Richard's Silence After Young Princes Went Missing

I so agree Eileen. I queried Michael Jones words when I read them too. The whole story just does not hang together.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

>
> If he was their protector, he may have sent them out of the country or area and of course he would remain silent about their whereabouts until he felt it safe for them to return. When Richard was killed maybe they made it known to their mother where they were and then they were killed by Henry.
>
> Any thoughts?
>

I've read a couple of time, the most recent in The Kings Grave and I believe the input of Michael Jones...regarding EW leaving sanctuary and placing her oldest daughters in Richard's care...the comment "what choice did she have?"...which is a fair enough point I suppose. However having said that... that EW had no alternative other than to comply in removing herself and her daughters from sanctuary, thus reconciling herself to the murderer of her two small sons, she then takes the extraordinary step of writing to her oldest son, Dorset, then in France, to return to England to also make his peace with Richard. Strange...you would have thought her uppermost thought would have been quite the opposite....stay away at all costs son. But so much of this story is strange. Another example...why did not HT, on hearing Tyrells confession....I use the term loosely...not search the area near the bottom of every step in the Tower where a burial could have been made in recent times. Even if the bodies had been removed and reburied elsewhere signs would have still been there...but even as I type this it just sounds so preposterous doest it? Why this tale is still given credence....another
mystery. Eileen

Maybe HT realising the absurdity of the story.....it's doesn't take an Enstein does it....decided not to waste any time on it. Or....maybe they did and the search turned up nothing. ....Eileen

I so agree Eileen. I queried Michael Jones words when I read them too. The whole story just does not hang together.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

It's an interesting point that you raise. I don't think there is a definitive answer to the question of what happened to the two princes, but there are a number of interesting points to consider.

First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard.

Second, the rumour that Richard had done away with his nephews was very probably started by the leaders of Buckingham's rebellion, to subvert it from its original purpose to rescue the boys, to an insurrection aimed at putting Henry Tudor on the throne. It was of course, in Henry's interests to show the boys were dead, otherwise his weak claim to the throne must fall. Interestingly, when Henry married Elizabeth of York he legitimised her title to the throne, which meant that if the boys were still alive their title automatically superseded his. That is why Henry was so touchy about every 'feigned boy' who was put up as a pretender to the throne. It is also why Henry and his son eventually wiped out the Plantagenets.

Third, we don't know why Richard didn't respond to the rumours: it could be as you say to protect his nephews, or it could have been because he knew they were dead (but not by his hand or at his bidding) and he was guilt stricken that they had died on his watch. Buckingham is a suspect, which may explain why Richard showed him no mercy once he was caught after the October rebellion. It could even be that he was guilty and didn't dare give the rumours credence by responding to them:who knows?

Fourth, Richard is accused of many things but nobody has ever said he was stupid. If (and it is still a big if) he had murdered the boys, I would have expected him to have made a much better fist of it than this SNAFU The elder boy, who was already quite ill, would have died quietly in the night of 'pure melancholy', along with his little brother. Their bodies would have been exhibited for all to see that the Princes were dead; thats how royal murders were done. And the man who led Edward's vanguard at Barnet and Tewksbury whilst still a teenager, who mopped-up the Woodville coup so neatly without a battle and little bloodshed,who defeated the Scots who, against Edward IV's wishes refused a bribe from the French King in 1475 and ruled the north of England so effectively, was not a man to lose his nerve in a tight spot

Fifth, there is the whole business of James Tyrell's confession seventeen years later. Life's too short to go into the detail now but it is possible to construct a circumstantial case that Tyrell murdered the boys on 1486 at Henry's bidding, which is why he was sent abroad (to keep him quiet) and why Elizabeth Woodville fell out so drastically with her son in law and was banished to a nunnery: again, who knows.

Finally for now, we have to question why Henry did not accuse Richard of Regicide in his Act of Accession. Or indeed, why the Crowland Chronicler, who was not pro-Richard on any view, did not accuse him of murdering the boys.

Of course, the issues are much deeper and more complex than I have indicated, but these are some things to think about

It's an interesting point that you raise. I don't think there is a definitive answer to the question of what happened to the two princes, but there are a number of interesting points to consider.

First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have  murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive.  This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&"  Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. 

Second, the rumour that Richard had done away with his nephews was very probably started by the leaders of Buckingham's rebellion, to subvert it from its original purpose to rescue the boys, to an insurrection aimed at putting Henry Tudor on the throne. It was of course, in Henry's interests to show the boys were dead, otherwise his weak claim to the throne must fall. Interestingly, when Henry married Elizabeth of York he legitimised her title to the throne, which meant that if the boys were still alive their title automatically superseded his. That is why Henry was so touchy about every 'feigned boy' who was put up as a pretender to the throne.  It is also why Henry and his son eventually wiped out the Plantagenets.

Third, we don't know why Richard didn't respond to the rumours: it could be as you say to protect his nephews, or it could have been because he knew they were dead (but not by his hand or at his bidding) and he was guilt stricken that they had died on his watch. Buckingham is a suspect, which may explain why Richard showed him no mercy once he was caught after the October rebellion. It could even be that he was guilty and didn't dare give the rumours credence by responding to them:who knows? 

Fourth, Richard is accused of many things but nobody has ever said he was stupid. If (and it is still a big if) he had murdered the boys, I would have expected him to have made a much better fist of it than this SNAFU  The elder boy, who was already quite ill, would have died quietly in the night of 'pure melancholy', along with his little brother.  Their bodies would have been exhibited for all to see that the Princes were dead; thats how royal murders were done. And the man who led Edward's vanguard at Barnet and Tewksbury whilst still a teenager, who mopped-up the Woodville coup so neatly without a battle and little bloodshed,who defeated the Scots who, against Edward IV's wishes refused a bribe from the French King in 1475  and ruled the north of England so effectively, was not a man to lose his nerve in a tight spot 

Fifth, there is the whole business of James Tyrell's confession seventeen years later.  Life's too short to go into the detail now but it is possible to construct a circumstantial case that Tyrell murdered the boys on 1486 at Henry's bidding, which is why he was sent abroad (to keep him quiet) and why Elizabeth Woodville fell out so drastically with her son in law and was banished to a nunnery: again, who knows.

Finally for now, we have to question why Henry did not accuse Richard of Regicide in his Act of Accession.  Or indeed, why the Crowland Chronicler, who was not pro-Richard on any view, did not accuse him of murdering the boys. 

Of course, the issues are much deeper and more complex than I have indicated, but these are some things to think about

>
> If he was their protector, he may have sent them out of the country or area and of course he would remain silent about their whereabouts until he felt it safe for them to return. When Richard was killed maybe they made it known to their mother where they were and then they were killed by Henry.
>
> Any thoughts?
>

I've read a couple of time, the most recent in The Kings Grave and I believe the input of Michael Jones...regarding EW leaving sanctuary and placing her oldest daughters in Richard's care...the comment "what choice did she have?"...which is a fair enough point I suppose. However having said that... that EW had no alternative other than to comply in removing herself and her daughters from sanctuary, thus reconciling herself to the murderer of her two small sons, she then takes the extraordinary step of writing to her oldest son, Dorset, then in France, to return to England to also make his peace with Richard. Strange...you would have thought her uppermost thought would have been quite the opposite....stay away at all costs son. But so much of this story is strange. Another example...why did not HT, on hearing Tyrells confession....I use the term loosely...not search the area near the bottom of every step in the Tower where a burial could have been made in recent times. Even if the bodies had been removed and reburied elsewhere signs would have still been there...but even as I type this it just sounds so preposterous doest it? Why this tale is still given credence....another
mystery. Eileen

There is actually no evidence that Edward V "was already quite ill." The owner of the larger of the two skulls in the Urn was certainly ill, but no one, either during his lifetime or afterwards, ever claimed that Edward V had chronic problems with his jaw. Nor does Mancini tell us that Edward's doctor said he was ill, although is often claimed. What he says is that, after Edward's other old attendants had been dismissed, "The physician Argentine... reported that the young king, like a victim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance because he believed that death was facing him." The key phrase here, I think, is "like a victim prepared for sacrifice": Edward was not dying of natural causes: he expected to be killed. But of course he was only guessing.

Marie

It's an interesting point that you raise. I don't think there is a definitive answer to the question of what happened to the two princes, but there are a number of interesting points to consider.

First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard.

Second, the rumour that Richard had done away with his nephews was very probably started by the leaders of Buckingham's rebellion, to subvert it from its original purpose to rescue the boys, to an insurrection aimed at putting Henry Tudor on the throne. It was of course, in Henry's interests to show the boys were dead, otherwise his weak claim to the throne must fall. Interestingly, when Henry married Elizabeth of York he legitimised her title to the throne, which meant that if the boys were still alive their title automatically superseded his. That is why Henry was so touchy about every 'feigned boy' who was put up as a pretender to the throne. It is also why Henry and his son eventually wiped out the Plantagenets.

Third, we don't know why Richard didn't respond to the rumours: it could be as you say to protect his nephews, or it could have been because he knew they were dead (but not by his hand or at his bidding) and he was guilt stricken that they had died on his watch. Buckingham is a suspect, which may explain why Richard showed him no mercy once he was caught after the October rebellion. It could even be that he was guilty and didn't dare give the rumours credence by responding to them:who knows?

Fourth, Richard is accused of many things but nobody has ever said he was stupid. If (and it is still a big if) he had murdered the boys, I would have expected him to have made a much better fist of it than this SNAFU The elder boy, who was already quite ill, would have died quietly in the night of 'pure melancholy', along with his little brother. Their bodies would have been exhibited for all to see that the Princes were dead; thats how royal murders were done. And the man who led Edward's vanguard at Barnet and Tewksbury whilst still a teenager, who mopped-up the Woodville coup so neatly without a battle and little bloodshed,who defeated the Scots who, against Edward IV's wishes refused a bribe from the French King in 1475 and ruled the north of England so effectively, was not a man to lose his nerve in a tight spot

Fifth, there is the whole business of James Tyrell's confession seventeen years later. Life's too short to go into the detail now but it is possible to construct a circumstantial case that Tyrell murdered the boys on 1486 at Henry's bidding, which is why he was sent abroad (to keep him quiet) and why Elizabeth Woodville fell out so drastically with her son in law and was banished to a nunnery: again, who knows.

Finally for now, we have to question why Henry did not accuse Richard of Regicide in his Act of Accession. Or indeed, why the Crowland Chronicler, who was not pro-Richard on any view, did not accuse him of murdering the boys.

Of course, the issues are much deeper and more complex than I have indicated, but these are some things to think about

This is a variant of a common argument - ie that Elizabeth Woodville caved in because she thought she had lost. But this doesn't really do it for me. I like to imagine that, as a mother myself, I perhaps have an insight into the way she is likely to have acted in such circumstances that male historians seem to lack - though I am probably kidding myself.

But, firstly, there's actually no evidence at all that Elizabeth herself emerged from sanctuary. She may have done so eventually, I suppose, but there is no suggestion of it in the promise Richard made in the spring of 1484. Rather, she gave her daughters into Richard's care after making him swear an oath not to imprison them and to marry them well. She did not make him swear not to kill them, which might suggest that she did not, by this time (early March 1484) believe that he had killed their brothers. If she could still hold out for herself, then I suggest she could, and would, have held on to her daughters if she had really believed that Richard had murdered their young brothers.

I'm not wholly convinced, either, that despair motivated her call to Dorset to come back. She had had no qualms about herself and Dorset holding out against Richard in May/June of 1483, not in having Dorset throw in his lot with the autumn rebellion, and at the time she sent her daughters out of sanctuary Henry Tudor had just obtained a papal dispensation to marry the eldest. Also, there seems to have been no happy rapprochement with Henry Tudor when he did become king. Elizabeth Woodville and her relations were excluded from the witnesses sent to the papal legate to ratify the marriage dispensation, Elizabeth Woodville had to petition parliament before having her dower restored to her, and was deprived of it again early 1487 and she swept into a nunnery. Dorset was banged up in the Tower every time a new pretender turned up. In other words, Henry feared that the 'Princes', or at least one of them, might still be out there.

If Elizabeth Woodville knew her sons by Edward IV were dead, why did either she or her daughter, Henry's queen, not tell poor paranoid Henry and put him, EW herself, and her son Dorset out of their collective misery?

To my mind, EW's behaviour fits in far better with the notion that she had learned something that made her believe Richard had not murdered her sons: this would have made the proposed Tudor marriage seem the greater threat.

Marie

>
> If he was their protector, he may have sent them out of the country or area and of course he would remain silent about their whereabouts until he felt it safe for them to return. When Richard was killed maybe they made it known to their mother where they were and then they were killed by Henry.
>
> Any thoughts?
>

I've read a couple of time, the most recent in The Kings Grave and I believe the input of Michael Jones...regarding EW leaving sanctuary and placing her oldest daughters in Richard's care...the comment "what choice did she have?"...which is a fair enough point I suppose. However having said that... that EW had no alternative other than to comply in removing herself and her daughters from sanctuary, thus reconciling herself to the murderer of her two small sons, she then takes the extraordinary step of writing to her oldest son, Dorset, then in France, to return to England to also make his peace with Richard. Strange...you would have thought her uppermost thought would have been quite the opposite....stay away at all costs son. But so much of this story is strange. Another example...why did not HT, on hearing Tyrells confession....I use the term loosely...not search the area near the bottom of every step in the Tower where a burial could have been made in recent times. Even if the bodies had been removed and reburied elsewhere signs would have still been there...but even as I type this it just sounds so preposterous doest it? Why this tale is still given credence....another
mystery. Eileen

You could also argue that Elizabeth Woodville's never accusing Richard of murdering her sons (even after Henry took the throne) as supporting the idea that she knew Richard didn't murder her sons.

~Weds

You could also argue that Elizabeth Woodville's never accusing Richard of murdering her sons (even after Henry took the throne) as supporting the idea that she knew Richard didn't murder her sons.

~Weds

And really, as has already been pointed out, why bother with burying the lads -- especially in a very noticeable spot made even more so by digging a really deep hole with all that entails -- when you're literally within stone-throwing range of the Thames?

Tamara

There is actually no evidence that Edward V "was already quite ill." The owner of the larger of the two skulls in the Urn was certainly ill, but no one, either during his lifetime or afterwards, ever claimed that Edward V had chronic problems with his jaw. Nor does Mancini tell us that Edward's doctor said he was ill, although is often claimed. What he says is that, after Edward's other old attendants had been dismissed, "The physician Argentine... reported that the young king, like a victim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance because he believed that death was facing him." The key phrase here, I think, is "like a victim prepared for sacrifice": Edward was not dying of natural causes: he expected to be killed. But of course he was only guessing.

Marie

It's an interesting point that you raise. I don't think there is a definitive answer to the question of what happened to the two princes, but there are a number of interesting points to consider.

First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard.

Second, the rumour that Richard had done away with his nephews was very probably started by the leaders of Buckingham's rebellion, to subvert it from its original purpose to rescue the boys, to an insurrection aimed at putting Henry Tudor on the throne. It was of course, in Henry's interests to show the boys were dead, otherwise his weak claim to the throne must fall. Interestingly, when Henry married Elizabeth of York he legitimised her title to the throne, which meant that if the boys were still alive their title automatically superseded his. That is why Henry was so touchy about every 'feigned boy' who was put up as a pretender to the throne. It is also why Henry and his son eventually wiped out the Plantagenets.

Third, we don't know why Richard didn't respond to the rumours: it could be as you say to protect his nephews, or it could have been because he knew they were dead (but not by his hand or at his bidding) and he was guilt stricken that they had died on his watch. Buckingham is a suspect, which may explain why Richard showed him no mercy once he was caught after the October rebellion. It could even be that he was guilty and didn't dare give the rumours credence by responding to them:who knows?

Fourth, Richard is accused of many things but nobody has ever said he was stupid. If (and it is still a big if) he had murdered the boys, I would have expected him to have made a much better fist of it than this SNAFU The elder boy, who was already quite ill, would have died quietly in the night of 'pure melancholy', along with his little brother. Their bodies would have been exhibited for all to see that the Princes were dead; thats how royal murders were done. And the man who led Edward's vanguard at Barnet and Tewksbury whilst still a teenager, who mopped-up the Woodville coup so neatly without a battle and little bloodshed,who defeated the Scots who, against Edward IV's wishes refused a bribe from the French King in 1475 and ruled the north of England so effectively, was not a man to lose his nerve in a tight spot

Fifth, there is the whole business of James Tyrell's confession seventeen years later. Life's too short to go into the detail now but it is possible to construct a circumstantial case that Tyrell murdered the boys on 1486 at Henry's bidding, which is why he was sent abroad (to keep him quiet) and why Elizabeth Woodville fell out so drastically with her son in law and was banished to a nunnery: again, who knows.

Finally for now, we have to question why Henry did not accuse Richard of Regicide in his Act of Accession. Or indeed, why the Crowland Chronicler, who was not pro-Richard on any view, did not accuse him of murdering the boys.

Of course, the issues are much deeper and more complex than I have indicated, but these are some things to think about

Exactly...and I do wish that this erroneous belief could be laid to rest once and for all. It is this misconception that leads some people to believe that the bones in the Urn are indeed those of the princes as the jaw of the oldest child is diseased. This old chestnut is still being trotted out today by historians such as Dan Jones in his history of the Tower of London. It's really annoying....Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> There is actually no evidence that Edward V "was already quite ill." The owner of the larger of the two skulls in the Urn was certainly ill, but no one, either during his lifetime or afterwards, ever claimed that Edward V had chronic problems with his jaw. Nor does Mancini tell us that Edward's doctor said he was ill, although is often claimed. What he says is that, after Edward's other old attendants had been dismissed, "The physician Argentine... reported that the young king, like a victim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance because he believed that death was facing him." The key phrase here, I think, is "like a victim prepared for sacrifice": Edward was not dying of natural causes: he expected to be killed. But of course he was only guessing.
> Marie
>
>
> ---In , <misty1983@> wrote:
>
> It's an interesting point that you raise. I don't think there is a definitive answer to the question of what happened to the two princes, but there are a number of interesting points to consider.
> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard.
> Second, the rumour that Richard had done away with his nephews was very probably started by the leaders of Buckingham's rebellion, to subvert it from its original purpose to rescue the boys, to an insurrection aimed at putting Henry Tudor on the throne. It was of course, in Henry's interests to show the boys were dead, otherwise his weak claim to the throne must fall. Interestingly, when Henry married Elizabeth of York he legitimised her title to the throne, which meant that if the boys were still alive their title automatically superseded his. That is why Henry was so touchy about every 'feigned boy' who was put up as a pretender to the throne. It is also why Henry and his son eventually wiped out the Plantagenets.
> Third, we don't know why Richard didn't respond to the rumours: it could be as you say to protect his nephews, or it could have been because he knew they were dead (but not by his hand or at his bidding) and he was guilt stricken that they had died on his watch. Buckingham is a suspect, which may explain why Richard showed him no mercy once he was caught after the October rebellion. It could even be that he was guilty and didn't dare give the rumours credence by responding to them:who knows?
> Fourth, Richard is accused of many things but nobody has ever said he was stupid. If (and it is still a big if) he had murdered the boys, I would have expected him to have made a much better fist of it than this SNAFU The elder boy, who was already quite ill, would have died quietly in the night of 'pure melancholy', along with his little brother. Their bodies would have been exhibited for all to see that the Princes were dead; thats how royal murders were done. And the man who led Edward's vanguard at Barnet and Tewksbury whilst still a teenager, who mopped-up the Woodville coup so neatly without a battle and little bloodshed,who defeated the Scots who, against Edward IV's wishes refused a bribe from the French King in 1475 and ruled the north of England so effectively, was not a man to lose his nerve in a tight spot
> Fifth, there is the whole business of James Tyrell's confession seventeen years later. Life's too short to go into the detail now but it is possible to construct a circumstantial case that Tyrell murdered the boys on 1486 at Henry's bidding, which is why he was sent abroad (to keep him quiet) and why Elizabeth Woodville fell out so drastically with her son in law and was banished to a nunnery: again, who knows.
> Finally for now, we have to question why Henry did not accuse Richard of Regicide in his Act of Accession. Or indeed, why the Crowland Chronicler, who was not pro-Richard on any view, did not accuse him of murdering the boys.
>
>
> Of course, the issues are much deeper and more complex than I have indicated, but these are some things to think about
>
>
> ---In , <HRTest@> wrote:
>
> I am a newbie but wonder if anyone had any insight into this matter.
>
> The other day I watched a replay of the mock trial of Richard the Third and he was found not guilty. One of the points of the prosecution is that Richard publicly denied the intention of marrying his niece but said nothing of the missing boys. As Richard was known for his loyalty to his brother and being appointed Lord Protector of Edward V, to protect them, he moved them and kept it secret.
>
> If he was their protector, he may have sent them out of the country or area and of course he would remain silent about their whereabouts until he felt it safe for them to return. When Richard was killed maybe they made it known to their mother where they were and then they were killed by Henry.
>
> Any thoughts?
>

Why bury them in secret at all? Why not display their frail little bodies so everyone could say, 'So sad, too bad,' and then have a solemn interment to lay a few more things besides their bodies to rest?

The entire More scenario makes no sense except as fiction created after whatever the reality was. But then, propaganda doesn't have to make sense, it only has to be believed?

~Weds

And really, as has already been pointed out, why bother with burying the lads -- especially in a very noticeable spot made even more so by digging a really deep hole with all that entails -- when you're literally within stone-throwing range of the Thames?

Tamara

There is actually no evidence that Edward V "was already quite ill." The owner of the larger of the two skulls in the Urn was certainly ill, but no one, either during his lifetime or afterwards, ever claimed that Edward V had chronic problems with his jaw. Nor does Mancini tell us that Edward's doctor said he was ill, although is often claimed. What he says is that, after Edward's other old attendants had been dismissed, "The physician Argentine... reported that the young king, like a victim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance because he believed that death was facing him." The key phrase here, I think, is "like a victim prepared for sacrifice": Edward was not dying of natural causes: he expected to be killed. But of course he was only guessing.

Marie

It's an interesting point that you raise. I don't think there is a definitive answer to the question of what happened to the two princes, but there are a number of interesting points to consider.

First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard.

Second, the rumour that Richard had done away with his nephews was very probably started by the leaders of Buckingham's rebellion, to subvert it from its original purpose to rescue the boys, to an insurrection aimed at putting Henry Tudor on the throne. It was of course, in Henry's interests to show the boys were dead, otherwise his weak claim to the throne must fall. Interestingly, when Henry married Elizabeth of York he legitimised her title to the throne, which meant that if the boys were still alive their title automatically superseded his. That is why Henry was so touchy about every 'feigned boy' who was put up as a pretender to the throne. It is also why Henry and his son eventually wiped out the Plantagenets.

Third, we don't know why Richard didn't respond to the rumours: it could be as you say to protect his nephews, or it could have been because he knew they were dead (but not by his hand or at his bidding) and he was guilt stricken that they had died on his watch. Buckingham is a suspect, which may explain why Richard showed him no mercy once he was caught after the October rebellion. It could even be that he was guilty and didn't dare give the rumours credence by responding to them:who knows?

Fourth, Richard is accused of many things but nobody has ever said he was stupid. If (and it is still a big if) he had murdered the boys, I would have expected him to have made a much better fist of it than this SNAFU The elder boy, who was already quite ill, would have died quietly in the night of 'pure melancholy', along with his little brother. Their bodies would have been exhibited for all to see that the Princes were dead; thats how royal murders were done. And the man who led Edward's vanguard at Barnet and Tewksbury whilst still a teenager, who mopped-up the Woodville coup so neatly without a battle and little bloodshed,who defeated the Scots who, against Edward IV's wishes refused a bribe from the French King in 1475 and ruled the north of England so effectively, was not a man to lose his nerve in a tight spot

Fifth, there is the whole business of James Tyrell's confession seventeen years later. Life's too short to go into the detail now but it is possible to construct a circumstantial case that Tyrell murdered the boys on 1486 at Henry's bidding, which is why he was sent abroad (to keep him quiet) and why Elizabeth Woodville fell out so drastically with her son in law and was banished to a nunnery: again, who knows.

Finally for now, we have to question why Henry did not accuse Richard of Regicide in his Act of Accession. Or indeed, why the Crowland Chronicler, who was not pro-Richard on any view, did not accuse him of murdering the boys.

Of course, the issues are much deeper and more complex than I have indicated, but these are some things to think about

Trevor wrote:

"Thanks for the tip about Annette Carson. I do have a well thumbed copy of her tome on R3. However I don't find her as helpful as I would like. There are too many arguments based on conjecture or supposition rather than being evidence based, for it to amount to a compelling defence of Richard for me."

Marie replies:

I agree Annette's book is not perfect (no book is), but I think a lot of the problem is that the levels of evidence we would like are simply not there. I personally find it regrettable that Annette opens the book with the theory that Edward IV was poisoned by the Woodvilles, which is an idea which is both provocative and lacking in evidence. I know this has grabbed a lot of people but it has probably put as many off right at the start of the book.

The section on the Tower bones, however, is considerably stronger. It is based on articles by Helen Maurer that had been published in The Ricardian some years earlier. These articles went into detail about where the Princes were housed, the layout of the royal area of the Tower at the time and the age of the various buildings, and then looked at the various contemporary descriptions of the finding of the bones in 1674 in order to ascertain where they were buried in relation to the Tower as it was in 1483.

Personally, I think it is extremely difficult to reconcile the location the bones were found with burial as late as 1483, but you can make up your own mind. Also, if the interpretation of the bone problem on the jaw of the larger child is correct, then it is difficult to reconcile that with it having been the jaw of Edward V given that no such problem was reported of him. The third problem of course, is that we know Richard was particularly concerned about burying the dead in holy ground.

