock is correct, was also not punished
> > > severely. I think it is indeed possible that Hastings and Shore would both
> > > know the truth of the pre-contract, both being so close to Edward for many
> > > years, but I remain unconvinced it was Catesby who informed Richard.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > The whole rage bit is Hancock taking Sir Thomas More at (near) face
> > > value--one of several reasons why I'm not impressed with Hancock. Another
> > > is the inconsistency you point out, and there's also his turgid style.
> > > Altogether unconvincing, I think, but at least it does provide useful
> > > information on the Catesby-Stanley connection and a few other matters.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

fairerichard wrote

"Dcisive action, possibly. Did the Constable have the right to summary
action? Debatable. This was not a battle and an immediate execution would be
considered unusual. It appears to have caused consternation in the streets
as the letters PH quotes indicate.
That it took place that way indicates something explosive likely took place
in that meeting. Wasn't the king's council, according to PH, split in two,
meeting in separate locations? Would the remaining members have been able to
provide a sort of 'trial"? There is no record of a trial for Hastings of any
kind. Without records, much is left to conjecture."

Doug here:

*If* my understanding of the Constable's powers is correct, and they very
well might not be, an act of treason committed in the presence of witnesses
could be punished at the time the treason was committed. That's why
executions occurred immediately after battles, those who'd committed treason
had been caught in the act, there were plenty of witnesses, so there was no
need for a trial.
Threats against the king, made in the king's presence and either verbal or
physical, were also subject to immediate punichment if the king wished. The
same standing applied to the Constable and, I would imagine, anyone serving
as Protector as well. After all, a actions of a Protector were considered to
be the same as if done by the king the Protector was representing.
Which is why, it seems to me, the three arrested at Stony Stratford were
held and only executed *after* a trial, while Hastings was executed
promptly. In the the former case the perpetrators weren't, so to speak,
"caught in the act" (attempting to kill Richard), while in the latter case
Hasting was involved in some sort of attempt on Richard's life that was
either to have happened at the meeting or for which irrefutable proof had
been provided (Morton's "strawberries" in my opinion).
I understand there were two, at least, groups groups on the Council but,
once Richard had been proclaimed Protector, I don't think any meetings
without his presence could be termed official. Someone with better knowledge
of the procedures might know.
Doug

There is no record of a trial, but all records were destroyed. Richard was Constable and other members of the Council were there so there could have been a record. Also we have no idea what Hastings had done. It could well be that he was plotting to kill Richard.

--- In , fairerichard3@... wrote:
>
>
> Decisive action, possibly. Did the Constable have the right to summary action? Debatable. This was not a battle and
> an immediate execution would be considered unusual. It appears to have caused consternation in the streets as the letters PH quotes indicate.
> That it took place that way indicates something explosive likely took place in that meeting.
> Wasn't the king's council, according to PH, split in two, meeting in separate locations? Would the remaining members have been able to provide a sort of 'trial"? There is no record of a trial for Hastings of any kind. Without records, much is left to conjecture.
> V.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sun, Jul 21, 2013 12:33 pm
> Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate
>
>
> Rage - maybe. Maybe decisive action. Perhaps I'm wrong, but weren't those
> declared traitors on the battlefield executed promptly? And Richard, I
> believe was still constable of England, & had essentially the King's
> council already available on the spot.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:24 AM, <fairerichard3@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry to be late with this, just going through some emails.
> > I have also read the book and find it fascinating regarding the regional
> > associations between the families, Catesby, Hastings, Stillington and all,
> > plus the timelines. That is the buttress for PH's speculation. Stillington
> > may have provided the confirmation as witness and perhaps some
> > documentation (lost?) which would have been valuable to Richard - so why
> > would R go hard after him, a churchman no less? Also, don't forget,
> > Stillington had been imprisoned and probably properly warned by EIV to hush
> > up. He would be reluctant to come forward. Catesby could have been the go
> > between. Hastings, a supposed supporter of the Yorkists, opposed to the
> > Queen's party and in close contact with Richard during the interregnum,
> > should have, in Richard's mind, been right there to provide him with this
> > information - my take on Dr. Hancock's theories
> > Catesby was apparently well rewarded during RIII's reign and was among
> > those immediately executed by HVII.
> > And if you don't want to accept More's account of the council meeting, the
> > almost immediate beheading of Hastings should indicate some level of rage.
> > Not turgid, PH provides a logical road map to his theories. Not everyone
> > can write like Kendall. :>)
> > But,I find the book intriguing and it provides new information.
> > Virginia
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Thu, Jul 18, 2013 8:18 pm
> > Subject: Re: Sources for the protectorate
> >
> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES"
> > <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I am quite enjoying this book which I have not yet finished...but Im
> > puzzled about Hancock theorising that Richard ordered the execution of
> > Hastings whilst in a rage because he had been informed (by Catesby?) on the
> > morning of the council meeting that Hastings had known all along about the
> > pre-contract between EB and
> > > Edward (his bosom buddy) but had held back from informing Richard, thus
> > preventing Richard from taking his rightful place as king. Hancock also
> > speculates that this was the reason Elizabeth Shore was put in prison as
> > she also was aware of the truth. My question to this is why did
> > Stillington, a relation to EB and who witnessed EB and Edward's marriage
> > and who had not come forward, if Hancock is correct, was also not punished
> > severely. I think it is indeed possible that Hastings and Shore would both
> > know the truth of the pre-contract, both being so close to Edward for many
> > years, but I remain unconvinced it was Catesby who informed Richard.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > The whole rage bit is Hancock taking Sir Thomas More at (near) face
> > value--one of several reasons why I'm not impressed with Hancock. Another
> > is the inconsistency you point out, and there's also his turgid style.
> > Altogether unconvincing, I think, but at least it does provide useful
> > information on the Catesby-Stanley connection and a few other matters.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>