But you're right - we can't with our present limited knowledge answer the question definitively. That would require radio-carbon and (if that gave the right time frame) DNA analysis. But for DNA match we would first need to know the Woodville mtDNA and possibly also Edward IV's Y chromosome given that there were rumours in his lifetime that he was not York's son. And, of course, there's no serious prospect of permission for testing being granted during the present reign.

Marie

I would say, that for me, the chapter on the bones found at the tower was the strongest one in the book. I found it utterly convincing.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

 Trevor wrote:

"Thanks for the tip about Annette Carson. I do have a well thumbed copy of her tome on R3. However I don't find her as helpful as I would like. There are too many arguments based on conjecture or supposition rather than being evidence based, for it to amount to a compelling defence of Richard for me."

Marie replies:

I agree Annette's book is not perfect (no book is), but I think a lot of the problem is that the levels of evidence we would like are simply not there. I personally find it regrettable that Annette opens the book with the theory that Edward IV was poisoned by the Woodvilles, which is an idea which is both provocative and lacking in evidence. I know this has grabbed a lot of people but it has probably put as many off right at the start of the book.

The section on the Tower bones, however, is considerably stronger. It is based on articles by Helen Maurer that had been published in The Ricardian some years earlier. These articles went into detail about where the Princes were housed, the layout of the royal area of the Tower at the time and the age of the various buildings, and then looked at the various contemporary descriptions of the finding of the bones in 1674 in order to ascertain where they were buried in relation to the Tower as it was in 1483.

Personally, I think it is extremely difficult to reconcile the location the bones were found with burial as late as 1483, but you can make up your own mind. Also, if the interpretation of the bone problem on the jaw of the larger child is correct, then it is difficult to reconcile that with it having been the jaw of Edward V given that no such problem was reported of him. The third problem of course, is that we know Richard was particularly concerned about burying the dead in holy ground.

But you're right - we can't with our present limited knowledge answer the question definitively. That would require radio-carbon and (if that gave the right time frame) DNA analysis. But for DNA match we would first need to know the Woodville mtDNA and possibly also Edward IV's Y chromosome given that there were rumours in his lifetime that he was not York's son. And, of course, there's no serious prospect of permission for testing being granted during the present reign.

Marie

I wrote:

" But, firstly, there's actually no evidence at all that Elizabeth herself emerged from sanctuary. She may have done so eventually, I suppose, but there is no suggestion of it in the promise Richard made in the spring of 1484. Rather, she gave her daughters into Richard's care after making him swear an oath not to imprison them and to marry them well. She did not make him swear not to kill them, which might suggest that she did not, by this time (early March 1484) believe that he had killed their brothers. If she could still hold out for herself, then I suggest she could, and would, have held on to her daughters if she had really believed that Richard had murdered their young brothers."

And here I slightly correct myself. Richard did promise that, if Elizabeth's daughters came to him out of sanctuary, "then I shall see that they shall be in surety of their lives, and also not suffer any manner hurt..... nor them nor any of them imprison". you could say (as I have just seen that Mike Jones does in 'The King in the Car Park') that this is a promise not to murder them, but the difference in construction between the promise regarding their lives and that regarding imprisonment is perhaps interesting. The first is merely a promise to "see" - ie ensure - that they would be safe from death or bodily hurt; the second is a promise not actively to imprison them himself. Actually, for me it fits in with the idea that something had happened to at least one of the Princes whilst they were in Richard's care, but it was something that he had not actively ordered.

Marie

This is a variant of a common argument - ie that Elizabeth Woodville caved in because she thought she had lost. But this doesn't really do it for me. I like to imagine that, as a mother myself, I perhaps have an insight into the way she is likely to have acted in such circumstances that male historians seem to lack - though I am probably kidding myself.

But, firstly, there's actually no evidence at all that Elizabeth herself emerged from sanctuary. She may have done so eventually, I suppose, but there is no suggestion of it in the promise Richard made in the spring of 1484. Rather, she gave her daughters into Richard's care after making him swear an oath not to imprison them and to marry them well. She did not make him swear not to kill them, which might suggest that she did not, by this time (early March 1484) believe that he had killed their brothers. If she could still hold out for herself, then I suggest she could, and would, have held on to her daughters if she had really believed that Richard had murdered their young brothers.

I'm not wholly convinced, either, that despair motivated her call to Dorset to come back. She had had no qualms about herself and Dorset holding out against Richard in May/June of 1483, not in having Dorset throw in his lot with the autumn rebellion, and at the time she sent her daughters out of sanctuary Henry Tudor had just obtained a papal dispensation to marry the eldest. Also, there seems to have been no happy rapprochement with Henry Tudor when he did become king. Elizabeth Woodville and her relations were excluded from the witnesses sent to the papal legate to ratify the marriage dispensation, Elizabeth Woodville had to petition parliament before having her dower restored to her, and was deprived of it again early 1487 and she swept into a nunnery. Dorset was banged up in the Tower every time a new pretender turned up. In other words, Henry feared that the 'Princes', or at least one of them, might still be out there.

If Elizabeth Woodville knew her sons by Edward IV were dead, why did either she or her daughter, Henry's queen, not tell poor paranoid Henry and put him, EW herself, and her son Dorset out of their collective misery?

To my mind, EW's behaviour fits in far better with the notion that she had learned something that made her believe Richard had not murdered her sons: this would have made the proposed Tudor marriage seem the greater threat.

Marie

>
> If he was their protector, he may have sent them out of the country or area and of course he would remain silent about their whereabouts until he felt it safe for them to return. When Richard was killed maybe they made it known to their mother where they were and then they were killed by Henry.
>
> Any thoughts?
>

I've read a couple of time, the most recent in The Kings Grave and I believe the input of Michael Jones...regarding EW leaving sanctuary and placing her oldest daughters in Richard's care...the comment "what choice did she have?"...which is a fair enough point I suppose. However having said that... that EW had no alternative other than to comply in removing herself and her daughters from sanctuary, thus reconciling herself to the murderer of her two small sons, she then takes the extraordinary step of writing to her oldest son, Dorset, then in France, to return to England to also make his peace with Richard. Strange...you would have thought her uppermost thought would have been quite the opposite....stay away at all costs son. But so much of this story is strange. Another example...why did not HT, on hearing Tyrells confession....I use the term loosely...not search the area near the bottom of every step in the Tower where a burial could have been made in recent times. Even if the bodies had been removed and reburied elsewhere signs would have still been there...but even as I type this it just sounds so preposterous doest it? Why this tale is still given credence....another
mystery. Eileen

Trevor wrote:

"Thanks for the tip about Annette Carson. I do have a well thumbed copy of her tome on R3. However I don't find her as helpful as I would like. There are too many arguments based on conjecture or supposition rather than being evidence based, for it to amount to a compelling defence of Richard for me."

Marie replies:

I agree Annette's book is not perfect (no book is), but I think a lot of the problem is that the levels of evidence we would like are simply not there. I personally find it regrettable that Annette opens the book with the theory that Edward IV was poisoned by the Woodvilles, which is an idea which is both provocative and lacking in evidence. I know this has grabbed a lot of people but it has probably put as many off right at the start of the book.

The section on the Tower bones, however, is considerably stronger. It is based on articles by Helen Maurer that had been published in The Ricardian some years earlier. These articles went into detail about where the Princes were housed, the layout of the royal area of the Tower at the time and the age of the various buildings, and then looked at the various contemporary descriptions of the finding of the bones in 1674 in order to ascertain where they were buried in relation to the Tower as it was in 1483.

Personally, I think it is extremely difficult to reconcile the location the bones were found with burial as late as 1483, but you can make up your own mind. Also, if the interpretation of the bone problem on the jaw of the larger child is correct, then it is difficult to reconcile that with it having been the jaw of Edward V given that no such problem was reported of him. The third problem of course, is that we know Richard was particularly concerned about burying the dead in holy ground.

But you're right - we can't with our present limited knowledge answer the question definitively. That would require radio-carbon and (if that gave the right time frame) DNA analysis. But for DNA match we would first need to know the Woodville mtDNA and possibly also Edward IV's Y chromosome given that there were rumours in his lifetime that he was not York's son. And, of course, there's no serious prospect of permission for testing being granted during the present reign.

Marie

Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"

Carol responds:

I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.

The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.

I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.

I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

Eileen wrote:

Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"

Carol responds:

I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.

The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.

I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.

I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

Trevor Brooks wrote:

Trevor wrote:

" Self evidently, he was capable of murder (e.g. Hastings)"

Hastings' execution was only murder if:-

a) He was innocent of any plots against the Lord Protector - attempts on the Protector's life would have fallen within the treason laws; and/or

b) he was executed without trial.

Of course this is exactly what we are told by Tudor sources, but if Richard had simply wanted Hastings out of the way, why not just have him quietly poisoned? Whatever happened at the Tower that Friday 13th was - to my way of thinking - far too clumsy and difficult to have been a planned murder. Had Hastings been caught red-handed then he would have foregone the right to a normal jury trial and could have been condemned by a summary court martial before the Lord Constable: and Richard was Lord Constable. This was also a meeting of the royal council, and that too had powers of summary justice. So although Hastings' rapid end appears shocking and barbaric, and was no doubt bad publicity for Richard, it may well have been the result of perfectly lawful summary trial and Hastings may well have been guilty of treason. We just don't have Richard's side of the story any more.

My own personal view is that Richard's letters of 10th/11th June were genuine, that he did believe a plot was afoot to kill himself and Buckingham, and was scared. He had possibly been told that Friday 13th was the chosen day, and his men either caught Hastings in action or perhaps in panic misinterpreted some move on Hastings' part.

There would have been a huge difference between such an execution, which was no more ruthless than many ordered by Edward IV, and the murder of two children, particularly two children who were his own close relatives. To us in our sanitised society the 15th century looks so bloody it is easy to make the mistake of thinking there were no boundaries. But there were boundaries that were very meaningful to the people of the time, and child murder was definitely beyond the bounds. If you don't believe me, then just look at what the suspicion that he had done away with his nephews did to Richard's reputation. And that is why I find it hard to believe that he would have taken that step.

If you compare Richard to, say Henry IV, you get a very illuminating comparison. Henry IV was rather more bloodthirsty than Richard, executing enemies right from the off without compunction and by the nastiest means he could think of; he even had the Archbishop of York executed, and he gave the order for his predecessor, Richard II, to be starved to death in Pontefract Castle. But his child rivals, the Mortimer brothers, were merely kept safely, and even after they were briefly rescued Henry's only change of policy towards them was to have them more securely guarded and frequently moved. Yet we are to believe that Richard, whose record was considerably less ruthless than that of Henry IV, decided to have his two child rivals murdered after one totally failed rescue attempt, even though said children were his own nephews.

Marie

Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"

Carol responds:

I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.

The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.

I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.

I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

Hastings was one of Richard's oldest friends, was he not? Which would account for the level of frightened upset on Richard's part.

Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held. Furthermore, Richard granted Hastings' forfeited estates to his widow, and restored the children's right of succession to those estates, as they had automatically lost the right of succession as a result of the presumed trial and subsequent execution.

Personally, I think Richard executed the wrong man. He should have executed Stanley and Morton (especially Morton) instead, which would have at least spared the nation "Morton's Fork" no matter how things turned out at Bosworth. (I do wonder what Morton would have thought, had he lived to an even greater age than he did, of the son of the man he helped put on the throne setting out to sack and plunder the monasteries? Then again, I also wonder what Rhys ap Thomas would have thought, had someone told him that the son of the man he helped put on the throne was going to strip Rhys' own son of Rhy's estates the second Rhys drew his last breath, and then execute Rhys' son when he dared fight back.)

Tamara

Tamara

Trevor wrote:

" Self evidently, he was capable of murder (e.g. Hastings)"

Hastings' execution was only murder if:-

a) He was innocent of any plots against the Lord Protector - attempts on the Protector's life would have fallen within the treason laws; and/or

b) he was executed without trial.

Of course this is exactly what we are told by Tudor sources, but if Richard had simply wanted Hastings out of the way, why not just have him quietly poisoned? Whatever happened at the Tower that Friday 13th was - to my way of thinking - far too clumsy and difficult to have been a planned murder. Had Hastings been caught red-handed then he would have foregone the right to a normal jury trial and could have been condemned by a summary court martial before the Lord Constable: and Richard was Lord Constable. This was also a meeting of the royal council, and that too had powers of summary justice. So although Hastings' rapid end appears shocking and barbaric, and was no doubt bad publicity for Richard, it may well have been the result of perfectly lawful summary trial and Hastings may well have been guilty of treason. We just don't have Richard's side of the story any more.

My own personal view is that Richard's letters of 10th/11th June were genuine, that he did believe a plot was afoot to kill himself and Buckingham, and was scared. He had possibly been told that Friday 13th was the chosen day, and his men either caught Hastings in action or perhaps in panic misinterpreted some move on Hastings' part.

There would have been a huge difference between such an execution, which was no more ruthless than many ordered by Edward IV, and the murder of two children, particularly two children who were his own close relatives. To us in our sanitised society the 15th century looks so bloody it is easy to make the mistake of thinking there were no boundaries. But there were boundaries that were very meaningful to the people of the time, and child murder was definitely beyond the bounds. If you don't believe me, then just look at what the suspicion that he had done away with his nephews did to Richard's reputation. And that is why I find it hard to believe that he would have taken that step.

If you compare Richard to, say Henry IV, you get a very illuminating comparison. Henry IV was rather more bloodthirsty than Richard, executing enemies right from the off without compunction and by the nastiest means he could think of; he even had the Archbishop of York executed, and he gave the order for his predecessor, Richard II, to be starved to death in Pontefract Castle. But his child rivals, the Mortimer brothers, were merely kept safely, and even after they were briefly rescued Henry's only change of policy towards them was to have them more securely guarded and frequently moved. Yet we are to believe that Richard, whose record was considerably less ruthless than that of Henry IV, decided to have his two child rivals murdered after one totally failed rescue attempt, even though said children were his own nephews.

Marie

Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"

Carol responds:

I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.

The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.

I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.

I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

"In any case, as I pointed out earlier (as did another poster whose name I don't recall), Kendall made that remark about the boys disappearing during Richard's watch weighing heavily against his innocence under the assumption that the boys did actually die as proven by the bones in the urn. But he could not have known how flawed the Tanner and Wright analysis of the bones actually is and that they constitute no proof whatsoever that the boys were murdered."

Exactly.

Considering that other bones found at the site show that the land on which the Tower sits has used for burials since the Iron Age (and with a sprawling Roman cemetery within bowshot of, if not actually impinging on, the Tower grounds), nothing short of DNA testing would be able to confirm that the urn bones belong to Edward's sons (and in fact are likely to confirm that they do not).

Tamara

Trevor Brooks wrote:

Tamara wrote:

" Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held."

Marie replies:

This one has been argued back and forth over the years. The main source for the 20th was the letter of Simon Stallworth dated 21st June (Saturday) and referring to Hastings' execution as having occurred "on Friday last, soon upon noon". But if you look at the letter itself you can see that it was written at two main sittings, with change of ink and handwriting. The reference to Hastings' execution is the first item of news, right at the top of the letter, before the removal of York from sanctuary (which occurred on the 16th), so it does look as though the words "Friday last" were probably written before Friday 20th and so refer to Friday 13th. The inquisition post mortem into Hastings' property also gives his death as 13th June. The short contemporary chronicle College of Arms MS 2M6 (reproduced by Green in 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen'), for instance, states that And in the mene tyme ther was dyvers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyd and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith, the xiii day of Iune Anno 1483."

Few historians any longer question the date although Annette Carson still has a question mark over it. And, as the College of Arms MS shows, evidently not everyone at the time was suspicious of Richard's motives, although for obvious reasons most of the few surviving accounts are hostile.

Marie

Hastings was one of Richard's oldest friends, was he not? Which would account for the level of frightened upset on Richard's part.

Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held. Furthermore, Richard granted Hastings' forfeited estates to his widow, and restored the children's right of succession to those estates, as they had automatically lost the right of succession as a result of the presumed trial and subsequent execution.

Personally, I think Richard executed the wrong man. He should have executed Stanley and Morton (especially Morton) instead, which would have at least spared the nation "Morton's Fork" no matter how things turned out at Bosworth. (I do wonder what Morton would have thought, had he lived to an even greater age than he did, of the son of the man he helped put on the throne setting out to sack and plunder the monasteries? Then again, I also wonder what Rhys ap Thomas would have thought, had someone told him that the son of the man he helped put on the throne was going to strip Rhys' own son of Rhy's estates the second Rhys drew his last breath, and then execute Rhys' son when he dared fight back.)

Tamara

Tamara

Trevor wrote:

" Self evidently, he was capable of murder (e.g. Hastings)"

Hastings' execution was only murder if:-

a) He was innocent of any plots against the Lord Protector - attempts on the Protector's life would have fallen within the treason laws; and/or

b) he was executed without trial.

Of course this is exactly what we are told by Tudor sources, but if Richard had simply wanted Hastings out of the way, why not just have him quietly poisoned? Whatever happened at the Tower that Friday 13th was - to my way of thinking - far too clumsy and difficult to have been a planned murder. Had Hastings been caught red-handed then he would have foregone the right to a normal jury trial and could have been condemned by a summary court martial before the Lord Constable: and Richard was Lord Constable. This was also a meeting of the royal council, and that too had powers of summary justice. So although Hastings' rapid end appears shocking and barbaric, and was no doubt bad publicity for Richard, it may well have been the result of perfectly lawful summary trial and Hastings may well have been guilty of treason. We just don't have Richard's side of the story any more.

My own personal view is that Richard's letters of 10th/11th June were genuine, that he did believe a plot was afoot to kill himself and Buckingham, and was scared. He had possibly been told that Friday 13th was the chosen day, and his men either caught Hastings in action or perhaps in panic misinterpreted some move on Hastings' part.

There would have been a huge difference between such an execution, which was no more ruthless than many ordered by Edward IV, and the murder of two children, particularly two children who were his own close relatives. To us in our sanitised society the 15th century looks so bloody it is easy to make the mistake of thinking there were no boundaries. But there were boundaries that were very meaningful to the people of the time, and child murder was definitely beyond the bounds. If you don't believe me, then just look at what the suspicion that he had done away with his nephews did to Richard's reputation. And that is why I find it hard to believe that he would have taken that step.

If you compare Richard to, say Henry IV, you get a very illuminating comparison. Henry IV was rather more bloodthirsty than Richard, executing enemies right from the off without compunction and by the nastiest means he could think of; he even had the Archbishop of York executed, and he gave the order for his predecessor, Richard II, to be starved to death in Pontefract Castle. But his child rivals, the Mortimer brothers, were merely kept safely, and even after they were briefly rescued Henry's only change of policy towards them was to have them more securely guarded and frequently moved. Yet we are to believe that Richard, whose record was considerably less ruthless than that of Henry IV, decided to have his two child rivals murdered after one totally failed rescue attempt, even though said children were his own nephews.

Marie

Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"

Carol responds:

I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.

The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.

I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.

I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

Hilary,

I think it quite possible that either both boys or just the younger one were still alive and "out there" like the proverbial truth, but I don't think EW or EoY would have told Henry VII because of the danger that he would have them sought out and eliminated. He must, however, have made a few guesses from EW's behaviour.

Marie

It may be that whatever it was that Hasting's was up to is the key to most of the subsequent happenings, IMO.
Did he turn up armed and ready to kill the king?
Richard was obviously seriously shaken and alarmed, to behave in such s precipitate way, which was previously at least, somewhat out of character.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall..............

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Tamara wrote:

" Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held."

Marie replies:

This one has been argued back and forth over the years. The main source for the 20th was the letter of Simon Stallworth dated 21st June (Saturday) and referring to Hastings' execution as having occurred "on Friday last, soon upon noon". But if you look at the letter itself you can see that it was written at two main sittings, with change of ink and handwriting. The reference to Hastings' execution is the first item of news, right at the top of the letter, before the removal of York from sanctuary (which occurred on the 16th), so it does look as though the words "Friday last" were probably written before Friday 20th and so refer to Friday 13th. The inquisition post mortem into Hastings' property also gives his death as 13th June. The short contemporary chronicle College of Arms MS 2M6 (reproduced by Green in 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen'), for instance, states that And in the mene tyme ther was dyvers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyd and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd  forthwith, the xiii day of Iune Anno 1483."

Few historians any longer question the date although Annette Carson still has a question mark over it. And, as the College of Arms MS shows, evidently not everyone at the time was suspicious of Richard's motives, although for obvious reasons most of the few surviving accounts are hostile. 

Marie

Hastings was one of Richard's oldest friends, was he not?  Which would account for the level of frightened upset on Richard's part.

Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held.  Furthermore, Richard granted Hastings' forfeited estates to his widow, and restored the children's right of succession to those estates, as they had automatically lost the right of succession as a result of the presumed trial and subsequent execution.

Personally, I think Richard executed the wrong man.  He should have executed Stanley and Morton (especially Morton) instead, which would have at least spared the nation "Morton's Fork" no matter how things turned out at Bosworth.  (I do wonder what Morton would have thought, had he lived to an even greater age than he did, of the son of the man he helped put on the throne setting out to sack and plunder the monasteries?  Then again, I also wonder what Rhys ap Thomas would have thought, had someone told him that the son of the man he helped put on the throne was going to strip Rhys' own son of Rhy's estates the second Rhys drew his last breath, and then execute Rhys' son when he dared fight back.)

Tamara

Tamara

Trevor wrote:

" Self evidently, he was capable of murder (e.g. Hastings)"

Hastings' execution was only murder if:-

a) He was innocent of any plots against the Lord Protector - attempts on the Protector's life would have fallen within the treason laws; and/or

b) he was executed without  trial.

Of course this is exactly what we are told by Tudor sources, but if Richard had simply wanted Hastings out of the way, why not just have him quietly poisoned? Whatever happened at the Tower that Friday 13th was - to my way of thinking - far too clumsy and difficult to have been a planned murder. Had Hastings been caught red-handed then he would have foregone the right to a normal jury trial and could have been condemned by a summary court martial before the Lord Constable: and Richard was Lord Constable. This was also a meeting of the royal council, and that too had powers of summary justice. So although Hastings' rapid end appears shocking and barbaric, and was no doubt bad publicity for Richard, it may well have been the result of perfectly lawful summary trial and Hastings may well have been guilty of treason. We just don't have Richard's side of the story any more.

My own personal view is that Richard's letters of 10th/11th June were genuine, that he did believe a plot was afoot to kill himself and Buckingham, and was scared. He had possibly been told that Friday 13th was the chosen day, and his men either caught Hastings in action or perhaps in panic misinterpreted some move on Hastings' part.

There would have been a huge difference between such an execution, which was no more ruthless than many ordered by Edward IV, and the murder of two children, particularly two children who were his own close relatives. To us in our sanitised society the 15th century looks so bloody it is easy to make the mistake of thinking there were no boundaries. But there were boundaries that were very meaningful to the people of the time, and child murder was definitely beyond the bounds. If you don't believe me, then just look at what the suspicion that he had done away with his nephews did to Richard's reputation. And that is why I find it hard to believe that he would have taken that step.

If you compare Richard to, say Henry IV, you get a very illuminating comparison. Henry IV was rather more bloodthirsty than Richard, executing enemies right from the off without compunction and by the nastiest means he could think of; he even had the Archbishop of York executed, and he gave the order for his predecessor, Richard II, to be starved to death in Pontefract Castle. But his child rivals, the Mortimer brothers, were merely kept safely, and even after they were briefly rescued Henry's only change of policy towards them was to have them more securely guarded and frequently moved. Yet we are to believe that Richard, whose record was considerably less ruthless than that of Henry IV, decided to have his two child rivals murdered after one totally failed rescue attempt, even though said children were his own nephews.

Marie

Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have  murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive.  This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&"  Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"

Carol responds:

I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.

The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.

I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.

I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

Also, from a legal viewpoint, the fact that Richard was able to get away with executing Hastings so rapidly suggests that something of the sort is likely to have taken place (bearing arms in the King's household was an offence in itself). Mancini, although of course he claims it was all a set-up by Richard, says this is exactly what Richard claimed:-

"When they had been admitted to the innermost quarters, the protector, as prearranged, cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him, and they had come with hidden arms, that they might be first to open the attack. Thereupon the soldiers, who had been stationed there by their lord, rushed in with the Duke of Buckingham, and cut down Hastings on the false pretext of treason; they arrested the others, whose life, it was presumed, was spared out of respect for religion and holy orders."

Note that Mancini differs from all other contemporary sources - and there are several - in claiming that Hastings was killed in the immediate affray rather than arrested and beheaded. It is, of course, difficult to explain how Richard could have justified Hastings' execution to the council without showing evidence of the ambush prepared or the hidden arms; but beheaded he does seem to have been. So perhaps there was evidence after all.

I think if we look at Hastings' choices through the lens of what was best for Hastings, rather than his record of loyalty to the late Edward IV, a change of sides is not difficult to explain (this steadfast friend of Edward IV had, for instance, in 1470 come very close to throwing in his lot with his brother-in-law Warwick). In 1483 Hastings had three major offices to protect - Lord Chamberlain, Captain of Calais, Master of the Mint - and besides his inherited estates his local power now rested to a large degree on the Honour of Tutbury, which had been resumed from Clarence at the end of 1473 and given to Hastings. All of these things would have been up for grabs in the new world. Hastings and Rivers had, if I remember rightly, been rivals for the captaincy of Calais for many many years. Clarence's heir was now Dorset's ward and no doubt intended as a husband for one of his daughters, which may have made Hastings jittery for the Honour of Tutbury; all that would be required to deprive him of it was an Act of Resumption. Edward V's chamberlain as Prince of Wales, Sir Thomas Vaughan, and the King's close Woodville relatives, must have been contenders for the chamberlainship; Dorset had recently got custody of the Tower and may have had designs on the Mint, which was housed within its walls. So it is not hard to see why Hastings may have felt he would do far better with Richard than with the Woodvilles in control, and might have expected that, by throwing in his lot with Gloucester and helping him defeat the Woodville coup, he would be back at the heart of power with all his lands and offices safe and a very grateful Protector at the helm. He could not have foreseen Buckingham's appearance on the scene at the critical moment. By 13th June the chamberlainship had - so far as I have yet seen - still not been confirmed and must have looked in danger of passing to either Buckingham or Lovell. He may have begun to fear for the Honour of Tutbury as well, with Warwick now in the Queen's household and his new rival, Buckingham, having his own Staffordshire base and vaulting ambitions. Just as Hastings had poached retainers from Clarence during the 1470s, so now Buckingham seems to have had his eye on Hastings' men; at any rate, Stallworth tells us that immediately after Hastings' fall all his' men went over to Buckingham.

At this juncture he is approached by the Woodvilles who have realised their miscalculation and guarantee him everything he wants. Aside from Dorset's new mistress Elizabeth Shore (who may have been gifted to Hastings at this point as a human peace offering and whom Richard clearly believed was involved in the plotting as he later referred to her as "that mischievous woman"), another likely go-between was Hastings stepdaughter Cecily Bonville, who was Dorset's wife.

This is of course a speculative scenario, but it's just to show that a volte-face by Hastings is not intrinsically unbelievable. If the precontract had also been revealed before 13th June, then loyalty to Edward IV's son can also be added to the pot.

Marie

It may be that whatever it was that Hasting's was up to is the key to most of the subsequent happenings, IMO.
Did he turn up armed and ready to kill the king?
Richard was obviously seriously shaken and alarmed, to behave in such s precipitate way, which was previously at least, somewhat out of character.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall..............

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Tamara wrote:

" Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held."

Marie replies:

This one has been argued back and forth over the years. The main source for the 20th was the letter of Simon Stallworth dated 21st June (Saturday) and referring to Hastings' execution as having occurred "on Friday last, soon upon noon". But if you look at the letter itself you can see that it was written at two main sittings, with change of ink and handwriting. The reference to Hastings' execution is the first item of news, right at the top of the letter, before the removal of York from sanctuary (which occurred on the 16th), so it does look as though the words "Friday last" were probably written before Friday 20th and so refer to Friday 13th. The inquisition post mortem into Hastings' property also gives his death as 13th June. The short contemporary chronicle College of Arms MS 2M6 (reproduced by Green in 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen'), for instance, states that And in the mene tyme ther was dyvers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyd and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith, the xiii day of Iune Anno 1483."

Few historians any longer question the date although Annette Carson still has a question mark over it. And, as the College of Arms MS shows, evidently not everyone at the time was suspicious of Richard's motives, although for obvious reasons most of the few surviving accounts are hostile.

Marie

Hastings was one of Richard's oldest friends, was he not? Which would account for the level of frightened upset on Richard's part.

Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held. Furthermore, Richard granted Hastings' forfeited estates to his widow, and restored the children's right of succession to those estates, as they had automatically lost the right of succession as a result of the presumed trial and subsequent execution.

Personally, I think Richard executed the wrong man. He should have executed Stanley and Morton (especially Morton) instead, which would have at least spared the nation "Morton's Fork" no matter how things turned out at Bosworth. (I do wonder what Morton would have thought, had he lived to an even greater age than he did, of the son of the man he helped put on the throne setting out to sack and plunder the monasteries? Then again, I also wonder what Rhys ap Thomas would have thought, had someone told him that the son of the man he helped put on the throne was going to strip Rhys' own son of Rhy's estates the second Rhys drew his last breath, and then execute Rhys' son when he dared fight back.)

Tamara

Tamara

Trevor wrote:

" Self evidently, he was capable of murder (e.g. Hastings)"

Hastings' execution was only murder if:-

a) He was innocent of any plots against the Lord Protector - attempts on the Protector's life would have fallen within the treason laws; and/or

b) he was executed without trial.

Of course this is exactly what we are told by Tudor sources, but if Richard had simply wanted Hastings out of the way, why not just have him quietly poisoned? Whatever happened at the Tower that Friday 13th was - to my way of thinking - far too clumsy and difficult to have been a planned murder. Had Hastings been caught red-handed then he would have foregone the right to a normal jury trial and could have been condemned by a summary court martial before the Lord Constable: and Richard was Lord Constable. This was also a meeting of the royal council, and that too had powers of summary justice. So although Hastings' rapid end appears shocking and barbaric, and was no doubt bad publicity for Richard, it may well have been the result of perfectly lawful summary trial and Hastings may well have been guilty of treason. We just don't have Richard's side of the story any more.

My own personal view is that Richard's letters of 10th/11th June were genuine, that he did believe a plot was afoot to kill himself and Buckingham, and was scared. He had possibly been told that Friday 13th was the chosen day, and his men either caught Hastings in action or perhaps in panic misinterpreted some move on Hastings' part.

There would have been a huge difference between such an execution, which was no more ruthless than many ordered by Edward IV, and the murder of two children, particularly two children who were his own close relatives. To us in our sanitised society the 15th century looks so bloody it is easy to make the mistake of thinking there were no boundaries. But there were boundaries that were very meaningful to the people of the time, and child murder was definitely beyond the bounds. If you don't believe me, then just look at what the suspicion that he had done away with his nephews did to Richard's reputation. And that is why I find it hard to believe that he would have taken that step.

If you compare Richard to, say Henry IV, you get a very illuminating comparison. Henry IV was rather more bloodthirsty than Richard, executing enemies right from the off without compunction and by the nastiest means he could think of; he even had the Archbishop of York executed, and he gave the order for his predecessor, Richard II, to be starved to death in Pontefract Castle. But his child rivals, the Mortimer brothers, were merely kept safely, and even after they were briefly rescued Henry's only change of policy towards them was to have them more securely guarded and frequently moved. Yet we are to believe that Richard, whose record was considerably less ruthless than that of Henry IV, decided to have his two child rivals murdered after one totally failed rescue attempt, even though said children were his own nephews.

Marie

Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"

Carol responds:

I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.

The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.

I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.

I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

Also, from a legal viewpoint, the fact that Richard was able to get away with executing Hastings so rapidly suggests that something of the sort is likely to have taken place (bearing arms in the King's household was an offence in itself). Mancini, although of course he claims it was all a set-up by Richard, says this is exactly what Richard claimed:-

"When they had been admitted to the innermost quarters, the protector, as prearranged, cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him, and they had come with hidden arms, that they might be first to open the attack. Thereupon the soldiers, who had been stationed there by their lord, rushed in with the Duke of Buckingham, and cut down Hastings on the false pretext of treason; they arrested the others, whose life, it was presumed, was spared out of respect for religion and holy orders."

Note that Mancini differs from all other contemporary sources - and there are several - in claiming that Hastings was killed in the immediate affray rather than arrested and beheaded. It is, of course, difficult to explain how Richard could have justified Hastings' execution to the council without showing evidence of the ambush prepared or the hidden arms; but beheaded he does seem to have been. So perhaps there was evidence after all.

I think if we look at Hastings' choices through the lens of what was best for Hastings, rather than his record of loyalty to the late Edward IV, a change of sides is not difficult to explain (this steadfast friend of Edward IV had, for instance, in 1470 come very close to throwing in his lot with his brother-in-law Warwick). In 1483 Hastings had three major offices to protect - Lord Chamberlain, Captain of Calais, Master of the Mint - and besides his inherited estates his local power now rested to a large degree on the Honour of Tutbury, which had been resumed from Clarence at the end of 1473 and given to Hastings. All of these things would have been up for grabs in the new world. Hastings and Rivers had, if I remember rightly, been rivals for the captaincy of Calais for many many years. Clarence's heir was now Dorset's ward and no doubt intended as a husband for one of his daughters, which may have made Hastings jittery for the Honour of Tutbury; all that would be required to deprive him of it was an Act of Resumption. Edward V's chamberlain as Prince of Wales, Sir Thomas Vaughan, and the King's close Woodville relatives, must have been contenders for the chamberlainship; Dorset had recently got custody of the Tower and may have had designs on the Mint, which was housed within its walls. So it is not hard to see why Hastings may have felt he would do far better with Richard than with the Woodvilles in control, and might have expected that, by throwing in his lot with Gloucester and helping him defeat the Woodville coup, he would be back at the heart of power with all his lands and offices safe and a very grateful Protector at the helm. He could not have foreseen Buckingham's appearance on the scene at the critical moment. By 13th June the chamberlainship had - so far as I have yet seen - still not been confirmed and must have looked in danger of passing to either Buckingham or Lovell. He may have begun to fear for the Honour of Tutbury as well, with Warwick now in the Queen's household and his new rival, Buckingham, having his own Staffordshire base and vaulting ambitions. Just as Hastings had poached retainers from Clarence during the 1470s, so now Buckingham seems to have had his eye on Hastings' men; at any rate, Stallworth tells us that immediately after Hastings' fall all his' men went over to Buckingham.

At this juncture he is approached by the Woodvilles who have realised their miscalculation and guarantee him everything he wants. Aside from Dorset's new mistress Elizabeth Shore (who may have been gifted to Hastings at this point as a human peace offering and whom Richard clearly believed was involved in the plotting as he later referred to her as "that mischievous woman"), another likely go-between was Hastings stepdaughter Cecily Bonville, who was Dorset's wife.

This is of course a speculative scenario, but it's just to show that a volte-face by Hastings is not intrinsically unbelievable. If the precontract had also been revealed before 13th June, then loyalty to Edward IV's son can also be added to the pot.

Marie

It may be that whatever it was that Hasting's was up to is the key to most of the subsequent happenings, IMO.
Did he turn up armed and ready to kill the king?
Richard was obviously seriously shaken and alarmed, to behave in such s precipitate way, which was previously at least, somewhat out of character.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall..............

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Tamara wrote:

" Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held."

Marie replies:

This one has been argued back and forth over the years. The main source for the 20th was the letter of Simon Stallworth dated 21st June (Saturday) and referring to Hastings' execution as having occurred "on Friday last, soon upon noon". But if you look at the letter itself you can see that it was written at two main sittings, with change of ink and handwriting. The reference to Hastings' execution is the first item of news, right at the top of the letter, before the removal of York from sanctuary (which occurred on the 16th), so it does look as though the words "Friday last" were probably written before Friday 20th and so refer to Friday 13th. The inquisition post mortem into Hastings' property also gives his death as 13th June. The short contemporary chronicle College of Arms MS 2M6 (reproduced by Green in 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen'), for instance, states that And in the mene tyme ther was dyvers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyd and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith, the xiii day of Iune Anno 1483."

Few historians any longer question the date although Annette Carson still has a question mark over it. And, as the College of Arms MS shows, evidently not everyone at the time was suspicious of Richard's motives, although for obvious reasons most of the few surviving accounts are hostile.

Marie

Hastings was one of Richard's oldest friends, was he not? Which would account for the level of frightened upset on Richard's part.

Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held. Furthermore, Richard granted Hastings' forfeited estates to his widow, and restored the children's right of succession to those estates, as they had automatically lost the right of succession as a result of the presumed trial and subsequent execution.

Personally, I think Richard executed the wrong man. He should have executed Stanley and Morton (especially Morton) instead, which would have at least spared the nation "Morton's Fork" no matter how things turned out at Bosworth. (I do wonder what Morton would have thought, had he lived to an even greater age than he did, of the son of the man he helped put on the throne setting out to sack and plunder the monasteries? Then again, I also wonder what Rhys ap Thomas would have thought, had someone told him that the son of the man he helped put on the throne was going to strip Rhys' own son of Rhy's estates the second Rhys drew his last breath, and then execute Rhys' son when he dared fight back.)

Tamara

Tamara

Trevor wrote:

" Self evidently, he was capable of murder (e.g. Hastings)"

Hastings' execution was only murder if:-

a) He was innocent of any plots against the Lord Protector - attempts on the Protector's life would have fallen within the treason laws; and/or

b) he was executed without trial.

Of course this is exactly what we are told by Tudor sources, but if Richard had simply wanted Hastings out of the way, why not just have him quietly poisoned? Whatever happened at the Tower that Friday 13th was - to my way of thinking - far too clumsy and difficult to have been a planned murder. Had Hastings been caught red-handed then he would have foregone the right to a normal jury trial and could have been condemned by a summary court martial before the Lord Constable: and Richard was Lord Constable. This was also a meeting of the royal council, and that too had powers of summary justice. So although Hastings' rapid end appears shocking and barbaric, and was no doubt bad publicity for Richard, it may well have been the result of perfectly lawful summary trial and Hastings may well have been guilty of treason. We just don't have Richard's side of the story any more.

My own personal view is that Richard's letters of 10th/11th June were genuine, that he did believe a plot was afoot to kill himself and Buckingham, and was scared. He had possibly been told that Friday 13th was the chosen day, and his men either caught Hastings in action or perhaps in panic misinterpreted some move on Hastings' part.

There would have been a huge difference between such an execution, which was no more ruthless than many ordered by Edward IV, and the murder of two children, particularly two children who were his own close relatives. To us in our sanitised society the 15th century looks so bloody it is easy to make the mistake of thinking there were no boundaries. But there were boundaries that were very meaningful to the people of the time, and child murder was definitely beyond the bounds. If you don't believe me, then just look at what the suspicion that he had done away with his nephews did to Richard's reputation. And that is why I find it hard to believe that he would have taken that step.

If you compare Richard to, say Henry IV, you get a very illuminating comparison. Henry IV was rather more bloodthirsty than Richard, executing enemies right from the off without compunction and by the nastiest means he could think of; he even had the Archbishop of York executed, and he gave the order for his predecessor, Richard II, to be starved to death in Pontefract Castle. But his child rivals, the Mortimer brothers, were merely kept safely, and even after they were briefly rescued Henry's only change of policy towards them was to have them more securely guarded and frequently moved. Yet we are to believe that Richard, whose record was considerably less ruthless than that of Henry IV, decided to have his two child rivals murdered after one totally failed rescue attempt, even though said children were his own nephews.

Marie

Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"

Carol responds:

I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.

The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.

I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.

I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

Also, from a legal viewpoint, the fact that Richard was able to get away with executing Hastings so rapidly suggests that something of the sort is likely to have taken place (bearing arms in the King's household was an offence in itself). Mancini, although of course he claims it was all a set-up by Richard, says this is exactly what Richard claimed:-

"When they had been admitted to the innermost quarters, the protector, as prearranged, cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him, and they had come with hidden arms, that they might be first to open the attack. Thereupon the soldiers, who had been stationed there by their lord, rushed in with the Duke of Buckingham, and cut down Hastings on the false pretext of treason; they arrested the others, whose life, it was presumed, was spared out of respect for religion and holy orders."

Note that Mancini differs from all other contemporary sources - and there are several - in claiming that Hastings was killed in the immediate affray rather than arrested and beheaded. It is, of course, difficult to explain how Richard could have justified Hastings' execution to the council without showing evidence of the ambush prepared or the hidden arms; but beheaded he does seem to have been. So perhaps there was evidence after all.

I think if we look at Hastings' choices through the lens of what was best for Hastings, rather than his record of loyalty to the late Edward IV, a change of sides is not difficult to explain (this steadfast friend of Edward IV had, for instance, in 1470 come very close to throwing in his lot with his brother-in-law Warwick). In 1483 Hastings had three major offices to protect - Lord Chamberlain, Captain of Calais, Master of the Mint - and besides his inherited estates his local power now rested to a large degree on the Honour of Tutbury, which had been resumed from Clarence at the end of 1473 and given to Hastings. All of these things would have been up for grabs in the new world. Hastings and Rivers had, if I remember rightly, been rivals for the captaincy of Calais for many many years. Clarence's heir was now Dorset's ward and no doubt intended as a husband for one of his daughters, which may have made Hastings jittery for the Honour of Tutbury; all that would be required to deprive him of it was an Act of Resumption. Edward V's chamberlain as Prince of Wales, Sir Thomas Vaughan, and the King's close Woodville relatives, must have been contenders for the chamberlainship; Dorset had recently got custody of the Tower and may have had designs on the Mint, which was housed within its walls. So it is not hard to see why Hastings may have felt he would do far better with Richard than with the Woodvilles in control, and might have expected that, by throwing in his lot with Gloucester and helping him defeat the Woodville coup, he would be back at the heart of power with all his lands and offices safe and a very grateful Protector at the helm. He could not have foreseen Buckingham's appearance on the scene at the critical moment. By 13th June the chamberlainship had - so far as I have yet seen - still not been confirmed and must have looked in danger of passing to either Buckingham or Lovell. He may have begun to fear for the Honour of Tutbury as well, with Warwick now in the Queen's household and his new rival, Buckingham, having his own Staffordshire base and vaulting ambitions. Just as Hastings had poached retainers from Clarence during the 1470s, so now Buckingham seems to have had his eye on Hastings' men; at any rate, Stallworth tells us that immediately after Hastings' fall all his' men went over to Buckingham.

At this juncture he is approached by the Woodvilles who have realised their miscalculation and guarantee him everything he wants. Aside from Dorset's new mistress Elizabeth Shore (who may have been gifted to Hastings at this point as a human peace offering and whom Richard clearly believed was involved in the plotting as he later referred to her as "that mischievous woman"), another likely go-between was Hastings stepdaughter Cecily Bonville, who was Dorset's wife.

This is of course a speculative scenario, but it's just to show that a volte-face by Hastings is not intrinsically unbelievable. If the precontract had also been revealed before 13th June, then loyalty to Edward IV's son can also be added to the pot.

Marie

It may be that whatever it was that Hasting's was up to is the key to most of the subsequent happenings, IMO.
Did he turn up armed and ready to kill the king?
Richard was obviously seriously shaken and alarmed, to behave in such s precipitate way, which was previously at least, somewhat out of character.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall..............

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Tamara wrote:

" Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held."

Marie replies:

This one has been argued back and forth over the years. The main source for the 20th was the letter of Simon Stallworth dated 21st June (Saturday) and referring to Hastings' execution as having occurred "on Friday last, soon upon noon". But if you look at the letter itself you can see that it was written at two main sittings, with change of ink and handwriting. The reference to Hastings' execution is the first item of news, right at the top of the letter, before the removal of York from sanctuary (which occurred on the 16th), so it does look as though the words "Friday last" were probably written before Friday 20th and so refer to Friday 13th. The inquisition post mortem into Hastings' property also gives his death as 13th June. The short contemporary chronicle College of Arms MS 2M6 (reproduced by Green in 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen'), for instance, states that And in the mene tyme ther was dyvers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyd and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith, the xiii day of Iune Anno 1483."

Few historians any longer question the date although Annette Carson still has a question mark over it. And, as the College of Arms MS shows, evidently not everyone at the time was suspicious of Richard's motives, although for obvious reasons most of the few surviving accounts are hostile.

Marie

Hastings was one of Richard's oldest friends, was he not? Which would account for the level of frightened upset on Richard's part.

Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held. Furthermore, Richard granted Hastings' forfeited estates to his widow, and restored the children's right of succession to those estates, as they had automatically lost the right of succession as a result of the presumed trial and subsequent execution.

Personally, I think Richard executed the wrong man. He should have executed Stanley and Morton (especially Morton) instead, which would have at least spared the nation "Morton's Fork" no matter how things turned out at Bosworth. (I do wonder what Morton would have thought, had he lived to an even greater age than he did, of the son of the man he helped put on the throne setting out to sack and plunder the monasteries? Then again, I also wonder what Rhys ap Thomas would have thought, had someone told him that the son of the man he helped put on the throne was going to strip Rhys' own son of Rhy's estates the second Rhys drew his last breath, and then execute Rhys' son when he dared fight back.)

Tamara

Tamara

Trevor wrote:

" Self evidently, he was capable of murder (e.g. Hastings)"

Hastings' execution was only murder if:-

a) He was innocent of any plots against the Lord Protector - attempts on the Protector's life would have fallen within the treason laws; and/or

b) he was executed without trial.

Of course this is exactly what we are told by Tudor sources, but if Richard had simply wanted Hastings out of the way, why not just have him quietly poisoned? Whatever happened at the Tower that Friday 13th was - to my way of thinking - far too clumsy and difficult to have been a planned murder. Had Hastings been caught red-handed then he would have foregone the right to a normal jury trial and could have been condemned by a summary court martial before the Lord Constable: and Richard was Lord Constable. This was also a meeting of the royal council, and that too had powers of summary justice. So although Hastings' rapid end appears shocking and barbaric, and was no doubt bad publicity for Richard, it may well have been the result of perfectly lawful summary trial and Hastings may well have been guilty of treason. We just don't have Richard's side of the story any more.

My own personal view is that Richard's letters of 10th/11th June were genuine, that he did believe a plot was afoot to kill himself and Buckingham, and was scared. He had possibly been told that Friday 13th was the chosen day, and his men either caught Hastings in action or perhaps in panic misinterpreted some move on Hastings' part.

There would have been a huge difference between such an execution, which was no more ruthless than many ordered by Edward IV, and the murder of two children, particularly two children who were his own close relatives. To us in our sanitised society the 15th century looks so bloody it is easy to make the mistake of thinking there were no boundaries. But there were boundaries that were very meaningful to the people of the time, and child murder was definitely beyond the bounds. If you don't believe me, then just look at what the suspicion that he had done away with his nephews did to Richard's reputation. And that is why I find it hard to believe that he would have taken that step.

If you compare Richard to, say Henry IV, you get a very illuminating comparison. Henry IV was rather more bloodthirsty than Richard, executing enemies right from the off without compunction and by the nastiest means he could think of; he even had the Archbishop of York executed, and he gave the order for his predecessor, Richard II, to be starved to death in Pontefract Castle. But his child rivals, the Mortimer brothers, were merely kept safely, and even after they were briefly rescued Henry's only change of policy towards them was to have them more securely guarded and frequently moved. Yet we are to believe that Richard, whose record was considerably less ruthless than that of Henry IV, decided to have his two child rivals murdered after one totally failed rescue attempt, even though said children were his own nephews.

Marie

Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"

Carol responds:

I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.

The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.

I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.

I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

I have just started reading the Hancock book so can't really comment on its conclusions, especially given the amazing erudition of members here, but it does seem at least possible to me that Hastings could have. been one of the witnesses to the clandestine marriage to Eleanor Butler as he was such a "partner in crime" to Edward IV.
Thoughts anyone?

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

 I would also add Trevor, that although Hancock is very readable he makes a huge error when he asserts that Stillington was related to Eleanor Butler. He misquotes a Ricardian article which actually says that Stillington's grandson was related to Eleanor's sister-in-law years after the pre-contract. It had me chasing hares for months. His local knowledge is also not as sound as that of JAH.  He makes a great play of Catesby's rise to power, but the Catesbys had served the Black Prince, Coventry/Warwickshire and the Beauchamps since at least the beginning of the fourteenth century.. They are a marvellous example of the gentry who were to reach their zenith under the Tudors. Personally I go along with Marie that we know Stillington probably drafted the TR but we don't necessarily know he witnessed the pre-contract. Hope I'm quoting you correctly there Marie?  H.

On Monday, 18 November 2013, 21:15, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
   Tevor wrote:-"But what if Hastings knew of the pre-contract all along, but didn't tell Richard, who finds out about it from Catesby ( Hasting's erstwhile servant). Richard calls in Stillington to confirm/deny the story; Stillington who is the only living eye witness to the pre contract does his impersonation of George Washington and says ' I cannot tell a lie; it is true!'  Richard is so furious with Brighton (sorry I mean Hastings) that he has him summarily executed. For more of this theorising I suggest you read 'Richard 111 and the murder in the Tower'  by Peter A Hancock (The History Press 2009)." Marie replies:-It's certainly possible that Hastings knew of the precontrct all along, although I don't go along with  Hancock's other arguments. Hastings' position as Lord Chamberlain made him the portal to the King's chamber and perhaps  the natural person for Edward to liaise with regarding the procurement of mistresses. He certainly seems to have had dealings with Elizabeth Woodville early in the reign. But to come back to Friday 13th: Firstly, Richard has already announced that he's discovered that a plot is being hatched to murder himself and Buckingham, and although the troops from Yorkshire cannot have been expected to arrive by Friday it seems to me unlikely that the two things are not connected. Secondly, Hancock's scenario rests on Hastings knowing, and Stillington or Catesby knowing that Hastings knew, and telling Richard - there's no hint of such an accusation in any version of the events of that morning that we have. Also,  a failure to disclose information could not have been classed as anything more than misprision of treason, and would have to be tried before a court. The other council members wouldn't have stood for summary - and illegal - execution in such circumstances.  Thirdly, we are to believe that Stillington/ Catesby have only just told Richard that day, and they are regarded as mates, whereas Hastings, who might also have been preparing to break the news to Richard in his own time, is beheaded. And what was Morton's and Rotherham's role in this scenario, I can't recall? It is good that Hancock revisited the whole question of what happened that day, and opened up a new debate, but 'm sorry, his explanation doesn't work for me. What we know from Richard's letters is that since perhaps late on Tuesday (counting on fingers) he had known of a plot to murder himself and Buckingham. What Mancini tells us is that on Friday Richard claimed to have uncovered a plot to ambush him, including the discovery of hidden weapons. Such a crime could justify a hasty execution, in law if not morally; Peter Hancock's suggested transgression wouldn't. Have to go.Marie 

---In , <misty1983@...> wrote:

But what if Hastings knew of the pre-contract all along, but didn't tell Richard, who finds out about it from Catesby ( Hasting's erstwhile servant). Richard calls in Stillington to confirm/deny the story; Stillington who is the only living eye witness to the pre contract does his impersonation of George Washington and says ' I cannot tell a lie; it is true!'  Richard is so furious with Brighton (sorry I mean Hastings) that he has him summarily executed. For more of this theorising I suggest you read 'Richard 111 and the murder in the Tower'  by Peter A Hancock (The History Press 2009).T

Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Nov 2013, at 14:43, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]> wrote:

  Also, from a legal viewpoint, the fact that Richard was able to get away with executing Hastings so rapidly suggests that something of the sort is likely to have taken place (bearing arms in the King's household was an offence in itself). Mancini, although of course he claims it was all a set-up by Richard, says this is exactly what Richard claimed:-"When they had been admitted to the innermost quarters, the protector, as prearranged, cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him, and they had come with hidden arms, that they might be first to open the attack. Thereupon the soldiers, who had been stationed there by their lord, rushed in with the Duke of Buckingham, and cut down Hastings on the false pretext of treason; they arrested the others, whose life, it was presumed, was spared out of respect for religion and holy orders." Note that Mancini differs from all other contemporary sources - and there are several - in claiming that Hastings was killed in the immediate affray rather than arrested and beheaded. It is, of course, difficult to explain how Richard could have justified Hastings' execution to the council without showing evidence of the ambush prepared or the hidden arms; but beheaded he does seem to have been. So perhaps there was evidence after all. I think if we look at Hastings' choices through the lens of what was best for Hastings, rather than his record of loyalty to the late Edward IV, a change of sides is not difficult to explain (this steadfast friend of Edward IV had, for instance, in 1470 come very close to throwing in his lot with his brother-in-law Warwick). In 1483 Hastings had three major offices to protect - Lord Chamberlain, Captain of Calais, Master of the Mint - and besides his inherited estates his local power now rested to a large degree on the Honour of Tutbury, which had been resumed from Clarence at the end of 1473 and given to Hastings. All of these things would have been up for grabs in the new world. Hastings and Rivers had, if I remember rightly, been rivals for the captaincy of Calais for many many years. Clarence's heir was now Dorset's ward and no doubt intended as a husband for one of his daughters, which may have made Hastings jittery for the Honour of Tutbury; all that would be required to deprive him of it was an Act of Resumption. Edward V's chamberlain as Prince of Wales, Sir Thomas Vaughan, and the King's close Woodville relatives, must have been contenders for the chamberlainship; Dorset had recently got custody of the Tower and may have had designs on the Mint, which was housed within its walls. So it is not hard to see why Hastings may have felt he would do far better with Richard than with the Woodvilles in control, and might have expected that, by throwing in his lot with Gloucester and helping him defeat the Woodville coup, he would be back at the heart of power with all his lands and offices safe and a very grateful Protector at the helm. He could not have foreseen Buckingham's appearance on the scene at the critical moment. By 13th June the chamberlainship had - so far as I have yet seen - still not been confirmed and must have looked in danger of passing to either Buckingham or Lovell. He may have begun to fear for the Honour of Tutbury as well, with Warwick now in the Queen's household and his new rival, Buckingham, having his own Staffordshire base and vaulting ambitions. Just as Hastings had poached retainers from Clarence during the 1470s, so now Buckingham seems to have had his eye on Hastings' men; at any rate, Stallworth tells us that immediately after Hastings' fall all his' men went over to Buckingham. At this juncture he is approached by the Woodvilles who have realised their miscalculation and guarantee him everything he wants. Aside from Dorset's new mistress Elizabeth Shore (who may have been gifted to Hastings at this point as a human peace offering and whom Richard clearly believed was involved in the plotting as he later referred to her as "that mischievous woman"), another likely go-between was Hastings stepdaughter Cecily Bonville, who was Dorset's wife. This is of course a speculative scenario, but it's just to show that a volte-face by Hastings is not intrinsically unbelievable. If the precontract had also been revealed before 13th June, then loyalty to Edward IV's son can also be added to the pot. Marie

---In , <janjovian@...> wrote:

It may be that whatever it was that Hasting's was up to is the key to most of the subsequent happenings, IMO.
Did he turn up armed and ready to kill the king?
Richard was obviously seriously shaken and alarmed, to behave in such s precipitate way, which was previously at least, somewhat out of character.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall.............. Jess Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: RE: Richard's Silence After Young Princes Went Missing
Sent: Mon, Nov 18, 2013 12:06:46 PM

  Tamara wrote:" Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held." Marie replies:This one has been argued back and forth over the years. The main source for the 20th was the letter of Simon Stallworth dated 21st June (Saturday) and referring to Hastings' execution as having occurred "on Friday last, soon upon noon". But if you look at the letter itself you can see that it was written at two main sittings, with change of ink and handwriting. The reference to Hastings' execution is the first item of news, right at the top of the letter, before the removal of York from sanctuary (which occurred on the 16th), so it does look as though the words "Friday last" were probably written before Friday 20th and so refer to Friday 13th. The inquisition post mortem into Hastings' property also gives his death as 13th June. The short contemporary chronicle College of Arms MS 2M6 (reproduced by Green in 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen'), for instance, states that And in the mene tyme ther was dyvers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyd and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd  forthwith, the xiii day of Iune Anno 1483." Few historians any longer question the date although Annette Carson still has a question mark over it. And, as the College of Arms MS shows, evidently not everyone at the time was suspicious of Richard's motives, although for obvious reasons most of the few surviving accounts are hostile.  Marie

---In , <khafara@...> wrote:

Hastings was one of Richard's oldest friends, was he not?  Which would account for the level of frightened upset on Richard's part.
Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held.  Furthermore, Richard granted Hastings' forfeited estates to his widow, and restored the children's right of succession to those estates, as they had automatically lost the right of succession as a result of the presumed trial and subsequent execution.
Personally, I think Richard executed the wrong man.  He should have executed Stanley and Morton (especially Morton) instead, which would have at least spared the nation "Morton's Fork" no matter how things turned out at Bosworth.  (I do wonder what Morton would have thought, had he lived to an even greater age than he did, of the son of the man he helped put on the throne setting out to sack and plunder the monasteries?  Then again, I also wonder what Rhys ap Thomas would have thought, had someone told him that the son of the man he helped put on the throne was going to strip Rhys' own son of Rhy's estates the second Rhys drew his last breath, and then execute Rhys' son when he dared fight back.)

Tamara

Tamara





---In , <[email protected]> wrote:

Trevor wrote:" Self evidently, he was capable of murder (e.g. Hastings)" Hastings' execution was only murder if:-a) He was innocent of any plots against the Lord Protector - attempts on the Protector's life would have fallen within the treason laws; and/orb) he was executed without  trial.Of course this is exactly what we are told by Tudor sources, but if Richard had simply wanted Hastings out of the way, why not just have him quietly poisoned? Whatever happened at the Tower that Friday 13th was - to my way of thinking - far too clumsy and difficult to have been a planned murder. Had Hastings been caught red-handed then he would have foregone the right to a normal jury trial and could have been condemned by a summary court martial before the Lord Constable: and Richard was Lord Constable. This was also a meeting of the royal council, and that too had powers of summary justice. So although Hastings' rapid end appears shocking and barbaric, and was no doubt bad publicity for Richard, it may well have been the result of perfectly lawful summary trial and Hastings may well have been guilty of treason. We just don't have Richard's side of the story any more.My own personal view is that Richard's letters of 10th/11th June were genuine, that he did believe a plot was afoot to kill himself and Buckingham, and was scared. He had possibly been told that Friday 13th was the chosen day, and his men either caught Hastings in action or perhaps in panic misinterpreted some move on Hastings' part.There would have been a huge difference between such an execution, which was no more ruthless than many ordered by Edward IV, and the murder of two children, particularly two children who were his own close relatives. To us in our sanitised society the 15th century looks so bloody it is easy to make the mistake of thinking there were no boundaries. But there were boundaries that were very meaningful to the people of the time, and child murder was definitely beyond the bounds. If you don't believe me, then just look at what the suspicion that he had done away with his nephews did to Richard's reputation. And that is why I find it hard to believe that he would have taken that step. If you compare Richard to, say Henry IV, you get a very illuminating comparison. Henry IV was rather more bloodthirsty than Richard, executing enemies right from the off without compunction and by the nastiest means he could think of; he even had the Archbishop of York executed, and he gave the order for his predecessor, Richard II, to be starved to death in Pontefract Castle. But his child rivals, the Mortimer brothers, were merely kept safely, and even after they were briefly rescued Henry's only change of policy towards them was to have them more securely guarded and frequently moved. Yet we are to believe that Richard, whose record was considerably less ruthless than that of Henry IV, decided to have his two child rivals murdered after one totally failed rescue attempt, even though said children were his own nephews. Marie

---In , <misty1983@...> wrote:

CarolWith respect, I think you have missed my point. I'm not arguing that Richard murdered the Princes, or even that they died during his reign. My main points are i) that on any view they disappeared from view during Richard's watch and I think this must count against him even if it's not proof he was a murderer, and ii) he could well have murdered them. Self evidently, he was capable of murder (e.g. Hastings) and he remains the prime suspect in this case; though, there are other suspects. 
I notice that many contributors to this forum seem to rely on Annette Carson's book ' the maligned king'. I respect Annette as a staunch supporter of Richard, but her defence of him doesn't enthuse me. It is based too much on supposition and conjecture and not enough on hard evidence. Unfortunately, for me Annette falls short of her stated aim to be objective. By the way you can call me anything you like as long as it's legal .RegardsMr T

Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Nov 2013, at 21:34, justcarol67@... wrote:

  Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have  murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive.  This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&"  Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"
Carol responds: 
I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.
The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.
I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.
I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

By the way, you didn't sign your post, so I'm guessing at what to call you from Yahoo's version of your user ID. If you'd rather be called something else, please let us know.

Carol

I would also add Trevor, that although Hancock is very readable he makes a huge error when he asserts that Stillington was related to Eleanor Butler. He misquotes a Ricardian article which actually says that Stillington's grandson was related to Eleanor's sister-in-law years after the pre-contract. It had me chasing hares for months. His local knowledge is also not as sound as that of JAH. He makes a great play of Catesby's rise to power, but the Catesbys had served the Black Prince, Coventry/Warwickshire and the Beauchamps since at least the beginning of the fourteenth century.. They are a marvellous example of the gentry who were to reach their zenith under the Tudors. Personally I go along with Marie that we know Stillington probably drafted the TR but we don't necessarily know he witnessed the pre-contract. Hope I'm quoting you correctly there Marie? H.

On Monday, 18 November 2013, 21:15, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Tevor wrote:-"But what if Hastings knew of the pre-contract all along, but didn't tell Richard, who finds out about it from Catesby ( Hasting's erstwhile servant). Richard calls in Stillington to confirm/deny the story; Stillington who is the only living eye witness to the pre contract does his impersonation of George Washington and says ' I cannot tell a lie; it is true!' Richard is so furious with Brighton (sorry I mean Hastings) that he has him summarily executed. For more of this theorising I suggest you read 'Richard 111 and the murder in the Tower' by Peter A Hancock (The History Press 2009)." Marie replies:-It's certainly possible that Hastings knew of the precontrct all along, although I don't go along with Hancock's other arguments. Hastings' position as Lord Chamberlain made him the portal to the King's chamber and perhaps the natural person for Edward to liaise with regarding the procurement of mistresses. He certainly seems to have had dealings with Elizabeth Woodville early in the reign. But to come back to Friday 13th: Firstly, Richard has already announced that he's discovered that a plot is being hatched to murder himself and Buckingham, and although the troops from Yorkshire cannot have been expected to arrive by Friday it seems to me unlikely that the two things are not connected. Secondly, Hancock's scenario rests on Hastings knowing, and Stillington or Catesby knowing that Hastings knew, and telling Richard - there's no hint of such an accusation in any version of the events of that morning that we have. Also, a failure to disclose information could not have been classed as anything more than misprision of treason, and would have to be tried before a court. The other council members wouldn't have stood for summary - and illegal - execution in such circumstances. Thirdly, we are to believe that Stillington/ Catesby have only just told Richard that day, and they are regarded as mates, whereas Hastings, who might also have been preparing to break the news to Richard in his own time, is beheaded. And what was Morton's and Rotherham's role in this scenario, I can't recall? It is good that Hancock revisited the whole question of what happened that day, and opened up a new debate, but 'm sorry, his explanation doesn't work for me. What we know from Richard's letters is that since perhaps late on Tuesday (counting on fingers) he had known of a plot to murder himself and Buckingham. What Mancini tells us is that on Friday Richard claimed to have uncovered a plot to ambush him, including the discovery of hidden weapons. Such a crime could justify a hasty execution, in law if not morally; Peter Hancock's suggested transgression wouldn't. Have to go.Marie

---In , <misty1983@...> wrote:

But what if Hastings knew of the pre-contract all along, but didn't tell Richard, who finds out about it from Catesby ( Hasting's erstwhile servant). Richard calls in Stillington to confirm/deny the story; Stillington who is the only living eye witness to the pre contract does his impersonation of George Washington and says ' I cannot tell a lie; it is true!' Richard is so furious with Brighton (sorry I mean Hastings) that he has him summarily executed. For more of this theorising I suggest you read 'Richard 111 and the murder in the Tower' by Peter A Hancock (The History Press 2009).T

Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Nov 2013, at 14:43, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]> wrote:

Also, from a legal viewpoint, the fact that Richard was able to get away with executing Hastings so rapidly suggests that something of the sort is likely to have taken place (bearing arms in the King's household was an offence in itself). Mancini, although of course he claims it was all a set-up by Richard, says this is exactly what Richard claimed:-"When they had been admitted to the innermost quarters, the protector, as prearranged, cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him, and they had come with hidden arms, that they might be first to open the attack. Thereupon the soldiers, who had been stationed there by their lord, rushed in with the Duke of Buckingham, and cut down Hastings on the false pretext of treason; they arrested the others, whose life, it was presumed, was spared out of respect for religion and holy orders." Note that Mancini differs from all other contemporary sources - and there are several - in claiming that Hastings was killed in the immediate affray rather than arrested and beheaded. It is, of course, difficult to explain how Richard could have justified Hastings' execution to the council without showing evidence of the ambush prepared or the hidden arms; but beheaded he does seem to have been. So perhaps there was evidence after all. I think if we look at Hastings' choices through the lens of what was best for Hastings, rather than his record of loyalty to the late Edward IV, a change of sides is not difficult to explain (this steadfast friend of Edward IV had, for instance, in 1470 come very close to throwing in his lot with his brother-in-law Warwick). In 1483 Hastings had three major offices to protect - Lord Chamberlain, Captain of Calais, Master of the Mint - and besides his inherited estates his local power now rested to a large degree on the Honour of Tutbury, which had been resumed from Clarence at the end of 1473 and given to Hastings. All of these things would have been up for grabs in the new world. Hastings and Rivers had, if I remember rightly, been rivals for the captaincy of Calais for many many years. Clarence's heir was now Dorset's ward and no doubt intended as a husband for one of his daughters, which may have made Hastings jittery for the Honour of Tutbury; all that would be required to deprive him of it was an Act of Resumption. Edward V's chamberlain as Prince of Wales, Sir Thomas Vaughan, and the King's close Woodville relatives, must have been contenders for the chamberlainship; Dorset had recently got custody of the Tower and may have had designs on the Mint, which was housed within its walls. So it is not hard to see why Hastings may have felt he would do far better with Richard than with the Woodvilles in control, and might have expected that, by throwing in his lot with Gloucester and helping him defeat the Woodville coup, he would be back at the heart of power with all his lands and offices safe and a very grateful Protector at the helm. He could not have foreseen Buckingham's appearance on the scene at the critical moment. By 13th June the chamberlainship had - so far as I have yet seen - still not been confirmed and must have looked in danger of passing to either Buckingham or Lovell. He may have begun to fear for the Honour of Tutbury as well, with Warwick now in the Queen's household and his new rival, Buckingham, having his own Staffordshire base and vaulting ambitions. Just as Hastings had poached retainers from Clarence during the 1470s, so now Buckingham seems to have had his eye on Hastings' men; at any rate, Stallworth tells us that immediately after Hastings' fall all his' men went over to Buckingham. At this juncture he is approached by the Woodvilles who have realised their miscalculation and guarantee him everything he wants. Aside from Dorset's new mistress Elizabeth Shore (who may have been gifted to Hastings at this point as a human peace offering and whom Richard clearly believed was involved in the plotting as he later referred to her as "that mischievous woman"), another likely go-between was Hastings stepdaughter Cecily Bonville, who was Dorset's wife. This is of course a speculative scenario, but it's just to show that a volte-face by Hastings is not intrinsically unbelievable. If the precontract had also been revealed before 13th June, then loyalty to Edward IV's son can also be added to the pot. Marie

---In , <janjovian@...> wrote:

It may be that whatever it was that Hasting's was up to is the key to most of the subsequent happenings, IMO.
Did he turn up armed and ready to kill the king?
Richard was obviously seriously shaken and alarmed, to behave in such s precipitate way, which was previously at least, somewhat out of character.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall.............. Jess Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: RE: Richard's Silence After Young Princes Went Missing
Sent: Mon, Nov 18, 2013 12:06:46 PM

Tamara wrote:" Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held." Marie replies:This one has been argued back and forth over the years. The main source for the 20th was the letter of Simon Stallworth dated 21st June (Saturday) and referring to Hastings' execution as having occurred "on Friday last, soon upon noon". But if you look at the letter itself you can see that it was written at two main sittings, with change of ink and handwriting. The reference to Hastings' execution is the first item of news, right at the top of the letter, before the removal of York from sanctuary (which occurred on the 16th), so it does look as though the words "Friday last" were probably written before Friday 20th and so refer to Friday 13th. The inquisition post mortem into Hastings' property also gives his death as 13th June. The short contemporary chronicle College of Arms MS 2M6 (reproduced by Green in 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen'), for instance, states that And in the mene tyme ther was dyvers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyd and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith, the xiii day of Iune Anno 1483." Few historians any longer question the date although Annette Carson still has a question mark over it. And, as the College of Arms MS shows, evidently not everyone at the time was suspicious of Richard's motives, although for obvious reasons most of the few surviving accounts are hostile. Marie

---In , <khafara@...> wrote:

Hastings was one of Richard's oldest friends, was he not? Which would account for the level of frightened upset on Richard's part.
Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held. Furthermore, Richard granted Hastings' forfeited estates to his widow, and restored the children's right of succession to those estates, as they had automatically lost the right of succession as a result of the presumed trial and subsequent execution.
Personally, I think Richard executed the wrong man. He should have executed Stanley and Morton (especially Morton) instead, which would have at least spared the nation "Morton's Fork" no matter how things turned out at Bosworth. (I do wonder what Morton would have thought, had he lived to an even greater age than he did, of the son of the man he helped put on the throne setting out to sack and plunder the monasteries? Then again, I also wonder what Rhys ap Thomas would have thought, had someone told him that the son of the man he helped put on the throne was going to strip Rhys' own son of Rhy's estates the second Rhys drew his last breath, and then execute Rhys' son when he dared fight back.)

Tamara

Tamara





---In , <[email protected]> wrote:

Trevor wrote:" Self evidently, he was capable of murder (e.g. Hastings)" Hastings' execution was only murder if:-a) He was innocent of any plots against the Lord Protector - attempts on the Protector's life would have fallen within the treason laws; and/orb) he was executed without trial.Of course this is exactly what we are told by Tudor sources, but if Richard had simply wanted Hastings out of the way, why not just have him quietly poisoned? Whatever happened at the Tower that Friday 13th was - to my way of thinking - far too clumsy and difficult to have been a planned murder. Had Hastings been caught red-handed then he would have foregone the right to a normal jury trial and could have been condemned by a summary court martial before the Lord Constable: and Richard was Lord Constable. This was also a meeting of the royal council, and that too had powers of summary justice. So although Hastings' rapid end appears shocking and barbaric, and was no doubt bad publicity for Richard, it may well have been the result of perfectly lawful summary trial and Hastings may well have been guilty of treason. We just don't have Richard's side of the story any more.My own personal view is that Richard's letters of 10th/11th June were genuine, that he did believe a plot was afoot to kill himself and Buckingham, and was scared. He had possibly been told that Friday 13th was the chosen day, and his men either caught Hastings in action or perhaps in panic misinterpreted some move on Hastings' part.There would have been a huge difference between such an execution, which was no more ruthless than many ordered by Edward IV, and the murder of two children, particularly two children who were his own close relatives. To us in our sanitised society the 15th century looks so bloody it is easy to make the mistake of thinking there were no boundaries. But there were boundaries that were very meaningful to the people of the time, and child murder was definitely beyond the bounds. If you don't believe me, then just look at what the suspicion that he had done away with his nephews did to Richard's reputation. And that is why I find it hard to believe that he would have taken that step. If you compare Richard to, say Henry IV, you get a very illuminating comparison. Henry IV was rather more bloodthirsty than Richard, executing enemies right from the off without compunction and by the nastiest means he could think of; he even had the Archbishop of York executed, and he gave the order for his predecessor, Richard II, to be starved to death in Pontefract Castle. But his child rivals, the Mortimer brothers, were merely kept safely, and even after they were briefly rescued Henry's only change of policy towards them was to have them more securely guarded and frequently moved. Yet we are to believe that Richard, whose record was considerably less ruthless than that of Henry IV, decided to have his two child rivals murdered after one totally failed rescue attempt, even though said children were his own nephews. Marie

---In , <misty1983@...> wrote:

CarolWith respect, I think you have missed my point. I'm not arguing that Richard murdered the Princes, or even that they died during his reign. My main points are i) that on any view they disappeared from view during Richard's watch and I think this must count against him even if it's not proof he was a murderer, and ii) he could well have murdered them. Self evidently, he was capable of murder (e.g. Hastings) and he remains the prime suspect in this case; though, there are other suspects.
I notice that many contributors to this forum seem to rely on Annette Carson's book ' the maligned king'. I respect Annette as a staunch supporter of Richard, but her defence of him doesn't enthuse me. It is based too much on supposition and conjecture and not enough on hard evidence. Unfortunately, for me Annette falls short of her stated aim to be objective. By the way you can call me anything you like as long as it's legal .RegardsMr T

Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Nov 2013, at 21:34, justcarol67@... wrote:

Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"
Carol responds:
I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.
The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.
I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.
I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

By the way, you didn't sign your post, so I'm guessing at what to call you from Yahoo's version of your user ID. If you'd rather be called something else, please let us know.

Carol

Exactly...and I do wish that this erroneous belief could be laid to rest once and for all. It is this misconception that leads some people to believe that the bones in the Urn are indeed those of the princes as the jaw of the oldest child is diseased. This old chestnut is still being trotted out today by historians such as Dan Jones in his history of the Tower of London. It's really annoying....Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> There is actually no evidence that Edward V "was already quite ill." The owner of the larger of the two skulls in the Urn was certainly ill, but no one, either during his lifetime or afterwards, ever claimed that Edward V had chronic problems with his jaw. Nor does Mancini tell us that Edward's doctor said he was ill, although is often claimed. What he says is that, after Edward's other old attendants had been dismissed, "The physician Argentine... reported that the young king, like a victim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance because he believed that death was facing him." The key phrase here, I think, is "like a victim prepared for sacrifice": Edward was not dying of natural causes: he expected to be killed. But of course he was only guessing.
> Marie
>
>
> ---In , <misty1983@> wrote:
>
> It's an interesting point that you raise. I don't think there is a definitive answer to the question of what happened to the two princes, but there are a number of interesting points to consider.
> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact…weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence…" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard.
> Second, the rumour that Richard had done away with his nephews was very probably started by the leaders of Buckingham's rebellion, to subvert it from its original purpose to rescue the boys, to an insurrection aimed at putting Henry Tudor on the throne. It was of course, in Henry's interests to show the boys were dead, otherwise his weak claim to the throne must fall. Interestingly, when Henry married Elizabeth of York he legitimised her title to the throne, which meant that if the boys were still alive their title automatically superseded his. That is why Henry was so touchy about every 'feigned boy' who was put up as a pretender to the throne. It is also why Henry and his son eventually wiped out the Plantagenets.
> Third, we don't know why Richard didn't respond to the rumours: it could be as you say to protect his nephews, or it could have been because he knew they were dead (but not by his hand or at his bidding) and he was guilt stricken that they had died on his watch. Buckingham is a suspect, which may explain why Richard showed him no mercy once he was caught after the October rebellion. It could even be that he was guilty and didn't dare give the rumours credence by responding to them:who knows?
> Fourth, Richard is accused of many things but nobody has ever said he was stupid. If (and it is still a big if) he had murdered the boys, I would have expected him to have made a much better fist of it than this SNAFU The elder boy, who was already quite ill, would have died quietly in the night of 'pure melancholy', along with his little brother. Their bodies would have been exhibited for all to see that the Princes were dead; thats how royal murders were done. And the man who led Edward's vanguard at Barnet and Tewksbury whilst still a teenager, who mopped-up the Woodville coup so neatly without a battle and little bloodshed,who defeated the Scots who, against Edward IV's wishes refused a bribe from the French King in 1475 and ruled the north of England so effectively, was not a man to lose his nerve in a tight spot
> Fifth, there is the whole business of James Tyrell's confession seventeen years later. Life's too short to go into the detail now but it is possible to construct a circumstantial case that Tyrell murdered the boys on 1486 at Henry's bidding, which is why he was sent abroad (to keep him quiet) and why Elizabeth Woodville fell out so drastically with her son in law and was banished to a nunnery: again, who knows.
> Finally for now, we have to question why Henry did not accuse Richard of Regicide in his Act of Accession. Or indeed, why the Crowland Chronicler, who was not pro-Richard on any view, did not accuse him of murdering the boys.
>
>
> Of course, the issues are much deeper and more complex than I have indicated, but these are some things to think about
>
>
> ---In , <HRTest@> wrote:
>
> I am a newbie but wonder if anyone had any insight into this matter.
>
> The other day I watched a replay of the mock trial of Richard the Third and he was found not guilty. One of the points of the prosecution is that Richard publicly denied the intention of marrying his niece but said nothing of the missing boys. As Richard was known for his loyalty to his brother and being appointed Lord Protector of Edward V, to protect them, he moved them and kept it secret.
>
> If he was their protector, he may have sent them out of the country or area and of course he would remain silent about their whereabouts until he felt it safe for them to return. When Richard was killed maybe they made it known to their mother where they were and then they were killed by Henry.
>
> Any thoughts?
>

Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact…weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence…" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"

Carol responds:

I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.

The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.

I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.

I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

It seems to me that the threat and the treason must have been quite evident to the other people present or someone would have protested about an injustice.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have  murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive.  This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&"  Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"

Carol responds:

I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.

The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.

I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.

I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

Richard also overcame his disability to become one of the finest generals of his age, at a time when that meant being very much a fighting warrior himself.
I find that admirable.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

I'm glad you are so open-minded; I think if you read most of the posts on here you will see that we are seekers after truth and many of us spend hours, days, months sifting through eye-aching stuff, a lot of which has only recently become accessible via the internet . I really don't like your  'as bad as', why not 'as good as'? Even if Richard did put the princes to death (and I personally don't think he did) it makes him no worse than his own brother, or Bolingbroke, or any other medieval  or indeed Tudor monarch who wanted to secure his succession. Do you think hero Henry V would have hesitated from doing the same?  What does make him different, and actually flies in the face of his accusers, is that he was the first monarch to show an interest in justice for the common man and that alone puts him on a very high pedestal for me. Regards  H. 

On Tuesday, 19 November 2013, 12:17, trevor brooks <misty1983@...> wrote:
  HilaryI didn't mention Hancock's theory because I believed it. I was making a tongue-in-cheek comment on the futility of all this speculation about R3, which can lead to some -frankly - absurd conclusions. I go on evidence and the evidential value of Mancini, Crowland, the vernacular chronicles, the Tudor historians and uncle tom cobbly an' all is so lacking in probity as to be unacceptable as 'evidence' of anything. We all know the flaws and weaknesses of these sources and it is wrong to cherry pick the best bits as some traditionalist and some Ricardians are prone to do. Personally, I believe that all we can really say is that Richard may well have been as bad as they say but we have no reason to believe so on this material, which is a conclusion Walpole came to almost 250 years ago. Nothing has really changed.

Sent from my iPhone
On 19 Nov 2013, at 10:21, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

   I would also add Trevor, that although Hancock is very readable he makes a huge error when he asserts that Stillington was related to Eleanor Butler. He misquotes a Ricardian article which actually says that Stillington's grandson was related to Eleanor's sister-in-law years after the pre-contract. It had me chasing hares for months. His local knowledge is also not as sound as that of JAH.  He makes a great play of Catesby's rise to power, but the Catesbys had served the Black Prince, Coventry/Warwickshire and the Beauchamps since at least the beginning of the fourteenth century.. They are a marvellous example of the gentry who were to reach their zenith under the Tudors. Personally I go along with Marie that we know Stillington probably drafted the TR but we don't necessarily know he witnessed the pre-contract. Hope I'm quoting you correctly there Marie?  H.

On Monday, 18 November 2013, 21:15, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
   Tevor wrote:-"But what if Hastings knew of the pre-contract all along, but didn't tell Richard, who finds out about it from Catesby ( Hasting's erstwhile servant). Richard calls in Stillington to confirm/deny the story; Stillington who is the only living eye witness to the pre contract does his impersonation of George Washington and says ' I cannot tell a lie; it is true!'  Richard is so furious with Brighton (sorry I mean Hastings) that he has him summarily executed. For more of this theorising I suggest you read 'Richard 111 and the murder in the Tower'  by Peter A Hancock (The History Press 2009)." Marie replies:-It's certainly possible that Hastings knew of the precontrct all along, although I don't go along with  Hancock's other arguments. Hastings' position as Lord Chamberlain made him the portal to the King's chamber and perhaps  the natural person for Edward to liaise with regarding the procurement of mistresses. He certainly seems to have had dealings with Elizabeth Woodville early in the reign. But to come back to Friday 13th: Firstly, Richard has already announced that he's discovered that a plot is being hatched to murder himself and Buckingham, and although the troops from Yorkshire cannot have been expected to arrive by Friday it seems to me unlikely that the two things are not connected. Secondly, Hancock's scenario rests on Hastings knowing, and Stillington or Catesby knowing that Hastings knew, and telling Richard - there's no hint of such an accusation in any version of the events of that morning that we have. Also,  a failure to disclose information could not have been classed as anything more than misprision of treason, and would have to be tried before a court. The other council members wouldn't have stood for summary - and illegal - execution in such circumstances.  Thirdly, we are to believe that Stillington/ Catesby have only just told Richard that day, and they are regarded as mates, whereas Hastings, who might also have been preparing to break the news to Richard in his own time, is beheaded. And what was Morton's and Rotherham's role in this scenario, I can't recall? It is good that Hancock revisited the whole question of what happened that day, and opened up a new debate, but 'm sorry, his explanation doesn't work for me. What we know from Richard's letters is that since perhaps late on Tuesday (counting on fingers) he had known of a plot to murder himself and Buckingham. What Mancini tells us is that on Friday Richard claimed to have uncovered a plot to ambush him, including the discovery of hidden weapons. Such a crime could justify a hasty execution, in law if not morally; Peter Hancock's suggested transgression wouldn't. Have to go.Marie 

---In , <misty1983@...> wrote:

But what if Hastings knew of the pre-contract all along, but didn't tell Richard, who finds out about it from Catesby ( Hasting's erstwhile servant). Richard calls in Stillington to confirm/deny the story; Stillington who is the only living eye witness to the pre contract does his impersonation of George Washington and says ' I cannot tell a lie; it is true!'  Richard is so furious with Brighton (sorry I mean Hastings) that he has him summarily executed. For more of this theorising I suggest you read 'Richard 111 and the murder in the Tower'  by Peter A Hancock (The History Press 2009).T

Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Nov 2013, at 14:43, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]> wrote:

  Also, from a legal viewpoint, the fact that Richard was able to get away with executing Hastings so rapidly suggests that something of the sort is likely to have taken place (bearing arms in the King's household was an offence in itself). Mancini, although of course he claims it was all a set-up by Richard, says this is exactly what Richard claimed:-"When they had been admitted to the innermost quarters, the protector, as prearranged, cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him, and they had come with hidden arms, that they might be first to open the attack. Thereupon the soldiers, who had been stationed there by their lord, rushed in with the Duke of Buckingham, and cut down Hastings on the false pretext of treason; they arrested the others, whose life, it was presumed, was spared out of respect for religion and holy orders." Note that Mancini differs from all other contemporary sources - and there are several - in claiming that Hastings was killed in the immediate affray rather than arrested and beheaded. It is, of course, difficult to explain how Richard could have justified Hastings' execution to the council without showing evidence of the ambush prepared or the hidden arms; but beheaded he does seem to have been. So perhaps there was evidence after all. I think if we look at Hastings' choices through the lens of what was best for Hastings, rather than his record of loyalty to the late Edward IV, a change of sides is not difficult to explain (this steadfast friend of Edward IV had, for instance, in 1470 come very close to throwing in his lot with his brother-in-law Warwick). In 1483 Hastings had three major offices to protect - Lord Chamberlain, Captain of Calais, Master of the Mint - and besides his inherited estates his local power now rested to a large degree on the Honour of Tutbury, which had been resumed from Clarence at the end of 1473 and given to Hastings. All of these things would have been up for grabs in the new world. Hastings and Rivers had, if I remember rightly, been rivals for the captaincy of Calais for many many years. Clarence's heir was now Dorset's ward and no doubt intended as a husband for one of his daughters, which may have made Hastings jittery for the Honour of Tutbury; all that would be required to deprive him of it was an Act of Resumption. Edward V's chamberlain as Prince of Wales, Sir Thomas Vaughan, and the King's close Woodville relatives, must have been contenders for the chamberlainship; Dorset had recently got custody of the Tower and may have had designs on the Mint, which was housed within its walls. So it is not hard to see why Hastings may have felt he would do far better with Richard than with the Woodvilles in control, and might have expected that, by throwing in his lot with Gloucester and helping him defeat the Woodville coup, he would be back at the heart of power with all his lands and offices safe and a very grateful Protector at the helm. He could not have foreseen Buckingham's appearance on the scene at the critical moment. By 13th June the chamberlainship had - so far as I have yet seen - still not been confirmed and must have looked in danger of passing to either Buckingham or Lovell. He may have begun to fear for the Honour of Tutbury as well, with Warwick now in the Queen's household and his new rival, Buckingham, having his own Staffordshire base and vaulting ambitions. Just as Hastings had poached retainers from Clarence during the 1470s, so now Buckingham seems to have had his eye on Hastings' men; at any rate, Stallworth tells us that immediately after Hastings' fall all his' men went over to Buckingham. At this juncture he is approached by the Woodvilles who have realised their miscalculation and guarantee him everything he wants. Aside from Dorset's new mistress Elizabeth Shore (who may have been gifted to Hastings at this point as a human peace offering and whom Richard clearly believed was involved in the plotting as he later referred to her as "that mischievous woman"), another likely go-between was Hastings stepdaughter Cecily Bonville, who was Dorset's wife. This is of course a speculative scenario, but it's just to show that a volte-face by Hastings is not intrinsically unbelievable. If the precontract had also been revealed before 13th June, then loyalty to Edward IV's son can also be added to the pot. Marie

---In , <janjovian@...> wrote:

It may be that whatever it was that Hasting's was up to is the key to most of the subsequent happenings, IMO.
Did he turn up armed and ready to kill the king?
Richard was obviously seriously shaken and alarmed, to behave in such s precipitate way, which was previously at least, somewhat out of character.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall.............. Jess Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: RE: Richard's Silence After Young Princes Went Missing
Sent: Mon, Nov 18, 2013 12:06:46 PM

  Tamara wrote:" Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held." Marie replies:This one has been argued back and forth over the years. The main source for the 20th was the letter of Simon Stallworth dated 21st June (Saturday) and referring to Hastings' execution as having occurred "on Friday last, soon upon noon". But if you look at the letter itself you can see that it was written at two main sittings, with change of ink and handwriting. The reference to Hastings' execution is the first item of news, right at the top of the letter, before the removal of York from sanctuary (which occurred on the 16th), so it does look as though the words "Friday last" were probably written before Friday 20th and so refer to Friday 13th. The inquisition post mortem into Hastings' property also gives his death as 13th June. The short contemporary chronicle College of Arms MS 2M6 (reproduced by Green in 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen'), for instance, states that And in the mene tyme ther was dyvers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyd and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd  forthwith, the xiii day of Iune Anno 1483." Few historians any longer question the date although Annette Carson still has a question mark over it. And, as the College of Arms MS shows, evidently not everyone at the time was suspicious of Richard's motives, although for obvious reasons most of the few surviving accounts are hostile.  Marie

---In , <khafara@...> wrote:

Hastings was one of Richard's oldest friends, was he not?  Which would account for the level of frightened upset on Richard's part.
Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held.  Furthermore, Richard granted Hastings' forfeited estates to his widow, and restored the children's right of succession to those estates, as they had automatically lost the right of succession as a result of the presumed trial and subsequent execution.
Personally, I think Richard executed the wrong man.  He should have executed Stanley and Morton (especially Morton) instead, which would have at least spared the nation "Morton's Fork" no matter how things turned out at Bosworth.  (I do wonder what Morton would have thought, had he lived to an even greater age than he did, of the son of the man he helped put on the throne setting out to sack and plunder the monasteries?  Then again, I also wonder what Rhys ap Thomas would have thought, had someone told him that the son of the man he helped put on the throne was going to strip Rhys' own son of Rhy's estates the second Rhys drew his last breath, and then execute Rhys' son when he dared fight back.)

Tamara

Tamara





---In , <[email protected]> wrote:

Trevor wrote:" Self evidently, he was capable of murder (e.g. Hastings)" Hastings' execution was only murder if:-a) He was innocent of any plots against the Lord Protector - attempts on the Protector's life would have fallen within the treason laws; and/orb) he was executed without  trial.Of course this is exactly what we are told by Tudor sources, but if Richard had simply wanted Hastings out of the way, why not just have him quietly poisoned? Whatever happened at the Tower that Friday 13th was - to my way of thinking - far too clumsy and difficult to have been a planned murder. Had Hastings been caught red-handed then he would have foregone the right to a normal jury trial and could have been condemned by a summary court martial before the Lord Constable: and Richard was Lord Constable. This was also a meeting of the royal council, and that too had powers of summary justice. So although Hastings' rapid end appears shocking and barbaric, and was no doubt bad publicity for Richard, it may well have been the result of perfectly lawful summary trial and Hastings may well have been guilty of treason. We just don't have Richard's side of the story any more.My own personal view is that Richard's letters of 10th/11th June were genuine, that he did believe a plot was afoot to kill himself and Buckingham, and was scared. He had possibly been told that Friday 13th was the chosen day, and his men either caught Hastings in action or perhaps in panic misinterpreted some move on Hastings' part.There would have been a huge difference between such an execution, which was no more ruthless than many ordered by Edward IV, and the murder of two children, particularly two children who were his own close relatives. To us in our sanitised society the 15th century looks so bloody it is easy to make the mistake of thinking there were no boundaries. But there were boundaries that were very meaningful to the people of the time, and child murder was definitely beyond the bounds. If you don't believe me, then just look at what the suspicion that he had done away with his nephews did to Richard's reputation. And that is why I find it hard to believe that he would have taken that step. If you compare Richard to, say Henry IV, you get a very illuminating comparison. Henry IV was rather more bloodthirsty than Richard, executing enemies right from the off without compunction and by the nastiest means he could think of; he even had the Archbishop of York executed, and he gave the order for his predecessor, Richard II, to be starved to death in Pontefract Castle. But his child rivals, the Mortimer brothers, were merely kept safely, and even after they were briefly rescued Henry's only change of policy towards them was to have them more securely guarded and frequently moved. Yet we are to believe that Richard, whose record was considerably less ruthless than that of Henry IV, decided to have his two child rivals murdered after one totally failed rescue attempt, even though said children were his own nephews. Marie

---In , <misty1983@...> wrote:

CarolWith respect, I think you have missed my point. I'm not arguing that Richard murdered the Princes, or even that they died during his reign. My main points are i) that on any view they disappeared from view during Richard's watch and I think this must count against him even if it's not proof he was a murderer, and ii) he could well have murdered them. Self evidently, he was capable of murder (e.g. Hastings) and he remains the prime suspect in this case; though, there are other suspects. 
I notice that many contributors to this forum seem to rely on Annette Carson's book ' the maligned king'. I respect Annette as a staunch supporter of Richard, but her defence of him doesn't enthuse me. It is based too much on supposition and conjecture and not enough on hard evidence. Unfortunately, for me Annette falls short of her stated aim to be objective. By the way you can call me anything you like as long as it's legal .RegardsMr T

Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Nov 2013, at 21:34, justcarol67@... wrote:

  Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have  murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive.  This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&"  Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"
Carol responds: 
I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.
The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.
I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.
I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

By the way, you didn't sign your post, so I'm guessing at what to call you from Yahoo's version of your user ID. If you'd rather be called something else, please let us know.

Carol

So we know there was a plot -- Richard put in writing and asked for troops to come help him.

Would the "hidden weapons"necessarily have been hidden on the men attending the meeting? Did Richard perhaps order the men searched, and someone drew steel against the searchers or against Richard himself? Or there was no search, and someone attacked Richard, attempting to murder him after he revealed his knowledge of the plot?

I keep circling back to thinking if Hastings made a desperate attempt to kill the Lord Constable and Protector of the Realm in that chamber -- or he admitted to having conspired to do so -- said Lord Constable and Protector was well within his legal rights to have Hastings beheaded forthwith without a trial. The evidence was...evident in Hastings' words and/or actions.

What else could Hastings have done in that chamber to win him an instant execution? Because it seems like it was a stimulus/response scenario, rather than an evil!Richard scenario of, "I want Hastings out of the way, so when I bang on the table, you guys come in and drag him out and cut off his head." Whatever happened, the council backed up Richard's executing Hastings.

So history knows Richard's response, but what the heck was the stimulus? Richard's past actions (in taking Berwick and Edinburgh, for example, where no lives were lost -- except...was it one man was hanged in Richard's army who dared defy his orders not to plunder/pillage/rape?) reveal a careful man whose temper and emotions didn't run away with him. He was a stickler for legal details -- he'd had to be for years in the North. He doesn't seem to have executed anyone but Hastings without a trial -- though doing so was within his rights as Constable.

So what the heck could have been the cause that made him act so quickly?

Ngh.

~Weds

Also, from a legal viewpoint, the fact that Richard was able to get away with executing Hastings so rapidly suggests that something of the sort is likely to have taken place (bearing arms in the King's household was an offence in itself). Mancini, although of course he claims it was all a set-up by Richard, says this is exactly what Richard claimed:-

"When they had been admitted to the innermost quarters, the protector, as prearranged, cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him, and they had come with hidden arms, that they might be first to open the attack. Thereupon the soldiers, who had been stationed there by their lord, rushed in with the Duke of Buckingham, and cut down Hastings on the false pretext of treason; they arrested the others, whose life, it was presumed, was spared out of respect for religion and holy orders."

Note that Mancini differs from all other contemporary sources - and there are several - in claiming that Hastings was killed in the immediate affray rather than arrested and beheaded. It is, of course, difficult to explain how Richard could have justified Hastings' execution to the council without showing evidence of the ambush prepared or the hidden arms; but beheaded he does seem to have been. So perhaps there was evidence after all.

I think if we look at Hastings' choices through the lens of what was best for Hastings, rather than his record of loyalty to the late Edward IV, a change of sides is not difficult to explain (this steadfast friend of Edward IV had, for instance, in 1470 come very close to throwing in his lot with his brother-in-law Warwick). In 1483 Hastings had three major offices to protect - Lord Chamberlain, Captain of Calais, Master of the Mint - and besides his inherited estates his local power now rested to a large degree on the Honour of Tutbury, which had been resumed from Clarence at the end of 1473 and given to Hastings. All of these things would have been up for grabs in the new world. Hastings and Rivers had, if I remember rightly, been rivals for the captaincy of Calais for many many years. Clarence's heir was now Dorset's ward and no doubt intended as a husband for one of his daughters, which may have made Hastings jittery for the Honour of Tutbury; all that would be required to deprive him of it was an Act of Resumption. Edward V's chamberlain as Prince of Wales, Sir Thomas Vaughan, and the King's close Woodville relatives, must have been contenders for the chamberlainship; Dorset had recently got custody of the Tower and may have had designs on the Mint, which was housed within its walls. So it is not hard to see why Hastings may have felt he would do far better with Richard than with the Woodvilles in control, and might have expected that, by throwing in his lot with Gloucester and helping him defeat the Woodville coup, he would be back at the heart of power with all his lands and offices safe and a very grateful Protector at the helm. He could not have foreseen Buckingham's appearance on the scene at the critical moment. By 13th June the chamberlainship had - so far as I have yet seen - still not been confirmed and must have looked in danger of passing to either Buckingham or Lovell. He may have begun to fear for the Honour of Tutbury as well, with Warwick now in the Queen's household and his new rival, Buckingham, having his own Staffordshire base and vaulting ambitions. Just as Hastings had poached retainers from Clarence during the 1470s, so now Buckingham seems to have had his eye on Hastings' men; at any rate, Stallworth tells us that immediately after Hastings' fall all his' men went over to Buckingham.

At this juncture he is approached by the Woodvilles who have realised their miscalculation and guarantee him everything he wants. Aside from Dorset's new mistress Elizabeth Shore (who may have been gifted to Hastings at this point as a human peace offering and whom Richard clearly believed was involved in the plotting as he later referred to her as "that mischievous woman"), another likely go-between was Hastings stepdaughter Cecily Bonville, who was Dorset's wife.

This is of course a speculative scenario, but it's just to show that a volte-face by Hastings is not intrinsically unbelievable. If the precontract had also been revealed before 13th June, then loyalty to Edward IV's son can also be added to the pot.

Marie

It may be that whatever it was that Hasting's was up to is the key to most of the subsequent happenings, IMO.
Did he turn up armed and ready to kill the king?
Richard was obviously seriously shaken and alarmed, to behave in such s precipitate way, which was previously at least, somewhat out of character.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall..............

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Tamara wrote:

" Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held."

Marie replies:

This one has been argued back and forth over the years. The main source for the 20th was the letter of Simon Stallworth dated 21st June (Saturday) and referring to Hastings' execution as having occurred "on Friday last, soon upon noon". But if you look at the letter itself you can see that it was written at two main sittings, with change of ink and handwriting. The reference to Hastings' execution is the first item of news, right at the top of the letter, before the removal of York from sanctuary (which occurred on the 16th), so it does look as though the words "Friday last" were probably written before Friday 20th and so refer to Friday 13th. The inquisition post mortem into Hastings' property also gives his death as 13th June. The short contemporary chronicle College of Arms MS 2M6 (reproduced by Green in 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen'), for instance, states that And in the mene tyme ther was dyvers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyd and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith, the xiii day of Iune Anno 1483."

Few historians any longer question the date although Annette Carson still has a question mark over it. And, as the College of Arms MS shows, evidently not everyone at the time was suspicious of Richard's motives, although for obvious reasons most of the few surviving accounts are hostile.

Marie

Hastings was one of Richard's oldest friends, was he not? Which would account for the level of frightened upset on Richard's part.

Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held. Furthermore, Richard granted Hastings' forfeited estates to his widow, and restored the children's right of succession to those estates, as they had automatically lost the right of succession as a result of the presumed trial and subsequent execution.

Personally, I think Richard executed the wrong man. He should have executed Stanley and Morton (especially Morton) instead, which would have at least spared the nation "Morton's Fork" no matter how things turned out at Bosworth. (I do wonder what Morton would have thought, had he lived to an even greater age than he did, of the son of the man he helped put on the throne setting out to sack and plunder the monasteries? Then again, I also wonder what Rhys ap Thomas would have thought, had someone told him that the son of the man he helped put on the throne was going to strip Rhys' own son of Rhy's estates the second Rhys drew his last breath, and then execute Rhys' son when he dared fight back.)

Tamara

Tamara

Trevor wrote:

" Self evidently, he was capable of murder (e.g. Hastings)"

Hastings' execution was only murder if:-

a) He was innocent of any plots against the Lord Protector - attempts on the Protector's life would have fallen within the treason laws; and/or

b) he was executed without trial.

Of course this is exactly what we are told by Tudor sources, but if Richard had simply wanted Hastings out of the way, why not just have him quietly poisoned? Whatever happened at the Tower that Friday 13th was - to my way of thinking - far too clumsy and difficult to have been a planned murder. Had Hastings been caught red-handed then he would have foregone the right to a normal jury trial and could have been condemned by a summary court martial before the Lord Constable: and Richard was Lord Constable. This was also a meeting of the royal council, and that too had powers of summary justice. So although Hastings' rapid end appears shocking and barbaric, and was no doubt bad publicity for Richard, it may well have been the result of perfectly lawful summary trial and Hastings may well have been guilty of treason. We just don't have Richard's side of the story any more.

My own personal view is that Richard's letters of 10th/11th June were genuine, that he did believe a plot was afoot to kill himself and Buckingham, and was scared. He had possibly been told that Friday 13th was the chosen day, and his men either caught Hastings in action or perhaps in panic misinterpreted some move on Hastings' part.

There would have been a huge difference between such an execution, which was no more ruthless than many ordered by Edward IV, and the murder of two children, particularly two children who were his own close relatives. To us in our sanitised society the 15th century looks so bloody it is easy to make the mistake of thinking there were no boundaries. But there were boundaries that were very meaningful to the people of the time, and child murder was definitely beyond the bounds. If you don't believe me, then just look at what the suspicion that he had done away with his nephews did to Richard's reputation. And that is why I find it hard to believe that he would have taken that step.

If you compare Richard to, say Henry IV, you get a very illuminating comparison. Henry IV was rather more bloodthirsty than Richard, executing enemies right from the off without compunction and by the nastiest means he could think of; he even had the Archbishop of York executed, and he gave the order for his predecessor, Richard II, to be starved to death in Pontefract Castle. But his child rivals, the Mortimer brothers, were merely kept safely, and even after they were briefly rescued Henry's only change of policy towards them was to have them more securely guarded and frequently moved. Yet we are to believe that Richard, whose record was considerably less ruthless than that of Henry IV, decided to have his two child rivals murdered after one totally failed rescue attempt, even though said children were his own nephews.

Marie

Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"

Carol responds:

I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.

The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.

I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.

I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

But what if Hastings knew of the pre-contract all along, but didn't tell Richard, who finds out about it from Catesby ( Hasting's erstwhile servant). Richard calls in Stillington to confirm/deny the story; Stillington who is the only living eye witness to the pre contract does his impersonation of George Washington and says ' I cannot tell a lie; it is true!' Richard is so furious with Brighton (sorry I mean Hastings) that he has him summarily executed. For more of this theorising I suggest you read 'Richard 111 and the murder in the Tower' by Peter A Hancock (The History Press 2009).T

Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Nov 2013, at 14:43, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]> wrote:

Also, from a legal viewpoint, the fact that Richard was able to get away with executing Hastings so rapidly suggests that something of the sort is likely to have taken place (bearing arms in the King's household was an offence in itself). Mancini, although of course he claims it was all a set-up by Richard, says this is exactly what Richard claimed:-

"When they had been admitted to the innermost quarters, the protector, as prearranged, cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him, and they had come with hidden arms, that they might be first to open the attack. Thereupon the soldiers, who had been stationed there by their lord, rushed in with the Duke of Buckingham, and cut down Hastings on the false pretext of treason; they arrested the others, whose life, it was presumed, was spared out of respect for religion and holy orders."

Note that Mancini differs from all other contemporary sources - and there are several - in claiming that Hastings was killed in the immediate affray rather than arrested and beheaded. It is, of course, difficult to explain how Richard could have justified Hastings' execution to the council without showing evidence of the ambush prepared or the hidden arms; but beheaded he does seem to have been. So perhaps there was evidence after all.

I think if we look at Hastings' choices through the lens of what was best for Hastings, rather than his record of loyalty to the late Edward IV, a change of sides is not difficult to explain (this steadfast friend of Edward IV had, for instance, in 1470 come very close to throwing in his lot with his brother-in-law Warwick). In 1483 Hastings had three major offices to protect - Lord Chamberlain, Captain of Calais, Master of the Mint - and besides his inherited estates his local power now rested to a large degree on the Honour of Tutbury, which had been resumed from Clarence at the end of 1473 and given to Hastings. All of these things would have been up for grabs in the new world. Hastings and Rivers had, if I remember rightly, been rivals for the captaincy of Calais for many many years. Clarence's heir was now Dorset's ward and no doubt intended as a husband for one of his daughters, which may have made Hastings jittery for the Honour of Tutbury; all that would be required to deprive him of it was an Act of Resumption. Edward V's chamberlain as Prince of Wales, Sir Thomas Vaughan, and the King's close Woodville relatives, must have been contenders for the chamberlainship; Dorset had recently got custody of the Tower and may have had designs on the Mint, which was housed within its walls. So it is not hard to see why Hastings may have felt he would do far better with Richard than with the Woodvilles in control, and might have expected that, by throwing in his lot with Gloucester and helping him defeat the Woodville coup, he would be back at the heart of power with all his lands and offices safe and a very grateful Protector at the helm. He could not have foreseen Buckingham's appearance on the scene at the critical moment. By 13th June the chamberlainship had - so far as I have yet seen - still not been confirmed and must have looked in danger of passing to either Buckingham or Lovell. He may have begun to fear for the Honour of Tutbury as well, with Warwick now in the Queen's household and his new rival, Buckingham, having his own Staffordshire base and vaulting ambitions. Just as Hastings had poached retainers from Clarence during the 1470s, so now Buckingham seems to have had his eye on Hastings' men; at any rate, Stallworth tells us that immediately after Hastings' fall all his' men went over to Buckingham.

At this juncture he is approached by the Woodvilles who have realised their miscalculation and guarantee him everything he wants. Aside from Dorset's new mistress Elizabeth Shore (who may have been gifted to Hastings at this point as a human peace offering and whom Richard clearly believed was involved in the plotting as he later referred to her as "that mischievous woman"), another likely go-between was Hastings stepdaughter Cecily Bonville, who was Dorset's wife.

This is of course a speculative scenario, but it's just to show that a volte-face by Hastings is not intrinsically unbelievable. If the precontract had also been revealed before 13th June, then loyalty to Edward IV's son can also be added to the pot.

Marie

It may be that whatever it was that Hasting's was up to is the key to most of the subsequent happenings, IMO.
Did he turn up armed and ready to kill the king?
Richard was obviously seriously shaken and alarmed, to behave in such s precipitate way, which was previously at least, somewhat out of character.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall..............

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Tamara wrote:

" Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held."

Marie replies:

This one has been argued back and forth over the years. The main source for the 20th was the letter of Simon Stallworth dated 21st June (Saturday) and referring to Hastings' execution as having occurred "on Friday last, soon upon noon". But if you look at the letter itself you can see that it was written at two main sittings, with change of ink and handwriting. The reference to Hastings' execution is the first item of news, right at the top of the letter, before the removal of York from sanctuary (which occurred on the 16th), so it does look as though the words "Friday last" were probably written before Friday 20th and so refer to Friday 13th. The inquisition post mortem into Hastings' property also gives his death as 13th June. The short contemporary chronicle College of Arms MS 2M6 (reproduced by Green in 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen'), for instance, states that And in the mene tyme ther was dyvers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyd and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith, the xiii day of Iune Anno 1483."

Few historians any longer question the date although Annette Carson still has a question mark over it. And, as the College of Arms MS shows, evidently not everyone at the time was suspicious of Richard's motives, although for obvious reasons most of the few surviving accounts are hostile.

Marie

Hastings was one of Richard's oldest friends, was he not? Which would account for the level of frightened upset on Richard's part.

Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held. Furthermore, Richard granted Hastings' forfeited estates to his widow, and restored the children's right of succession to those estates, as they had automatically lost the right of succession as a result of the presumed trial and subsequent execution.

Personally, I think Richard executed the wrong man. He should have executed Stanley and Morton (especially Morton) instead, which would have at least spared the nation "Morton's Fork" no matter how things turned out at Bosworth. (I do wonder what Morton would have thought, had he lived to an even greater age than he did, of the son of the man he helped put on the throne setting out to sack and plunder the monasteries? Then again, I also wonder what Rhys ap Thomas would have thought, had someone told him that the son of the man he helped put on the throne was going to strip Rhys' own son of Rhy's estates the second Rhys drew his last breath, and then execute Rhys' son when he dared fight back.)

Tamara

Tamara

Trevor wrote:

" Self evidently, he was capable of murder (e.g. Hastings)"

Hastings' execution was only murder if:-

a) He was innocent of any plots against the Lord Protector - attempts on the Protector's life would have fallen within the treason laws; and/or

b) he was executed without trial.

Of course this is exactly what we are told by Tudor sources, but if Richard had simply wanted Hastings out of the way, why not just have him quietly poisoned? Whatever happened at the Tower that Friday 13th was - to my way of thinking - far too clumsy and difficult to have been a planned murder. Had Hastings been caught red-handed then he would have foregone the right to a normal jury trial and could have been condemned by a summary court martial before the Lord Constable: and Richard was Lord Constable. This was also a meeting of the royal council, and that too had powers of summary justice. So although Hastings' rapid end appears shocking and barbaric, and was no doubt bad publicity for Richard, it may well have been the result of perfectly lawful summary trial and Hastings may well have been guilty of treason. We just don't have Richard's side of the story any more.

My own personal view is that Richard's letters of 10th/11th June were genuine, that he did believe a plot was afoot to kill himself and Buckingham, and was scared. He had possibly been told that Friday 13th was the chosen day, and his men either caught Hastings in action or perhaps in panic misinterpreted some move on Hastings' part.

There would have been a huge difference between such an execution, which was no more ruthless than many ordered by Edward IV, and the murder of two children, particularly two children who were his own close relatives. To us in our sanitised society the 15th century looks so bloody it is easy to make the mistake of thinking there were no boundaries. But there were boundaries that were very meaningful to the people of the time, and child murder was definitely beyond the bounds. If you don't believe me, then just look at what the suspicion that he had done away with his nephews did to Richard's reputation. And that is why I find it hard to believe that he would have taken that step.

If you compare Richard to, say Henry IV, you get a very illuminating comparison. Henry IV was rather more bloodthirsty than Richard, executing enemies right from the off without compunction and by the nastiest means he could think of; he even had the Archbishop of York executed, and he gave the order for his predecessor, Richard II, to be starved to death in Pontefract Castle. But his child rivals, the Mortimer brothers, were merely kept safely, and even after they were briefly rescued Henry's only change of policy towards them was to have them more securely guarded and frequently moved. Yet we are to believe that Richard, whose record was considerably less ruthless than that of Henry IV, decided to have his two child rivals murdered after one totally failed rescue attempt, even though said children were his own nephews.

Marie

Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"

Carol responds:

I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.

The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.

I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.

I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

I'd add to that a plea that we're not cherry picking, but trying to tease out what is solid from the sources we do have. In the case of the events of Friday 13th, it seems to me that, rather than assert that Richard murdered Hastings in the Tower without offering him a proper trial, we should ask ourselves whether there were any circumstances in which a summary trial and justice before Richard would have been legal. And the answer is: Yes, if he was caught red-handed preparing an armed strike. And that is clearly the claim that was put out at the time, as both Mancini and the anonymous 'London citizen' agree; the Cely note also indicates that there had been a present threat of assassination. That gets us some way and so far as it goes this is solid, not speculative. The only remaining question is whether the planned ambush was real or whether either Richard or Buckingham had set Hastings up.

Marie

Can we assume no trial? I don't recall early sources banging on about that. As an idea, doesn't it really arise from More's scenario where Richard accused Hastings without any evidence? As Lord Constable Richard certainly had the power to pass judgement on *overt* treason under the Law of Arms, and early sources agree that an ambush had been foiled (allegedly). It's only not a trial in the sense that there's no evidence to 'try' or test because the person has given themselves away.

Marie

So we know there was a plot -- Richard put in writing and asked for troops to come help him.

Would the "hidden weapons"necessarily have been hidden on the men attending the meeting? Did Richard perhaps order the men searched, and someone drew steel against the searchers or against Richard himself? Or there was no search, and someone attacked Richard, attempting to murder him after he revealed his knowledge of the plot?

I keep circling back to thinking if Hastings made a desperate attempt to kill the Lord Constable and Protector of the Realm in that chamber -- or he admitted to having conspired to do so -- said Lord Constable and Protector was well within his legal rights to have Hastings beheaded forthwith without a trial. The evidence was...evident in Hastings' words and/or actions.

What else could Hastings have done in that chamber to win him an instant execution? Because it seems like it was a stimulus/response scenario, rather than an evil!Richard scenario of, "I want Hastings out of the way, so when I bang on the table, you guys come in and drag him out and cut off his head." Whatever happened, the council backed up Richard's executing Hastings.

So history knows Richard's response, but what the heck was the stimulus? Richard's past actions (in taking Berwick and Edinburgh, for example, where no lives were lost -- except...was it one man was hanged in Richard's army who dared defy his orders not to plunder/pillage/rape?) reveal a careful man whose temper and emotions didn't run away with him. He was a stickler for legal details -- he'd had to be for years in the North. He doesn't seem to have executed anyone but Hastings without a trial -- though doing so was within his rights as Constable.

So what the heck could have been the cause that made him act so quickly?

Ngh.

~Weds

Also, from a legal viewpoint, the fact that Richard was able to get away with executing Hastings so rapidly suggests that something of the sort is likely to have taken place (bearing arms in the King's household was an offence in itself). Mancini, although of course he claims it was all a set-up by Richard, says this is exactly what Richard claimed:-

"When they had been admitted to the innermost quarters, the protector, as prearranged, cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him, and they had come with hidden arms, that they might be first to open the attack. Thereupon the soldiers, who had been stationed there by their lord, rushed in with the Duke of Buckingham, and cut down Hastings on the false pretext of treason; they arrested the others, whose life, it was presumed, was spared out of respect for religion and holy orders."

Note that Mancini differs from all other contemporary sources - and there are several - in claiming that Hastings was killed in the immediate affray rather than arrested and beheaded. It is, of course, difficult to explain how Richard could have justified Hastings' execution to the council without showing evidence of the ambush prepared or the hidden arms; but beheaded he does seem to have been. So perhaps there was evidence after all.

I think if we look at Hastings' choices through the lens of what was best for Hastings, rather than his record of loyalty to the late Edward IV, a change of sides is not difficult to explain (this steadfast friend of Edward IV had, for instance, in 1470 come very close to throwing in his lot with his brother-in-law Warwick). In 1483 Hastings had three major offices to protect - Lord Chamberlain, Captain of Calais, Master of the Mint - and besides his inherited estates his local power now rested to a large degree on the Honour of Tutbury, which had been resumed from Clarence at the end of 1473 and given to Hastings. All of these things would have been up for grabs in the new world. Hastings and Rivers had, if I remember rightly, been rivals for the captaincy of Calais for many many years. Clarence's heir was now Dorset's ward and no doubt intended as a husband for one of his daughters, which may have made Hastings jittery for the Honour of Tutbury; all that would be required to deprive him of it was an Act of Resumption. Edward V's chamberlain as Prince of Wales, Sir Thomas Vaughan, and the King's close Woodville relatives, must have been contenders for the chamberlainship; Dorset had recently got custody of the Tower and may have had designs on the Mint, which was housed within its walls. So it is not hard to see why Hastings may have felt he would do far better with Richard than with the Woodvilles in control, and might have expected that, by throwing in his lot with Gloucester and helping him defeat the Woodville coup, he would be back at the heart of power with all his lands and offices safe and a very grateful Protector at the helm. He could not have foreseen Buckingham's appearance on the scene at the critical moment. By 13th June the chamberlainship had - so far as I have yet seen - still not been confirmed and must have looked in danger of passing to either Buckingham or Lovell. He may have begun to fear for the Honour of Tutbury as well, with Warwick now in the Queen's household and his new rival, Buckingham, having his own Staffordshire base and vaulting ambitions. Just as Hastings had poached retainers from Clarence during the 1470s, so now Buckingham seems to have had his eye on Hastings' men; at any rate, Stallworth tells us that immediately after Hastings' fall all his' men went over to Buckingham.

At this juncture he is approached by the Woodvilles who have realised their miscalculation and guarantee him everything he wants. Aside from Dorset's new mistress Elizabeth Shore (who may have been gifted to Hastings at this point as a human peace offering and whom Richard clearly believed was involved in the plotting as he later referred to her as "that mischievous woman"), another likely go-between was Hastings stepdaughter Cecily Bonville, who was Dorset's wife.

This is of course a speculative scenario, but it's just to show that a volte-face by Hastings is not intrinsically unbelievable. If the precontract had also been revealed before 13th June, then loyalty to Edward IV's son can also be added to the pot.

Marie

It may be that whatever it was that Hasting's was up to is the key to most of the subsequent happenings, IMO.
Did he turn up armed and ready to kill the king?
Richard was obviously seriously shaken and alarmed, to behave in such s precipitate way, which was previously at least, somewhat out of character.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall..............

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Tamara wrote:

" Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held."

Marie replies:

This one has been argued back and forth over the years. The main source for the 20th was the letter of Simon Stallworth dated 21st June (Saturday) and referring to Hastings' execution as having occurred "on Friday last, soon upon noon". But if you look at the letter itself you can see that it was written at two main sittings, with change of ink and handwriting. The reference to Hastings' execution is the first item of news, right at the top of the letter, before the removal of York from sanctuary (which occurred on the 16th), so it does look as though the words "Friday last" were probably written before Friday 20th and so refer to Friday 13th. The inquisition post mortem into Hastings' property also gives his death as 13th June. The short contemporary chronicle College of Arms MS 2M6 (reproduced by Green in 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen'), for instance, states that And in the mene tyme ther was dyvers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyd and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith, the xiii day of Iune Anno 1483."

Few historians any longer question the date although Annette Carson still has a question mark over it. And, as the College of Arms MS shows, evidently not everyone at the time was suspicious of Richard's motives, although for obvious reasons most of the few surviving accounts are hostile.

Marie

Hastings was one of Richard's oldest friends, was he not? Which would account for the level of frightened upset on Richard's part.

Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held. Furthermore, Richard granted Hastings' forfeited estates to his widow, and restored the children's right of succession to those estates, as they had automatically lost the right of succession as a result of the presumed trial and subsequent execution.

Personally, I think Richard executed the wrong man. He should have executed Stanley and Morton (especially Morton) instead, which would have at least spared the nation "Morton's Fork" no matter how things turned out at Bosworth. (I do wonder what Morton would have thought, had he lived to an even greater age than he did, of the son of the man he helped put on the throne setting out to sack and plunder the monasteries? Then again, I also wonder what Rhys ap Thomas would have thought, had someone told him that the son of the man he helped put on the throne was going to strip Rhys' own son of Rhy's estates the second Rhys drew his last breath, and then execute Rhys' son when he dared fight back.)

Tamara

Tamara

Trevor wrote:

" Self evidently, he was capable of murder (e.g. Hastings)"

Hastings' execution was only murder if:-

a) He was innocent of any plots against the Lord Protector - attempts on the Protector's life would have fallen within the treason laws; and/or

b) he was executed without trial.

Of course this is exactly what we are told by Tudor sources, but if Richard had simply wanted Hastings out of the way, why not just have him quietly poisoned? Whatever happened at the Tower that Friday 13th was - to my way of thinking - far too clumsy and difficult to have been a planned murder. Had Hastings been caught red-handed then he would have foregone the right to a normal jury trial and could have been condemned by a summary court martial before the Lord Constable: and Richard was Lord Constable. This was also a meeting of the royal council, and that too had powers of summary justice. So although Hastings' rapid end appears shocking and barbaric, and was no doubt bad publicity for Richard, it may well have been the result of perfectly lawful summary trial and Hastings may well have been guilty of treason. We just don't have Richard's side of the story any more.

My own personal view is that Richard's letters of 10th/11th June were genuine, that he did believe a plot was afoot to kill himself and Buckingham, and was scared. He had possibly been told that Friday 13th was the chosen day, and his men either caught Hastings in action or perhaps in panic misinterpreted some move on Hastings' part.

There would have been a huge difference between such an execution, which was no more ruthless than many ordered by Edward IV, and the murder of two children, particularly two children who were his own close relatives. To us in our sanitised society the 15th century looks so bloody it is easy to make the mistake of thinking there were no boundaries. But there were boundaries that were very meaningful to the people of the time, and child murder was definitely beyond the bounds. If you don't believe me, then just look at what the suspicion that he had done away with his nephews did to Richard's reputation. And that is why I find it hard to believe that he would have taken that step.

If you compare Richard to, say Henry IV, you get a very illuminating comparison. Henry IV was rather more bloodthirsty than Richard, executing enemies right from the off without compunction and by the nastiest means he could think of; he even had the Archbishop of York executed, and he gave the order for his predecessor, Richard II, to be starved to death in Pontefract Castle. But his child rivals, the Mortimer brothers, were merely kept safely, and even after they were briefly rescued Henry's only change of policy towards them was to have them more securely guarded and frequently moved. Yet we are to believe that Richard, whose record was considerably less ruthless than that of Henry IV, decided to have his two child rivals murdered after one totally failed rescue attempt, even though said children were his own nephews.

Marie

Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"

Carol responds:

I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.

The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.

I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.

I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

I totally agree. The Woodville marriage as a disaster, and Richard's letter to Desmond makes it pretty clear he blamed the Woodvilles for all the bloodshed of 1471. But Clarence's execution, as a result of Woodville influence as Richard clearly believed - was the last straw. The way I see it, a bridge had been crossed then into a nightmare country from which there was no return. Richard could never again feel his own life safe whilst Edward's queen and her family had any power, and they could never feel safe from his desire to avenge his brother's death. This is the sub-text running through the events that followed Edward IV's death.

Marie

Also, from a legal viewpoint, the fact that Richard was able to get away with executing Hastings so rapidly suggests that something of the sort is likely to have taken place (bearing arms in the King's household was an offence in itself). Mancini, although of course he claims it was all a set-up by Richard, says this is exactly what Richard claimed:-

"When they had been admitted to the innermost quarters, the protector, as prearranged, cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him, and they had come with hidden arms, that they might be first to open the attack. Thereupon the soldiers, who had been stationed there by their lord, rushed in with the Duke of Buckingham, and cut down Hastings on the false pretext of treason; they arrested the others, whose life, it was presumed, was spared out of respect for religion and holy orders."

Note that Mancini differs from all other contemporary sources - and there are several - in claiming that Hastings was killed in the immediate affray rather than arrested and beheaded. It is, of course, difficult to explain how Richard could have justified Hastings' execution to the council without showing evidence of the ambush prepared or the hidden arms; but beheaded he does seem to have been. So perhaps there was evidence after all.

I think if we look at Hastings' choices through the lens of what was best for Hastings, rather than his record of loyalty to the late Edward IV, a change of sides is not difficult to explain (this steadfast friend of Edward IV had, for instance, in 1470 come very close to throwing in his lot with his brother-in-law Warwick). In 1483 Hastings had three major offices to protect - Lord Chamberlain, Captain of Calais, Master of the Mint - and besides his inherited estates his local power now rested to a large degree on the Honour of Tutbury, which had been resumed from Clarence at the end of 1473 and given to Hastings. All of these things would have been up for grabs in the new world. Hastings and Rivers had, if I remember rightly, been rivals for the captaincy of Calais for many many years. Clarence's heir was now Dorset's ward and no doubt intended as a husband for one of his daughters, which may have made Hastings jittery for the Honour of Tutbury; all that would be required to deprive him of it was an Act of Resumption. Edward V's chamberlain as Prince of Wales, Sir Thomas Vaughan, and the King's close Woodville relatives, must have been contenders for the chamberlainship; Dorset had recently got custody of the Tower and may have had designs on the Mint, which was housed within its walls. So it is not hard to see why Hastings may have felt he would do far better with Richard than with the Woodvilles in control, and might have expected that, by throwing in his lot with Gloucester and helping him defeat the Woodville coup, he would be back at the heart of power with all his lands and offices safe and a very grateful Protector at the helm. He could not have foreseen Buckingham's appearance on the scene at the critical moment. By 13th June the chamberlainship had - so far as I have yet seen - still not been confirmed and must have looked in danger of passing to either Buckingham or Lovell. He may have begun to fear for the Honour of Tutbury as well, with Warwick now in the Queen's household and his new rival, Buckingham, having his own Staffordshire base and vaulting ambitions. Just as Hastings had poached retainers from Clarence during the 1470s, so now Buckingham seems to have had his eye on Hastings' men; at any rate, Stallworth tells us that immediately after Hastings' fall all his' men went over to Buckingham.

At this juncture he is approached by the Woodvilles who have realised their miscalculation and guarantee him everything he wants. Aside from Dorset's new mistress Elizabeth Shore (who may have been gifted to Hastings at this point as a human peace offering and whom Richard clearly believed was involved in the plotting as he later referred to her as "that mischievous woman"), another likely go-between was Hastings stepdaughter Cecily Bonville, who was Dorset's wife.

This is of course a speculative scenario, but it's just to show that a volte-face by Hastings is not intrinsically unbelievable. If the precontract had also been revealed before 13th June, then loyalty to Edward IV's son can also be added to the pot.

Marie

It may be that whatever it was that Hasting's was up to is the key to most of the subsequent happenings, IMO.
Did he turn up armed and ready to kill the king?
Richard was obviously seriously shaken and alarmed, to behave in such s precipitate way, which was previously at least, somewhat out of character.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall..............

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Tamara wrote:

" Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held."

Marie replies:

This one has been argued back and forth over the years. The main source for the 20th was the letter of Simon Stallworth dated 21st June (Saturday) and referring to Hastings' execution as having occurred "on Friday last, soon upon noon". But if you look at the letter itself you can see that it was written at two main sittings, with change of ink and handwriting. The reference to Hastings' execution is the first item of news, right at the top of the letter, before the removal of York from sanctuary (which occurred on the 16th), so it does look as though the words "Friday last" were probably written before Friday 20th and so refer to Friday 13th. The inquisition post mortem into Hastings' property also gives his death as 13th June. The short contemporary chronicle College of Arms MS 2M6 (reproduced by Green in 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen'), for instance, states that And in the mene tyme ther was dyvers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyd and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith, the xiii day of Iune Anno 1483."

Few historians any longer question the date although Annette Carson still has a question mark over it. And, as the College of Arms MS shows, evidently not everyone at the time was suspicious of Richard's motives, although for obvious reasons most of the few surviving accounts are hostile.

Marie

Hastings was one of Richard's oldest friends, was he not? Which would account for the level of frightened upset on Richard's part.

Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held. Furthermore, Richard granted Hastings' forfeited estates to his widow, and restored the children's right of succession to those estates, as they had automatically lost the right of succession as a result of the presumed trial and subsequent execution.

Personally, I think Richard executed the wrong man. He should have executed Stanley and Morton (especially Morton) instead, which would have at least spared the nation "Morton's Fork" no matter how things turned out at Bosworth. (I do wonder what Morton would have thought, had he lived to an even greater age than he did, of the son of the man he helped put on the throne setting out to sack and plunder the monasteries? Then again, I also wonder what Rhys ap Thomas would have thought, had someone told him that the son of the man he helped put on the throne was going to strip Rhys' own son of Rhy's estates the second Rhys drew his last breath, and then execute Rhys' son when he dared fight back.)

Tamara

Tamara

Trevor wrote:

" Self evidently, he was capable of murder (e.g. Hastings)"

Hastings' execution was only murder if:-

a) He was innocent of any plots against the Lord Protector - attempts on the Protector's life would have fallen within the treason laws; and/or

b) he was executed without trial.

Of course this is exactly what we are told by Tudor sources, but if Richard had simply wanted Hastings out of the way, why not just have him quietly poisoned? Whatever happened at the Tower that Friday 13th was - to my way of thinking - far too clumsy and difficult to have been a planned murder. Had Hastings been caught red-handed then he would have foregone the right to a normal jury trial and could have been condemned by a summary court martial before the Lord Constable: and Richard was Lord Constable. This was also a meeting of the royal council, and that too had powers of summary justice. So although Hastings' rapid end appears shocking and barbaric, and was no doubt bad publicity for Richard, it may well have been the result of perfectly lawful summary trial and Hastings may well have been guilty of treason. We just don't have Richard's side of the story any more.

My own personal view is that Richard's letters of 10th/11th June were genuine, that he did believe a plot was afoot to kill himself and Buckingham, and was scared. He had possibly been told that Friday 13th was the chosen day, and his men either caught Hastings in action or perhaps in panic misinterpreted some move on Hastings' part.

There would have been a huge difference between such an execution, which was no more ruthless than many ordered by Edward IV, and the murder of two children, particularly two children who were his own close relatives. To us in our sanitised society the 15th century looks so bloody it is easy to make the mistake of thinking there were no boundaries. But there were boundaries that were very meaningful to the people of the time, and child murder was definitely beyond the bounds. If you don't believe me, then just look at what the suspicion that he had done away with his nephews did to Richard's reputation. And that is why I find it hard to believe that he would have taken that step.

If you compare Richard to, say Henry IV, you get a very illuminating comparison. Henry IV was rather more bloodthirsty than Richard, executing enemies right from the off without compunction and by the nastiest means he could think of; he even had the Archbishop of York executed, and he gave the order for his predecessor, Richard II, to be starved to death in Pontefract Castle. But his child rivals, the Mortimer brothers, were merely kept safely, and even after they were briefly rescued Henry's only change of policy towards them was to have them more securely guarded and frequently moved. Yet we are to believe that Richard, whose record was considerably less ruthless than that of Henry IV, decided to have his two child rivals murdered after one totally failed rescue attempt, even though said children were his own nephews.

Marie

Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"

Carol responds:

I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.

The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.

I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.

I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

Henry Pole the Younger (c.1527-42), son of Henry Lord Montagu (1492-1539), grandson of Margaret Countess of Salisbury (1473-1541) and brother of Katherine and Winifred Pole. Arrested with his father, grandmother and Dorset cousins (all executed), he was under age and "disappeared", being portrayed in the BBC2 series "The Tudors".

Henry Pole the Younger (c.1527-42), son of Henry Lord Montagu (1492-1539), grandson of Margaret Countess of Salisbury (1473-1541) and brother of Katherine and Winifred Pole. Arrested with his father, grandmother and Dorset cousins (all executed), he was under age and "disappeared", being portrayed in the BBC2 series "The Tudors".

Hi Hilary,

I can't see any info online about whether emotional stress can affect scoliosis, but stress causes muscle tension, and tense muscles are the cause of a lot of the pain with scoliosis as I understand it, so it seems reasonable.

But I think that to assume Richard was just cross is to fall into the More trap. As I see it the key to his emotional problems was fear. This may sound odd given that he was so physically brave, but he was a straightforward, honest type and I think he didn't handle the enemy in the shadows, knife in the dark type of threat well at all (remember his wish expressed to Von Poppelau, that he could face all his enemies in open battle and drive them away). Narrowly evading two attempts on your life in a little over six weeks would have an effect on anybody, I suggest.

Yes, he would have been in pain from the scoliosis, but really if you're used to chronic pain your brain learns to blot it out except when it's really bad, and you only become aware just how bad it was when someone does something to make it stop. Also, the brain also makes choices about what it concentrates on at any given moment. Richard really wouldn't have noticed the scoliosis that morning, however much it had been troubling him, because of the crisis and the amount of adrenalin he would have been producing.

I think Richard felt it was a choice between Hastings and himself. If he delayed judgement he would be tempted to give way to Hastings' pleas for clemency but believed that if he did so he would never be safe again. He'd merely imprisoned Rivers, Vaughan and Grey and the plots went on. It is very probably the case - supposing there really was a Hastings plot, which I believe there was - that Rivers, in prison, had managed to send an intermediary to Hastings assuring him that he would not challenge him for the captaincy of Calais or for any other of Hastings' offices. If Richard knew of this it would have been a lesson learnt. It may also have been the visible evidence of an assassination attempt in the Tower that morning that persuaded the council of the truth of Richard's claims about Stony Stratford and caused them finally to agree to the executions of Rivers & Co.

Just to put in my. two pennyworth, even though I don't have one tenth of your knowledge of the subject, Marie, I do think that this actual physical attack on Richard, or an attempt to do so makes perfect sense.
It explains Richard's actions as nothing else does.
He doesn't seem to have displayed any other signs of irrational behaviour before this, quite the contrary.
He was however an accomplished soldier who could and would fight back when necessary.
I can't speak from historical knowledge on this but rather from having an increasing "feel" for the man who was Richard

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Hi Hilary,

I can't see any info online about whether emotional stress can affect scoliosis, but stress causes muscle tension, and tense muscles are the cause of a lot of the pain with scoliosis as I understand it, so it seems reasonable.

But I think that to assume Richard was just cross is to fall into the More trap. As I see it the key to his emotional problems was fear. This may sound odd given that he was so physically brave, but he was a straightforward, honest type and I think he didn't handle the enemy in the shadows, knife in the dark type of threat well at all (remember his wish expressed to Von Poppelau, that he could face all his enemies in open battle and drive them away). Narrowly evading two attempts on your life in a little over six weeks would have an effect on anybody, I suggest.

Yes, he would have been in pain from the scoliosis, but really if you're used to chronic pain your brain learns to blot it out except when it's really bad, and you only become aware just how bad it was when someone does something to make it stop. Also, the brain also makes choices about what it concentrates on at any given moment. Richard really wouldn't have noticed the scoliosis that morning, however much it had been troubling him, because of the crisis and the amount of adrenalin he would have been producing.

I think Richard felt it was a choice between Hastings and himself. If he delayed judgement he would be tempted to give way to Hastings' pleas for clemency but believed that if he did so he would never be safe again. He'd merely imprisoned Rivers, Vaughan and Grey and the plots went on. It is very probably the case - supposing there really was a Hastings plot, which I believe there was - that Rivers, in prison, had managed to send an intermediary to Hastings assuring him that he would not challenge him for the captaincy of Calais or for any other of Hastings' offices.  If Richard knew of this it would have been a lesson learnt. It may also have been the visible evidence of an assassination attempt in the Tower that morning that persuaded the council of the truth of Richard's claims about Stony Stratford and caused them finally to agree to the executions of Rivers & Co.

"Considering that other bones found at the site show that the land on which the Tower sits has used for burials since the Iron Age (and with a sprawling Roman cemetery within bowshot of, if not actually impinging on, the Tower grounds), nothing short of DNA testing would be able to confirm that the urn bones belong to Edward's sons (and in fact are likely to confirm that they do not)."

"<snip> I think if we look at Hastings' choices through the lens of what was best for Hastings, rather than his record of loyalty to the late Edward IV, a change of sides is not difficult to explain <snip>"

Carol responds:

And hardly unthinkable. After all, some eighteen years earlier, the Earl of Warwick had allied himself with Margaret of Anjou, a much more unlikely scenario, one would think, than an alliance between Edward IV's chamberlain and Edward IV's widow, rivalries over land apart (and Dorset had fled, so the sexual rivalry was immaterial). Good point about the position of chamberlain being still unconfirmed. I don't recall reading that in any historian's account (though I don't trust my memory on such matters).

Can you explain what the honor of Tutbury (or the honor of any place) means? I take it that it was very lucrative.

Carol

It may be that whatever it was that Hasting's was up to is the key to most of the subsequent happenings, IMO.
Did he turn up armed and ready to kill the king?
Richard was obviously seriously shaken and alarmed, to behave in such s precipitate way, which was previously at least, somewhat out of character.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall..............

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Tamara wrote:

" Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held."

Marie replies:

This one has been argued back and forth over the years. The main source for the 20th was the letter of Simon Stallworth dated 21st June (Saturday) and referring to Hastings' execution as having occurred "on Friday last, soon upon noon". But if you look at the letter itself you can see that it was written at two main sittings, with change of ink and handwriting. The reference to Hastings' execution is the first item of news, right at the top of the letter, before the removal of York from sanctuary (which occurred on the 16th), so it does look as though the words "Friday last" were probably written before Friday 20th and so refer to Friday 13th. The inquisition post mortem into Hastings' property also gives his death as 13th June. The short contemporary chronicle College of Arms MS 2M6 (reproduced by Green in 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen'), for instance, states that And in the mene tyme ther was dyvers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyd and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith, the xiii day of Iune Anno 1483."

Few historians any longer question the date although Annette Carson still has a question mark over it. And, as the College of Arms MS shows, evidently not everyone at the time was suspicious of Richard's motives, although for obvious reasons most of the few surviving accounts are hostile.

Marie

Hastings was one of Richard's oldest friends, was he not? Which would account for the level of frightened upset on Richard's part.

Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held. Furthermore, Richard granted Hastings' forfeited estates to his widow, and restored the children's right of succession to those estates, as they had automatically lost the right of succession as a result of the presumed trial and subsequent execution.

Personally, I think Richard executed the wrong man. He should have executed Stanley and Morton (especially Morton) instead, which would have at least spared the nation "Morton's Fork" no matter how things turned out at Bosworth. (I do wonder what Morton would have thought, had he lived to an even greater age than he did, of the son of the man he helped put on the throne setting out to sack and plunder the monasteries? Then again, I also wonder what Rhys ap Thomas would have thought, had someone told him that the son of the man he helped put on the throne was going to strip Rhys' own son of Rhy's estates the second Rhys drew his last breath, and then execute Rhys' son when he dared fight back.)

Tamara

Tamara

Trevor wrote:

" Self evidently, he was capable of murder (e.g. Hastings)"

Hastings' execution was only murder if:-

a) He was innocent of any plots against the Lord Protector - attempts on the Protector's life would have fallen within the treason laws; and/or

b) he was executed without trial.

Of course this is exactly what we are told by Tudor sources, but if Richard had simply wanted Hastings out of the way, why not just have him quietly poisoned? Whatever happened at the Tower that Friday 13th was - to my way of thinking - far too clumsy and difficult to have been a planned murder. Had Hastings been caught red-handed then he would have foregone the right to a normal jury trial and could have been condemned by a summary court martial before the Lord Constable: and Richard was Lord Constable. This was also a meeting of the royal council, and that too had powers of summary justice. So although Hastings' rapid end appears shocking and barbaric, and was no doubt bad publicity for Richard, it may well have been the result of perfectly lawful summary trial and Hastings may well have been guilty of treason. We just don't have Richard's side of the story any more.

My own personal view is that Richard's letters of 10th/11th June were genuine, that he did believe a plot was afoot to kill himself and Buckingham, and was scared. He had possibly been told that Friday 13th was the chosen day, and his men either caught Hastings in action or perhaps in panic misinterpreted some move on Hastings' part.

There would have been a huge difference between such an execution, which was no more ruthless than many ordered by Edward IV, and the murder of two children, particularly two children who were his own close relatives. To us in our sanitised society the 15th century looks so bloody it is easy to make the mistake of thinking there were no boundaries. But there were boundaries that were very meaningful to the people of the time, and child murder was definitely beyond the bounds. If you don't believe me, then just look at what the suspicion that he had done away with his nephews did to Richard's reputation. And that is why I find it hard to believe that he would have taken that step.

If you compare Richard to, say Henry IV, you get a very illuminating comparison. Henry IV was rather more bloodthirsty than Richard, executing enemies right from the off without compunction and by the nastiest means he could think of; he even had the Archbishop of York executed, and he gave the order for his predecessor, Richard II, to be starved to death in Pontefract Castle. But his child rivals, the Mortimer brothers, were merely kept safely, and even after they were briefly rescued Henry's only change of policy towards them was to have them more securely guarded and frequently moved. Yet we are to believe that Richard, whose record was considerably less ruthless than that of Henry IV, decided to have his two child rivals murdered after one totally failed rescue attempt, even though said children were his own nephews.

Marie

Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"

Carol responds:

I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.

The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.

I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.

I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

Maria wrote:

"Good point about the position of chamberlain being still unconfirmed. I don't recall reading that in any historian's account (though I don't trust my memory on such matters).

Can you explain what the honor of Tutbury (or the honor of any place) means? I take it that it was very lucrative."

Marie responds:

I can't say with absolute certainty that the position of chamberlain was not confirmed, but I can't see any reference to it in the Calendar of Patent Rolls; it would require a bit more research to be confident of this. One reason Hastings might have thrown in his lot with Gloucester was to save his offices of Captain of Calais and Lord Chamberlain from Rivers, who had been after the former in the past and who may have felt the latter belonged to him by virtue of having been Edward V's guardian at Ludlow.

The Honour of Tutbury was an extensive group of lands in Staffordshire and Derbyshire (ie NW Midlands) centred on Tutbury Castle. It was certainly very lucrative and sufficiently large and cohesive to form a useful power base, but I couldn't give details about value. It had been granted to Clarence in the 1460s and formed the heart of his power base prior to his taking over the Warwick lands in 1471. As you probably know, Edward brought Clarence to heel at the end of 1473 by passing an Act of Resumption from which only Clarence was denied an exemption. The Act of Parliament of 1474 that divided the Warwick inheritance between Isabel and Anne restored to Clarence all the Beauchamp-Despenser lands, but Edward did not restore him to the Honour of Tutbury, where he had the longest-established network of retainers; instead, he granted this to Hastings, who now became the policeman on Clarence's northern borders and took over his Staffs/Derbs retainers. Indeed, Hastings used his position in Tutbury to poach retainers from Clarence more generally.

I would imagine that Hastings had become rather fond of the Honour of Tutbury over the years, and that Buckingham, with his Staffordshire interests, might well have had his eye on it for himself.

"<snip> I think if we look at Hastings' choices through the lens of what was best for Hastings, rather than his record of loyalty to the late Edward IV, a change of sides is not difficult to explain <snip>"

Carol responds:

And hardly unthinkable. After all, some eighteen years earlier, the Earl of Warwick had allied himself with Margaret of Anjou, a much more unlikely scenario, one would think, than an alliance between Edward IV's chamberlain and Edward IV's widow, rivalries over land apart (and Dorset had fled, so the sexual rivalry was immaterial). Good point about the position of chamberlain being still unconfirmed. I don't recall reading that in any historian's account (though I don't trust my memory on such matters).

Can you explain what the honor of Tutbury (or the honor of any place) means? I take it that it was very lucrative.

Carol

It may be that whatever it was that Hasting's was up to is the key to most of the subsequent happenings, IMO.
Did he turn up armed and ready to kill the king?
Richard was obviously seriously shaken and alarmed, to behave in such s precipitate way, which was previously at least, somewhat out of character.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall..............

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Tamara wrote:

" Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held."

Marie replies:

This one has been argued back and forth over the years. The main source for the 20th was the letter of Simon Stallworth dated 21st June (Saturday) and referring to Hastings' execution as having occurred "on Friday last, soon upon noon". But if you look at the letter itself you can see that it was written at two main sittings, with change of ink and handwriting. The reference to Hastings' execution is the first item of news, right at the top of the letter, before the removal of York from sanctuary (which occurred on the 16th), so it does look as though the words "Friday last" were probably written before Friday 20th and so refer to Friday 13th. The inquisition post mortem into Hastings' property also gives his death as 13th June. The short contemporary chronicle College of Arms MS 2M6 (reproduced by Green in 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen'), for instance, states that And in the mene tyme ther was dyvers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyd and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith, the xiii day of Iune Anno 1483."

Few historians any longer question the date although Annette Carson still has a question mark over it. And, as the College of Arms MS shows, evidently not everyone at the time was suspicious of Richard's motives, although for obvious reasons most of the few surviving accounts are hostile.

Marie

Hastings was one of Richard's oldest friends, was he not? Which would account for the level of frightened upset on Richard's part.

Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held. Furthermore, Richard granted Hastings' forfeited estates to his widow, and restored the children's right of succession to those estates, as they had automatically lost the right of succession as a result of the presumed trial and subsequent execution.

Personally, I think Richard executed the wrong man. He should have executed Stanley and Morton (especially Morton) instead, which would have at least spared the nation "Morton's Fork" no matter how things turned out at Bosworth. (I do wonder what Morton would have thought, had he lived to an even greater age than he did, of the son of the man he helped put on the throne setting out to sack and plunder the monasteries? Then again, I also wonder what Rhys ap Thomas would have thought, had someone told him that the son of the man he helped put on the throne was going to strip Rhys' own son of Rhy's estates the second Rhys drew his last breath, and then execute Rhys' son when he dared fight back.)

Tamara

Tamara

Trevor wrote:

" Self evidently, he was capable of murder (e.g. Hastings)"

Hastings' execution was only murder if:-

a) He was innocent of any plots against the Lord Protector - attempts on the Protector's life would have fallen within the treason laws; and/or

b) he was executed without trial.

Of course this is exactly what we are told by Tudor sources, but if Richard had simply wanted Hastings out of the way, why not just have him quietly poisoned? Whatever happened at the Tower that Friday 13th was - to my way of thinking - far too clumsy and difficult to have been a planned murder. Had Hastings been caught red-handed then he would have foregone the right to a normal jury trial and could have been condemned by a summary court martial before the Lord Constable: and Richard was Lord Constable. This was also a meeting of the royal council, and that too had powers of summary justice. So although Hastings' rapid end appears shocking and barbaric, and was no doubt bad publicity for Richard, it may well have been the result of perfectly lawful summary trial and Hastings may well have been guilty of treason. We just don't have Richard's side of the story any more.

My own personal view is that Richard's letters of 10th/11th June were genuine, that he did believe a plot was afoot to kill himself and Buckingham, and was scared. He had possibly been told that Friday 13th was the chosen day, and his men either caught Hastings in action or perhaps in panic misinterpreted some move on Hastings' part.

There would have been a huge difference between such an execution, which was no more ruthless than many ordered by Edward IV, and the murder of two children, particularly two children who were his own close relatives. To us in our sanitised society the 15th century looks so bloody it is easy to make the mistake of thinking there were no boundaries. But there were boundaries that were very meaningful to the people of the time, and child murder was definitely beyond the bounds. If you don't believe me, then just look at what the suspicion that he had done away with his nephews did to Richard's reputation. And that is why I find it hard to believe that he would have taken that step.

If you compare Richard to, say Henry IV, you get a very illuminating comparison. Henry IV was rather more bloodthirsty than Richard, executing enemies right from the off without compunction and by the nastiest means he could think of; he even had the Archbishop of York executed, and he gave the order for his predecessor, Richard II, to be starved to death in Pontefract Castle. But his child rivals, the Mortimer brothers, were merely kept safely, and even after they were briefly rescued Henry's only change of policy towards them was to have them more securely guarded and frequently moved. Yet we are to believe that Richard, whose record was considerably less ruthless than that of Henry IV, decided to have his two child rivals murdered after one totally failed rescue attempt, even though said children were his own nephews.

Marie

Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"

Carol responds:

I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.

The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.

I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.

I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

I would imagine that Hastings had become rather fond of the Honour of Tutbury over the years, and that Buckingham, with his Staffordshire interests, might well have had his eye on it for himself.

Carol responds:

Thanks for answering my question (it was my post, not Maria's) about the hono[u]r of Tutbury, but I'm still not exactly sure what an "honour" is (to use the British spelling) and how it differs from actual ownership of the lands in question.

Carol

"<snip> I think if we look at Hastings' choices through the lens of what was best for Hastings, rather than his record of loyalty to the late Edward IV, a change of sides is not difficult to explain <snip>"

Carol responds:

And hardly unthinkable. After all, some eighteen years earlier, the Earl of Warwick had allied himself with Margaret of Anjou, a much more unlikely scenario, one would think, than an alliance between Edward IV's chamberlain and Edward IV's widow, rivalries over land apart (and Dorset had fled, so the sexual rivalry was immaterial). Good point about the position of chamberlain being still unconfirmed. I don't recall reading that in any historian's account (though I don't trust my memory on such matters).

Can you explain what the honor of Tutbury (or the honor of any place) means? I take it that it was very lucrative.

Carol

It may be that whatever it was that Hasting's was up to is the key to most of the subsequent happenings, IMO.
Did he turn up armed and ready to kill the king?
Richard was obviously seriously shaken and alarmed, to behave in such s precipitate way, which was previously at least, somewhat out of character.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall..............

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Tamara wrote:

" Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held."

Marie replies:

This one has been argued back and forth over the years. The main source for the 20th was the letter of Simon Stallworth dated 21st June (Saturday) and referring to Hastings' execution as having occurred "on Friday last, soon upon noon". But if you look at the letter itself you can see that it was written at two main sittings, with change of ink and handwriting. The reference to Hastings' execution is the first item of news, right at the top of the letter, before the removal of York from sanctuary (which occurred on the 16th), so it does look as though the words "Friday last" were probably written before Friday 20th and so refer to Friday 13th. The inquisition post mortem into Hastings' property also gives his death as 13th June. The short contemporary chronicle College of Arms MS 2M6 (reproduced by Green in 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen'), for instance, states that And in the mene tyme ther was dyvers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyd and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith, the xiii day of Iune Anno 1483."

Few historians any longer question the date although Annette Carson still has a question mark over it. And, as the College of Arms MS shows, evidently not everyone at the time was suspicious of Richard's motives, although for obvious reasons most of the few surviving accounts are hostile.

Marie

Hastings was one of Richard's oldest friends, was he not? Which would account for the level of frightened upset on Richard's part.

Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held. Furthermore, Richard granted Hastings' forfeited estates to his widow, and restored the children's right of succession to those estates, as they had automatically lost the right of succession as a result of the presumed trial and subsequent execution.

Personally, I think Richard executed the wrong man. He should have executed Stanley and Morton (especially Morton) instead, which would have at least spared the nation "Morton's Fork" no matter how things turned out at Bosworth. (I do wonder what Morton would have thought, had he lived to an even greater age than he did, of the son of the man he helped put on the throne setting out to sack and plunder the monasteries? Then again, I also wonder what Rhys ap Thomas would have thought, had someone told him that the son of the man he helped put on the throne was going to strip Rhys' own son of Rhy's estates the second Rhys drew his last breath, and then execute Rhys' son when he dared fight back.)

Tamara

Tamara

Trevor wrote:

" Self evidently, he was capable of murder (e.g. Hastings)"

Hastings' execution was only murder if:-

a) He was innocent of any plots against the Lord Protector - attempts on the Protector's life would have fallen within the treason laws; and/or

b) he was executed without trial.

Of course this is exactly what we are told by Tudor sources, but if Richard had simply wanted Hastings out of the way, why not just have him quietly poisoned? Whatever happened at the Tower that Friday 13th was - to my way of thinking - far too clumsy and difficult to have been a planned murder. Had Hastings been caught red-handed then he would have foregone the right to a normal jury trial and could have been condemned by a summary court martial before the Lord Constable: and Richard was Lord Constable. This was also a meeting of the royal council, and that too had powers of summary justice. So although Hastings' rapid end appears shocking and barbaric, and was no doubt bad publicity for Richard, it may well have been the result of perfectly lawful summary trial and Hastings may well have been guilty of treason. We just don't have Richard's side of the story any more.

My own personal view is that Richard's letters of 10th/11th June were genuine, that he did believe a plot was afoot to kill himself and Buckingham, and was scared. He had possibly been told that Friday 13th was the chosen day, and his men either caught Hastings in action or perhaps in panic misinterpreted some move on Hastings' part.

There would have been a huge difference between such an execution, which was no more ruthless than many ordered by Edward IV, and the murder of two children, particularly two children who were his own close relatives. To us in our sanitised society the 15th century looks so bloody it is easy to make the mistake of thinking there were no boundaries. But there were boundaries that were very meaningful to the people of the time, and child murder was definitely beyond the bounds. If you don't believe me, then just look at what the suspicion that he had done away with his nephews did to Richard's reputation. And that is why I find it hard to believe that he would have taken that step.

If you compare Richard to, say Henry IV, you get a very illuminating comparison. Henry IV was rather more bloodthirsty than Richard, executing enemies right from the off without compunction and by the nastiest means he could think of; he even had the Archbishop of York executed, and he gave the order for his predecessor, Richard II, to be starved to death in Pontefract Castle. But his child rivals, the Mortimer brothers, were merely kept safely, and even after they were briefly rescued Henry's only change of policy towards them was to have them more securely guarded and frequently moved. Yet we are to believe that Richard, whose record was considerably less ruthless than that of Henry IV, decided to have his two child rivals murdered after one totally failed rescue attempt, even though said children were his own nephews.

Marie

Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"

Carol responds:

I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.

The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.

I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.

I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

Apologies for falling back on Wikipedia, but this is what Wiki says:-

" In medieval England, an honour could consist of a great lordship, comprising dozens or hundreds of manors. Holders of honours (and the kings to whom they reverted by escheat) often attempted to preserve the integrity of an honour over time, administering its properties as a unit, maintaining inheritances together, etc.

The typical honour had properties scattered over several shires, intermingled with the properties of others. This was a specific policy of the Norman kings, to avoid establishing any one area under the control of a single lord.[1] Usually, though, a more concentrated cluster existed somewhere. Here would lie the caput (head) of the honour, with a castle that gave its name to the honour and served as its administrative headquarters."

Marie

I would imagine that Hastings had become rather fond of the Honour of Tutbury over the years, and that Buckingham, with his Staffordshire interests, might well have had his eye on it for himself.

Carol responds:

Thanks for answering my question (it was my post, not Maria's) about the hono[u]r of Tutbury, but I'm still not exactly sure what an "honour" is (to use the British spelling) and how it differs from actual ownership of the lands in question.

Carol

"<snip> I think if we look at Hastings' choices through the lens of what was best for Hastings, rather than his record of loyalty to the late Edward IV, a change of sides is not difficult to explain <snip>"

Carol responds:

And hardly unthinkable. After all, some eighteen years earlier, the Earl of Warwick had allied himself with Margaret of Anjou, a much more unlikely scenario, one would think, than an alliance between Edward IV's chamberlain and Edward IV's widow, rivalries over land apart (and Dorset had fled, so the sexual rivalry was immaterial). Good point about the position of chamberlain being still unconfirmed. I don't recall reading that in any historian's account (though I don't trust my memory on such matters).

Can you explain what the honor of Tutbury (or the honor of any place) means? I take it that it was very lucrative.

Carol

It may be that whatever it was that Hasting's was up to is the key to most of the subsequent happenings, IMO.
Did he turn up armed and ready to kill the king?
Richard was obviously seriously shaken and alarmed, to behave in such s precipitate way, which was previously at least, somewhat out of character.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall..............

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Tamara wrote:

" Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held."

Marie replies:

This one has been argued back and forth over the years. The main source for the 20th was the letter of Simon Stallworth dated 21st June (Saturday) and referring to Hastings' execution as having occurred "on Friday last, soon upon noon". But if you look at the letter itself you can see that it was written at two main sittings, with change of ink and handwriting. The reference to Hastings' execution is the first item of news, right at the top of the letter, before the removal of York from sanctuary (which occurred on the 16th), so it does look as though the words "Friday last" were probably written before Friday 20th and so refer to Friday 13th. The inquisition post mortem into Hastings' property also gives his death as 13th June. The short contemporary chronicle College of Arms MS 2M6 (reproduced by Green in 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen'), for instance, states that And in the mene tyme ther was dyvers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyd and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith, the xiii day of Iune Anno 1483."

Few historians any longer question the date although Annette Carson still has a question mark over it. And, as the College of Arms MS shows, evidently not everyone at the time was suspicious of Richard's motives, although for obvious reasons most of the few surviving accounts are hostile.

Marie

Hastings was one of Richard's oldest friends, was he not? Which would account for the level of frightened upset on Richard's part.

Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held. Furthermore, Richard granted Hastings' forfeited estates to his widow, and restored the children's right of succession to those estates, as they had automatically lost the right of succession as a result of the presumed trial and subsequent execution.

Personally, I think Richard executed the wrong man. He should have executed Stanley and Morton (especially Morton) instead, which would have at least spared the nation "Morton's Fork" no matter how things turned out at Bosworth. (I do wonder what Morton would have thought, had he lived to an even greater age than he did, of the son of the man he helped put on the throne setting out to sack and plunder the monasteries? Then again, I also wonder what Rhys ap Thomas would have thought, had someone told him that the son of the man he helped put on the throne was going to strip Rhys' own son of Rhy's estates the second Rhys drew his last breath, and then execute Rhys' son when he dared fight back.)

Tamara

Tamara

Trevor wrote:

" Self evidently, he was capable of murder (e.g. Hastings)"

Hastings' execution was only murder if:-

a) He was innocent of any plots against the Lord Protector - attempts on the Protector's life would have fallen within the treason laws; and/or

b) he was executed without trial.

Of course this is exactly what we are told by Tudor sources, but if Richard had simply wanted Hastings out of the way, why not just have him quietly poisoned? Whatever happened at the Tower that Friday 13th was - to my way of thinking - far too clumsy and difficult to have been a planned murder. Had Hastings been caught red-handed then he would have foregone the right to a normal jury trial and could have been condemned by a summary court martial before the Lord Constable: and Richard was Lord Constable. This was also a meeting of the royal council, and that too had powers of summary justice. So although Hastings' rapid end appears shocking and barbaric, and was no doubt bad publicity for Richard, it may well have been the result of perfectly lawful summary trial and Hastings may well have been guilty of treason. We just don't have Richard's side of the story any more.

My own personal view is that Richard's letters of 10th/11th June were genuine, that he did believe a plot was afoot to kill himself and Buckingham, and was scared. He had possibly been told that Friday 13th was the chosen day, and his men either caught Hastings in action or perhaps in panic misinterpreted some move on Hastings' part.

There would have been a huge difference between such an execution, which was no more ruthless than many ordered by Edward IV, and the murder of two children, particularly two children who were his own close relatives. To us in our sanitised society the 15th century looks so bloody it is easy to make the mistake of thinking there were no boundaries. But there were boundaries that were very meaningful to the people of the time, and child murder was definitely beyond the bounds. If you don't believe me, then just look at what the suspicion that he had done away with his nephews did to Richard's reputation. And that is why I find it hard to believe that he would have taken that step.

If you compare Richard to, say Henry IV, you get a very illuminating comparison. Henry IV was rather more bloodthirsty than Richard, executing enemies right from the off without compunction and by the nastiest means he could think of; he even had the Archbishop of York executed, and he gave the order for his predecessor, Richard II, to be starved to death in Pontefract Castle. But his child rivals, the Mortimer brothers, were merely kept safely, and even after they were briefly rescued Henry's only change of policy towards them was to have them more securely guarded and frequently moved. Yet we are to believe that Richard, whose record was considerably less ruthless than that of Henry IV, decided to have his two child rivals murdered after one totally failed rescue attempt, even though said children were his own nephews.

Marie

Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"

Carol responds:

I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.

The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.

I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.

I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

Hi Weds,

I'm not saying that Richard wasn't angry with Hastings, only that I think we've got it all twisted in assuming from the Tudor histories that nothing happened at the Tower that day that might have warranted an immediate execution, because the early accounts suggest that something did indeed happen. And that something would have been very frightening. I'm quite sure Richard was angry as well, but definitely frightened - it shows in his letters to York & Lord Neville but it has been written out of the Tudor histories because their line is that nobody except Richard was plotting anything.

Yes, of course there is anger in grief, and a lot of people were grieving for Edward IV. But there is a lot more in grief besides anger and I think there is no particular reason to get hung up on this one particular facet as the big explanation for what happened that day. That would be to say that Richard's behaviour at morning was irrational, which is only the case if you think he was imagining the whole thing. If there was an assassination attempt, the second in six weeks, then his action was not beyond the acceptable and certainly doesn't put him in the same league as Henry VIII. Some time I'll draw up a list of Edward IV's executions to put things in context. I'm sure Richard's whole state of mind was very much affected by grief, but there was in my view good cause for panic and anger. Also, I'm sure Buckingham would have advised him to put Hastings to death and do it as soon as possible.

Regarding the pain, my argument is that Richard is unlikely to have noticed it particularly that morning because of the crisis - pain is not nearly so noticeable when your mind has a big distraction, and adrenalin is a very effective anaesthetic. Had he been too preoccupied with his backache that morning I suggest he would probably not have emerged alive. I do accept that a build-up of tension since he wrote to York may well have given him a lot of pain in the few days leading up to the Tower meeting, and combined with worry made it impossible for him to get much sleep. But during the crisis itself - I don't think so.

Marie

"In medieval England, an honour could consist of a great lordship, comprising dozens or hundreds of manors. Holders of honours (and the kings to whom they reverted by escheat) often attempted to preserve the integrity of an honour over time, administering its properties as a unit, maintaining inheritances together, etc. <snip> The typical honour had properties scattered over several shires, intermingled with the properties of others. This was a specific policy of the Norman kings, to avoid establishing any one area under the control of a single lord.[1] <snip."

Carol responds: Thanks, Marie. So Henry VII's "modern" policy of preventing his lords from having properties too close together was really a reversion to Norman policy?

So much for the myth that the Middle Ages ended at Bosworth (which I find annoyingly persistent despite the fact that religion, fashion, and daily life remained exactly the same in Henry's day as in Richard's, setting aside matters like taxes and legislation--undoing (or retaining) Richard's reforms does not make Henry modern and Richard medieval. And the later Tudors, in contrast to Richard, practiced religious persecution--yet we continually read that the Middle Ages (at least in England) ended with the death of the last Yorkist king.

Carol

I would imagine that Hastings had become rather fond of the Honour of Tutbury over the years, and that Buckingham, with his Staffordshire interests, might well have had his eye on it for himself.

Carol responds:

Thanks for answering my question (it was my post, not Maria's) about the hono[u]r of Tutbury, but I'm still not exactly sure what an "honour" is (to use the British spelling) and how it differs from actual ownership of the lands in question.

Carol

"<snip> I think if we look at Hastings' choices through the lens of what was best for Hastings, rather than his record of loyalty to the late Edward IV, a change of sides is not difficult to explain <snip>"

Carol responds:

And hardly unthinkable. After all, some eighteen years earlier, the Earl of Warwick had allied himself with Margaret of Anjou, a much more unlikely scenario, one would think, than an alliance between Edward IV's chamberlain and Edward IV's widow, rivalries over land apart (and Dorset had fled, so the sexual rivalry was immaterial). Good point about the position of chamberlain being still unconfirmed. I don't recall reading that in any historian's account (though I don't trust my memory on such matters).

Can you explain what the honor of Tutbury (or the honor of any place) means? I take it that it was very lucrative.

Carol

It may be that whatever it was that Hasting's was up to is the key to most of the subsequent happenings, IMO.
Did he turn up armed and ready to kill the king?
Richard was obviously seriously shaken and alarmed, to behave in such s precipitate way, which was previously at least, somewhat out of character.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall..............

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Tamara wrote:

" Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held."

Marie replies:

This one has been argued back and forth over the years. The main source for the 20th was the letter of Simon Stallworth dated 21st June (Saturday) and referring to Hastings' execution as having occurred "on Friday last, soon upon noon". But if you look at the letter itself you can see that it was written at two main sittings, with change of ink and handwriting. The reference to Hastings' execution is the first item of news, right at the top of the letter, before the removal of York from sanctuary (which occurred on the 16th), so it does look as though the words "Friday last" were probably written before Friday 20th and so refer to Friday 13th. The inquisition post mortem into Hastings' property also gives his death as 13th June. The short contemporary chronicle College of Arms MS 2M6 (reproduced by Green in 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen'), for instance, states that And in the mene tyme ther was dyvers [i]magenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyd and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith, the xiii day of Iune Anno 1483."

Few historians any longer question the date although Annette Carson still has a question mark over it. And, as the College of Arms MS shows, evidently not everyone at the time was suspicious of Richard's motives, although for obvious reasons most of the few surviving accounts are hostile.

Marie

Hastings was one of Richard's oldest friends, was he not? Which would account for the level of frightened upset on Richard's part.

Yet he was not simply rushed out to the nearest block of wood and beheaded on the spot, per More's account; the execution didn't happen until a week afterward if I recall correctly, which implies that an actual trial of some sort was held. Furthermore, Richard granted Hastings' forfeited estates to his widow, and restored the children's right of succession to those estates, as they had automatically lost the right of succession as a result of the presumed trial and subsequent execution.

Personally, I think Richard executed the wrong man. He should have executed Stanley and Morton (especially Morton) instead, which would have at least spared the nation "Morton's Fork" no matter how things turned out at Bosworth. (I do wonder what Morton would have thought, had he lived to an even greater age than he did, of the son of the man he helped put on the throne setting out to sack and plunder the monasteries? Then again, I also wonder what Rhys ap Thomas would have thought, had someone told him that the son of the man he helped put on the throne was going to strip Rhys' own son of Rhy's estates the second Rhys drew his last breath, and then execute Rhys' son when he dared fight back.)

Tamara

Tamara

Trevor wrote:

" Self evidently, he was capable of murder (e.g. Hastings)"

Hastings' execution was only murder if:-

a) He was innocent of any plots against the Lord Protector - attempts on the Protector's life would have fallen within the treason laws; and/or

b) he was executed without trial.

Of course this is exactly what we are told by Tudor sources, but if Richard had simply wanted Hastings out of the way, why not just have him quietly poisoned? Whatever happened at the Tower that Friday 13th was - to my way of thinking - far too clumsy and difficult to have been a planned murder. Had Hastings been caught red-handed then he would have foregone the right to a normal jury trial and could have been condemned by a summary court martial before the Lord Constable: and Richard was Lord Constable. This was also a meeting of the royal council, and that too had powers of summary justice. So although Hastings' rapid end appears shocking and barbaric, and was no doubt bad publicity for Richard, it may well have been the result of perfectly lawful summary trial and Hastings may well have been guilty of treason. We just don't have Richard's side of the story any more.

My own personal view is that Richard's letters of 10th/11th June were genuine, that he did believe a plot was afoot to kill himself and Buckingham, and was scared. He had possibly been told that Friday 13th was the chosen day, and his men either caught Hastings in action or perhaps in panic misinterpreted some move on Hastings' part.

There would have been a huge difference between such an execution, which was no more ruthless than many ordered by Edward IV, and the murder of two children, particularly two children who were his own close relatives. To us in our sanitised society the 15th century looks so bloody it is easy to make the mistake of thinking there were no boundaries. But there were boundaries that were very meaningful to the people of the time, and child murder was definitely beyond the bounds. If you don't believe me, then just look at what the suspicion that he had done away with his nephews did to Richard's reputation. And that is why I find it hard to believe that he would have taken that step.

If you compare Richard to, say Henry IV, you get a very illuminating comparison. Henry IV was rather more bloodthirsty than Richard, executing enemies right from the off without compunction and by the nastiest means he could think of; he even had the Archbishop of York executed, and he gave the order for his predecessor, Richard II, to be starved to death in Pontefract Castle. But his child rivals, the Mortimer brothers, were merely kept safely, and even after they were briefly rescued Henry's only change of policy towards them was to have them more securely guarded and frequently moved. Yet we are to believe that Richard, whose record was considerably less ruthless than that of Henry IV, decided to have his two child rivals murdered after one totally failed rescue attempt, even though said children were his own nephews.

Marie

Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"

Carol responds:

I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.

The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.

I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.

I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

Well said Marie. What you have said is completely logical why can't it be accepted that it most probably happened in this way. It is as likely as Richard just executed Hastings for no reason. It is conveniently forgotten that he was Lord Constable and Protector and as such had rights under the law of the time.

Trevor wrote:

" Self evidently, he was capable of murder (e.g. Hastings)"

Hastings' execution was only murder if:-

a) He was innocent of any plots against the Lord Protector - attempts on the Protector's life would have fallen within the treason laws; and/or

b) he was executed without trial.

Of course this is exactly what we are told by Tudor sources, but if Richard had simply wanted Hastings out of the way, why not just have him quietly poisoned? Whatever happened at the Tower that Friday 13th was - to my way of thinking - far too clumsy and difficult to have been a planned murder. Had Hastings been caught red-handed then he would have foregone the right to a normal jury trial and could have been condemned by a summary court martial before the Lord Constable: and Richard was Lord Constable. This was also a meeting of the royal council, and that too had powers of summary justice. So although Hastings' rapid end appears shocking and barbaric, and was no doubt bad publicity for Richard, it may well have been the result of perfectly lawful summary trial and Hastings may well have been guilty of treason. We just don't have Richard's side of the story any more.

My own personal view is that Richard's letters of 10th/11th June were genuine, that he did believe a plot was afoot to kill himself and Buckingham, and was scared. He had possibly been told that Friday 13th was the chosen day, and his men either caught Hastings in action or perhaps in panic misinterpreted some move on Hastings' part.

There would have been a huge difference between such an execution, which was no more ruthless than many ordered by Edward IV, and the murder of two children, particularly two children who were his own close relatives. To us in our sanitised society the 15th century looks so bloody it is easy to make the mistake of thinking there were no boundaries. But there were boundaries that were very meaningful to the people of the time, and child murder was definitely beyond the bounds. If you don't believe me, then just look at what the suspicion that he had done away with his nephews did to Richard's reputation. And that is why I find it hard to believe that he would have taken that step.

If you compare Richard to, say Henry IV, you get a very illuminating comparison. Henry IV was rather more bloodthirsty than Richard, executing enemies right from the off without compunction and by the nastiest means he could think of; he even had the Archbishop of York executed, and he gave the order for his predecessor, Richard II, to be starved to death in Pontefract Castle. But his child rivals, the Mortimer brothers, were merely kept safely, and even after they were briefly rescued Henry's only change of policy towards them was to have them more securely guarded and frequently moved. Yet we are to believe that Richard, whose record was considerably less ruthless than that of Henry IV, decided to have his two child rivals murdered after one totally failed rescue attempt, even though said children were his own nephews.

Marie

Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive. This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&" Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"

Carol responds:

I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.

The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.

I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.

I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

Here, here.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Well said Marie. What you have said is completely logical why can't it be accepted that it  most probably happened in this way. It is as likely as Richard just executed Hastings for no reason. It is conveniently forgotten that he was Lord Constable and Protector and as such had rights under the law of the time. 

Trevor wrote:

" Self evidently, he was capable of murder (e.g. Hastings)"

Hastings' execution was only murder if:-

a) He was innocent of any plots against the Lord Protector - attempts on the Protector's life would have fallen within the treason laws; and/or

b) he was executed without  trial.

Of course this is exactly what we are told by Tudor sources, but if Richard had simply wanted Hastings out of the way, why not just have him quietly poisoned? Whatever happened at the Tower that Friday 13th was - to my way of thinking - far too clumsy and difficult to have been a planned murder. Had Hastings been caught red-handed then he would have foregone the right to a normal jury trial and could have been condemned by a summary court martial before the Lord Constable: and Richard was Lord Constable. This was also a meeting of the royal council, and that too had powers of summary justice. So although Hastings' rapid end appears shocking and barbaric, and was no doubt bad publicity for Richard, it may well have been the result of perfectly lawful summary trial and Hastings may well have been guilty of treason. We just don't have Richard's side of the story any more.

My own personal view is that Richard's letters of 10th/11th June were genuine, that he did believe a plot was afoot to kill himself and Buckingham, and was scared. He had possibly been told that Friday 13th was the chosen day, and his men either caught Hastings in action or perhaps in panic misinterpreted some move on Hastings' part.

There would have been a huge difference between such an execution, which was no more ruthless than many ordered by Edward IV, and the murder of two children, particularly two children who were his own close relatives. To us in our sanitised society the 15th century looks so bloody it is easy to make the mistake of thinking there were no boundaries. But there were boundaries that were very meaningful to the people of the time, and child murder was definitely beyond the bounds. If you don't believe me, then just look at what the suspicion that he had done away with his nephews did to Richard's reputation. And that is why I find it hard to believe that he would have taken that step.

If you compare Richard to, say Henry IV, you get a very illuminating comparison. Henry IV was rather more bloodthirsty than Richard, executing enemies right from the off without compunction and by the nastiest means he could think of; he even had the Archbishop of York executed, and he gave the order for his predecessor, Richard II, to be starved to death in Pontefract Castle. But his child rivals, the Mortimer brothers, were merely kept safely, and even after they were briefly rescued Henry's only change of policy towards them was to have them more securely guarded and frequently moved. Yet we are to believe that Richard, whose record was considerably less ruthless than that of Henry IV, decided to have his two child rivals murdered after one totally failed rescue attempt, even though said children were his own nephews.

Marie

Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have  murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive.  This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&"  Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"

Carol responds:

I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.

The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.

I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.

I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

Hear, hear.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Well said Marie. What you have said is completely logical why can't it be accepted that it  most probably happened in this way. It is as likely as Richard just executed Hastings for no reason. It is conveniently forgotten that he was Lord Constable and Protector and as such had rights under the law of the time. 

Trevor wrote:

" Self evidently, he was capable of murder (e.g. Hastings)"

Hastings' execution was only murder if:-

a) He was innocent of any plots against the Lord Protector - attempts on the Protector's life would have fallen within the treason laws; and/or

b) he was executed without  trial.

Of course this is exactly what we are told by Tudor sources, but if Richard had simply wanted Hastings out of the way, why not just have him quietly poisoned? Whatever happened at the Tower that Friday 13th was - to my way of thinking - far too clumsy and difficult to have been a planned murder. Had Hastings been caught red-handed then he would have foregone the right to a normal jury trial and could have been condemned by a summary court martial before the Lord Constable: and Richard was Lord Constable. This was also a meeting of the royal council, and that too had powers of summary justice. So although Hastings' rapid end appears shocking and barbaric, and was no doubt bad publicity for Richard, it may well have been the result of perfectly lawful summary trial and Hastings may well have been guilty of treason. We just don't have Richard's side of the story any more.

My own personal view is that Richard's letters of 10th/11th June were genuine, that he did believe a plot was afoot to kill himself and Buckingham, and was scared. He had possibly been told that Friday 13th was the chosen day, and his men either caught Hastings in action or perhaps in panic misinterpreted some move on Hastings' part.

There would have been a huge difference between such an execution, which was no more ruthless than many ordered by Edward IV, and the murder of two children, particularly two children who were his own close relatives. To us in our sanitised society the 15th century looks so bloody it is easy to make the mistake of thinking there were no boundaries. But there were boundaries that were very meaningful to the people of the time, and child murder was definitely beyond the bounds. If you don't believe me, then just look at what the suspicion that he had done away with his nephews did to Richard's reputation. And that is why I find it hard to believe that he would have taken that step.

If you compare Richard to, say Henry IV, you get a very illuminating comparison. Henry IV was rather more bloodthirsty than Richard, executing enemies right from the off without compunction and by the nastiest means he could think of; he even had the Archbishop of York executed, and he gave the order for his predecessor, Richard II, to be starved to death in Pontefract Castle. But his child rivals, the Mortimer brothers, were merely kept safely, and even after they were briefly rescued Henry's only change of policy towards them was to have them more securely guarded and frequently moved. Yet we are to believe that Richard, whose record was considerably less ruthless than that of Henry IV, decided to have his two child rivals murdered after one totally failed rescue attempt, even though said children were his own nephews.

Marie

Misty wrote:

"<snip> First, even the most ardent Ricardian has to accept that Richard might have  murdered the Princes' to consolidate his position as Monarch. The mock trial proved nothing except that the traditionalist witnesses did not make a good impression on the jury, whereas Dr Sutton for Richard did impress them. As professor Kendall points out, the " The most powerful indictment against Richard is the plain and massive fact that the Princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne and were never again reported to have been seen alive.  This fact&weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence&"  Kendall goes on to point out that only the positive evidence that somebody else was responsible could exculpate Richard. <snip>"

Carol responds:

I don't quite agree since many historians have argued quite convincingly that killing them was not only unnecessary but would in no way have consolidated his position. They had been illegitimized, which was sufficient to make his claim irrefutable. (Note that rather than attempting to refute Titulus Regius, Henry had it burned unread.) A few rebellions would hardly provide sufficient motivation for killing his nephews. The assumption made by traditionalists that he "would have" or "must have" killed his nephews to make his crown secure is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which have been presented by Annette Carson in her new book.

The "plain and massive fact" that they disappeared during Richard's reign could as easily mean that they were moved from the Tower to safety, a possibility that Kendall did not consider because he believed the Tanner and Wright assessment of the bones in the urn. In other words, he thought that the deaths had been proven and the only question was to establish the identity of the murderer. Not so.

I agree with your second point and more or less with your third, and I certainly agree that Richard wasn't stupid (though some people have argued that he didn't read his enemies well, was overconfident, trusted too easily, and even that he was a good administrator as Lord of the North but an incompetent king). But the idea that his younger nephew was quite ill has no basis and stems from Tanner and Wright report, which pointed out that the older "boy" (sex of the skeletons assumed, not determined) had a serious jaw disease. No source reports that Edward IV's older son suffered a similar disease. All we have is Dr. Argentine's report to Mancini that the boy went to confession every day because he was afraid he was going to die--a report somewhat at odds with accounts that he and his brother were seen shooting and playing in the garden months after Mancini left England.

I've already mentioned that Tyrrell probably didn't confess to anything. The possibility that Henry VII had Richard's nephews murdered, based solely on two general pardons a month apart, has largely been discounted. Henry's behavior throughout his reign seems to indicate that he didn't know what happened to them.

I absolutely agree with your final paragraph. Of course, Edward V was a deposed and uncrowned king, so killing him would have been murder but not regicide, but that's a technicality. It would still have been child murder, as well as the murder of close relations, and that, I think, is what disturbs most people who believe in Richard's guilt. But the fact that neither Henry, who needed to depict Richard as a usurper and Edward V by implication as legitimate (but dead), and the Croyland Chronicler, for whom Richard *was* a usurper and Edward V the rightful king, accuses Richard of regicide (or killing his other nephew) is indeed significant.

Mary wrote:

"Well said Marie. What you have said is completely logical why can't it be accepted that it most probably happened in this way. It is as likely as Richard just executed Hastings for no reason. It is conveniently forgotten that he was Lord Constable and Protector and as such had rights under the law of the time."

Carol responds:

I think the reason that historians, even conscientious ones, often conveniently forget the important offices that Richard held, especially Constable of England, is that they're taking Mancini at face value. Mancini says straight out (and incorrectly) that Richard held no offices when he arrived in London, making the arrests of Rivers, Vaughn, and Grey illegal, and that he continued to have none until the council agreed to make him Protector. Even then, as Protector, the implication is that he lacked the authority to arrest or execute anyone. And, of course, both Mancini and Croyland imply that Hastings was innocent. Morton, of course, would perpetuate that view of events, which would become "truth" under the Tudors.

I'm working from memory here, so I could be mistaken on some points.

Carol

The words "I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die" keep coming to me when thinking about this.
It is not a realistic way of interpreting the way a king and his counsel would behave, unless they were all psychotic!

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

 Mary wrote:

"Well said Marie. What you have said is completely logical why can't it be accepted that it  most probably happened in this way. It is as likely as Richard just executed Hastings for no reason. It is conveniently forgotten that he was Lord Constable and Protector and as such had rights under the law of the time."

Carol responds:

I think the reason that historians, even conscientious ones, often conveniently forget the important offices that Richard held, especially Constable of England, is that they're taking Mancini at face value. Mancini says straight out (and incorrectly) that Richard held no offices when he arrived in London, making the arrests of Rivers, Vaughn, and Grey illegal, and that he continued to have none until the council agreed to make him Protector. Even then, as Protector, the implication is that he lacked the authority to arrest or execute anyone. And, of course, both Mancini and Croyland imply that Hastings was innocent. Morton, of course, would perpetuate that view of events, which would become "truth" under the Tudors.

I'm working from memory here, so I could be mistaken on some points.

Carol